[ SECRET POST #3217 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3217 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.










Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 064 secrets from Secret Submission Post #460.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

Because it's not so much a theory as it is layering on an unprovable claim on top of a legitimate theory. What's to say that the light in my fridge isn't operated by tiny invisible elves who disappear when I open the door? Sure, it might seem more reasonable to argue that no, fridge lights work because there's a switch that is flipped depending on whether or nor the door is opened or closed and there's a visible light bulb. But, I could argue, what if the tiny fridge-elves are the ones who make that mechanism work?

It's possible, just like it's possible that all our natural laws and evolution is governed by a powerful deity we can't see. But it's not provable, not testable, and most people who aren't religious or who base their beliefs on the scientific method rather than faith and unsupported conjecture won't view it as a particularly rational theory.

[chardmonster]

It's possible, just like it's possible that all our natural laws and evolution is governed by a powerful deity we can't see. But it's not provable, not testable, and most people who aren't religious or who base their beliefs on the scientific method rather than faith and unsupported conjecture won't view it as a particularly rational theory.

Who gives a shit if the scientist is a theist if his science is sound? Scientists who believe in a diety/dieties aren't writing scientific papers saying "God did it."

[(Anonymous)]

... I don't believe I suggested they were? Previous anon asked why it's more difficult to believe that God is behind all the scientific processes we know about how the universe works. The problem isn't the science, it's that the supposition that God is behind the science is unprovable.

[(Anonymous)]

This is so bizarrely obtuse for you.

The point isn't that scientists can't be theists, it's that the questions "does God exist" and "did God do it" aren't scientific because you can't test them.

[(Anonymous)]

Yes, thank you. Nice to see chard back, but this was a really weird comment to get all antagonistic over when they didn't seem to even read it.