ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2014 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Wednesday, January 15, 2014

The Fifth Horseman 3

In which responses to two more of the 16 anti-apologetics offered in Peter Boghossian's A Manual to Creating Atheists are provided. The juxtaposition of the two anti-apologetics is particularly effective, as it illustrates the intrinsic lack of integrity, indeed, one should say the lack of good faith, of the Street Epistemologist.

ANTI-APOLOGETIC #1 
FAITH IS TRUE

“Why is there something rather than nothing? You have faith that there was no Creator.”

“Bear in mind that an atheist believes that all these miraculous coincidences took place by chance. But he doesn’t just believe that man and woman came into being without a Creator, but that all of creation did—amazing flowers, massive trees, succulent fruits, beautiful birds, the animal kingdom, the sea, fish, natural laws, etc. His faith is much greater than mine.”
—Ray Comfort, You Can Lead an Atheist to Evidence, but You Can’t Make Him Think (2009, p. 2)

This is the best argument I’ve heard for the existence of God. It’s the trump card played by believers. However, it doesn’t work.

There are several related ways to respond to why there’s something rather than nothing: “Why assume nothing is the default?” This is a question that has no answer. As prolific German philosopher Adolf Grünbaum states, “Why be astonished at being at all? To marvel at existence is to assume that nothingness is somehow more natural, more restful. But why? The ancients started with matter, not the void; perhaps nothingness is stranger than being” (Holt, 2012).

Similarly, “How do you know the universe didn’t always exist?” Even if appeals are made to the Big Bang, one can never know either that reality is one endless time loop with Big Bangs strung together for eternity, or that à la American theoretical physicist Brian Greene, we’re part of a larger multiverse with an infinite number of Big Bangs constantly occurring.

Why isn’t there nothing rather than something? On what basis can one claim nothing is the default position for existence? Couldn’t something be the default position, with nothing being the truly extraordinary thing? And even if we do accept by fiat, given our limited knowledge, that something rather than nothing is extraordinary, does that give license to make up answers as to why this is the case? It begs the question: is it better to pretend we know an answer to something we don’t actually know, or is it better to simply be honest and say, “I don’t know?”

The possibility that the universe always existed cannot be ruled out. This by definition casts doubt on a creator. No faith is needed to posit that the universe may have always existed.
The quality of Peter Boghossian's education can be easily summarized by pointing out that of all the various intellectual arguments concerning God's existence that have been concocted by Christendom over the centuries, the best one that he has ever heard was presented by Ray Comfort. This isn't merely embarrassing for him, it should be so humiliating for him that he never again opines in public on the subject.

VD RESPONSE: Why assume nothing is the default? Because Scripture, Science, and Reason all point to nothing having preceded the universe as we presently observe and experience it. How do I know the universe didn't always exist? Because Fred Hoyle's Steady-State Universe theory, which was inspired by a freaking B-grade British horror movie, is contradicted by the theory of general relativity, the discovery of cosmic microwave background radiation, Hubble's observation that the universe was expanding, and both the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics, just to name a few things. You might as reasonably believe in a magic perpetual motion machine as an eternal universe.

As for your appeal to the multiverse hypothesis, if you are going to insist upon an infinite number of universes, then you must admit that at least one of those universes would have to contain a Creator God, in which case the evidence suggests that this happens to be that particular universe. Even if we are assured that in none of them does Sheldon dance.

As to WHY there is something rather than nothing, that is irrelevant. This is not a question of why, it is a question of what. Do you believe that the Earth is older than 6,000 years old? Then you cannot appeal to the current scientific consensus that calculates the age of the Earth to be 4.54 ± 0.05 billion years while simultaneously rejecting its calculation that the age of the Universe is 13.798±0.037 billion years.

The possibility that the universe has always existed was ruled out by scientists decades ago. It is true that no faith is needed to posit that the universe has always existed, just as no faith is needed to posit that you are a clown made out of candy. But you have to be a science denier to claim that either of those things are a legitimate possibility in this particular universe. Now, are you really prepared to deny science and declare your disbelief in what Newton, Einstein, Hawking, and Hubble, just to name a few, have established scientifically?

Or do you have faith in those men and their conclusions? Because I know, I am not merely "pretending to know", that you don't understand the math involved.

