(January 2, 2019 at 10:05 pm)Jehanne Wrote:(January 2, 2019 at 9:44 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: Thanks. So you were wrong.
Title from your citation: Why (Almost All) Cosmologists are Atheists
"Almost all" does not = 0
Also, the whole bit isn't conclusive. He's stating an opinion and notes that he is.
Even among those cosmologists who believe (such as Professor George Ellis), none of them (him) are claiming anything about the existence of God from modern physics; rather, they believe for other reasons.
They don't need to. We use science to study the natural world.
I've done peer-reviewed work in the past to include through self-study, to group projects, to doing peer review. Never did I feel like there was some inherent obligation that I must include an explanation about God. When you say "physics" you instantly default to the natural world, so you're going to talk about natural relationships. What scientific study does do is evaluate relationships between two or more variables. It doesn't attempt to make claims about anything supernatural, because you can't create parameters for such since they don't necessarily adhere to natural laws, which is why you get the "super" before "natural." I'm certainly not debating whether or not there are a lot of cosmologists who are atheist and believe there was a big bang, but that is their choice. We can't observe a "big bang" from the past, so it's based on conjecture. Conjecture doesn't mean something is false, but we can't conclusively state it as being such without further knowledge. When you start looking at the origins of anything, it's extremely difficult, because if we can't physically observe something, we are forming a conclusion based on insufficient knowledge. I don't even have a problem with the "big bang" as a possibility, but I would see it as an effect rather than an initial cause.
