Seriously, what is so magical about Mac build quality?
Worst driver ever.
But perhaps the reason you haven't seen something requiring God is that he's left the universe on overnight whilst it does something that doesn't require interaction...
What I was pointing out was that 'no answer' does not mean 'automatically false'.
But my point is that it is the burden of the claimant to prove their claims true: but only for themselves. It is the burden of the listener to come to their own conclusion. If they need further proof from the claimant, then they should press them for it. If the claimant fails to provide further proof, the listener can ignore the claimant's claims, but still can't disprove it on lack of evidence alone. That is the point I am trying to address.
Instead you add to the stuff you know as things get demonstrated/shown to you to be true. That way you can be reasonably sure that your knowledge is getting closer to the truth over time and that models based on what you know already are more likely to be right.
This is my view of things also. But I do not make any sort of final judgements about things I cannot demonstrate one way or the other. Admittedly I tend to give them a mental grading of how likely they are; but I try not to let that guide my reaction when I find someone who is sure about it. I would rather be wrong because I failed to understand something someone said to me, than be wrong because I rejected it out of hand as being impossible.
I am not saying you have to believe what they are saying is true. What I am saying is that what they believe isn't your responsibility, (nor, as some seem to believe, the right of intelligent people).
Regardless, it's my opinion that if you ever stop looking for answers and say "God did it", you fail as a scientist and should hang up your coat and goggles.
... an infinite number of faiths in all sorts of stupid stuff that
So... you're saying that atheism is stupid? If you narrow the definition down to things people are serious about, then I am perfectly happy with the definition. If you have serious reasons to believe that there are elephants on distant planets, I am perfectly willing to listen to your theories. But I will make up my own mind as to what I believe; and I will do so based on the information I have, not on your insistence that disagreeing with you is, well, stupid.
That said, until something is demonstrated to be either true or false, it cannot be said to be definitely either. That's the point that I am trying to address. The idea may seem to be ridiculous; but most people I meet have semi-rational reasons for what they believe. Given the uncertainty, I am not going to take that away from them.
But I agree with you. There are a large number of ignorant people of various convictions who refuse to listen to reason, and yet seek to push their ideas on others. Of those I find Apple-fanatics the most troubling...
Actually, no. I don't really care what you think. Just stop trying to use science or logic as your excuses for your delusions of grandeur.
... And it must be demonstrably true to be scientific.
It must be demonstrably true to be considered true; but it also must be demonstrably false to be considered false. Perhaps there are people who have found what they consider demonstration of its veracity? Even if you doubt that, you cannot call it false until you have demonstrated it to be false.
Ah, my only gripe really is that atheism is neither the obvious solution, nor a scientific one. It's just another (minimised) system of faith.
"Any excuse will serve a tyrant." -- Aesop