ANTI-APOLOGETIC #13
Defense: “Much of modern science and practical mathematics is based upon mere ‘native preference,’ not on any rational proof. Faith is the same.”

Response: “Science has a built-in corrective mechanism that faith does not have. There’s been convergence across all fields of science on virtually all scientific theories since the eighteenth century. At any point in the future, do you ever think there will be convergence on specific faith propositions? I don’t, because those propositions are arbitrary.”
VD RESPONSE: You attacked science by denigrating its consensus concerning the age of the universe and now you're appealing to it? Why, I find myself beginning to doubt your integrity and your intellectual honesty! And your statement is false: science does not have a built-in corrective mechanism. As Thomas Kuhn demonstrated, scientists work within paradigmatic assumptions that they do not question and the so-called "corrective mechanism" to which you appeal is no different than it is in accounting or any other human activity where sufficient divergence from observed reality eventually tends to draw someone's attention. Including, you will note, organized religion.

As for your question about convergence on specific faith propositions, you are quite clearly wrong. We have already observed what you claim to be impossible. History shows a considerable degree of convergence on specific faith propositions; 2,000 years ago, there were a plethora of pagan religions and only 11 Christian apostles. Now most of those pagan religions are defunct and there are 2.2 billion Christians around the world, accounting for more than one-quarter of the global population. In fact, the Bible itself describes the process of this inevitable convergence. One day EVERY knee shall bow, and one day EVERY tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.

Including yours. You can do it now. Or you can do it later. But you will do it.


PREVIOUS IN THE SERIES: The Fifth Horseman 2

Labels: ,

119 Comments:

Anonymous VryeDenker January 15, 2014 5:15 AM  

I love the multiverse theory (I use the term "theory" very generously). I love how it makes anything possible. I especially love how the atheist doesn't see how "anything" can include a creator God, or even just a race of highly advanced beings capable of genetic engineering.

But my absolute favourite part of the multiverse theory is that it sounds exactly like David Icke's inter-dimensional Rothschilds theory.

Blogger Markku January 15, 2014 5:18 AM  

Sure, there is a hole in the victim's back of the head and a bullet in his brain. So, who killed him then? Has anybody seen this mysterious "murderer"? You? No? What about you? No? Anybody?

Occam's razor tells you to not multiply entities. This guy died from natural causes, I'm telling you. That is the default position. Perhaps I cannot currently explain how the bullet ended up in his brain, but forensic science will eventually give us the answer for how such things happen. Or perhaps you believe in Murderer of the Gaps? How convenient for you. Sure, let's just not let forensic science develop, let's just all believe this... this Behind Killah.

Anonymous VryeDenker January 15, 2014 5:21 AM  

Sure, there is a hole in the victim's back of the head and a bullet in his brain. So, who killed him then? Has anybody seen this mysterious "murderer"? You? No? What about you? No? Anybody?

Occam's razor tells you to not multiply entities. This guy died from natural causes, I'm telling you. That is the default position. Perhaps I cannot currently explain how the bullet ended up in his brain, but forensic science will eventually give us the answer for how such things happen. Or perhaps you believe in Murderer of the Gaps? How convenient for you. Sure, let's just not let forensic science develop, let's just all believe this... this Behind Killah.


This would have been funnier if Vox hadn't posted about those killer cops.

Blogger Markku January 15, 2014 5:22 AM  

And isn't it funny how they argue that we are here because we would obviously be in the one universe where abiogenesis happened... But they usually still believe in extra-terrestial life? How, pray tell, would our existence lead to abiogenesis having happened also on another planet in the same universe of the multiverse?

Anonymous dan from milan January 15, 2014 5:22 AM  

I'm enjoying this. Thank you for doing this.

So, I'm reading between the lines and looking for the answer to, "How do you know what you know?"

In your response (on what existed first), you say, "Because Scripture, Science, and Reason all point to nothing having preceded the universe…"

Are these three where you start?

Blogger Markku January 15, 2014 5:26 AM  

They might get ONE Get Out Of Life Free card by postulating the multiverse, but if life is found anywhere else, then there goes that explanation.

Anonymous Pat Hannagan January 15, 2014 5:26 AM  

One day EVERY knee shall bow, and one day EVERY tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.

