Analysis of Christopher Hitchen's argument against God
- Thread starter OPTIONAL777
- Start date
It is the proof of one scientist's opinion, but sadly it is not a scientific proof.
Of course, much of what is accepted as scientific proof is merely the majority opinion of scientists...not actually scientific proof.
Not saying I disagree with the scientist's opinion...rather I prefer to keep science within its narrow scope...which would eliminate the dogma that currently is taught in the name of science.
Of course, much of what is accepted as scientific proof is merely the majority opinion of scientists...not actually scientific proof.
Not saying I disagree with the scientist's opinion...rather I prefer to keep science within its narrow scope...which would eliminate the dogma that currently is taught in the name of science.
Its not suppose to settle anything..
When atheist say there is no evidence of a Creator .. my point is they are ignorant or lying.
I am not saying there is proof of creator . just some evidence to be considered.
You may reject it... you may say there could be almost infinite other universes.
You can come up with some other idea, you can even say you remain unconvinced....
but do not give me the no evidence statement.
It doesn't matter if all scientists believed it to be...that is not a scientific proof.
A scientific proof is not just an agreement by all or most scientists, is it?
If that were the case, the leading "scientists" of thousands of years ago proved the earth was flat, that the sun revolved around the earth, etc.
That's my issue really with all the speculation of evolution, cosmology, etc. in science...which consists of theories which are unproved, but taken as fact by the masses simply because the masses blindly follow the opinions of the majority of scientists. In the way people used to blindly follow the Catholic Church leaders, etc.
The majority opinions of scientists have abducted the real concept of objective science and replaced it with majority opinion....which is actually better known as scientific dogma...
A scientific proof is not just an agreement by all or most scientists, is it?
If that were the case, the leading "scientists" of thousands of years ago proved the earth was flat, that the sun revolved around the earth, etc.
That's my issue really with all the speculation of evolution, cosmology, etc. in science...which consists of theories which are unproved, but taken as fact by the masses simply because the masses blindly follow the opinions of the majority of scientists. In the way people used to blindly follow the Catholic Church leaders, etc.
The majority opinions of scientists have abducted the real concept of objective science and replaced it with majority opinion....which is actually better known as scientific dogma...
There are those who have faith that there is a God.
There are those who have faith that there is no God.
Both are preachers of faith. 2 sides of the same coin.
There are those who have faith that there is no God.
Both are preachers of faith. 2 sides of the same coin.
Well that's good to know because I have no faith in your non-god.
No I mean lacking in testicles and intestinal fortitude to say what you mean openly ,not like an islamic terrorist hiding behind small children as a human shield.