28
Sep
09

Time for a fisking

Makarios, do yourself a favor, educate yourself, please? I’m going to give this a once-over for you. It’s long, and I know most of my readers will be bored with it, so it’s below the fold

I said in reply to some comment that I have irrefutable proof of God’s existence.

Probably not

I probably overstated my case.

I’m sure you did.

What I mean is, it’s irrefutable to me.

You see, “irrefutable” implies “unable to be refuted” and not “well, I don’t accept the refutation.” You can argue with the refutation if you have reason, but you must be able to support your case.

It can’t be irrefutable to atheists because they have limited themselves to examinig only a portion of the evidence.

I’m sure, what evidence is being ignored?

More on that later.

Why later?

I do believe that I have proof that goes significantly beyond a reasonable doubt.

This isn’t court, it’s a claim. In any event, I’d settle for that

Is it compelling proof?

If you’d get to the point, we’d see, now wouldn’t we?

Well to someone with an open mind, I believe that yes, it is compelling.

I love this “no true Scotsman” line.

To someone who begins h/her quest with a mind already excluding a whole field of evidence?

What field?

Of course not.

Aww, you think I’m incredulous, Pot, I’d like you to meet Kettle.

To atheists there isn’t proof or evidence of Creator God because they begin their search by ruling out the supernatural.

Well, you see, if we can observe it, and thus merits the claim “evidence,” then it isn’t exactly supernatural, now is it?

Not very scientific but effective for protecting their belief system.

Because your iron-clad arguments can’t get through when we exclude your “evidence” on the grounds that it is meaningless jargon?

I suppose I could say that except for epistemic, experiential, logical, coherent and reasonable evidence for the existence of God, I could be an atheist.

Wo, experimental? Logical? Coherent? Please, let me hear them, this sounds fascinating!

Instead, my belief in God begins with the following observations:

Let’s go

Because of clear scientific (observable, repeatable, verifiable) evidence, we know that:

I’m sure…

. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

Yes, on some level there is likely a cause, but is it an intentional cause? Is evolution always goal directed? Lenski’s research indicates evolution has a random component. Then, there’s radioactive decay particles, they are caused by energy being given off by an unstable atom, but why at a specific point in time does that specific atom give off that specific particle? There are varying levels of causality, and the level to which you speak of (the first cause) is a tired argument.

That we consistently observe this to be true is critically important because scientific naturalists demand that nothing can be believed without consistent observation and verification.

Even random uncaused events have causes, right?

Every single attempt to promote alternatives to this premise have only reinforced its truth.

Except evolutionary biology, radioactive decay, half-life related chemical decomposition, and other random events?

Therefore, atheists have the highest motivation to accept this premise.

That all things have causes? No, not really, not all things have causes. They all have explanations, but not causes. You misunderstand the difference.

Because of clear scientific (observable, repeatable, verifiable) evidence, we know that:

Another one? Damn, science teaches us a lot of things, doesn’t it?

. The universe began to exist.

Well, technically, we know our universe exists and at one point, it was a singularity. We don’t know that it “began” to exist because mathematically, time breaks down below when you approach the “Big Bang” within a single Planck epoch.

Because those premises are true and coherent we can know that the following conclusion is also true: The universe has a cause.

The universe has a cause because you say it does? How do you know? I’ve given examples of things that don’t have causes. There are also multiple types of causality; ultimate macro, ultimate micro, proximate macro, proximate micro, and penultimate. You are trying to equate all of these into one type of “cause.” Unfortunately, you miss that these are very distinct types of causality. Additionally, when dealing with proximate macro causality, there are intentional proximate causations and unintentional proximate causations. So trying to claim that this distinct penultimate cause exists because the other types of causations do is quite silly.

Because of clear scientific evidence, we know that:

Wait, let me interrupt; because of clear scientific evidence, we know that humans will instinctively try to assign causality to random events. Anyway, your point?

. Matter and energy cannot precede themselves or preexist themselves either physically or chronologically.

And?

The reason that matter and energy cannot precede themselves is because “Coming Into Being” is an essential and objective feature of time.

And?

Time did not exist prior to the Big Bang.

And? So you’re trying to say that if we’re right, the universe didn’t exist? I don’t think there is a single physicist out there whose models are saying that. But hey, I’m sure you know their models better than they do.

Because of clear scientific evidence, we know that:

Please, get on with it.

. Matter and energy do not have the ability to create themselves or bring themselves into existence from nothing or ex nihilo.

Oh, you mean like virtual particles?

Because of clear scientific evidence, we know that:

I’m sure you think so…

. Matter and energy cannot exist from infinity past.

What? I’m pretty good at understanding scientific evidence, but this makes no sense.

Therefore, whatever brought matter, energy, space, time and the laws of physics into existence had to have existed outside of these entities.

Except for, perhaps, virtual particle asymmetry resulting in a cascade of particle condensation?

Because of clear scientific evidence, we know that:

Damn, do you ever get tired of this line? Pretending something is scientific when it’s really a gross misunderstanding of the science?

. Anything that exists has an explanation of it’s existence, either in the necessity of its own nature (It can’t NOT exist), or in an external cause.

“So god,” right?

. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is external to as well as transcendent to the universe. That is because:

Yep, I predicted it, how did I predict that, I haven’t read it yet, oh, right, it’s an argument I’ve heard before. The explanation is not the cause. I can explain how my iPod works by invoking magic, that doesn’t me that is the cause.

