I am gearing up for a new godscience bonanza with replies to a three part article. The first part is aptly titled "
General Introduction for Non-Believers: Part 1, Are
Your Beliefs Consistent with Your Worldview?"
So you can skip part the introduction which is after all just telling you how your worldview is incompatible with your beliefs. So lets skip to the section entitled "Do sceptic's have beliefs?" Okay I am going to go here with the author and say yes we sceptics do have beliefs, after all I believe my mum will love me forever. But that aside, the author cites the book "
Why We Believe What We Believe:
Uncovering Our Biological Need for Meaning, Spirituality, and Truth"as proof of our beliefs. Maybe not the best idea as this books shows that it is a biological need to have belief not some imaginary god.
Then after laying out the sceptical worldview, which not all sceptics will agree with, we get into the deceitful part of the article.
The author states
"So, we have come to realize that
the universe first began to exist 13.7 billion years ago. Atheists are left
with a dilemma, since their worldview requires that all things that begin to
exist must have a cause. So, logic requires the admission that the universe
had a cause. Virtually all atheists say that this cause was some natural
phenomenon. It is also possible that the cause of the universe was a
supernatural intelligence (i.e., God). However, there is no direct
observational evidence for either belief. Those who are "strong atheists"
(not working out in the gym, but having a belief that no god exists) have
just violated one of the main rules of atheism - that all beliefs are based
upon observational evidence. So, any atheist who denies the possible
existence of God violates his own worldview."
Uhmm no, things can spring into existence from nothing. This is been shown using quantum mechanics as well as being observed experimentally.
Also physicists have shown that the other erroneous message by the author is also not true.
idea that the universe could have gone through an infinite number of births
and deaths (the oscillating universe
theory) was shown to be false on the basis of the lack of amount of
matter within the universe, and the fact that any collapse would have led to
a "Big Crunch" instead of another Big Bang."
In fact this is possible, but I guess when you used old references to support your hypothesis these things can happen.
Godandscience or should we say godandpseudo-science?