First, we have rather more reason to assume that the earth and moon exist
than we have to assume that God exists.
Not true. Both "exist" only because we make certain assumptions about existence which cannot be proved or verified.
Second, merely assuming that the earth and moon exist does not allow us to reach conclusions regarding their orbits,
the effects of their gravitational forces, etc.
Most of which are, in fact, wrong. The earth does not rotate around the sun in any "true" way, but only because we choose to look at it that way. Ptolemy's astronomy based on the sun rotating around the earth was mathematically equivalent to Copernicus's astronomy of the earth rotating around the sun. (I've done the mathematical proof. Have you?)
We prefer the latter basically because of the application (or, more technically, misapplication) of Occam's Razor. But Occam's Razor we just take on faith. Like God. Can't be proved. Can be discussed, but of course so can God. But science assumes its validity without proof. Like some people assume the existence of God without proof. (Others insist on proof, of course.)
Assume that God is real, and what have you got, beyond an unverifiable assumption? You can't observe God's
behaviour
Nonsense. If you assume God is real, then everything that exists and happens is God's behavior. |
