‘Christianity is irrational’

I was debating someone on Reddit yesterday,  and this gem fell into my lap. Here’s the full text, if anyone is interested. 
The guy said that ‘Christianity is irrational because it is a belief based on faith.’ And anything based on faith is irrational.
So I asked him if he had any proof that God didn’t exist. Of course, he didn’t.
So I asked if his worldview included a God. Of course it didn’t.
So while he assumed Christianity was irrational because it was based on faith (incorrectly), I showed that his worldview was similarly based on the nonexistence of God. With no proof.
So if a belief is irrational because it is based on faith, atheism is faith that God does not exist, with no reasons to believe so. 

55 thoughts on “‘Christianity is irrational’

  1. Round and round with this nonsense. You are the one making the claim there is a god—the burden of proof is yours. Christianity isn’t irrational, but faith based anything religious is counterproductive. 2000 years of it dominating the world and still have met no objectives and you argue even amongst yourselves. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Clinging to the past and half of your people praying the future ends. We’re doomed by your own doing. Somehow your people have shoehorned faith into a virtue and the pinnacle of religion. It’s merely a thought conviction without evidence. A wish. If there was any evidence you could not have faith. Almost seems someone played your own psychology against you. It was imperative that there be no trail of evidence to bind humanity in this circuitous nonsense and conjecture, voluntarily enslaving your neurology to belief. It’s a neat little trick, but it’s not really funny anymore. This belief you have is so grand that you’ve just condemned another person with your groupthink.

    Like

    • I understand the principle. Shift the burden of proof, and you make atheism seem reasonable. You don’t actually have to defend ignoring the possibility of intelligent causes. But we know they are possible, and we see evidence of design everywhere. So you see, while you demand more evidence and just say that religion has not met your burden of proof, you attack it with reckless abandon, with no justification. Science looks for natural causes, so anything it finds is natural. But what is the natural cause for science?

      Like

      • I don’t need to shift the burden of proof because logically in every way It is yours who make the claim. I was born atheist as were you. I would’ve never even needed to defend anything t it was conjured. It is the default until the explainers got ahold of me.
        I have no reason to assume a creator, or that the elements that attract and repel in the natural order cant co it on their own. I also would need you to demonstrate how your god created the earth. It’s easy to make that claim, so explain. It.Making scientific claim for god is weak attempt to great claims, but it’s no better that “my dad is bigger than your dad.
        There are many demonstrations in favor of nature working it own wherever, but even the ideas of a created world such as it is, makes this a synthetic, not natural, artificial world. Certainly you have your opinions. How did god do it must accompany the claim.

        Like

      • Of course. But that’s beside the point here. The point is you actually don’t know whether God exists or not. So for this case, I’m actually fine if you prefer a universe from nothing. But to say that a God is impossible, is to make a claim. And I wouldn’t attack the religious unless I was prepared to make that claim.

        Like

      • I never said god was impossible, but your god is and you all prove it with the explanations. Two things; monotheism has hijacked the term god. 2. If a contradiction exists, check the premises. At least one is wrong. Enter apologetics.
        There is no god as you describe. Atheism is simply a clean slate—an awakening that things are not created and controlled by Jesus, but by a much more sensible and obvious happening that only becomes obvious through unbelief.
        The atheism is simply that I don’t believe your story that you can’t prove on one single point without massive contradictions. To stay in faith I only really needed one—but, faith and evidence are diametrically opposes, for the minute there is a viable demonstration, Faith is supplanted. The universe is not what you’ve been told, and neither are you.

        Like

      • A truly clean slate would accept all possible causes, natural and intelligent. Archeology studies many intelligent causes. As a theist, I’m open to scientific inquiry. But to rule out religion by science is simply not possible. So to attack it is ridiculous. Especially when you supposedly do not have an affirmative position on the existence of God.

        Like

      • Negative. What I’m saying is that all you know for sure is that you don’t believe in God. And that’s not something worth arguing about. And especially not worth attacking anyone.

        Like

      • My apologies if I come across as attacking. My writing is often passionate.
        So you’re agnostic. You “believe” in god. You do not know. If you knew you could demonstrate it and show reliability in that demonstration, couldn’t you? Show me a sign or something? You were promised tools as a believer. Did the Bible lie, or are there just no real believers? It’s just basic stuff that the Bible claims that are nonsense from cover to cover. That’s why the founders immediately appealed to faith, even with the supposed, resurrected Jesus standing right there. Faith is a trap where you dismiss everything to cover the sunken cost. It is thoroughly explained in the neurons and hormones. It was a masterful play on human psychology.

