/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15717675
>It isn't wrong to assume when no other explanation works.
INCORRECT

because we have no explanation for something, because no other explanation works out (to you) then you throw god on it. What you are saying is exactly what i am saying you are doing, and you are saying you are not doing it. (lol)

There was a time when we had no explanation for lightning, so we used god as a "cause" THAT IS ASSUMING. You are doing exactly the same thing, just like i am saying by putting god as cause for the big bang like we used to do for lightening

we have done the "It isn't wrong to assume when no other explanation works.' thing with god for thousands of years in hundreds of contexts. He's never there when we get to look