Quote:
Originally posted by GodCatcher
I've written enough already, but remember my two questions.
1. Why is it so hard to accept God as "source" of creation?
2. Can you come-up with a new color, without using black or white or the prime colors of the rainbow?
I'll be waiting for your "go at it" answers.
nuff said [/b]
|
G.C. as to your first question I have answered that in another post of mine, long ago, that perhaps you never read. So I will post it below, so that you can entertain yourself with it, although it is the farthest thing from comic books that you can imagine. It offers the scientific proofs against creationism, or the argument of a designed universe also, from the atheist's point of view. So if you can extrapolate from the post, you will can get a pretty fair picture of my view and answer to your first question. As to your second question, I am not an artist and into mixing paints like Leonardo da Vinci and other artists are, so you will have to go that type of a source if you want an answer to that question. For me, therefore, the question on colors is irrelevant to the issue of a so-called creationist universe. But I can see where you might be so interested in colors, since you seem to like reading the colorful comic books so much. Not putting you down for that because different strokes for different folks, if you understand what I mean.
Here comes my post:
Eddier1
Senior Member
Registered: Apr 2000
Posts: 2452
The Foundations of Atheism
As a Christian doing research at M.I.T., Dr. Hutchinson says, "The marvels of the scientific world are little revelations of God?s creative thoughts. ." --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Folks;
Religionists, like Dr. Hutchinson, have the "notion" that things are the way they are, BECAUSE they believe or have faith that they are so.
On the other hand, scientists have the concept that things are the way they are, BECAUSE they can prove that they are so through the scientific method of discovering the invariant relationships or iron laws of nature, by going from things that are known and making inferences to things that are not known. In point of fact, though testing and reproducing or repeating the results of the tests, scientists can discover a scientific explanation which is biunique with prediction. Such a scientific explanation of the way things are is in a one-to-one correlation with predictability. And the results are the scientific laws discovered concerning the universe.
Theists, on the contrary, never have to prove anthing, because they have "belief". And when in ecclesiastical history, they tried to prove the existence of what they termed "God", they were never able to do it. And so they resorted to believing that it was so; in short, advancing the notion of faith in that it was so. All of it, is without proving that it was so. And when they challenged atheist scientists to DISprove the existence of what they termed "God", such scientists made it clear and unequivocable that they did not have to disprove it, because it was beyond the limitations of human understanding to prove the nonexistence of what religionists believe, which is that there is an omnipotent, infinite, and omniscient being who created everything and to whom they are obliged to worship.
Religionists went on to charge the scientists with having a religion and/or a cult in atheism. But astute scientists have pointed out that their atheism is merely the ABSENCE OF BELIEF OR FAITH, and not a denial of the existence of "God". For the term "god" refers to that which is beyond the boundaries of finite human understanding, and is therefore in effect NOTHING. And anything that is multiplied by nothing, zilch, or zero is NOTHING or ZERO, no matter what it is. Therefore, even multiplying DENIAL by ZERO is zero. And, therefore, atheist scientists can never be accused of being cultists or religionist in their atheism.
Only the religionists can have a religion of nothingness, because they introduce the element of their belief or faith into a failed attempt to prove the existence of "God".
Yours truly,
EddieR