I honestly think atheism is inconsistent with the scientific method. What I mean by that is, what is atheism? It’s a statement, a categorical statement that expresses belief in nonbelief. “I don’t believe even though I have no evidence for or against, simply I don’t believe.” Period. It’s a declaration. But in science we don’t really do declarations. We say, “Okay, you can have a hypothesis, you have to have some evidence against or for that.”
@shortstories I'm taking this from a previous video I mentionned:
The scope of Science is to explain to the best of our human abilities the phenomena we observe. Science cannot demonstrate the absence of existence of God or several gods since that's well beyond observable reality.
Also Science isn't all logical. To make deduction of cause and effect, there must be assumptions made as a starting point that bypass the need for empirical evidence. Axioms if you will.
@shortstories Here's one axiom: The universe exists and everything within it is changing.
We see and feel movement everyday if not just for us being living organisms. While Science is well suited to explain the movement of objects (i.e. Change), you're gonna have a tougher time working backwards to explain the Origin of Change.
That's where things become fucky: If the big bang theory turned out to be explainable by Science, then that's a finite event subjugated to Change too.
Red shift is caused by gravitational red shift and light red shifting as it travels through a medium and does not require a big bang doppler red shift in which all the stars are moving away from us to explain why it happens
