- Moderator
- #21
Political Chic, when the foundation is faulty? The builders work will be faulty. And nothing shall stand. That is what you are seeing.
These Scientists are godless men albeit some will promote a false religion out of their hatred of God. They are building their work on sinking sand - not on the Rock - the ONLY Rock - Jesus Christ which is the true foundation. All else is sinking sand. ALL else is sinking sand.
And!
I don't want us to forget the motivation for so many of these godless atheist scientists....
" The multiverse (or meta-universe) is the hypothetical set of infinite or finite possible universes..." Multiverse - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
...wherein each has physical laws which contradict those of other universes....
Absurd, unprovable, untestable....clearly without a foundation....but not without an agenda.
5. One can see several reasons why atheists would embrace a theory such as 'the multiverse,' after all....if there were an infinite number of universes, well, ours is hardly a big deal....and there is less a necessity to bend one's knee to a Creator.
a. And, there is this....the real dunces don't understand that there is no science behind the theory, and believe that they have some sort of 'I know something you don't know' leg up on the theological folks.
6. When one looks as the conglomeration of scientific atheists, for whom antipathy for religion is their sine qua non, there are two characteristics that seem to appear with metronomic regularity:
a. They tend to be Marxist, whose love affair with materialism makes them automatic enemies of any spiritual view.
b. They offer and champion truly crackpot ideas.
7. Marxism cannot co-exist with belief in God.
Take as an example of Marxism in science, the most famous neo-Darwinist, and popularizer of evolution, Stephen Jay Gould:
"He was active in the anti-Vietnam War movement, in the work of Science for the People, and of the New York Marxist School.
He identified himself as a Marxist but, like Darwinism, it is never quite certain what that identification implies. Despite our close comradeship in many things over many years, we never had a discussion of Marx’s theory of history or of political economy. More to the point, however, by insisting on his adherence to a Marxist viewpoint, he took the opportunity offered to him by his immense fame and legitimacy as a public intellectual to make a broad public think again about the validity of a Marxist analysis."
Stephen Jay Gould What Does it Mean to Be a Radical
So prove it doesn't work. The rest of this is irrelevent.