Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Atheists & Agnostics

DetlefK

(16,670 posts)

4. Do we need bottom- and top-quarks? Or tauons and tau-neutrinos?

Reply to AlbertCat (Reply #3)

Tue May 22, 2012, 10:02 AM

May 2012

The universe would look practically the same without those.

For example, the creation of life does not need a god (can be shown by mathematical proof via chemistry, thermodynamics and statistics), but "need" is a very weak qualifier to determine whether something exists or not at all. Guess what: The universe doesn't need YOU.

Occam's razor is correct MOST of the time.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

5 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

How I learned to stop worrying and love atheists... [View all] WillParkinson May 2012 OP

The cartoon is the best part of the article! edcantor May 2012 #1

religious people can be proven wrong all the time gsantostasi May 2012 #2

there is no god: AlbertCat May 2012 #3

Do we need bottom- and top-quarks? Or tauons and tau-neutrinos? DetlefK May 2012 #4

I need them. laconicsax May 2012 #5