Home > Philosophy, Religion, Science > Atheism Exposed: Naturalism

Atheism Exposed: Naturalism


The domain of natural science is natural science, not metaphysics. The fields are logically incompatible.”

Xenocrates

naturalism

Naturalists are the strongest of all atheists. They believe that all things can be explained by natural laws and causality. They believe that nature is all that there is and therefore, natural science can be used to invalidate God’s existence. The obvious challenge with this position is that it presumes the domain of natural science extends to all other fields of knowledge. Not only does it make this imprecise leap of logic, but it also misconstrues the intention of Charles Darwin’s theory of Evolution with the intention of using it for something it was never designed. This is the fifth and final post in the series exposing the innate fallacies of atheism. Be forewarned; this one’s an epic.

Richard Dawkins

Richard Dawkins - Author 'The God Delusion'

Professor Richard Dawkins (pictured above) is practically the messiah of modern day atheism. His many books and lectures are renown. His arguments provide the lion’s share of much of this post’s content as the chief of modern day naturalism and evolutionary biology. With his recent book “The God Delusion” (2006), Dawkins established a series of very prolific theories that uphold the position of Naturalism and to a wider extent, attempts to justify atheism on a whole. His previous work in the admittedly well written “The Selfish Gene” and “The Blind Watchmaker” are also seminal works which provide material for this post.

Arguments and Rebuttals

The following is a series of arguments for atheism, largely from a naturalist standpoint and the respective rebuttals:

1. The Ultimate Boeing 747 Gambit

Argument: God is too infinitely complex to ever be a realistically probable occurrence. This is a postulate by Richard Dawkins. He calls this argument the ‘Ultimate Boeing 747 Gambit‘. It basically says that the probability of life occurring on this planet is no greater than a hurricane assembling a Boeing 747 simply by blowing through a scrapyard. Therefore the probability of a designer for this world would be so incredibly more complex, that the odds of his occurrence are phenomenally less so.

Counter-Argument: Improbability is not synonymous with impossibility. Furthermore, irrespective of the degree of cosmic improbability of an occurrence, the mere fact that it has occurred or could occur makes the original postulate intrinsically redundant. It only proves that God doesn’t exist as far as life on earth doesn’t exist.

2. Occam’s Razor

Argument: The belief that God created the universe and that nothing created God makes too many unprovable assumptions. Using Occam’s Razor, it is far simpler to say that the universe exists, as it achieves the same functional objective.

Counter-Argument: The assumption that the universe just exists creates the problem of infinite regression, where the cosmological argument of the chicken and the egg scenario presents itself. Tracing the origin of all things in the universe would create a recursive chain of cause and effect that would never end as it would not stop at the Big Bang.

Infinite regression defeats the logic that the universe has a finite beginning. Using a far simpler premise (that an infinite creator instantiated the finite universe) solves the infinite regression problem. There’s no use worrying about assumptions that cannot be proven by the infinite creator premise, as there’s no way to use natural science to substantially prove (or disprove) an infinite universe anyway.

Furthermore, if the universe was infinite, then how do atheists reconcile the fact that scientists almost unanimously believe it started with a big bang? If the universe had a starting point, then it logically has an ending point. Anything that has a beginning, has an end. So if the universe has a beginning, how is it infinite? If an infinite universe started with a big bang, what came before that? I still await a satisfactory answer.

3. The Omnipotence Paradox

Argument: If God is omnipotent such that he can do anything, then can God build a rock that even he cannot lift? If the definition of omnipotence is saying that God cannot cannot do something, then the paradox proves that an omnipotent God cannot possibly exist, and thus God does not exist.

Counter-Argument: If we accept that God is omnipotent, do we also accept that his omnipotence transcends human logic? If we don’t, then how do we get to the point of accepting God as being omnipotent as the question boldly does? If God exists, then how does an omnipotent God become bound by the laws of human logic? Doesn’t that automatically defeat the purpose of referring to him as being God in the first place?

This question pretends to be a paradox when it is nothing more than an attempt at intellectual dishonesty through a play upon words. It’s a clever trick that few people see through.

4. The Omniscience Paradox

Argument: If God is all-knowing and all powerful, can God change his mind? If He is all knowing, then all things are predestined. If he’s all powerful, then he should be able to change his mind. However, if he can change his mind, that negates omniscience, since that defeats the definition of predestination, which automatically eliminates omniscience. But if God cannot change his mind, then he is not omnipotent. This proves that God is neither omnipotent nor omniscient, and thus by definition, God does not exist.

