Note: just pointing out the flaw in the argument, not participating in the hoaxer camp.
Fabricating a god because you are not satisfied that 'shit just happened to turn out well enough for you that you survived to ask the question' is disingenuous.
Maybe I'm not satisfied with that explanation because there's no proof life is meaningless? Absence of proof is not proof of absence. "Meaning" isn't even falsifiable. It's not the domain of science. Science is silent on the subject of meaning. If you're waiting for science to tell you whether there's meaning or not to life you're going to be waiting a long time.
Why should I subject every aspect of my life to scientific test? Much of life is not falsifiable. Should I not love my wife because I can't devise a scientific test for love? Should I not enjoy a summer day because I can't devise a scientific test for enjoyment?
There's no proof life has a meaning. There's no proof it doesn't.
I choose to believe it does.
I choose to believe that man is not merely an animal.
I choose to believe that human life has objective value.
I choose to believe that we are more than flesh and blood.
I choose to believe that life doesn't end at death.
You're free to believe some of that, none of that, whatever you like. I can't prove any of it. If you can devise tests for any of those things I'd be delighted to look at the results.
I'm not saying there is a why. I could be completely wrong.
There doesn't have to be a why. There's no way to prove a "why" to that question. But I choose to believe there is. You're free to choose to believe or disbelieve or have no opinion or whatever you like.
So why does the universe exist? Science tells us why (read an astrophysics text book) and it has very good reasoning and experimentation to back it up
No, science gives us a good idea of "how." But "why" is a philosophy question. Why are we here? What is the purpose of life, the universe, and everything? There are no significant falsifiable statements to make on such matters, so the scientific method doesn't do us much good.
My religion and science are orthogonal. I believe in God. His Creation, though, I test.
Science is the means by which we know what is true
Almost. Science is the way by which we find things which are false.
That's what labs are for. In chemistry lab, in physics lab in high school and college we absolutely asked questions, formed hypotheses, designed and performed experiments, recorded the results, analyzed them (including error bars and appropriate significant figures) and drew conclusions.
But yes, for the most part, people who didn't pay much attention or have no real scientific education who Like Neil DeGrasse Tyson quotes on FaceBook see science as a body of knowledge that is queried.
I am not so worried about the patents. Vertically landing a rocket has been described in the TinTin comic ''Objectif Lune...
I'm not a patent attorney either, but I'm fairly sure that works of fiction are not eligible to be considered prior works.
If you have to ask (for your money back) you can't afford it.
What if you're just asking for your money back as a matter of principle?
I back the women. Absolutely. Would be nice, though, if the women wouldn't lump me in with the abusers by claiming that my entire field/group/hobby/gender/whatever has a problem.
Holy crap I didn't realize that. A self-selected online survey? And based at that absolutely meaningless metric, "science has a sexual assault problem?" Fuck that.