Science makes Atheism hard to believe

Con: "Yeah, but it matters if that binary pattern actually applies to reality." It does apply to reality. The construct of reality is what String Theory is based on. The construct of binary code is a fact within the equations used to describe the universe. A fact has been applied to String Theory. The equations used to describe the universe stand seperate from String Theory. It's like saying Evolution is not a fact because Darwinian theory is a theory. Darwinian theory is still theoretical. There are basic constructs within Evolution theory that are not theoretical. They stand as facts by themselves, such as variation within species. If Darwinism is false, that does not make variation within species false. http://www.scientificamerican.com... http://discovermagazine.com... * Con: "He's not a scientist..." False: Berlinski was a researcher in molecular biology at Columbia University, and was a researcher at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) in Austria and the Institut des Hautes Etudes Scientifiques (IHES) in France. https://en.m.wikipedia.org... http://www.universetoday.com... * Con: "Nothing else, no matter how common among atheists, is a "core" part of atheism." It is to most atheists as I've already cited. This statement is like saying the Sermon on the Mount is not a core part of Christianity or the Shahada is not a core part of Islam because not ALL espouse to it. Technically true, but not honest intellectually for the concept in general. * Con: "Define "kinds" please. Change in kind: "For a dog to show attributes outside of the construct of K-9. For a dog to begat characteristics that are not doglike." Example: A dog begats a puppy with fins, a fluked tail, gills, a feline like meow, a chirp, wings, hide, a beak, hooves, a bill, sonar, photosynthesis, ability to change color in seconds, talons, tentacles, 8 legs, etc and its offspring begats this same change to its offspring, then to the next offspring, etc. examplifying a change in kind. * Con: "I disagree that accepting ignorance is a bad thing, at least in most cases." Con is fine with ignorance. * Con: "Infinity is an abstract concept, not a god." Infinity = "all possible things available to Darwinism" by definition and mathematical law, if Darwinism exists. If it does not exist, that would give atheism no explanation for life and lean us heavily towards intelligent design from outside of the construct of our reality. * Con: "I don't know whether God exists." * Con: "we don't know how large the universe is." It doesn't matter. The universe/reality is still one of 2 things: finite or infinite. If reality is finite we are asked to believe in magical thinking which states that a basketball can exist inside of nothing. If reality is infinite, a god exists by default within the mathematical construct of infinity, whether by Darwinian means or another means. * Con uses this statement to give power to Darwinian Theory: "A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge." (Ironically, Darwinism fails the scientific method: cannot be observed, tested, measured...) Then Con does not use the same application to String Theory. Con: "String theory is also not a well-established theory of reality. Even calling it a theory is a travesty of language." (Citation needed) * MORE POINTS: The Fermi Paradox, based off of the Drake Equation states that by probability alone, just our small piece of the galaxy should be teaming with intelligent life if Darwinism is true. Where is everyone? https://en.m.wikipedia.org... https://en.m.wikipedia.org... Hmmm...looks like it's just us...