Counter-Argument: This question is another logical trick, not a paradox. If God exists, and he is omniscient, then by definition, he will never need to change his mind. If God needed to change his mind, it would mean that he made a mistake and is thus not omniscient. The question dishonestly ignores the fact that omniscience implies perfection which automatically eliminates error – and thus the necessity for God to ever change his mind.

Therefore, the question is fallacious for all the same reasons why the universe exists this way and not any other way. Ability does not automatically imply necessity if there is perfection. And just to be abundantly clear, I’m referring to perfection for God’s purposes. As the universe was perfectly predestined via God’s omniscience, this eliminates any necessity for God to change His mind.

5. The Free Will Paradox

Argument: If God is omniscient, that means he already knows every possible outcome and thus humans don’t have a choice. However, if He gave humans free will, it assumes that God doesn’t know what the outcomes of each human’s decision will be and thus God is not omniscient, which would mean that God does not exist.

Counter-Argument: A counter-argument isn’t really necessary here, as this argument is based on a fallacy of popular (usually Christian) religion. In a sense, I actually agree with the premise. There’s no such thing as choice. Choice is an illusion of power. Predestination implies that choice does not exist. An omniscient God has already predestined the course of every outcome of every action of every atom in the universe.

Theists erroneously believe that humans have free will because of misinterpretation of scripture. In Christianity, the Bible does clearly say that God predestines all things (which automatically implies that choice does not exist). However, many theists tend to ignore these parts of scripture for their own comfort.

This also means that God already knows who is going to heaven or hell. Any theistic counter argument against this premise presumes that humans control their own destiny – a false teaching of many Christian circles. That knowledge only resides with God and thus those arguments are likewise automatically invalid.

6. The Transcendental Argument

Argument re Logic: If logic is necessary, yet logic is contingent on God’s will, then logic is in and of itself irrelevant, since God could determine something illogical and it would still be true. But this is impossible, since (using the Omnipotence Paradox) it is impossible for God to create something so heavy that even he cannot lift.

Counter-Argument: This argument commits a fatal logical flaw: Assuming that if God exists, that he is bound by the limitations of human logic. If God exists, then his omniscience means that he contains all the knowledge in the universe. Humans are still investigating the universe, which implies that we have only a tiny subset of that logic. Thus to bind an omniscient God to an incomplete locus of logic is as effective as stabbing a whale to death with a sewing needle.

Argument re Science: If there exists a scientific explanation, then supernatural phenomena such as Miracles do not exist. For miracles assume that laws of science were bent to facilitate their occurrence.

Counter-Argument: The occurrence of Miracles does not automatically imply that any law of science was defied. It usually indicates the occurrence of something that is highly improbable – such as someone surviving a terrible car wreck or even the existence of life on earth. As was mentioned before, improbability is not synonymous with impossibility.

Furthermore, miracles also constitute a scientific occurrence for which we have yet to explain. After all, It was Albert Einstein who postulated that any science sufficiently advanced enough would be indistinguishable from magic. If we traveled back in time and used concentrated dried grape extract from a sachet of Kool-Aid to mix into a jar of water, we would be described as working miracles, just as Jesus was.

Argument re Morality: Morality is bound to the Divine Command Theory, which states basically that if God commands something that appears to be evil, it is therefore good – which makes morality an arbitrary thing contingent on God’s will. If that is the case, then this conflicts with objective morality, which states that we do good because that is what we perceive from the word of God. Then again, how can we be sure that what we perceive from God’s word to be God’s will, if there are so many holy texts? (e.g. Qu’ran, Bible, Torah, Book of Mormon etc.).

Counter-Argument: The Divine Command theory is a flawed teaching of theism. The Divine Will theory; that God is sovereign – supersedes it. Therefore, the perception of the morality of an act, whether good or evil is redundant, since a sovereign God would neither be good nor evil (see earlier arguments on the problem of evil).

Good and evil are man made concepts that are relative to the observer. None of that is relevant if the outcome is predestined by an omniscient God. This would mean that all things that happen are God’s will – both ‘good’ and ‘evil’ alike. That is a part of the true nature of God.

