[Atheists] decline to offer their criteria for evidence of God, so that anything that the apologist offers can be dismissed just as quickly as it was proposed. ... But when evidence does arise, they will not only reject the philosophical conclusion that it leads to. They will reject the evidence itself, without giving pause to even the most valid scientific credentials. When the alternative to theism is to abandon scientific naturalism and endorse irrationality, that this precisely what the skeptic will do. ... [T]he atheist does not acknowledge the evidence acknowledged by the scientific community, namely, the Big Bang.
We don't? I'll be damned. I must have missed the memo.
Lots more stupid in the article.
As an atheist and a scientist interesting in cosmology and astrophysics I actually don't believe the Big Bang theory is a complete or completely accurate theory. Now this doesn't mean I think some god had a hand in it. I do however think that there are too many complications introduced by the theory as we know it, and that perhaps, we don't yet have a full understanding of what we're looking at. More science!
ReplyDeleteI'm not saying this isn't burningly stupid, but does it hold a candle to this?
ReplyDeleteI'm not saying this isn't burningly stupid, but does it hold a candle to this?
ReplyDeleteNo, it doesn't. Thanks for the tip.