This has nothing to do with atheism vs belief in God or gods. You argue from a general belief in something, a creator, to a specific belief in Jesus Christ, a very specific and particular interpretation of that belief, that holds mostly to yourself.

Why should an atheist believe in your Jesus rather than, say, fairies in the garden?

Anonymous VD January 15, 2014 5:33 AM  

I'm reading between the lines and looking for the answer to, "How do you know what you know?"

The answer is that everything is ultimately dependent upon axioms. Upon faith in those axioms. This is as true of the godless scientist as the demon-worshipping pagan. We choose our axioms, and the most fundamental one is the assumption "I exist". It can't be proven without choosing to rely on other axioms.

Boghossian has it so wrong that it's almost depressing. We all have faith, we all have trust, we all choose to operate on assumptions we cannot conclusively prove via any means. What he fails to understand is that faith isn't a pretense, faith is a choice.

I start with Reason. Then Observation. Then Documentary Evidence. Then Science. But note that Reason is not my God. The thing is, I must reason "I exist" before I can even begin to observe, understand, and apply the Documentary Evidence that is Scripture.

Anonymous VD January 15, 2014 5:35 AM  

Why should an atheist believe in your Jesus rather than, say, fairies in the garden?

That's a question worthy of being addressed in a post, not in the comments. Save it until I'm done with this series, then ask it of me. But if you want a short answer that I'm not going to further explicate now, it is that Jesus has the power to effect observable material changes in human lives. Fairies in the garden do not.

Anonymous Pat Hannagan January 15, 2014 5:37 AM  

Ok, thanks for that. I look forward to it. In all sincerity.

Anonymous VD January 15, 2014 5:38 AM  

This has nothing to do with atheism vs belief in God or gods.

True, but it is directly related to anti-apologetic #13 and the declared impossibility of convergence. Remember, this is a rhetorical battle, not a true dialectical discourse. Notice, for example, the way that Boghossian switches from attacking science to appealing to it depending upon the anti-apologetic.

It's basically a way of saying: "You want convergence? YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE CONVERGENCE!"

Blogger Markku January 15, 2014 5:54 AM  

You still believe in Behind Killah? Sooo, just one killer, eh? Well, here's Lunatic Bob from the asylum. He believes in one million killers. I just believe in one less killer than you. I mean, you already almost believe the victim was killed by natural causes. Why don't you just go all the way?

Anonymous dan from milan January 15, 2014 5:56 AM  

Thank you, VD, for your answer.

Scripture states that what we believe is passed on "from faith to faith". So what we believe is also a product of who's "faith" we heard of and how trustworthy we decided that person was. So much of what we believe is acquired by others we trust.

There are many components to Christian faith. Also some type of "birthing form above" (John 3), some Spirit-lead validation of the biblical message…

Am I mixing together the Spiritual elements of faith, or is there a purely rationalistic epistemology that works for any kind of knowledge? Does faith in God require other/more elements?

Anonymous Catan January 15, 2014 5:57 AM  

I don't think he even realizes he's attacking science as regards to nothing being the default.

He's not intelligent enough to be dishonest in that manner.

Blogger Markku January 15, 2014 6:01 AM  

Scripture states that what we believe is passed on "from faith to faith". So what we believe is also a product of who's "faith" we heard of and how trustworthy we decided that person was.

Rom 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

Rom 1:17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.

---

No, it says it is passed that way once. From the collective faith of the Jews to the collective faith of gentiles.

Anonymous VD January 15, 2014 6:15 AM  

Gentlemen, don't turn this into another fucking theology debate. Have none of you learned ANYTHING from TIA? You don't debate calculus with people who can't add. You discuss addition. You don't debate literary theory with people who can't read. You discuss phonics.

And you don't debate theology with non-believers, you answer specific theological questions.

Anonymous The Great Martini January 15, 2014 6:18 AM  


As for your appeal to multiverse theory, if you are going to insist upon an infinite number of universes, then you must admit that at least one of those universes would have to contain a Creator God, in which case the evidence suggests that this happens to be that universe. Even if we are assured that in none of them does Sheldon dance.