Finally, the existence of a multiplicity of texts is a function of human interpretation and culture. This has nothing to do with morality. In fact, there’s no such thing as divine morality as that erroneously presumes that God is omnibenevolent. He is not. Morality is as relative to human culture as is religion. Religion and morality are mutually exclusive.

7. Infinite Recursion

Argument: All things must have a creator. This also applies to God. However, if God has a creator, then his creator must likewise have a creator, and so on ad infinitum. This problem of infinite regression proves that it is simply illogical that God could possibly exist.

Counter-Argument: If God is all powerful, then that automatically eliminates the need to have a creator. The argument is thus demonstrably fallacious.

8. Theological Non-Cognitivism

Argument: God cannot be proven using scientific methods, therefore God does not exist. Also, the nature and description of God makes him unknowable to limited human intellect and thus, ‘God’ does not exist.

Counter-Argument: The absence of proof does not prove absence. It only proves that the proofing tools are inadequate. The argument makes as much sense as trying to prove the existence of atoms using a magnifying glass.

9. The Extra-Temporal God

Argument: The theist argument that God is beyond time is illogical because the very act of God creating the universe (and thus time) presumes that time and space already existed. This implies that if God exists, then he is bound by a parameter of the universe, which is time. If God is bound by a parameter of the universe, then he is not God. Therefore God does not exist. (Read more here.)

Counter-Argument: This argument assumes that the theistic argument which postulates that God is extra-temporal (i.e. outside of time and space) is referring to time as a thing that is contained in or is a function of the universe. Time is nothing more than a construct of the human mind to quantify the passage of moments. Time in and of itself is not a thing and is thus not something that can be created or manifested empirically as a phenomenon or characteristic of the universe without using man made tools that emulate the concept of time (such as a watch).

Thus, the concept of time is just a human approximation for the passage of moments. It allows the human mind to gain relativity about past and present events. Apropos, the concept of time is not needed by God (or even by the universe) as the value of relativity is lost on an infinite being that by definition existed before (and will continue to exist after) the universe.

10. Scientific Naturalism

Argument: Simply put, all things that exist are natural phenomenon that can be explained by natural laws. By definition, God isn’t a natural phenomenon. Ergo, God doesn’t exist.

Counter-Argument: If we become successful in creating a unified theory of everything, we will effectively be creating a natural scientific definition of god.

Why there is a debate in the first place

John T. Scopes was charged with teaching evolution in a Tennessee school in 1925.

John T. Scopes was charged with teaching evolution in a Tennessee school in 1925.

The more I researched the arguments for Naturalism, the more I realised that they constitute an extreme form of evolutionary theory called “Ultra-Darwinism”, which seeks to explain everything using evolutionary theory – something Charles Darwin never intended. In fact, the contention between Atheism and Religion is an argument that had gone off on a tangent for some 80 years now, corrupting the original premise behind evolutionary theory.

It thus is useful to note why there is an ongoing debate between religion and atheism. The first thing we need to do then is to establish the history of this contention. The main proponents are Naturalist Atheists and Creationist Theists. But before these these two factions came to be, there came the controversial 1925 trial of John Scopes, now known as the infamous man-from-monkey trial. He was a teacher in Tennesee who was charged with teaching evolution in schools.

The Emergence of Creationism

John Scopes’ defense sought to defend Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution which very nicely explained the development of life. This ultimately put his christian prosecutors on the ropes, since the Bible doesn’t do quite so nicely a job of tying up these loose ends. The whirlwind of debate that followed evolved to become an extreme version of Christianity call “Creationism” which similarly sought to explain everything in a bid to combat Evolutionary theory.

The basic tenet of Creationism is that the Bible can be interpreted literally. They believe God literally created the world in 6 days, that dinosaurs and people coexisted together in the same era (since God created everything in less than a week), and that Noah’s flood wiped out any living thing that didn’t make it into the ark. This, they claim, explains dinosaurs, fossils and all other animals now extinct for which we have found fossilized remains.

Needless to say, much of this is highly inconsistent with scientific discovery, especially since they also add that the earth is just over 6,000 years old (a tenet printed in many King James version Bibles even to this day). To add insult to injury, the prosecution argued that if Darwin’s theory assumes men evolved from monkeys, then monkeys should not still exist. Needless to say, Scopes was ultimately convicted and fined $100.

