Science without religion is lame,

[McCulloch]

What I said and what I meant was attached to this saying: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

So if we take that saying literally as I did, then without religion one is handicapped as "lame" and without science those are handicapped by being "blind".

Does science benefit from the inclusion of religion? Which religion? How? Be specific. Do the benefits outweigh the difficulties?

[Clownboat]

Thanks for leaving the door open for me.
My famous thologian whom I like because he makes sense, says that God is order itself, man was created a form of divine order, divine truths are the laws of divine order then gives us the process how this order descends to man.

Thanks for quoting from your un-named, famous theologian that you like. Can you show that he/she speaks the truth, or at least offer a suggestion as to why these words should be considered?

[KenRU]

[Replying to post 101 by KenRU]


"So, when Einstein mentioned religion in the Science Is Lame quote, he meant a religion that did not have a personal "god" - it does not have one that answers prayers nor does it meddle in human affairs (since he does not believe a personal one exists)."

Since you have his God as 'god', or maybe his god was 'god', is this god figment of imaginatin, does he/she/it have/had any power what does it do, is he/it responsible for anything at all; perhaps some other qualities I did not ask?

If you are asking what does Einstein's god actually do? My guess is that Einstein is equating the order that he sees in the universe to a very non-personal and non-interacting god. In other words god as a very natural phenomena. The order (the laws) is god, imo. That's it.

Does that answer your question? If not, please let me know.

Thanks for leaving the door open for me.

You're welcome. I enjoy a good debate and/or conversation.

My famous thologian whom I like because he makes sense, says that God is order itself, man was created a form of divine order, divine truths are the laws of divine order then gives us the process how this order descends to man.

And who might this be?

The quote from your another post in response to the question of whether his god is life, gives life:
"According to Einstein's beliefs, no, not in the manner you are implying. There is no agency, if we are to believe Einstein's quotes.

I see big gap between the two.

Between which two? You're losing me.

One is alive, moving, performing, the other automated machine. Is that correct?

I see no big gap between Einstein's two quotes, so if that is what you are asking, then no.

Otherwise I am not sure what you mean. Can you elaborate?

[Erexsaur]

[Replying to Kenisaw]

Hello Kenisaw,

The Vedas reveals the same thing. Different god, but same thing. Egyptian Mythology reveals the same thing. Different god, but same thing. Why don't the writings from those religions have "all authority"?

Among many, many gods and much mythology, is there not one God that’s true? The issue at hand appears to be whether God of the Bible is trusted and believed as supreme or if He is only seen as another of countless idols unworthy of our attention. As for me, I'm glad I gave and am still giving Him my attention!

Let me guess: Evolution isn't "true science"? How about radiometric dating?

We gain knowledge for our technology through repeatable operational science. Through historical science (such as the study of fossils), we are only able to forensically analyze the effects of the unrepeatable past on objects we have at the present. Is this easy? Is radiometric dating error-free? Are its interpreters error-free to assure that evolution is a fact?

Our warring worldviews between us tend to complicate communication and agreement on the realities of life. Even though superficially appearing to be over science versus religion, the worldview battle is fundamentally over who is Boss.

According to the Bible-centered worldview that’s based on the Biblical Genesis account, God is the Big Boss and His commandments are settled from day zero. Order is thus established accordingly.

According to the secular humanistic worldview based on supposed evolutionary beginnings, humankind (dictators, judges, lawyers, etc.) is the big boss. With God apparently nonexistent and unneeded as implied by belief in evolution and thus despised, His word is seen as foolish, irrational, and irrelevant. Consequently, anything goes! The tiniest compromise with unchecked sin snowballs to the greatest atrocities. Ultimate truth is sought after by debate after debate after debate ad infinitum never to arrive at a solution. But beware of the possibility of a subtle, innocent appearing leader unaccountable to God of the Bible that may rise up with his “solution� and force it.

No one has ever been able to show, at this website or any other, any connection between advancements made by man and the Bible (or other religious text). And I'm quite confident you won't be able to either...

But the Bible is very rich in wisdom that daily guides our logic, actions, and decisions in life that includes scientific work. As God is seen as supreme creator, scientists see themselves as uncovering increasingly deeper secrets of Creation. There's much available to show that the Bible had a huge influence on scientific progress.

