How so? Well you may mean something other what you wrote. In my opinion I feel science can prove nothing to an accuracy of 100% but it can give us a good enough description of our universe and its furnishings for it to be highly a useful tool for the day. Of course the more time that passes the more libel that today’s good tool and its descriptions become obsolete. So did you mean literately 100% or more along the lines of good enough for the day? That is an understandable evaluation, but unfortunately its off the mark by a wide margin. I feel there is an benign reason for the that. The a theist and a non theist perceives the world differently. Oil and water, that is the thought process of the theist’s and non theists mind. of an non-theist different. Anyway, a theist would ask you how to provide direct empirical evidence that a black holes interior exists. Or that a quark exists. Both theoretical entitles one better studied than the other. God is by all accounts a being that is not physical ie has no corporal body etc, and is more similar to a thought than a physical existence. So I would counter (above is the need for different evidences. Many atheists claim something similar to apatheist these days. Also in my opinion most of the time its disingenuous, but I believe you are not in the ‘most’ category. By morality do you mean why does god allow evil to exist etc in the world? Some of the most simple questions are the most troubling. If not that what do you mean by moralistic? Life is strange but I cant wait to test drive the decades to come (I hope I have decades). Yes I would be happy to ffffll, but in another thread. Its an ultra long convoluted story and there are too many chances to derail and go off topic. What was I before that? Ha ha? Yes now and for some time I have been a theist. Thanks for your reply and good to see you again MD. reva