The Emergence of Ultra-Darwinism

Before this trial, Christians widely accepted evolutionary theory as a scientific approximation of the allegories in the Bible. Most Christians never believed at that time that the earth was literally created in 6 days. Darwin’s theory of evolution simply filled in the gaps left by the Bible, without effectively contravening anything therein. However, just so that Scopes could be prosecuted, Creationism was invented to be just as refined, using the Bible almost exclusively.

Naturally, the existence of Creationism and the subsequent conviction of John Scopes provoked the minds of those who championed Evolutionary theory. In response, they were compelled to form a movement that eventually evolved to become an extreme form of Darwinian theory, called “Ultra Darwinism” or “Universal Darwinism”. The basic idea behind this movement is to fill in the holes in Darwin’s theory that were used to convict Scopes.

The debate has raged on between these two factions ever since, creating the misconception that Darwin’s naturalist Theory of Evolution necessarily validates Atheism. However, the debate has gone on for so long, that almost every breed and class of atheist out there fallaciously and religiously claims Darwin’s theory of evolution as a part of their defense, thinking that it validates atheism. This, as I will now demonstrate, could be no further from the truth.

The Truth about Darwin and Evolution

Charles Darwin - eminent naturalist, founder of the Theory of Evolution & Natural Selection.

Charles Darwin - eminent naturalist, founder of the Theory of Evolution & Natural Selection.

In Charles Darwin’s magnum opus, On the Origin of the Species (1859), he postulates that life evolved through a process of evolution and natural selection. It lays out in a logically structured, easy to follow arrangement, using simple, accessible language, how life evolved from simple creatures, becoming more and more complex in a bid to adapt to the changing planet. Needless to say, this theory is one of the most profound contributions to science.

However, nowhere in the book does it make any assertions that these theories invalidate God in any context – even though Darwin was painfully aware that it could be misconstrued as such. Darwin was a scientist of the Naturalist order. He didn’t write the book to disprove God. Rather, he merely wrote it as a theory based on his now famous visit to the Galapagos islands in the 1830’s aboard the HMS Beagle. His intentions were to add to the scientific knowledge base of Natural Zoology, not to become embroiled in a religious debate.

In fact, Darwin was a Christian when he wrote the book. So he was understandably timid to share his ideas in fears that it would upset his Christian contemporaries. He was therefore naturally upset when his work was used to start debates on this matter, as his theories were taken out of context – especially by atheists. What makes matters worse is that most atheists assumed (even to this day) that Darwin was likewise an atheist because of this work.

While Darwin did eventually loose his faith, it was not because of his theories of evolution. It was actually because of the death of a beloved 10 year old daughter, to what is now speculated to have been cholera, in 1851. By this time, the Origin of Species had not yet existed as a contiguous work, but as various papers which had undergone many revisions. It’s official publication in 1859 (8 years after his daughter’s death) was long after Darwin had lost his faith, but not before the theories were first conceived, some 20 years earlier while still a theist.

The Fallacies of Ultra-Darwinism

Famous atheists like Daniel Dennett and Richard Dawkins attempt to use Darwin’s concept of evolution to explain everything with a view to rule out the necessity for the existence of a god. They hope to do this using three key theories:

1. The “Selfish Gene”

Basically, this is the idea that our genes have been in competition with each other for survival since the dawn of life. Thus, this theory’s proponents assert, proves that nature is nothing more than a natural, mechanical unraveling of cause and effect. This of course is based on the concept of natural selection.

Unfortunately, the proponents of this idea have grossly oversimplified the function of a gene. Michael Collins, director of the Human Genome Project, has determined from the work of that organisation that our understanding of genes is becoming as increasingly outdated as our perception that atoms are the smallest particles.

Genes do not function in isolation. There are a plethora of factors which contribute to their effect on life. Thus, to presume that a selfish gene generates the behaviour found in natural selection is as presumptuous as saying that a spoiler adds horse power to a sports car. The idea is lofty, but it is grossly fallacious.

2. The “Meme”

Susan Blackmore's book expands on the idea of Memetics

Susan Blackmore's book expands on the idea of Memetics

A meme is any bit of cultural information that lives in the consciousness of a host. It can be anything from music to science to religion. A meme “competes” for survival by “infecting” an entity. This, says the theory, is how information survives, and lives from generation to generation, much in the same way genes propagate through natural selection. Its survival is thus highly contingent on its competition.

This would explain why some religions are more dominant than others, and why some languages have all but gone extinct. As the survival of a meme is only contingent on competition, this its proponents assert, proves that religion is effectively a delusion, in as much as the idea of God is a delusion – a meme that has infected believing hosts and that nothing else is true.