Yes, there are many, many other beliefs and gods but the tree is known by its historical fruit. As for God and His word, it is written,

“And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.�

Please note the phrase, “without controversy� and that “God was manifested.� When God is believed sovereign and as having the final say, debates are settled. Who is our personal master? God or man? We may take the truth of God or leave it but choice has its consequences.

Earl

[Neatras]

Our warring worldviews between us tend to complicate communication and agreement on the realities of life. Even though superficially appearing to be over science versus religion, the worldview battle is fundamentally over who is Boss.

And if I'm not interested in these subversive philosophical arguments about authority, and am more concerned about scientific enterprises? Where do I fit into your narrative, exactly?

According to the secular humanistic worldview based on supposed evolutionary beginnings, humankind (dictators, judges, lawyers, etc.) is the big boss. With God apparently nonexistent and unneeded and thus despised, His word is seen as foolish and irrational. Consequently, anything goes! The tiniest compromise with unchecked sin snowballs to the greatest atrocities. Ultimate truth is sought after by debate after debate after debate ad infinitum never to arrive at a solution. But beware of the possibility of a subtle, innocent appearing leader unaccountable to God of the Bible that may rise up with his “solution� and force it.

Oh cool, so you're not only going to make a ton of assumptions about a group of people you aren't involved with, you're going to deface them with some kind of hedonistic slant that assumes they're inevitably going to turn into Hitler. Because bastardizing the enemy and poisoning the well against secularism has never caused any troubles for the people in the past, I'm sure.

Here's the thing: I don't care what someone's philosophical predispositions are, so long as when they present an argument regarding science, they do so with evidence-based reasoning.

What I'm getting from you are non-sequiturs (God doesn't exist, therefore anything goes!), poisoning the well and slippery slope fallacies (secular humanist worldviews are gonna lead to a Holocaust!). You can paint it with a lot of pretty-sounding words to stack the deck in your favor, but what you can't do is come out and say it: You think that without your particular religion, everything goes to hell and back and we're all left in a wasteland without hope. Because that's the picture painted by the pulpit and by your holy book. You can't come out and say it because you know how unpalatable it is, and how distorted your presentation would be to every viewer.

Sorry to say it, but that's just your own worldview imposed on others. We don't have any interest in unsubstantiated claims about how we need your imaginary cure for your imaginary sickness (sin).

When God is believed sovereign and as having the final say, debates are settled.

This is what makes theism so... distasteful. I can't imagine a more unscientific principle than leaving the discovery of knowledge to the whims of a sovereign who punished humans for obtaining knowledge. You claim that religion plays an active part in shaping how science is conducted, but I see clear cognitive dissonance between that and the statement that debates are settled by assuming a sovereign who has the "final say." What a small god you have that it should be required we put on hold any kind of discovery if at any moment an arbitrary decree (handed down by humans acting on behalf of your god, I imagine) claims something is taboo.

If you have some objection to evolutionary theory based on scientific grounds, I'd love to hear it. Because otherwise this entire discussion about "worldviews" remains grounded purely in speculation on your part.

[Monta]

[Replying to post 111 by KenRU]


Quote:
"My famous thologian whom I like because he makes sense, says that God is order itself, man was created a form of divine order, divine truths are the laws of divine order then gives us the process how this order descends to man.

And who might this be?

Quote:
The quote from your another post in response to the question of whether his god is life, gives life:
"According to Einstein's beliefs, no, not in the manner you are implying. There is no agency, if we are to believe Einstein's quotes.

I see big gap between the two.

Between which two? You're losing me. "

Theologian is Emmanuel Swedenborg 1688-1772. A scientist who after his spiritual enlightenment wrote 12 large volumes on inner meaning of Genesis and Exodus along with many others incl. True Christian Religion.
His importance is that he unravells many things which in a literal sense do not add up or are unworthy of a 'loving God' exactly what we are debating around here.

My two quotes are that of what Swedenborg said and your quote what Einstain said.

[Clownboat]

The Vedas reveals the same thing. Different god, but same thing. Egyptian Mythology reveals the same thing. Different god, but same thing. Why don't the writings from those religions have "all authority"?

Among many, many gods and much mythology, is there not one God that’s true? The issue at hand appears to be whether God of the Bible is trusted and believed as supreme or if He is only seen as another of countless idols unworthy of our attention. As for me, I'm glad I gave and am still giving Him my attention!