I think the distinction has to be made between "universe" and multiverse or "inflationary bubble theories," etc. I don't want to 'pretend to know more than I do' but we have universe and we have THE hypothetical "super-universe" that contain universes. Maybe Bog has super universe in mind when he says that we can't dismiss the idea that the (super) universe has always existed. BUT, I think most of this discussion is actually irrelevant to "street epistemology," since the street episto is working with the epistemology of the "subject," which surely doesn't include such subtleties. "Why isn't nothing the default" is perfectly coherent within the confines of trying to refute "why is there something rather than nothing?" For the purely pedestrian purpose it serves, it seems perfectly sufficient, without venturing into territories of arcane cosmology that probably neither party will understand.

To address your excerpted quote to the best of my ability: not necessarily. Multiverse, or inflationary bubble universes only tweak the parameters of the superuniverse. Bubble universes are like unique snowflakes, each formed by the parameters of the particle of dust, or whatever, that specify their creation. What you're arguing for is a naturalistic God, a created God formed on the basis of natural parameters. I can't see how that would ever happen, so it almost amounts to another argument against God. Unless of course, we're talking Deism, and you would identify God with whatever bizarre process it is that governs the formation of bubble universes.


As for your question about convergence on specific faith propositions, you are quite clearly wrong. We have already observed what you claim to be impossible. History shows a considerable degree of convergence on specific faith propositions; 2,000 years ago, there were a plethora of pagan religions and only 11 Christian apostles.


Depends on whether you choose to measure convergence by sheer numbers, or by the number of disparate faiths. I would argue the latter. Say there were five faiths holding 100 adherents. One hundred years later there is still the same five faiths but now holding one million adherents each. Would you call that a convergence?

Anonymous VD January 15, 2014 6:20 AM  

I don't think he even realizes he's attacking science as regards to nothing being the default.

I suspect you are right. But he wouldn't care even if he did. Remember, as I pointed out yesterday, the Street Epistemologist actively avoids everything that will question his faith. He will say anything, and adopt any position, in order to attack yours. This is why intellectual discipline and focus is required to effectively destroy them.

If there is one thing, just one thing, I wish Christians would learn from me, it is to FOCUS SOLELY ON THE ARGUMENT IN FRONT OF YOU. The failure to do this is why so many Christians look so inept and stupid to others. Non-sequiturs are rhetorical suicide.

Anonymous The Great Martini January 15, 2014 6:24 AM  

Ah, I missed the part about pagan religions. (And of course, there were many Christian sects.) Ok, I'll give you that one. Still, I think it's fair to say that faith in general is hardly unified today.

Anonymous VD January 15, 2014 6:26 AM  

Why isn't nothing the default" is perfectly coherent within the confines of trying to refute "why is there something rather than nothing?"

If you want to go that simple, fine. "Because Newton's Laws" is the answer. A something default is no more credible than perpetual motion; it is perpetual creation. Frankly, I'm astonished that you'd even try to defend Boghossian's anti-science line here. Especially since it sets the SE up to get absolutely crucified when he does the usual atheist thing and attacks Bishop Ussher's Young Earth.

Depends on whether you choose to measure convergence by sheer numbers, or by the number of disparate faiths. I would argue the latter.

(laughs) You need to read up on your own atheist literature. I mean, one of the atheist arguments cited by Harris is the declining number of disparate faiths over time. So it doesn't matter which measure you choose, there has been considerable religious convergence over the centuries.

Anonymous VD January 15, 2014 6:27 AM  

I think it's fair to say that faith in general is hardly unified today.

Absolutely. But no one claims the convergence is completed, only that it has observably happened, contra the SE's claims of its impossibility.

Blogger Markku January 15, 2014 6:32 AM  

At any point in the future, do you ever think there will be convergence on specific faith propositions

Well, due to the phrasing of the question: What you think, there is only one correct answer. At the Judgement Seat of Christ.

What, no proof? Well, then you should have phrased the question differently.

Blogger Markku January 15, 2014 6:35 AM  

And of course, at the complain of no proof, trot out abiogenesis.

Anonymous trk January 15, 2014 6:46 AM  

TY Vox for the series.

Blogger Remo January 15, 2014 6:47 AM  

I like the thought of doing it *NOW* and later. JESUS IS LORD! :)

Anonymous The Great Martini January 15, 2014 6:47 AM  


Absolutely. But no one claims the convergence is completed, only that it has observably happened, contra the SE's claims of its impossibility.