The problem with this idea is that a Meme describes any bit of information – not just religion, but science and philosophy as well. The assumption that the survival of a meme is solely contingent on competition automatically asserts that the truth of the meme is irrelevant to its survival. This uncannily would explain why lies are more common than truth.

Concordantly, this gaping flaw in the theory automatically undermines it, because by its definition, the very concept of natural selection upon which memes are based, may itself be false. This by extension destroys the theory of memes as being any form of intrinsically truthful argument. The theory offers no way to validate one meme over another. Thus a person who believes both in God and the theory of evolution is equally deluded about both memes.

3. Darwinism automatically presumes Atheism

Daniel Dennett - American Philosopher and Prolific Atheist Thinker

Daniel Dennett - American Philosopher and Prolific Atheist Thinker

Based on the first two theories, Ultra Darwinists like Daniel Dennett assert that Darwinism automatically validates Atheism. However, most major scientists (including some atheistic scientists like Michael Ruse) disagree with this premise altogether. They disagree for reasons I have already stipulated in this and previous posts.

Science was designed with a view to discover the truth about nature – something which it is very useful for. However, scientists don’t go into the field or a lab for that matter with a view to prove or disprove the existence of God. Neither did Darwin. Science was never intended for that purpose. The two domains of knowledge are not logically related in any way.

Thus it stands to reason that the people who are using these completely unrelated ideas to push forward their personal views are merely extrapolating from a position that has already been taken for other reasons, prior to becoming engaged in the debate as atheists.

Another glaring flaw with this presupposition, is that it assumes Darwinian evolution to be somewhat complete. Nothing in science ever is. That’s why most of what we know in science exists as theories.

Sooner or later, new discoveries like fill in these holes, just as how quantum gravity and relativity fill in holes in Newtonian physics. In addition to genetics, One can be sure that many more discoveries are yet to come, exposing other incomplete areas in evolution.

Finally, if one were to cognitively link atheism with evolution, wouldn’t that invariably validate the contention of Creationists who have brought a legal case against evolution being taught in schools? If evolution and atheism are inextricably linked, then teaching evolution in schools would amount to the same kind of indoctrination that teaching Creationism would. This invariably exposes the atheist-evolutionist contention as nothing more than hypocrisy by another name.

The Loss of Objectivity

ObjectivityI believe that the rise of atheism is an indication that we are on the cusp of the age of reason. We are slowly but surely becoming a mature race of animals that are slowly putting away the child like thoughts that created religious extremism while embracing and integrating the more intellectually precise ideas behind science. This trend can even be seen in some religious circles which try to reconcile their beliefs in natural science.

With that said, I believe that atheism is more of an extremist by product from the fringe of cognitive evolution. My observation has led me to believe that it is a manifestation of “teething pains” as it were, of this evolutionary process. It is the result of humanity desperately attempting to make sense of a seemingly senseless universe by almost contemptuously wrangling itself away from religious mythology.

However, the trouble with this effort is that it usually inhibits the inculcation of objectivity in the minds of its most stalwart proponents. I am the first to posit that religion is rife with problems. My contentions with religion are well documented on this site. So I am in no way proposing that religion is inherently better than atheism. Rather, my contention is that the hypocritical fallacies inherent in religious extremism are strangely mirrored in atheism.

I don’t believe that we can certify the existence or non-existence of god using anything in either religion or atheism. That is impossible. Thus an inclination to either side of the fence is highly contingent on other innocuous factors which influence what we believe. Thus irrespective of whether or not one is an atheist, there is a distinct likelihood for objectivity to often be tossed out the window – and that’s where the problem begins.

In Review

In review, this series of posts has demonstrated that the key proponents of atheism have sought to:

  1. Assert that we can’t know something exists if we lack the capacity to determine that it does. (Agnosticism)
  2. Discredit the objectivity of morality and by proxy, theism in general. (Pragmatists)
  3. Assert that doubt can be more or less considered as validation for non-belief. (Skeptics)
  4. Discredit the existence of supernatural phenomena by certifying the existence of natural ones. (Naturalists)

However, none of these arguments are convincing enough in their own right. In response  to each of the above positions, respectively:

  1. Saying that we don’t or can’t know something doesn’t mean that it can’t or doesn’t exist.
  2. Theism and morality are mutually exclusive. Obfuscating morality does not invalidate theism.
  3. While it is easier to believe what we can prove, it does not invalidate the necessity of faith for the unprovable.
  4. The domain of natural science is natural science, not metaphysics. The fields are logically incompatible.