I find this a tad odd.
Imagine you wanted to go sky diving. If I could only point to hundreds of examples of parachutes that fail, and never once to one that I could show actually worked, how glad should a person be to trust the 'blue parachute'?
I personally find your 'gladness' misplaced for this reason.

Let me guess: Evolution isn't "true science"? How about radiometric dating?

Is this easy? Is radiometric dating error-free? Are its interpreters error-free to assure that evolution is a fact?

Evolution is shown to be true without radiometric dating. Radiometric dating is just another tool that has been used to confirm the fact of evolution.

Our warring worldviews between us tend to complicate communication and agreement on the realities of life. Even though superficially appearing to be over science versus religion, the worldview battle is fundamentally over who is Boss.

I think you might be projecting this 'I am the boss' idea, but it is not directly relevant to this discussion. So... moving on.

According to the Bible-centered worldview that’s based on the Biblical Genesis account, God is the Big Boss and His commandments are settled from day zero. Order is thus established accordingly.

But this cannot be shown to be a true account and reality shows that the Genesis account is not even remotely accurate. Therefore the Bible centered worldview should be rejected at this time.

According to the secular humanistic worldview based on supposed evolutionary beginnings, humankind (dictators, judges, lawyers, etc.) is the big boss. With God apparently nonexistent and unneeded as implied by belief in evolution and thus despised, His word is seen as foolish, irrational, and irrelevant.

Humans are not the boss in all environments on earth. Try ordering around a mad hippo. Either way, despising the god of the Bible (especially the old testament god) can be done without evolution. All that is required is for one to read the old testament. Therefore, your claim that evolution causes people to despise your god concept is unnecessary and actually false in my personal case, not to mention in all the cases of Christians that accept that a god created humans via evolution.

Consequently, anything goes! The tiniest compromise with unchecked sin snowballs to the greatest atrocities.

Sin is your concept, not mine. However, go against societies rules, and there will be consequences. Sin is not involved though it seems.

Ultimate truth is sought after by debate after debate after debate ad infinitum never to arrive at a solution.

Not true. Being set free from my religious beliefs was one of the hardest things I have ever done. Debate helped me to arrive at an understanding that my disbelief was justified.

But beware of the possibility of a subtle, innocent appearing leader unaccountable to God of the Bible that may rise up with his “solution� and force it.

And fear aliens with anal probes? Should I also fear big foot? I would suggest not fearing things that cannot be shown to be real. You of course a free to fear whatever you decide deserves your fear. I must wonder though, what instilled this 'spirit of fear' in you in this case. Just kidding, I know where this fear of yours is coming from.

But the Bible is very rich in wisdom that daily guides our logic, actions, and decisions in life that includes scientific work. As God is seen as supreme creator, scientists see themselves as uncovering increasingly deeper secrets of Creation. There's much available to show that the Bible had a huge influence on scientific progress.

So much of what you have said here has been shown to be wrong though. Why should this claim for which you have provided zero evidence for be believed? Why should your creation story be believed over the hundreds of other accounts?

Yes, there are many, many other beliefs and gods but the tree is known by its historical fruit.

I have read the Bible and judged its fruit to be very wanting. Can you show the historical proof for speaking donkeys or living in a whale? If not, please understand why your tree is being rejected.

Please note the phrase, “without controversy� and that “God was manifested.� When God is believed sovereign and as having the final say, debates are settled. Who is our personal master? God or man? We may take the truth of God or leave it but choice has its consequences.

You have the cart before the horse. Please show that your god concept is truth, otherwise you are no different then a Muslim claiming that Allah is truth.

Perhaps that is the point. You are no more credible than a Muslim or any religious person making claims about their preferred god concept. You don't seem to understand this, but you still have the arrogance to claim that you know it is evolution that causes people to despise your god concept. How are you different then a Muslim yelling over and over Allahu Akbar?

[rikuoamero]

Erexsaur says

According to the secular humanistic worldview based on supposed evolutionary beginnings, humankind (dictators, judges, lawyers, etc.) is the big boss. With God apparently nonexistent and unneeded as implied by belief in evolution and thus despised, His word is seen as foolish, irrational, and irrelevant.

Erexsaur, can you tell me whether or not in a science classroom, if ever the topic of evolution comes up, that the teacher starts talking about who is 'boss', that the Christian God is to be despised, foolish, irrational, irrelevant?

