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, does the inverse.
/Bild der Wissenschaft, Dezember 1999, 48 – 51/
The eternally boring arguments already aren't interesting any more. Without
God a chaos could have given birth to the world by the fact that the accident
worked into this of 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 two sirs have to become only 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 today's 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.