Existing outside of time, the Cause is infinite or Eternal,
Existing outside of matter (which is finite), the Cause is immaterial or Spiritual,
Existing as the Cause of time and energy, space, matter and the laws of physics, the Cause is immeasurably more powerful than the mathematically precise universe and its exquisitely Finely Tuned constants and quantities.
The Cause cannot be “scientific” because neither matter nor the laws of physics (i.e., the laws that science has observed and identified), existed prior to the Singularity.
Therefore the Cause of the beginning of the universe is not scientific but Personal.
The transcendent Cause of the universe is therefore on the order of a Mind.
That Cause is omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent. That Cause, is what is normally described as God.

Here is a wiki explanation. It’s simple, you’ll like it.

Because of clear scientific evidence, we know that:

Yes, I’m sure…

. The universe exists.

. Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence.

Yea, but that doesn’t mean it has a cause…

Because the above premises are true and coherent, the following conclusion must also be true: The explanation of the existence of the universe is God

But the premises are not all true, the logic is not flawless, and you haven’t proven a thing.

. According to atheism the universe doesn’t have an explanation of its existence. They say that “It just happened.”

It is called a point of ignorance. Just because we don’t know doesn’t make your claim to know any more valid. You must support YOUR claim.

Over a dozen theories and over a dozen more variations on those theories have come and gone in a vain attempt to rule out God as the Cause of a beginning universe.

You see, we’re not trying to rule out a deity, we’re trying to understand what is happening. If we can observe this deity, great, we’ve found a supernatural entity. That does not mean that it is your notion of a deity, nor that it cares about us.

Despite the current scientific knowledge described above, atheists persist in stating that either matter has always existed (impossible) or that matter created itself (also impossible).

Well, because time, energy, and mass are all related to one another, yes, it is possible.

Why do they do this? Because >

Because each property is an extension of interactions of the other two. It’s trying to have a triangle with two sides.

. If there is an explanation of the universe’s existence, then atheism is not true.

All because you say so?

And that is because the only explanation that fits the evidence of how and why the universe came into being is Creator God.

What evidence do you have (for the existence of this deity, not your own ignorance of science)?

That is why Richard Dawkins himself has lately admitted that a good case could be made for the existence of a Deistic God.

No, not deistic, pantheistic; the metaphorical god.

Actually, I believe that some day there won’t be any atheists.

So long as religion exists, so too will atheism.

There will be people for God and people against God but there won’t be anyone who believes that God doesn’t exist.

This is an interesting prediction. Let’s see how that plays out, right, we won’t, we’ll both be dead.

And, irony of ironies it will be science that will prove the existence of God.

Wait, what?

As one atheist single mother of two said recently, “A big fuck-you to anyone who believes in original sin. The christian god, should it exist, should be fought and resisted by every MORAL person who has ever lived.”

Yes, because the actions of parents are the responsibility of the child, how compassionate.

Mmm, I’m wandering off topic . . .

You seem to do that frequently

. Because of overwhelming scientific evidence, most atheists do grudgingly admit that the universe does indeed have a beginning.

Not exactly, it’s kind of like the question “when did life begin?”–well, how do you define “life” or “the universe” or “time.”

Unfortunately for atheists, it can be said with absolute confidence that no cosmogonic model has been:
As repeatedly verified in its predictions,
As corroborated by attempts at its falsification,
As concordant with empirical discoveries, and
As philosophically coherent as the Standard Big Bang Creation Event Model.

…this is really getting old, I’ll do a few more, I didn’t realize how full of hot air you actually were. I’m waiting on any predictions this model is going to make.

. Hence, most atheists are implicitly committed to God being the explanation of why the universe exists. This is why I call atheists irrational agnostics.

Because you don’t understand the basics of argument, science, or logic.

It’s a shame that you are mentally abusing seven innocent children.

Advertisements

3 Responses to “Time for a fisking”


  1. 1 Richard
    September 28, 2009 at 5:56 pm

    I think people /really/ don’t get science.

    “Matter can never, ever just appear” isn’t really a claim that we could make, scientifically.

    Conservation of energy (for instance) isn’t some axiomatic rule of logic. It’s simply something that seems to happen most of the time, and lets us make consistently useful predictions.

    Universes could just be one of those things which happen from time to time.

  2. September 28, 2009 at 6:27 pm

    So….he worships the Big Bang then? Why is it that he seems to imply that this much esteemed first cause had any role or existence beyond its brief stint in the similarly esteemed field of first causing? Existing outside of time, it is timeless, not necessarily eternal. And this: “Therefore the Cause of the beginning of the universe is not scientific but Personal.
    The transcendent Cause of the universe is therefore on the order of a Mind. That Cause is omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent.”
    That was the biggest fucking leap I have ever seen in the history of jumping to conclusions. That’s one for the record books.

  3. 3 jaredcormier
    September 28, 2009 at 6:51 pm

    I get a kick out of this shit; it’s like he knows he doesn’t understand it, so he argues about it. I (the smug atheist I am) can admit my ignorance, while the nice Christians can’t….


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Join the best atheist themed blogroll!

RSS Adventures in Ethics and Science

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.

RSS Blag Hag

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.

RSS denialism blog

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.

RSS ERV

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.

RSS Greg Laden’s Blog

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.

RSS Laelaps

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.

RSS Lawful Good Wonk

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.

RSS Living the Scientific Life (Scientist, Interrupted)

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.

RSS Pharyngula

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.

RSS Tetrapod Zoology

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.

RSS White Coat underground

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.

Older stuff

wordpress stats

%d bloggers like this: