Science is a systematic investigation of nature. You aren't investigating if you refuse to realize when you're getting someplace.
You say you are an agnostic. What's more important to know -- the existence of God or the age of the Earth?
If you have evidence for the age of the Earth, you've been paying attention. If you have evidence for the existence of God, you're either nuts or up for a Nobel.
Right. And, almost by definition, you will be unable to prove the source of that nature through nature -- I almost feel like invoking Godel here. Further, when investigating it is critical that one keeps in mind the difference between investigating and solving.
If you have evidence for the existence of God, you're either nuts or up for a Nobel.
And you are looking for material evidence, which sort of makes my point. The true nature of the universe including the answer to the critical question as to what is our purpose may not be able to be revealed via material evidence. In fact, I think it is impossible for material investigation to address this.
And the existence of God must be addressed whether one has material evidence for it or not.
If you have evidence of the type which will be accepted in a scientific forum...you're up for a Nobel.
If one doesn't know the difference between the types of evidence, they haven't been paying attention.
If one confuses the types of evidence, one might be nuts--or one might feel the issue to be resolved is *SO* important that a relaxation of the rules of evidence, in order to get more information on the subject, might be warranted.
And that point is usually where the flamewars and fireworks begin--argument from authority is not *logically* valid; but saying that does not mean it MUST be untrustworthy or MUST be false.
There are degrees of certainty; some warranted and some not.
Cheers!