SorrybutAVG

  • Subscribe to our RSS feed.
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
  • Digg

Tuesday, September 1, 2009

I get comments

Posted on 2:52 PM by Unknown
Woo hoo, I just got my second comment from a theist! I was originally replying in the comments section, but it's an old post so nobody is likely to see it, and it turns out this guy's blog has a rather juicy "proof" of "the existence of an Intelligent and Perfect Creator". It's just damn fun to pick apart, so here goes:

The fundamental laws of physics then require a cause of the universe ex nihilo; i.e., a Prime Cause Singularity that is non-dimensional and independent of timespace. In contrast to endless opinionating of innumerable pseudo-scientific religionists, science recognizes the necessity of a Prime Cause ex nihilo


I think this is not quite correct, but it's actually an interesting topic. He is definitely correct in pointing out the need for some sort of singularity at or around t=0. However, to say that the singularity must be a "prime cause ex nihilo" is making assumptions about the laws of physics and causality beyond what is well understood at this time. In the first few picoseconds after the Big Bang, it may be that causality didn't really exist in a way that is well-captured by our logic.

Of course, when I try to think about that, my head spins. If I wanted to ridicule this answer, I might paraphrase it as "causality didn't exist until it was caused by the Big Bang." heh... I dunno, whether a first cause is necessary is a whole other debate that involves advanced philosophy, cutting edge cosmology, and quantum physics -- three topics of which I am fairly ignorant.

So for the sake of argument, let's move on and accept his premise: Let's say that science supports the idea of some kind of "cause ex nihilo".

Up until this point, the guy's argument has been reasonable, though probably not quite correct. The following sentence is where he descends into batshit-crazy territory:

Being logically consistent (orderly), the universe must mirror its Prime Cause / Singularity-Creator—Who must be Perfectly Orderly; i.e. Perfect.


Bullshit! Oh man, where do I start?

First, he suddenly and without warning injects the word "Creator", thus imbuing agency to this hypothetical "First Cause". If the universe does have a cause ex nihilo, why would we assume -- without any evidence whatsoever -- that that cause would be a thinking intelligent being?! This is classic apologist trickery. He has gotten us to agree to the idea of a thing which caused the universe to come into existence -- and then starts calling that thing a "Creator", with all of the baggage that goes along.

Two, just because thing X caused thing Y, that does not in any way mean that thing X has all of the traits of thing Y, or even that all of the traits of thing Y can be comprehended by thing X. If I chop the head off a chicken, that does not make me taste like chicken, nor does it mean that I fully understand all of the processes going on the chicken's death. Right? Similarly, there is no reason why the cause ex nihilo of a "perfectly orderly" universe would itself have to be "perfectly orderly."

Third, whence this logical leap from "perfectly orderly" to "perfect"? Osama bin Laden is "perfectly three-named", in that he has exactly three names -- not one, not two, but three. Does that mean Osama is perfect?! That's stupid. "Perfectly X" does not imply perfect. And anyway:

Fourth, "perfect" is undefined, and he is gaming us with the definition of "perfectly orderly". At the beginning of this whopper of a sentence, he defines the criteria for being "perfectly orderly" as merely being "logically consistent". But by the end of the sentence, he is implying much more.

Wow. I count an average of one grievous error per five words. That's quite a sentence. To give an idea of just how absurd this is, I have employed the same logic in the following paragraph:

I assert that if Anders commented on my blog, I must have at least one comment on my blog. The previous statement is logically consistent (i.e. perfectly orderly) and I created it. Therefore, I am perfectly orderly, hence I am Perfect. Kneel before me, bitches!

An orderly Creator necessarily had an Intelligent Purpose in creating this universe and us within it and, being Just and Orderly, necessarily placed an explanation, a "Life's Instruction Manual," within the reach of His subjects—humankind.


What? I have to provide an "instruction manual" within the reach of everything I create now?!? Dude, that's going to SUCK... I'm making pasta for dinner tonight, and I don't even know how to write in Pastanese!

Therefore, the Creator's "Life's Instruction Manual" has been available to man at least since the beginning of recorded history. The only enduring document of this kind is the Tor•âh′


Bzzzz, wrong again!

Fuck dude, according to this guy's "proof", we've all gotta start worshiping Osiris. That is going to SUCK.
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to XShare to Facebook
Posted in christian apologetics | No comments
Newer Post Older Post Home

0 comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Popular Posts

  • I win an argument with Dan Cooper!
    I won't bore anyone with the details, but I just totally whupped Dan Cooper (yes, that Dan Cooper) in an argument on Google+ . After I...
  • God takes sides in Survivor: Samoa
    My wife and I were watching Survivor: Samoa last night (yes, I kind of like that show) and a reward challenge involved a hilarious scene wh...
  • Ten New Ways to Piss Off God
    Found a new one today. Leviticus 21:18-20, while not explicitly condemning anyone, bars the following individuals from "approaching th...
  • I feel bad for George Zimmerman, I really do
    The latest news has George Zimmerman completely flipping out and ditching his lawyers, putting together a poorly-designed website 1 , and t...
  • About that Time cover...
    So yeah, everybody's seen it , right? A lot of my Facebook friends are nursing moms, a lot of them are AP moms, a few of them are even ...
  • The disastrous ethical consequences of the Atonement meme
    It has been pointed out by Hitchens and others that the idea of Jesus suffering and dying for our sins is not just repulsive because it...
  • Before, During, and After
    I don't usually blog much about home improvement , but I figured I ought to do a follow-up post to the one about venturing into the craw...
  • The Archdiocese of Washington and Pat Condell
    Earlier today I watched the newest Pat Condell rant by following the link at richarddawkins.net . Then later, I happened to stumble on thi...
  • I guess the Birthers were right all along
    Ah hah, here is the proof that Obama is not an American citizen after all! On a side note, take a gander at the ad for Carnation infant for...
  • Faith is Nihilism
    Bryan Fischer says that not exploiting fossil fuels to the absolute maximum is like rejecting a birthday present from Jesus, and that if we...

Categories

  • abortion
  • accomodationism
  • alternative medicine
  • apatheism
  • atheism
  • birther hilarity
  • bus ads
  • censorship
  • christian apologetics
  • christianity
  • civility
  • colbert
  • cooking
  • creationism
  • death
  • drinking
  • dualism
  • environment
  • evolution
  • facial hair
  • faith
  • feminism
  • file sharing
  • health care
  • hinduism
  • history
  • home improvement
  • intelligent design
  • islam
  • judaism
  • lgbt
  • local farming
  • lolcatz
  • math
  • misogyny
  • morality
  • mormonism
  • music
  • occupy
  • parenthood
  • peer review
  • philosophy
  • physics
  • politics
  • programming
  • racism
  • sikhism
  • skepticism
  • sustainable farming
  • trolls
  • vaccines
  • vegetarianism
  • video games
  • war on christmas

Blog Archive

  • ►  2013 (2)
    • ►  April (1)
    • ►  February (1)
  • ►  2012 (55)
    • ►  December (1)
    • ►  November (3)
    • ►  October (1)
    • ►  September (1)
    • ►  August (3)
    • ►  July (2)
    • ►  June (8)
    • ►  May (9)
    • ►  April (7)
    • ►  March (10)
    • ►  February (4)
    • ►  January (6)
  • ►  2011 (72)
    • ►  December (4)
    • ►  November (7)
    • ►  October (2)
    • ►  September (4)
    • ►  August (4)
    • ►  July (4)
    • ►  June (1)
    • ►  May (3)
    • ►  April (6)
    • ►  March (17)
    • ►  February (10)
    • ►  January (10)
  • ►  2010 (106)
    • ►  December (7)
    • ►  November (4)
    • ►  October (10)
    • ►  September (11)
    • ►  August (15)
    • ►  July (7)
    • ►  June (10)
    • ►  May (5)
    • ►  April (14)
    • ►  March (10)
    • ►  February (5)
    • ►  January (8)
  • ▼  2009 (171)
    • ►  December (10)
    • ►  November (5)
    • ►  October (19)
    • ▼  September (26)
      • Catholic snivelling may have positive effect
      • Happy Blasphemy Day!
      • BBQ and Baptism
      • The obligatory Maher post
      • Religion will eat itself
      • Are pro-gay marriage groups too nice?
      • Can you be a gentile and convert directly from ath...
      • Hitchens' flawed challenge
      • First attempt at homemade baby food = FAIL
      • A Comforting thought about Islam
      • I call a truce on faith
      • Anti-gay marriage ads continue to convince me of t...
      • I am unclear on the difference between atheism and...
      • Pascal's Wager presented and then discredited in r...
      • Could someone who understands modal logic explain ...
      • Scientific evidence on why atheists should be "out"
      • My trailer gets to be a float
      • 1GOD1JESUS puts it better than me
      • If Obama's health care plan passes, American's wil...
      • A new take on Pascal's Wager?
      • A brilliant website
      • You can't escape it
      • X-Men take over the world
      • The modern GOP interferes with rapid diagnosis of ...
      • Doctors have it rough
      • I get comments
    • ►  August (38)
    • ►  July (52)
    • ►  June (21)
Powered by Blogger.

About Me

Unknown
View my complete profile