- Joined
- Jul 1, 2023
- Messages
- 2,881
- Reaction score
- 3,785
Worth a watch
A few minutes in and I am already wanting to poke a stick through his spokes.
He makes much of the propostrousnous of the big bang in supporting theism, yet science itself is now questioning that very theory, so one plank at least is knocked from the platform upon which he stands.
He is also determined to set up the argument as two distinct camps and we must choose one or the other. This I find to be even more preposterous as it gives no credit to the notion that in fact there might be some middle ground, a third, fourth or infinite number of alternative theories.
From what I have seen so far he is simply saying that because we don't know everything, and maybe can't know everything, there must be a god. That is no argument, it's just a proposisition that has yet to be proven, scientifically or otherwise.