Unpacking "convergence," you can't discount centuries of evangelism, which amounts to Christianity having its finger on the scale. And then of course, there's Islam's particular brand of "convergence," if you know what I mean.

Anonymous Josh January 15, 2014 6:52 AM  

I love the smell of charred atheist arguments in the morning.

Vox brought a flamethrower to a knife fight for this one.

Blogger tz January 15, 2014 6:57 AM  

If there is something, then if you extrapolate the death, decay, and entropy backwards, you get something like olympian gods a few billion years ago, not jellyfish.

It requires great effort to create, build, and organize.

"Science" says it just magically happens, but every law they've discovered says the opposite.

And if you posit a truly infinite number of universes (aelph 0 or greater?), then in one, molecukes can spontaneously and randomly reverse and the dead can be ressurected. The 95% confidence in physics experiments become random flukes. We don't live in an ordered universe, but one where "Luck" prevails. But how is luck any less corrosive of reason than angels or nature spirits? Infinite universes destroys the foundation.

Anonymous VD January 15, 2014 7:01 AM  

Unpacking "convergence," you can't discount centuries of evangelism, which amounts to Christianity having its finger on the scale.

Totally irrelevant. Boghossian said it can't happen. It did. This does not speak well for Boghossian's intelligence or his powers of observation.

TGM, like it or not, Boghossian's tactical manual sucks. It's inept. And it's not as if the other 13 arguments are any better. Look at how easily I've destroyed them in 20 minutes of post-coffee reflection. And I am far from the most intelligent Christian out there.

Any Street Epistemologist who runs into someone who has read these posts is going to get rhetorically prison-raped and no amount of Fighting Withdrawals is going to save him. If you want to go into finer levels of detail, that's fine, I can go right there with you. The result will be the same.

Anonymous VD January 15, 2014 7:04 AM  

Vox brought a flamethrower to a knife fight for this one.

Overkill is my idiom.

Blogger tz January 15, 2014 7:05 AM  

Gentlemen, don't turn this into another fucking theology debate. I suppose the theology of fucking is better suited for AGP,but certainly is OT here.

Yet atheists don't even have a Faustian bargain to make. Mephisto at least offers temporal pleasure. Episto offers only meaningless oblivion.

Anonymous Logan January 15, 2014 7:39 AM  

"The possibility that the universe always existed cannot be ruled out. This by definition casts doubt on a creator. No faith is needed to posit that the universe may have always existed."

Since when is talking about mere possibilities at all relevant? I could have sworn that atheists are the ones who are always talking about the importance of evidence. If Boghossian thinks that evidence is as important to the question of God's existence as so many atheists say it is, then the question he should be asking with regards to the universe is the following: "Does the evidence point to the universe always existing, or does it point to the universe coming into existence a finite amount of time ago?"

But notice that he's not asking that question. It would be one thing for him to argue that "there is substantial evidence to support the claim that the universe has always existed, therefore we are justified in being skeptical that God exists and created the universe". Rather, all it takes for him to justify his skepticism of God's existence is that *it's possible* that the universe has always existed.

Why the change from following the evidence where it leads to following the possible where it leads? Ahh, I see now; evidence is important for atheists, until it leads somewhere they don't like.

Anonymous Greatheart January 15, 2014 8:13 AM  

VD January 15, 2014 5:35 AM: "'Why should an atheist believe in your Jesus rather than, say, fairies in the garden?'

"...a short answer...is that Jesus has the power to effect observable material changes in human lives. Fairies in the garden do not."

Amen and amen.

Blogger Rick January 15, 2014 8:22 AM  

RE the multiverse alternative, I think it is typically offered as an "explanation" for why this universe is so finely tuned to support human life, and not offered typically as an alternative explanation to this universe having had a creator. But correct me if I'm wrong about "typically".
In either case, I see a pretty big matzo ball hanging out there in the multiverse hypothesis: if there are other universes and they can have no influence on this universe (say, that they don't have even a common source) then by definition they are irrelevant. Conversely, if these universes have any influence on this universe or, have even a common source, then by definition they are not "separate universes" (a contradiction in terms). I think it stands to reason that if we could even know of an other universe, that would prove it is not "an other universe".