        Like

      • In atheism, you’ve already ruled out intelligent causes. Even though they are logically possible. So I actually believe the philosophical case for God is very strong, but if you’ve decided that God is impossible, there is nothing I can say to change your mind.

        Like

      • I don’t think you’ve read my comments, or I have communicated poorly. There is no evidence Jesus is the creator. In order for your god to call the world into existence out of nothing, you would have to prove first there was ever nothing. There was never nothing.
        Now I don’t believe the philosophical arguments for the existence of god because they’re to easy to dismiss with philosophy. If that is your benchmark it is indeed, a weak reason. Those same arguments are easily turned on their heads when you eliminate special the pleading which has to exist to justify it.
        Part of the trick in this life is we are given two choices, in this case, theism vs atheism. So we go round and round on this when there is a third option. Not a watery combination of the two ways, but a contradictory free explanation of the cosmos that does not dismiss the spiritual inklings of every human, solves the problems of evil, and identifies consciousness and your role in it. Clue; It is not the biblical god.

        Like

      • I’m fine if you don’t believe in God. You’re practically saying that science has killed Him. You attack like you’ve proven that God does not exist but then hide behind atheism, saying that we have the burden of proof. All the time knowing that he is unfalsifiable.

        God either exists or he doesn’t. That’s what we’re talking about. I don’t care about what you believe as much as the reasons for those beliefs. Because atheism is true whether God exists or not.

        Like

      • There again, the only reason you could make this statement is by employing belief. Belief is no standard of anything but a conveniently worded thought conviction. Atheism is simply that I don’t believe the story. There is no motive behind it. I do easily recognize the divisiveness of belief though, and I can’t be a part of that. Through belief we follow, then fight, war, discriminate, etc. I prefer ethics over beliefs because they equal fairness, while faith condemns the unbeliever through obedience to a deity that requires interpretation. The interpreters get it wrong more often than not, hence the divisions. I believe nothing.
        I do agree to a point about science, but we have many, scientific principles in useful, testable working models that were once attributed to gods in the past. Religion merely extends the goalposts every time.
        Every single discipline but one has been explained and replicated in detail. The moment we create life out of inert material (we already have) what then?
        Funny thing, I have a Christian friend who also loves science. There are several revelations in science that are showing the world (and matter) are not what we have thought. So, if we go down that rabbit hole and at the very end we find this is a 3D simulation, he automatically thinks Jesus and Yahweh are the great coders that pulled off this hoax to test his electrical creations with a premise we know nothing about.
        The only thing that makes sense is we are manifested energy. We are 99.99999% empty space at one in a cosmos of its own infinite doing, but he thinks Jesus did that too. It’s funny, but it’s not funny what faith does to the neurons.
        There are some very serious, all encompassing answers to the mysteries, but they actually liberate vs control.
        One of my favorite scriptures is the list sayings of Jesus, Gospel of Thomas 2. “He that seeks will find, and when he finds he will be dismayed, and be master of the ALL”. Dismayed is the perfect word here because the mystery is there is no mystery. We are all part of a single organism in an infinite, self perpetuating happening.

        Like

  2. ”As a theist, I’m open to scientific inquiry”. Really? Or that what aligns your belief? You seem to want to argue, hence the special pleading. Unbelief is really the key. I can easily pick apart every religion, just the same way you can do those not of your belief. A truly clean slate would not accept things you merely wish to be true, but by evidence. My deconversion was based on the outcomes of faith. The conditions it actually creates vs the promises. I have considered all things. My awakening simply dismissed the world as you pretend it to be. If your god were real, it would be self evident.

    Like

    • Science cannot disprove God. So if science is a way to learn about the universe, I’m all for it. But in atheism, you automatically rule out intelligent causes.

      I think God is self evident. But as we learn more about the universe, we forget that it operates rationally. We forget that science has a basis in philosophy. Which does not have a natural cause.

      God cannot exist with absolute certainty because people need plausible deniability. If God certainly exists, hell certainly exists, and any rational person would have to believe in him. Which is not freedom at all.

