(December 4, 2018 at 10:30 am)Cherub786 Wrote:(December 4, 2018 at 10:18 am)Jehanne Wrote: I don't know where you are getting your information; even if true, the majority to most scientists are atheistic:
Wikipedia -- Demographics of atheism: Geographic distribution
Ditto for most philosophers:
The Largest-Ever Survey of Philosophers: What Do They Believe?
It's immaterial whether majority of scientists are atheists or not. The point is that majority of cosmologists and physicists acknowledge the truth that the universe is not eternal, and they generally agree that they have no solid explanation for how and why the universe came about.
They say that the beginning of the universe is a "singularity". Now it is all theoretical, based on mathematical formulas and so many assumptions.
Even these atheist scientists are forced to admit that the questions about the nature of the cosmos and how it came into being naturally lead to belief in God, as Dawkins said:
I think that when you consider the beauty of the world and you wonder how it came to be what it is, you are naturally overwhelmedwith a feeling of awe, a feeling of admiration and you almost feel a desire to worship something. I feel this, I recognise that other scientists such as Carl Sagan feel this, Einstein felt it. We, all of us, share a kind of religious reverence for the beauties of the universe, for the complexity of life. For the sheer magnitude of the cosmos, the sheer magnitude of geological time. And it's tempting to translate that feeling of awe and worship into a desire to worship some particular thing, a person, an agent. You want to attribute it to a maker, to a creator.
Citation needed. No offense, but you Abrahamists have a poor track record when it comes to properly quoting atheists in context. It's a lack of fundamental honesty that seems to go hand in hand with an irresponsible approach to your so-called scriptures. Bad reading is bad. To wit, 'temptation to translate a feeling of awe' is not the same as belief in God, nor does it necessarily result in it. Obviously, since you are supposedly quoting . . . Dawkins.