Blogger Crimson Possum January 15, 2014 8:24 AM  

Logan there is evidence that the Hubble observation is incorrect. I have attached a couple videos for your viewing pleasure. I don't agree with everything said in these videos but I do find the evidence compelling. Warning they are both about an hour long. I like the Electric Universe theorys because they don't require dark matter and dark energy.

The Cosmology Quest 1
The Cosmology Quest 2

Anonymous starr January 15, 2014 8:31 AM  

It would appear that the fifth horseman in riding a miniature pony

Anonymous VryeDenker January 15, 2014 8:36 AM  

It would appear that the fifth horseman in riding a miniature pony

Or that he's simply a horse's ass.

Anonymous Salt January 15, 2014 8:38 AM  

"'Why should an atheist believe in your Jesus rather than, say, fairies in the garden?'

"...a short answer...is that Jesus has the power to effect observable material changes in human lives. Fairies in the garden do not."

Is it any wonder that atheists look to man made institutions and their associated dogma as the source of material changes in their lives?

Anonymous Harsh January 15, 2014 8:50 AM  

I love the multiverse theory (I use the term "theory" very generously). I love how it makes anything possible.

I could never quite wrap my head around the multi-verse theory in that universe, as I understand it, means "all that exists." (Apologies to Star Trek aficionados everywhere... in every universe.)

Anonymous A Plate of Shrimp January 15, 2014 8:57 AM  

"Why should an atheist believe in your Jesus rather than, say, fairies in the garden?"

What, you mean to tell me you think there AREN'T faerie folk in the garden?

Turn in your surname, Hannagan.

Anonymous MendoScot January 15, 2014 8:58 AM  

Vox brought a flamethrower to a knife fight for this one.

Overkill is my idiom.


Halibut!

Monty Python is mine.

Anonymous Greatheart January 15, 2014 9:08 AM  

Even though we are born spiritually dead in sin due to Adams disobedience, there is still a kernel of spirit in us that cries out to the creator God. In order to muffle that cry, these anti-theists (I've never met a true atheist) rail against the idea of God to justify their selfishness in not giving God His due. Every time Jesus is mentioned, everyone makes a choice to accept or reject Him. I believe the anti-theist's anger lies in their fear theists might be right. No one likes to believe they are wrong.

What this author does not understand is that the only person who will give up their faith is one who is spiritually weak, or one with no faith and just going through the motions to "feel" better about themselves.

Anonymous MendoScot January 15, 2014 9:13 AM  

Vox brought a flamethrower to a knife fight for this one.

Overkill is my idiom.


Halibut!

Monty Python is mine.

Anonymous Pat Hannagan January 15, 2014 9:17 AM  

There was no Adam and there was no Eve. You're allowed to do whatever you want. There is no Original Sin.

All things are lawful for me, but all things do not edify.

Nothing is true, everything is permitted.

Blogger Markku January 15, 2014 9:22 AM  

If there are fairies in your garden, you tell them lovingly but firmly that God didn't make Adam and Steve.

Anonymous Pat Hannagan January 15, 2014 9:26 AM  

The reality is that people struggle to accept that the universe doesn't give a shit about them.

As David Stove points out, in his "Idealism: A Victorian Horror Story", to even think in terms of the "indifference" of the universe is to give the universe something that isn't there.

Why battle with atheists who are really arguing for a s-pecial place in outer space's non selection of them or anyone else?

The day is not even indifferent. The day has no feelings. The day is the day just as the night is the night.

Anonymous Pat Hannagan January 15, 2014 9:28 AM  

I am now in complete and total agreement with everything Vox has ever said, wrote, or thought. I am no longer an atheist.

Wait a minute....I said nothing is true, everything is permitted. I guess that means anyone can copy my screen name, assume my identity, and write whatever they want.

Or was I just being fashionably nihilist, and really believe there are some moral laws and that people should't be permitted to do whatever they want to ME?

Anonymous Pat Hannagan January 15, 2014 9:33 AM  

Lol, you cunt.

That was not me. Though I love it.

Anonymous Pat Hannagan January 15, 2014 9:36 AM  

Whatever is fashionable I'm against it.

Stick that in your pipe and smoke it, Mangan.