I went to Christian schools, and whenever I stepped into science class, not once did the topic of religion come up. No mention was EVER made that since evolution is true, this means humans are the bosses and the God of the Bible is an idiot.

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to Kenisaw]

Hello Kenisaw,

The Vedas reveals the same thing. Different god, but same thing. Egyptian Mythology reveals the same thing. Different god, but same thing. Why don't the writings from those religions have "all authority"?

Among many, many gods and much mythology, is there not one God that’s true? The issue at hand appears to be whether God of the Bible is trusted and believed as supreme or if He is only seen as another of countless idols unworthy of our attention. As for me, I'm glad I gave and am still giving Him my attention!

Is there one god creature that's true, out of all of them? I've never found a reason to think that. Every single one of them is devoid of evidence supporting their claimed existence. Your selection of your "god" verses the other gods (that you call "idols") seems to be based on nothing more than baseless conjecture on your part.

Let me guess: Evolution isn't "true science"? How about radiometric dating?

We gain knowledge for our technology through repeatable operational science. Through historical science (such as the study of fossils), we are only able to forensically analyze the effects of the unrepeatable past on objects we have at the present.

There is no such thing as operational verses historical science. That is a made-up demarcation by creationists. Ken Ham even admitted that to Bill Nye. The scientific theory of evolution makes predictions that are found to be true. It is supported by billions of fossils and the entire field of genetics (two completely different lines of research, by the way, that independently confirm evolution). Evolution is repeatable because it is still going on today.

Is this easy? Is radiometric dating error-free? Are its interpreters error-free to assure that evolution is a fact?

No, radiometric dating is not error free. That's why no one assumes that a radioactive isotope found in a sample of rock is automatically usable as a way to date something. In fact experiments have been done on things like pillow basalt rocks in Hawaii from lava flows that happened on known dates, just to see if the argon in those rocks is suitable for radiometric dating. Turns out it isn't, because of contamination from volcanic gases, so science knows those types of rocks with argon in them are not dateable that way. That's the kind of effort that is made to ensure quality dating with radioactive isotopes.

But the techniques and methods used on samples of rocks that aren't contaminated, and especially the ones with multiple types of isotopes to test, have been validated time and again as being accurate and reliable. It's mathematically impossible for radioactive decay rates to have changed over time, so the dates we get from samples are highly accurate.

We don't even need radiometric dating anymore to prove evolution, now that genetics exists. Genetics proves it all by itself. Genetics independently confirmed what we already knew from geology, paleontology, and biology...

Our warring worldviews between us tend to complicate communication and agreement on the realities of life. Even though superficially appearing to be over science versus religion, the worldview battle is fundamentally over who is Boss.

The battle is fundamentally one of what can be verified and validated to be true. It's about accuracy and dependability. There's no verification for dogmatic claims of magic, there's a ton of it for science. That's what it all boils down to.

According to the Bible-centered worldview that’s based on the Biblical Genesis account, God is the Big Boss and His commandments are settled from day zero. Order is thus established accordingly.

Yep, and that view ignores loads of illogical contradictions about it, is baseless and devoid of empirical support, and is no different from every other religion in existence that you dismiss as less than your flavor of belief system.

According to the secular humanistic worldview based on supposed evolutionary beginnings, humankind (dictators, judges, lawyers, etc.) is the big boss. With God apparently nonexistent and unneeded as implied by belief in evolution and thus despised, His word is seen as foolish, irrational, and irrelevant. Consequently, anything goes! The tiniest compromise with unchecked sin snowballs to the greatest atrocities. Ultimate truth is sought after by debate after debate after debate ad infinitum never to arrive at a solution. But beware of the possibility of a subtle, innocent appearing leader unaccountable to God of the Bible that may rise up with his “solution� and force it.

Your paragraph quoted above is nothing more than a rambling mish mash of claims that aren't even accurate. "Evolutionary beginnings"? Evolution isn't the start of anything. It't the change in inheritable characteristics in groups of animals over time. Evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis (the start of life) or the Big Bang (start of the universe). I don't know why cultists always get that wrong.

"Belief" in Evolution implies disbelief in god? Over half the scientists in America call themselves religious and/or have a belief in a personal god, and almost all of them accept evolution as a sound scientific theory. Acceptance of evolution and atheism are not related. They don't go hand in hand. I don't know why cultists always get that wrong.

