Wabbitt111
i was forbidden to go into the Wiki link to "The Science of Swing". It's irrelevant to this discussion but in Newtonian Physics the inertia of an object can be disrupted by the application of a force great enough to alter its direction. The force applied to an inswinger or an outswinger when bowling (Anderson seems to be the English favorite) is friction caused by the rough side of the ball. What i am talking about is differnet. I don't know if string theory can hold up in the long run, but it cannot be proven, only suggested, and while it holds possibilities i have yet to be convinced taht science can explain aaway God as Stephen Hawking has suggested. What was the force created by the Big Bang and the Great Inflation and the motion that was fostered by those two events and what residual effect they would have for us today, but it seems logical that a force something like Coreolis might have caused the differences in direction of motion we have today.
My point is that we are unaware of them though they have been here since Creation (since that word is my preference) and that our finding out about them only enhances our understanding of the universe. Like Kevin, i'm sure that the farthest quasar from us could not care less about our existence, it simply
is. In that same way, only less so, most people don't care about that same quasar except that we do have knowledge of it. This is one of the problems that most atheists swallow whole. They have accepted what science has told them or taken the position that unless something can be proven by the senses they cannot accept it. They see perception as being a blindness of theists and yet they tout their own flawed perceptions. People simply
are. We are a given in the equation of life. As a theist i propose that God is a given. As such there is no need to prove God except for atheists who accept that there is no proof for God so therefore God does not exist. If God were to be like us, they propose, they would then accept the existence of God. I say that is nonsense because if God were like us God would be human and therefore not God, by definition. Were we not a given in the equation of life then all sentience, as we understand it, would not exist and the question of the existence of God would never be raised. To say that Elephants and Great Apes have empathy and to try and fashion a god from that empathy (Barbara King) is meaningless to sentience, as we define it (and since we cannot communicate with elephants or great apes we cannot speak for them).
So the attempt here is to get atheists to see that their demands for proof are not necessarily what they think they are. They want something physical that fits their pattern of reality and say that science
provides them that reality. Science, to the contrary accepts a lot of things that are not necessarily "scientific" by their definition and that they have a "religious" agenda that they follow. You probably don't agree with that, and that is okay, too.
