RE: I can feel your anger
July 3, 2012 at 10:14 pm
(This post was last modified: July 3, 2012 at 10:15 pm by Selliedjoup.)
I thought I made the point in my first post. Happy to revisit it.
The number of atheists who view science has disproved the need for a god/creator, as:
1. the total energy in the universe is equal to zero and that:
2. causaltiy is dismised due to the big bang creating time, therefore, causality is only required up to the big bang.
Therefore, no god is required.
So, if these really are the primary scientific points used to disprove a god, I think the atheist would either need to outline specifically why they place so much significane on these points I.e the relevance of the the total amount of energy amassing to 0, and causality being dismissed, (but allowing the invocation of imaginery time) to eluciate their position. The dismissal of a creator by Stehphen Hawkins is not scientifically based, it's based on his belief, yet it's confused as science not what it actually is, the metaphsycial belief of a scientist, nothing more.
So many atheists believe I'm attacking science, i'm not, I'm attacking their use of science to disprove something it has not. If atheists didn't attempt to hijack science as a some sort of atheistic expression, then criticise those who disagreed as being against science, I wouldn't have a problem.
All I require is the admission form atheists that their position is a valid as any, and not take a such a self-righteous tone (which has become a religious tone)
The number of atheists who view science has disproved the need for a god/creator, as:
1. the total energy in the universe is equal to zero and that:
2. causaltiy is dismised due to the big bang creating time, therefore, causality is only required up to the big bang.
Therefore, no god is required.
So, if these really are the primary scientific points used to disprove a god, I think the atheist would either need to outline specifically why they place so much significane on these points I.e the relevance of the the total amount of energy amassing to 0, and causality being dismissed, (but allowing the invocation of imaginery time) to eluciate their position. The dismissal of a creator by Stehphen Hawkins is not scientifically based, it's based on his belief, yet it's confused as science not what it actually is, the metaphsycial belief of a scientist, nothing more.
So many atheists believe I'm attacking science, i'm not, I'm attacking their use of science to disprove something it has not. If atheists didn't attempt to hijack science as a some sort of atheistic expression, then criticise those who disagreed as being against science, I wouldn't have a problem.
All I require is the admission form atheists that their position is a valid as any, and not take a such a self-righteous tone (which has become a religious tone)
