@ Indian
When I speak of creating a trigger universe using the word "god" only for brevity and do not refer to any of those religions (virtually all) who ask their followers to "believe without seeing."
religions that claim to "faith" and not in the least concerned to scientifically prove the existence of their god and truth in general, can not be considered in a rational argument.
For me, the views of Razzinger not worth more than those of Solange magician or a longshoreman Mexican drunk (with all due respect for the Mexicans who are my friends and greetings).
The burden of proof, if anything, it would be to say that the religion of able to demonstrate the existence of the creator. Religion which, for obvious reasons, can not exist.
Many physicists often mentioned God, but the name "god" is just a folk convention, and no credible scientist speaks of "God" with reference to any deity (and this explains why Zichichi is mostly disgusted by the scientific community).
God (capitalized because it is only the beginning of the paragraph) is the "ultimate truth" which, according to a Zen story, we can not even approach, and is something that scientists know very well but a bit ' as they do when they play in finding a longest sequence of digits of pi, they try to find always a bit 'more.
The difference between scientists and religious women is this: If the pi was god (and it may be), scientists still need to find places while the men would like you to settle for a 3.14 blindly believing in the existence of a final figure (and without even trying to look for).
PS: For me, however, the real mystery is to understand why an intelligent person like you follow my blog:)
0 comments:
Post a Comment