Originally posted by vishvahetu
An interview with my friend Joe
Q. Thankyou for coming Joe, how are you?
A. Good thanks.
Q I understand that you are an atheist Joe, may I ask a few questions?
Q. What is an atheist?
A. An atheist is a person who does not accept blindly, that a transcendental supreme being is responsible for all that exists.
Q. What is responsible ...[text shortened]...
Thankyou Joe, may we continue this later………Ok, but next time can you ask some easier questions
If this is supposed to represent the “atheist position” from the scientific perspective then this is scientifically NOT the atheist position.
“...Q. What is the big bang Joe?
A. A long time ago, when there was absolutely nothing, ...”
That is not what the big bag theory says; at no point in time in the universe's history was there “nothing”
“...and here was a big explosion, ...”
Technically, it wasn't an explosion; a common misconception.
“...Q. What actually exploded a long time ago Joe?...”
Nothing “exploded” because there was no “explosion”.
“...Q. What caused the thing that you don’t know what it was, to explode Joe? ...”
If the standard interpretation of the physical equations and simulations are correct, there was no “before” the big bang and therefore there could be no “cause” of the big bang. To something X to “cause” something Y, X must come BEFORE Y but that wouldn't logically be possible before time existed because there was no “before” time existed because that would be a logical contradiction.
“...Q. When the unknown thing exploded, how did it create all the universes, with all the planets, and with all the complex life forms including us, and all the complex laws that govern the whole thing Joe.
A. Well being a scientist myself, I discussed this very question with my buddy scientist friends, and we all agree that it was a bloody miracle, ...”
No we don't! What miracle?
+ evolution; neither are “miracles”.
“....Q. Joe do you believe in miracles?
A. Of course not, Iam a scientist, and if I cant see it, or taste it, or hear it, or feel it, then I don’t accept it., and my buddy’s and me agreed to call it a random accident, because we are scientists....”
It is not the position of science that we came about by “random accident”. Just for starters, natural selection is not purely random and has a certain level of predictability.
“...Q. I see, so there is no way that a God could have been involved in the design and creation of everything?
A. No way, we are scientists, and we don’t believe in anything we cant directly perceive....”
That is not true; we believe that electrons exists even though nobody has directly seen one.
It is not against scientific method to accept indirect evidence as being as valid as direct evidence. There is no direct nor indirect evidence that there is a God.