How can you assume that? There is no data which supports the absence of a creator. As long as the initial cause is not determined it’s all hypothetical. It’s like arguing between Copenhagen interpretation and Many worlds. All arguments are moot without data.
How can you assume that? There is no data which supports the absence of a creator.
I said “most likely”. If you have material, objective, reproducible evidence that skeptics can examine proving the existence of a god, please present it. And win a Nobel prize.
Most likely the saboteur doesn’t exist and you’re having bias reviewing your life.
How can you assume that? There is no data which supports the absence of a creator. As long as the initial cause is not determined it’s all hypothetical. It’s like arguing between Copenhagen interpretation and Many worlds. All arguments are moot without data.
I said “most likely”. If you have material, objective, reproducible evidence that skeptics can examine proving the existence of a god, please present it. And win a Nobel prize.
What I mean is that we don’t have any data to even comment on the likelihood. You can’t say most likely.
And in that situation, the safest bet is to say no. See: the invisible dragon https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/The_Dragon_in_My_Garage