I’ve found that my discussions with atheists almost always lead to some type of discussion about science. For some reason atheists demand that non-atheists show scientific empirical proof to help support our position. They often demand PROOF and refuse to settle for EVIDENCE for the non-atheist position, however, they are perfectly content to settle for evidence for their position. For some reason they hold non-atheists to a higher standard then atheists – hmmmm, I wonder why.

Well, even though there is scientific evidence that points to an uncaused cause, this blog is not about science and I’m not going to provide that evidence here. We are philosophers not scientists. Atheists usually get mad when I say that, but I don’t really care. There is scientific evidence to support both positions, but the point I want to make is that atheists are notorious for ignoring the evidence that points to an intelligent source of our existence.

Atheists rely heavily on science to the point where their insistence of scientific empirical proof leads to the neglect of philosophy and logic. The problem I have with such a reliance on science (I like the way that phrase rolls off the tongue) is that science is not the end all be all of knowledge. Science is a human achievement and as such is subject to fallibility and bias.

Most modern science, unfortunately, stems from the premise that there is no supernatural uncaused cause. As such, much of science is severely biased in it’s theories and conclusions (Hawking’s model of cosmic origins is a perfect example of this – see <u>The Case for a Creator</u> by Lee Strobel pgs 102-104). In doing so it ignores any possibility of the supernatural and attempts to develop theories apart from such a claim. Any attempts to circumvent that bias is met with disdain and outright bullying. If you don’t believe me I will refer you to watch <em>Expelled</em> by Ben Stein. This is actually evident in a recent discussion I had on an anti-theist blog when an atheists who was debating me made the comment that “creationism is solely a religious claim”.

This is precisely why we need philosophy and logic. Logic has absolutes. When followed those absolutes help lead science to very different conclusions about our universe. When ignored, science becomes somewhat of a joke with every so called scientist just making up whatever he/she wants that will help advance their world view. With the ever growing chorus of anti-god sentiment, I’m afraid that other voices are being drowned out.

I would recommend for further reading/study Dr. Michio Kaku who, in a recent seminar on “The Theory of Everything”, stated: <em>”we are on the verge of seeing the mind of god”</em>. Dr. Kaku’s study of string theory has lead him to conclusions that are foreign to what most scientists once believed and still believe about origins.

On a more personal note, for those who are reading this and assuming that I am a Christian, one does not have to be Christian to assert that there could be an uncaused cause. There are many philosophers and scientists who have come to a religious belief in a god through their studies of science and philosophy.

Science atheism and science, evidence vs. proof, Science, scientific bias, scientific evidence