      Like

      • I think God is self evident.” Belief statement.
        ”But in atheism, you automatically rule out intelligent causes”
        I did not. You have shoehorned in your definitional atheism into me. That is not me at all. Intelligence/consciousness is the cause, but it is not your god. Just ask anyone not raised up in your style bias. But, there is a third option if your interested.
        Natural causes are easily illustrated (oil and water) I do not see any convincing evidence that the natural order of the elements, that they repel and attract needs governance to maintain equilibrium. This game has been going on a long, long time. Even much longer than Yahweh can account for through faith statements. As explanations grow, so does your god. It usually has a long lag behind, but he catches on. No scientific discovery has ever been supplanted by a belief. That is pretty telling right there.

        Like

      • Again. Science is based in philosophy. And science cannot disprove God. Many of the greatest scientists in history were theists.

        Like

      • The trick here is in disproving something that is claimed, that doesn’t exist. Can you prove anything else without evidence doesn’t exist? The premise is faulty and conundrical, like the idea of god, and especially a causer that wasn’t cause md itself. You can’t lose this argument and that’s why theist go with it. It’s merely grasping straws. It’s pure nonsense in any other arena, and makes no sense here as well. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

        Like

      • I can prove that square circles and married bachelors are impossible. But when you say you need evidence, you mean scientific evidence. And you’ll never have that. Because science has ruled out intelligent causes. Once science has evidence, it becomes natural.

        Like

      • What evidence do you have. I’m listening. It must be demonstrable and dependable. Say, like prayer. One prayer should be enough to convince everyone of god, but it doesn’t. Weird. And where are the tools you’ve been promised as a believer? “Greater signs than these follow them that believe” show me. It was good enough for Jesus and he even made the promise. Show me

        Like

      • I actually agree with you about the cosmic energy of humanity. I just call that the soul. If we do have cosmic energy, that cannot be created or destroyed, there is an afterlife. And if there is an afterlife, I want to know about it.

        As far as prayer goes, I think it’s more of an introspective tool. To align our logic with God’s and help us find purpose in suffering. Not to necessarily reverse it, but to help shift our perspective. To help us do God’s will, not to help us change it.

        Like

      • ”God cannot exist with absolute certainty because people need plausible deniability”. You do realize this is nonsense I hope. “People” don’t need this at all. Christianity needs this to implement its faith trap.

        Like

      • Again. You talk like you have proven the non-existence of God. All you know for sure is that you don’t know. And that science will not tell you the answer.

        Like

      • I’m not asking science to tell me anything. Had the idea of god not been proposed I would not have been posed a question of his existence. I was born atheist and gullible like all humans. I think it’s odd that the Bible turns phrases to reward men for something they are naturally inclined to. The natural man is no enemy to “god”. The natural man is the believing man. Look at the news situation; people believe anything at all. That is not evidence for god, it is evidence people are gullible. I think you want to believe, a lot of people do, so maybe you see everything as evidence for some higher cause. “Help my unbelief”. Why on earth would that be necessary, considering what belief is, and what it isn’t?

        Like

      • The only way for faith to be irrational is to prove that God does not exist. But no atheists are prepared to do that.

        Like

      • And are you prepared to prove he does exist? Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. I can prove to you god is duplicated in your neurons and hormones, and the religious experience can be recreated in a lab. And by removing certain areas of the brain there is no spirituality whatsoever. That by withholding norepinephrine during your conversion that your religious conviction is nil. And that can all be done as well with a carefully worded lie, as long as the subject is guided properly to emotion. It doesn’t disprove the existence of god, but it certainly explains quite telling the foibles of human psychology and neurology. The writers and Paul simply played on human weakness, from his time in Athens forward he played on tribalism and machismo. “I know this unknown god” statue. From that moment the king had no clothes but pride held men from calling it. Pride that they renamed faith and rewarded it as a virtue. Who could resist?

        Like

      • I think we both can accept the facts for what they are and draw our own conclusions. I think the case for God is great. What I’m debating is the position that because you lack belief, belief is wrong. Or irrational.

        Most of the disciples were imprisoned or killed for their beliefs.

