If you think creationism, evolution, deity or no deity have been proved OR disproved you have a lot to learn. Until mankind develops a perfect theory of EVERYTHING, then everything will be up in the air. Anyone who claims one or the other is proved or disproved is simply a believer.
Got Hope? The way things are shaping up, you are going to need a lot more than that. Ignore at your own peril.
agnosticism is a cop out. You are conceding you are not competent enough to make a rational analysis based on fact. There is no absolute certainty in this world, yet it is safe to make general assumptions based on proven facts. I know there is no big foot, I know there is not wizards and witches or god, because I put my trust in the concept of verifiable evidence.
That's odd, I sometimes think the same thing. Meanwhile during his daily briefing BO just announced he's creating yet another new government office. MORE government, now THAT'S something new! I can't wait until tomorrows briefing. Maybe, maybe he'll - create another government office! Yeah baby yeah.
I agree. If one can argue for agnosticism regarding the existence of god, then the same argument can be made for Bertrand Russell's Celestial Teapot: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot
A cop out? I can make a rational analysis based on things I know, that's true. But the funny thing is people like you were saying the same about the earth being flat. Time moves at one speed no matter what...a lot of people still believe that one. You can choose to be a believer if you would like. I don't. In the book "A brief history of time", hawking says explicitly that the concept of a God or a God's creation of man can't be ruled out until we devise a perfect theory of the universe. It is illogical to do so. But hey, what match is the scientific mind of hawking's compared to the faith of people like you
after a thousand years of every why question being answered by a natural process at what point do people like you concede that there is no supernatural deity in control of things? i guess never because you have an emotional need to believe . Can you imagine the ignorance level of someone who asks you to provide a formal proof for a negative?
Actually, let's put his Hawking's comments into better perspective: The idea that space and time may form a closed surface without boundary also has profound implications for the role of God in the affairs of the universe. With the success of scientific theories in describing events, most people have come to believe that God allows the universe to evolve according to a set of laws and does not intervene in the universe to break these laws. However, the laws do not tell us what the universe should have looked like when it started -- it would still be up to God to wind up the clockwork and choose how to start it off. So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator? [Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam, 1988), p. 140-41.] And then there's this little item: What I have done is to show that it is possible for the way the universe began to be determined by the laws of science. In that case, it would not be necessary to appeal to God to decide how the universe began. This doesn't prove that there is no God, only that God is not necessary. [Stephen W. Hawking, Der Spiegel, 1989]