Both may sound far-fetched...
...but one is based on empirical evidence. That's the difference.
They sound far-fethed to an uneducated mind, not an unbiased one.
Your argument is like saying "I could say that my car functions because it's filled with a magical liquid...or because it's powered by pixie dust". Both sound far-fetched...but it doesn't change the fact that one is provable and the other isn't. Even if you really really like the idea of pixies so much that your "gut instinct" tells you they exist.
Same goes for the beginning of the universe - an atheist, dealing with empirical evidence, would say they didn't know how it happened. A religious person would say that God did it, thus forming an opinion which is not based on evidence.
To me (at least), the latter sounds less sensible.
(, Fri 24 Oct 2008, 16:22, Reply)