        Like

      • So killed was David Koresh and Joseph Smith. That isn’t really a benchmark for divinity but a benchmark for fanaticism. Belief is actually the greatest hurdle facing humanity. It’s taken us nowhere and lest unchecked by secular law it has always led to misery. Not really what you believe that leads to this problem, but deeply held belief without evidence has stricken humanity. Millions have died for their conviction. Stubborn pride will do that.

        Like

      • I know they are false by the observable outcomes. It’s never once produced the promised results (except the promised divisions of families and friends) The only thing that makes this belief in god reasonable is everyone else believes too. If you were the only one, you’d be certifiable. If Abraham did what he did today? He be in lockup, which is exactly where he should have been then. If any other religion but your own had that story you’d say they were nuts.

        Like

      • That is special pleading. You’ve ignored the inconvenient truth. I have, just as you, not observed any god existing. I never said there was no afterlife, but it is not the Christian heaven as you imagine. Remember, we need a contradiction free explanation. There’s only one available.

        Like

      • If I told you I had a religious experience, would that change anything? If there was any truth in religion, would you know?

        Like

      • I would certainly consider your experience with sincerity. I would also rule out a few things. But I would investigate it as a sincerity because that is how I am. Im all about self empowerment.
        I have a friend who was cured by a miracle, so he thought. He was so excited because he regrew his bladder. But it turns out that bladder regeneration is fairly common (he didn’t know that) Having a medical background myself I was happy to set him in a firmer reality. His family had prayed over him and he just assumed Jesus healed him (he was not a believer) Did Jesus also regenerate the Hindu girls bladder when the prayed to shiva? Of course not. Things like this happen and are miraculous… until they are not.
        If you’d like an analysis of your spiritual experience from a scientific view I’d be happy to help. There really is an explanation for everything, but they take a little digging sometimes, but not every time. Just a little knowledge.
        I also have a friend that was healed of a chronic back problem when she was meditating. She was met by some spiritual guide on the other side and healed instantly. Maybe she saw someone, but the power of the mind can be amazing if not fickle too. She has stuck with the miraculous as an explanation, and that’s fine. Funny thing too, she knew the name of the entity. It wasn’t Jesus. That to me was interesting because she was raised Christian and usually our anchoring biases play huge part in those experiences.

        Like

      • You see though, by being a prophet of science, you have already ruled out intelligent causes. Saying ‘we see that some bladders regenerate’ is much different than saying ‘we know how to reproduce the process that caused this regeneration, and why that process occurred in this case at this time.’

        Like

      • Medicine is not that far off from knowing how to turn this on and off. Cancer research and deer antlers ofnall things are making wonderful progress on this. It’s just a matter of a few years time. Then would you be convinced? Hardly. Evidence is what you need actually more than me. But by faith it will all be a timing issue at that point. Certainly when we learn the why, we will learn the how. Not that it matters much to me as we all go the way of the earth anyway. What’s a few years of your life worth if it’s spent in a lab? No thanks. Haha.

        Like

      • So what you’re saying is that you hope that science can answer all the questions. That’s hardly justification for telling a religious person that their experiences were false. You simply don’t know.

        Like

      • I didn’t say your experience was false at all. I hinted there may be another explanation. It is very real to you and I’d be very curious if, when you had your experience you got a name and such from the person? That would help. Now, if you were raised in Jesus, that bias comes through in these awakening moments, cross culturally based on the local religions. That’s why asking is important. However, if you ask for a name they actually will give it to you. I’d even be willing to bet it was not in fact Jesus, but another teacher/guide in some participating role.
        I’d love to hear it to the best of your memory. I am very interested.

        Like

      • First off, I came to some conclusions about the brain and psychology that to me had religious implications.

        So I kept digging, and essentially my model of the mind was congruent with religion. From there, I needed to see which religion could hold water.

        So I tested them.

        And Christianity was left. I don’t believe in Christianity because I think it is true. I believe in it because the transformation I went through is similar to what Paul explains in the New Testament.

        I believe in Christianity because of the resurrection of Christ.

        So of course, I set off to falsify my own beliefs. And I simply couldn’t. I could no longer deny the undeniable.

        The philosophical case for God paired with my personal experience and the historicity of the Gospel make Christianity my worldview.

        Like

  3. that none of the essential events of the bible can be shown to be true, and completely different events happened in the place of these events is evidence that your bible is wrong and your god is non-existent.

    Like

    • Let’s just assume all that is true. I don’t agree with it, but we’ll just assume it.