This is why I believe that any position for atheism appears to be more a position of personal conviction and not one that is necessarily driven by an impartial, objective subscription to critical thinking or empiricism. Most of the arguments seem to be driven by as much of a need to validate an atheist’s personal beliefs as much as a theist would seek to use mythological contrivances to validate their religion.

This is also why I started this series by making the statement about preference and belief. When we defend what we believe, we are doing nothing more than exercising our right to a preference. Nothing is wrong with that. Saying that it is anything else is dishonest. So as much as strong atheism makes some very good criticisms of theism, I remain unconvinced that many of such criticisms are any different from rooting for your favourite football team.

Conclusion

Don’t get me wrong. I can relate to the position of people who are atheist because of the loons who surreptitiously use religion for evil. What I cannot relate to however, is the other percentage of the atheist population who unscrupulously attempts use science for something it wasn’t intended. The resulting arguments suspiciously appear to be cognitive posturing in a bid to obscure intellectual dishonesty.

Irrespective of which side of the fence one is naturally inclined to sit, we should all be prepared to accept the responsibility of thinking about it critically and objectively. I have done so with Christianity, the faith in which I was raised. I didn’t expose the fallacies in Christianity because of any favourable position towards atheism. I did it because there are some obvious problems with the very faith I was unsuccessfully brought up to believe as a child.

As I’ve said many times before, people don’t necessarily believe because something makes sense. They believe because they want to. It’s no different with atheists. Thus where as religion dubiously asserts itself as being the “infallible word of God”, atheism asserts itself as the “infallible word of man”. Neither is more functionally useful than the other, because both are opposing sides of the same coin. It’s nothing more than belief for the sake of it.

If we’re not willing to be objective about our beliefs, then we run the risk of being hypocrites. Without objectivity, we loose the opportunity of credibly defending whatever we believe, no matter how much sense it seems to make to us. Concordantly, just as how atheists like to tell theists that “It’s ok to say you don’t know“, I would respond in kind that “It’s ok to say that it’s just your opinion“. The cognitive gymnastics were probably never necessary in the first place.

Advertisements
  1. Jeff
    November 21, 2010 at 2:33 am

    A god is still not necessary as you claim it should be, an infinite eternal unchanging nothing that has always existed and has always contained a finite but unbounded closed universe that constantly changes but is itself eternal. In this model the Big Bang is NOT required as a creation event, it is merely a phase in the cycle of an eternally expanding and collapsing universe and has no special significance at all. There is no need to look beyond it, there is only a previous cycle beyond it, and no need to say it is meaningless to try to look beyond it! Also, you can not prove a negative. If I claimed an all powerful invisible unicorn created the universe, you can not disprove or approve it, does this then mean it is true? No, whenever you introduce a claim of any kind, you have to show evidence as extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

  2. interfiend
    December 13, 2009 at 10:45 am

    Xenocrates: ‘What I cannot relate to however, is the other percentage of the atheist population who unscrupulously attempts use science for something it wasn’t intended.’ What do you mean? Isn’t science intended for progress in EVERY field? I cant imagine wrongly used science.

    • December 14, 2009 at 7:55 am

      Interfiend, I think you misread. I’m referring to the act of attempting to use Science to prove that God doesn’t exist when the idea of God is not bound by the rules in Science and then using that declaration to certify that God doesn’t exist. No scientist goes out into the field using Science in an attempt to prove God. The idea is ludicrous.

  3. Richard
    June 23, 2009 at 9:16 am

    I never actually thought of a “Creator only” figure until I watched Men In Black (yes…I know, sad but i was young). At the end, you say 2 Aliens playing marble with our universe – that showed me that we really don’t know anything and we are all making assumptions at best.

    You had made a similar statement in a previous to say that not because we don’t know, doesn’t me it doesn’t exist. Additionally, it’s only considered correct/right now because it hasn’t been disproved…yet.

    Hey…that Collider thing – what actually happened with that? Need to Google it and see if Anti-Matter was created :D….Like in Angels and Demon

Comment pages
1 3 4 5
  1. October 3, 2012 at 12:27 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s