Acceptance of evolution implies that your god is "despised"? How exactly does someone despise something they don't believe in? Tell me, do you despise Santa Claus? How about Zeus? How about the people that do believe in your god and still accept evolution? How are they despising a god? I don't know why cultists always get that wrong.

The tiniest compromise with unchecked sin snowballs to the greatest atrocities.

I haven't the foggiest idea what this is supposed to mean. If you'd like to add to it, I can address it at a later time.

No one has ever been able to show, at this website or any other, any connection between advancements made by man and the Bible (or other religious text). And I'm quite confident you won't be able to either...

But the Bible is very rich in wisdom that daily guides our logic, actions, and decisions in life that includes scientific work. As God is seen as supreme creator, scientists see themselves as uncovering increasingly deeper secrets of Creation. There's much available to show that the Bible had a huge influence on scientific progress.

Yes, there are many, many other beliefs and gods but the tree is known by its historical fruit. As for God and His word, it is written,

“And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.�

Please note the phrase, “without controversy� and that “God was manifested.� When God is believed sovereign and as having the final say, debates are settled. Who is our personal master? God or man? We may take the truth of God or leave it but choice has its consequences.

Earl

Please note my original statement, which you quoted above: "No one has ever been able to show, at this website or any other, any connection between advancements made by man and the Bible (or other religious text). And I'm quite confident you won't be able to either..."

I see that held as true and accurate. What a stunner...

[Erexsaur]

[Replying to post 113 by Neatras]

Hello Neatras,

This is the first of a series of posts for you guys.

You said,

What I'm getting from you are non-sequiturs (God doesn't exist, therefore anything goes!), poisoning the well and slippery slope fallacies (secular humanist worldviews are gonna lead to a Holocaust!). You can paint it with a lot of pretty-sounding words to stack the deck in your favor, but what you can't do is come out and say it: You think that without your particular religion, everything goes to hell and back and we're all left in a wasteland without hope. Because that's the picture painted by the pulpit and by your holy book. You can't come out and say it because you know how unpalatable it is, and how distorted your presentation would be to every viewer.

Sorry to say it, but that's just your own worldview imposed on others. We don't have any interest in unsubstantiated claims about how we need your imaginary cure for your imaginary sickness (sin).

Everyone that would hold on to my personal religion (if I invented one) would also go to hell. But he that turns to the gospel must first give up all of his own stuff. Do you remember the scriptural warnings, "every man did that which was right in his own eyes"?

This is what makes theism so... distasteful. I can't imagine a more unscientific principle than leaving the discovery of knowledge to the whims of a sovereign who punished humans for obtaining knowledge. You claim that religion plays an active part in shaping how science is conducted, but I see clear cognitive dissonance between that and the statement that debates are settled by assuming a sovereign who has the "final say." What a small god you have that it should be required we put on hold any kind of discovery if at any moment an arbitrary decree (handed down by humans acting on behalf of your god, I imagine) claims something is taboo.

If you have some objection to evolutionary theory based on scientific grounds, I'd love to hear it. Because otherwise this entire discussion about "worldviews" remains grounded purely in speculation on your part.

I'm not talking about just religion.

To show that none of my objections to evolution are on scientific grounds, will you please bring to my attention a scientific law that supports the processes by which a simple organism by mere chance supposedly increased in complexity over long periods of time to become all the species we know today that includes humankind? Just one? Isn't nature around us governed by laws?

Even though we cannot go back in time to see evolution happen, shouldn't there be some law we may rely on to assure us in the present that it did? Besides, if we are informed that truth is established by one or two witnesses, will you please inform me of anyone that personally witnessed the millions of years of evolution that took place?

Speaking of arguments regarding science and of evidence-based reasoning, I can if you ask, point to you much information from scientists that very well supports creation truth scientifically. But would you accept it?

Our opposed speech at this moment only again serves as another example of the very strong, captivating effects of the opposing worldviews. Movement from one to the other is involvement in an internal fight of conscience.

Earl

[Erexsaur]

[Replying to post 115 by Clownboat]

Hello Clownboat,

You said,

Evolution is shown to be true without radiometric dating. Radiometric dating is just another tool that has been used to confirm the fact of evolution.