      You still have the same problem. You’ve ‘proven’ that one god doesn’t exist. Not all gods. Certainly not all possible gods. So you have to believe that those other gods don’t exist. Otherwise, your worldview could still be false.

      Like

      • No, I haven’t proven anything. I have a preponderance of the evidence which supports the conclusion that your god doesn’t exist. And I find it hilarious that you now want to claim that I haven’t shown that “all” gods don’t exist so my conclusion that there are no gods could still be false. As a Christian you don’t believe in any other god do you?

        Please define god. As it’s defined in the dictionary “a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship” there is no evidence for any of these. If anything could be a god, then the term is meaningless.

        Like

      • Science is based on methodological naturalism. It presupposes natural causes before it even starts. So I assume you mean evidence outside of science?

        So if we know that God is unfalsifiable, and science cannot prove him, we have to think for ourselves.

        Like

      • No, it doesn’t. But nice try. It follows the facts to wherever they lead. The fact that nothing has ever led to magic being declared the reason for something despite thousands of years of believers looking is good evidence that there is no magic.

        Your version of your god is easily falsifiable. It has plenty of claims around it to be shown false. What many believers have done is try to make their god as vague as possible so they can pretend no one can show it isn’t in existence. But that vague power isn’t what Christians worship, is it? You need the claims of the bible which can be shown likely or not by reality.

        Humans can indeed make up all sorts of things for themselves. That Christians don’t agree about their god is a prime bit of evidence for that.

        Please define god.

        Like

      • So there is no apparent design in nature or the universe? Is it possible that the universe is designed? If so, why is that not considered as a possible cause?

        If the world was not rationally constructed, science would not work.

        I’m fine if you lack belief. But to tell other people to also lack belief when you actually just don’t know if there is a God or not, is disingenuous.

        Like

      • Please define god. I’ve asked you this repeatedly since you want to make the argument a god exists. Why is it that you refuse?

        The universe is not a Dr. Seussian chaos. There is order to the universe, but a designer is not needed. The laws of physics suffice and we have no idea if they are “eternal” or not. All you are doing is trying to make a job for your god. No one needs it or you.

        Most, if not every theist, tries to claim that their god is the creator. All of you have the same evidence: none. Could the universe be designed? Possibly. If so, the designer wasn’t concerned with humans in the least aka not any of the gods you believe or don’t believe in.

        I suspect you aren’t at all fine if I don’t believe like you do. My mere existence shows that your claims are untrue. I don’t give you the external validation you want.

        It’s great fun to have you try to tell me I shouldn’t speak about my conclusions and the evidence I have. The only thing disingenuous is your supposed “concern”.

        Like

      • Because your position is unfalsifiable. For the sake of this argument, mine is too. Let’s just say that I lack belief in the non-existence of a deity.

        We just assume the laws of the physics? I take it we just assume the laws of logic as well?

        You are free to believe whatever you like. Did you choose to be born? How does your existence disprove God?

        God possibly exists, but is necessarily false? Of course not. What you mean is God is possibly false.

        Like

      • Please define god. This is getting very funny in that you won’t and that is what your claims depend on.

        And please do tell me how my position is unfalsifible. That yours is, I know.

        Until you can show that the laws of physics don’t exist and the laws of logic don’t work, yep, we take them as they are. Do you want to jump off a building and declare that there is no gravity? No? So there we are. Still no need for your gods for either.

        This is what I said “y mere existence shows that your claims are untrue.” was in reponse to this claim of yours ” But to tell other people to also lack belief when you actually just don’t know if there is a God or not, is disingenuous.”

        Let me clarify. You claim your god exists and you claim that atheists believe that it doesn’t exist on “Faith”, That I have evidence that no gods exist and you don’t have evidence that your god does exist demonstrates that your claim is nonsense. My “mere existence” as a person who can show you wrong shows your claims untrue.

        And I’m still waiting for you to define god so we can address this claim of yours:”You still have the same problem. You’ve ‘proven’ that one god doesn’t exist. Not all gods. Certainly not all possible gods. So you have to believe that those other gods don’t exist. Otherwise, your worldview could still be false.”

        Like

      • It’s impossible for me to disprove a personal lack of belief. God could exist, and a personal belief that God doesn’t exist is still true. I actually agree with you that you don’t believe that God exists.

