Quote:
Originally Posted by Angela  The same is true of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and you wouldn't say I'm absolutist and irrational for not believing he exists, would you? |
A 'flying spaghetti monster' (sounds like dawkins words, not yours....) is as specific as the 'bearded man in the clouds' - the description of god that curiously, only comes from atheists.... - and a false comparison. as is this limited definition: "personal, supernatural interventionist"
when you say that there is no God - your saying that the forces in this universe - and the order - including evolution - came - from nothing. poof, laws of physics, poof, elements.....
in my opinion, science tells us the hows, but cannot by definition tell us the whys.
you can tell me how water is boils on a tea pot, but not why.
You can't tell me about the beauty of a canvas by telling me about chemical make up of a pigments -and any scientist who would claim they could is fool ....when science tries to start explaining the whys, or you deny you year for the whys your limiting yourself.....
All i am saying is keep open the possibility that the universe is far far far more complex then we are even close to understanding and Richard Dawkins is truly an idiot and a small minded one at that if he even thinks we are close to - and far more wonderful and incredible keep open the possibility.
If you say there is no God, then where and why did all of this come into being?