Quote:
Originally Posted by chtulu
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
I like how people use " we can't prove there is a God....YET! But there is" arguments like it makes their superstitions any more valid than the polytheist ideas or anything equally is crazy. So if it can't be be proven than it MUST exist? If that was the case, I could interject that there is a magical tea pot floating in our solar system. Of course, it's too small to see and would never be able to be proven, but since we are using this logic, why can't my belief in the tea pot be any less valid than your man in the sky?
A good quote comes to mind here from Stephen Roberts, "I contend that we are all atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
|
The point is that there are exactly as many facts indicating the existence of a god as there are facts indicating the non-existence of a god.
The disagreement is pointless and needlessly polarizing, and lately the atheist movement has become just as bigoted and unnecessarily hostile as theist movements have been in the past.
Why can't all the wonders of mathematics and physical sciences be our way of observing and understanding the work of a god? Why must there not be a god for there to be truth behind scientific explanations of life, existence, and the universe.
Why can't these concepts coexist?
Believing in Calabi-Yau space is exactly the same as believing in a deity, and we don't (yet) have the ability to disprove either.