|
Creator
or not creator?
Professor Steven Weinberg for physics and astronomy
(University of Texas) argues against God.
Professor John Polkinghorne for mathematical physics
(formerly University of Cambridge), now religious, is in
opposition.
/Bild der Wissenschaft, Dezember 1999, 48 – 51/
The eternally boring arguments already aren't interesting
anymore. Without God, a chaos could have given birth to the
world by the fact that the accident worked into this by quanta
from the trifle. And it can hardly be since God isn't kind
well differently, because there would be sorrow in this world.
The other man still finds God in metaphysics and warms the
spirit at the idea of God as the Creator of all the sense in
the matter and its laws. Science can never derive God as
law-giving necessity.
(My addition: Naturally Prof. Polkinghorne calculates
starting from the pitiful state of the present physics, when
you cannot see the things in a different light. But my theory
has done just this: It logically has proved - consequently
derived - the necessity of the Creator for the construction of
this "precision-clock" which is called universe.)
For what did these both Sirs have got professors?
They say the same, what two simple people would tell you in
the shortened sense anyway, one as atheist, the different one
as Christian.
These are signs of the stupidity of current sciences, both
the physics and the metaphysics. These are also signs that
today's cognitions don't correspond to the truth about the
universe. But then, the objective truth must also unite the
opinions over the world, not only the natural powers.
I have presented such a result with my world formula and
its explanations in TBA I, II, III, IV, V.
www.arcusuniverse.com
www.no-quarks.com
|