        Logically, it’s possible for a world to exist without physical laws or logic. The universe does not exist as it is currently is by necessity.

        My position is arbitrary. The fact that God is possible makes the atheist position meaningless.

        Like

      • oh my. and here we go again.

        No, if your version of your god existed, my belief that it doesn’t exist wouldn’t be true. That you think this is a coherent argument is hilarious and shows you are desperate enough to try to change the meaning of “true”.

        No evidence that it is possible for a world to exist without laws or logic. That’s just something you’ve, again, made up. But since I’m curious, show the logic that says a world an exist without laws or logic. You claimed this is the case so show how you know.

        Funny you should mention “necessity”. Christian apologists love to claim that their god is necessary. We have no idea if the universe existed as it is by necessity.

        Your position is based on unsupported claims. You’ve yet to show that any god is possible and unsurprisingly you still desperately avoid my request to define “god”.

        Could some undefined thing exist? Possibly, but since it has no attributes, how would we know?

        Does the Christian god David worships exist? No evidence for it despite all of the attributes it has. The probability it exists is very small.

        David doesn’t worship some vague thing that might possibly exist.

        Being an atheist in light of the above is indeed meaningful.

        Please define god so we can address your claim “And I’m still waiting for you to define god so we can address this claim of yours:”You still have the same problem. You’ve ‘proven’ that one god doesn’t exist. Not all gods. Certainly not all possible gods. So you have to believe that those other gods don’t exist. Otherwise, your worldview could still be false.”

        Like

      • Surely, if God existed with certainty, you’d believe in him. It would be irrational not to.

        It is possible for a world to exist without rationality. Where the law of causality or uniformity do not hold. Where science can tell us nothing about the external world. No, science won’t tell you that this is possible, because it is based on these principles.

        We actually know that time and space are not necessary. They began. So at very least, spacetime had a beginning.

        So if you’re waiting on science to tell you that God exists, it’s not going to happen. Science is based on methodological naturalism. It’s only searching for natural causes.

        If one supernatural experience is true, naturalism is false. But science already assumes naturalism is true. So if science is the barometer for evidence, your decision has been made for you.

        Like

      • I might believe in a god that had evidence for it. I may or may not worship a god.

        Again, no evidence presented at all that a world can exist without rationality. You need to show a world can exist without cause and effect. I’m waiting…

        Funny how you and I depend on science to tell us about the external world. It’s quite accurate.

        Again, we have no idea what was before the Big Bang. Time and space may have existed. Your willful ignorance defeats you again.

        If your god interacts with the world then yep, science can show that it exists or not. You need to pretend that science can’t show your god, with all of its attributes, since science doesn’t show your god or any of the supposed events this god made happen. Even magic leaves evidence. Funny how we never find this evidence for the flood, two humans being created and being the progenitors of all humanity, fabulous palaces and temples, language changing at some unknown time by this god, a day where the dead Jewish patriarchs were wandering around, the sky darkening, and a major earthquake, etc.

        Waiting for you to show that one supernatural experience is true. Surely you have one, right?

        Like

      • I think Lawrence Krauss and Stephen Hawking would disagree with you on the beginning of space and time. And if time began, there is no causality. Which means that science doesn’t work. A world without space or time would be and irrational one.

        But even if that is false, that is not to say that a world couldn’t exist without time. You’ve admitted that it is possible. And if it possible it is logical. So it is possible for a world without time to exist. Which would be an irrational world. Therefore, it’s possible for an irrational world to exist.

        There is plenty of evidence for a massive flood event in the middle east. David Montgomery, Harvard Geologist, actually wrote a book about the mechanism to describe the event. Was it worldwide? No. But modern scholars have actually looked at the translation and shown how the flood could easily be translated as a local event.

        There was a book published this year about Adam and Eve that actually disproves this hypothesis. Dr. Joseph Swamidass has proven that a genealogical Adam and Eve is actually possible.

        This is all really beside the point, though. You’re attacking the Biblical God. I’m just arguing for the existence for God.

        Search ‘ghost video’ on Youtube. I’m sure you’ll see millions of results. If a single one is true, naturalism is false. I think the only way to determine that all of these are false is to just assume that they are all false from the beginning, which is what science does.

        Like

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 )

Connecting to %s