Replies

You've said this once, and were challenged to corroborate it.

Are you actually trying to tell me that the TOE assumes there is a God? It's one or the other. Since the whole point of the TOE is to try to explain our history and, by extension, our origins, I'd say it's trying to discredit the whole idea of God.

Are you actually trying to tell me that the TOE assumes there is a God?

RWP will answer you better than I, but I must interject... the TOE and ALL of science does not assume there is or isn't a God. God operates in the realm of the supernatural which, by definition, is outside the realm of science. When dopes like Deepak Chopra, faith healers, homeopaths, touch therapists, chiropractors, shamans, witch doctors, and creationists/IDers try to marry the two, people like me get mad.

It's one or the other.

Again, no it's not. I'm quite certain the bulk of scientists and those who accept evolution believe in a deity. Heck, the majority of the "evo" Freepers certainly believe in God. The two realms are wholly separate.

Since the whole point of the TOE is to try to explain our history and, by extension, our origins, I'd say it's trying to discredit the whole idea of God.

No, that's not what the TOE is "trying" to explain. The theory "just is." It's the creationists who attach all sorts of bizarre and unfair anthropomorphisms on the theory who have built up this strange fear of it.

Are you actually trying to tell me that the TOE assumes there is a God? It's one or the other.

No, it's not. This is basic logic. The equation F=ma does not assume a god. It does not assume there is no god. The question of the existence of god is irrelevant to the truth of F=ma.

Are you actually trying to tell me that the TOE assumes there is a God? It's one or the other.

False dichotomy. It is entirely possible for it to make no assumptions on the subject at all.

Are you utterly incapable of non-binary thinking?