the house analogy is the whole pointis not about the existence of god or not. Is invoking god (without any evidence for its existence) to to explain natural phenomena.
The house analogy is to clarify that gaps have already existed (and will already exist). Until 400 years ago, the creator was used to explain planetary motion. Now we have a scientific theory for it. So either invoking god at that point was incorrect, or our current scientific theory for planetary motion is incorrect. But we can track back the planetary theory to other scientific theories, which must be now wrong as well (otherwise our planetary motion theory would be correct) and so on and so forth, until we are left with no scientific theory at all.
(The house analogy is to clarify that gaps have already existed (and will already exist). Until 400 years ago, the creator was used to explain planetary motion. Now we have a scientific theory for it. So either invoking god at that point was incorrect, or our current scientific theory for planetary motion is incorrect. But we can track back the planetary theory to other scientific theories, which must be now wrong as well (otherwise our planetary motion theory would be correct) and so on and so forth, until we are left with no scientific theory at all.
Your watch is BACK,
Wed 3 Oct 2007, 17:45,
archived)
Yes BUTwe have stories to fill the gaps in knowledge.
zealots who cannot accept that they might be wrong and someone else might be right are idiots.
(zealots who cannot accept that they might be wrong and someone else might be right are idiots.
LordManley twitter.com/LordManley,
Wed 3 Oct 2007, 18:11,
archived)