How? Are scientists unanimous on evolution? Are they unanimous on what the fossils are telling us?

I think you might be projecting this 'I am the boss' idea, but it is not directly relevant to this discussion. So... moving on.

Even though the person you work for has little effect on your proficiency, don’t you count it important to know the boss you work for and what he stands for? Doesn’t the same principle apply much more to the road of life of which we travel only once.

In response to my statement, "According to the Bible-centered worldview that’s based on the Biblical Genesis account, God is the Big Boss and His commandments are settled from day zero. Order is thus established accordingly.",

You said,

But this cannot be shown to be a true account and reality shows that the Genesis account is not even remotely accurate. Therefore the Bible centered worldview should be rejected at this time.

Hmmm! Maybe we should reject the fact that we all will die. But if we on the other hand know that God created all, doesn’t that bring the presupposition that He is the boss of all? We don't have to believe this for it to be true.

You said,

Humans are not the boss in all environments on earth. Try ordering around a mad hippo. Either way, despising the god of the Bible (especially the old testament god) can be done without evolution. All that is required is for one to read the old testament. Therefore, your claim that evolution causes people to despise your god concept is unnecessary and actually false in my personal case, not to mention in all the cases of Christians that accept that a god created humans via evolution.

They only care about bossing you!!! No worry about mad hippos!

Even though there are many more ways to despise God other than by evolution, God looks bad in the Old Testament only to those that read and view it out of context.

The bad things we see in the Bible are the consequences of fallen, corrupted humanity that's under a just and merciful God. God punishes unrepentant evil and is merciful to those that turn from evil. It is by God's love and mercy that He cares even to be bothered with sinful mankind. Heaven could go on undiminished even if no man is saved.

Christians that think God created by evolution (as I once did about the universe) do so only by compromise. They are like baseball players that wear part of the uniform of their team and part of the uniform of the opposing team.


In response to my statement, "Consequently, anything goes! The tiniest compromise with unchecked sin snowballs to the greatest atrocities.", you said,

Sin is your concept, not mine. However, go against societies rules, and there will be consequences. Sin is not involved though it seems.

But what are the consequences based on? Where does society get its rules? How does society know it any more wrong for someone to bang you on the head with a sledge hammer than to shoot a rabbit? What should keep society from changing the rules to make it OK to bang you?

Not true. Being set free from my religious beliefs was one of the hardest things I have ever done. Debate helped me to arrive at an understanding that my disbelief was justified.

Rhetoric (Uh- Uh- I- I mean “intelligent debate�) has also brought “understanding� that destroyed Adam and Eve’s faith in God’s word given them not to eat of the forbidden fruit.

Where are you now? Have you arrived at such a great level of intellect that you are now “free� to place creationists like me (po lil me! Weep! Weep!) into the buffoon category? Congrats-lations! Will that bring you to the place where you say you would like to be in your last post? ("To live a long life enjoying my family and friends. To leave a positive impact on those around me. ")


In response to my statement, "Please note the phrase, “without controversy� and that “God was manifested.� When God is believed sovereign and as having the final say, debates are settled. Who is our personal master? God or man? We may take the truth of God or leave it but choice has its consequences.", you said,

You have the cart before the horse. Please show that your god concept is truth, otherwise you are no different then a Muslim claiming that Allah is truth.

Perhaps that is the point. You are no more credible than a Muslim or any religious person making claims about their preferred god concept. You don't seem to understand this, but you still have the arrogance to claim that you know it is evolution that causes people to despise your god concept. How are you different then a Muslim yelling over and over Allahu Akbar?

I'm not talking about preferred god concepts. I'm talking about trust in the God that's true. We have the discernment to know whose True.

Does the field of science give us any hint of the presence of the True God of the Bible? With a sample size of exoplanets now over 3000 (although a drop in the bucket among the total number of stars), no system has yet been found to even closely rival our life-supporting solar system. Neither has a star been found among sun-like stars that would serve as a suitable replacement for our sun. They are not as stable. Also think of the apparent favor given us of the moon and the sun at the correct relative critical sizes and distances for total solar eclipses. Think of the critical tilt angle of the earth for the best (and not deadly) combination of seasons.

Finally may I please ask if you are really sure that God is usually rejected for lack of evidence including scientific? Or is it face to face by choice?

Earl