Ah right , so the various cosmological models of a cyclical universe from Albert Einstein, to Roger Penrose are of "little or no evidence". You like to say you "point to Science and Nobel prize winners who explain what their scientific finds are"..... except when you don't like what they say, then its more of that same old tired worn out brand of irrational logic and religiously based pseudoscience yet again.
I tend to agree, though as you may recall, I think science is also faith based. But in the case of jem, I think it's an unfortunate way to fight--faith does not need science for anything except perhaps to try to make converts.
You clearly do not know what you are talking about. Here is Penrose.. he addresses, entropy -- the initial of the universe (you troll liar stu) and fine tuning. <object width="640" height="480"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/v/WhGdVMBk6Zo?version=3&hl=en_US&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/v/WhGdVMBk6Zo?version=3&hl=en_US&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="640" height="480" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>
If that is so, then it follows that you would see little distincton between religious faith and scientific inquiry. Somehow, I doubt that you do.
Oh but I do see a difference, which is utilitarianism. But, even that does not satisfy everyone, or in every situation, obviously.
There you go again. Off into infantile insult troll mode once again. Did you not read earlier where Free Thinker referred to PRATT? You're regurgitating the same tired old stuff already refuted without paying any attention to the refutations against the claims you make. Trying to use science or more particularly pseudoscience to support or prove faith the way you always do is futile and pointless.
I've noticed Ricter will usually throw down a philosophical banana skin at an early stage to slip his way around on .
I think reality is first meant to be understood as best as it can be, and then appreciated for what it is and can be. I don't think facts should be dismissed because they don't "satisfy." And if you're going to have faith, it's best that it begins in yourself and your ability to reason. And to stand on the shoulders of giants who preceded you rather than kick them in the shins the way jem laughably tries to do.
My point goes to your "best" way. What's "best" is debatable. If you don't believe me, look to the evidence (lol)--we debate it.