Anonymous Max January 15, 2014 9:37 AM  

I said nothing is true, everything is permitted

Assassin's Creed is one of the most awe-inspiring and despicable pieces of communist propaganda I've ever come across. I'm sure there's worse stuff out there, but I haven't seen it.

Anonymous Pat Hannagan January 15, 2014 9:44 AM  

The thing about nihilism is, why would you even argue for it?

Anonymous Greatheart January 15, 2014 9:45 AM  

Without religion (God), I don't believe there can be morals. Humans are born without natural instincts (save self preservation) and without morals (because self preservation trumps all), so they must be taught how to temper the raging viciousness in their hearts.

Anonymous Pat Hannagan January 15, 2014 9:45 AM  

I actually copied the line from William Burroughs, a sodomite beat author, who swiped it from a purported statement by an Islamic Ismaili fanatic.. What I wrote doesn't really doesn't make any sense, of course, as if nothing is true, then neither is the statement. What I wrote proves the negation of the statement - it means that some things ARE true, and that some things are not permitted, Divine revelation probably being our best guide as to what that is.

I was just kidding about it not being me. It really is.

Blogger ScuzzaMan January 15, 2014 9:45 AM  

The reality is that people struggle to accept that the universe doesn't give a shit about them.

Not really the issue tho. The question is, WHY do they struggle to accept this?

Because there's something inside them afraid of the idea? Or because there's something inside them that says it simply isn't true? Or because there's good reason to believe it simply isn't true?

There's a distinct and telling difference between making assertions and making arguments.

Anonymous Pat Hannagan January 15, 2014 9:47 AM  

You're right, of course, ScuzzaMan.

Blogger ScuzzaMan January 15, 2014 9:52 AM  

Damn, i was hoping for the full half hour ...

Anonymous Pat Hannagan January 15, 2014 9:53 AM  

No, it's not me, and, speaking of William Burroughs, just because someone chooses my name doesn't negate what is me. Reality, though perceived, is what it is. After all there are no ideal chairs, there are chairs, and there are stools, though no ideal stool. One has 4 legs the other three.

Anonymous Pat Hannagan January 15, 2014 9:58 AM  

William Burroughs walks into a bar, and asks, "Can I push your stool in for you?"

Ouch!

ScuzzaMan, you are still correct.

Anonymous Pat Hannagan January 15, 2014 10:03 AM  

I see the universe has resolved itself into one-upmanship. Me against me.

Strike that. The universe has done no such thing. It's me vs me.

Blogger JartStar January 15, 2014 10:12 AM  

The type of atheists who thinks these are good arguments will likely be unaware that he is getting embarrassed by intelligent Christian replies and/or will rationalize victory for himself later on. He doesn't matter, it's the audience who might be around that needs to see the beating.

Blogger The Deuce January 15, 2014 10:13 AM  

I'm going to go out on a limb and surmise that Boghossian is completely unaware of Aristotle and Aquinas' proofs of the existence of God, which all proceeded from the assumption (believed in Aristotle's case, and merely granted for sake of argument in Aquinas') that the universe existed eternally.

Blogger IM2L844 January 15, 2014 10:14 AM  

I wish "infinite regress is not a problem" Bogs would come around here to defend his thesis so we could make him our bitch.

I miss Tad.

Anonymous Luke January 15, 2014 10:21 AM  

Semi-related: Call by atheists to repeal the First Amendment

http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/repeal-first-amendment-28th-amendment

http://politicalresearchdatabase.tumblr.com/post/36611972771

"Section 4. The Establishment Clause: The Government shall not make any laws:

1. Respecting an establishment of a national religion or the preference of one religion over another.

2. Which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another.

3. Forcing a person to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion.

4. Forcing a person to go to or to remain away from church against their will or force them to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion.

5. That punish a person for holding private and personal religious beliefs, disbeliefs or their church attendance or non-attendance.

Section 5. Atheism, Humanism, Free Thinking, Skepticism, and Agnosticism are not religions.

Section 6. Blasphemy is a constitutional right and absolute freedom of speech which cannot be prevented, restricted, limited, impeded, regulated, compromised or have conditions placed upon it by The Government.

Section 7. The National Motto, all currency, and the Pledge of Allegiance of the United States of America, cannot contain any religious, theistic or deitistic language or terminology and must be removed within one year after the date of ratification of this Amendment.

Section 8. Religious, theistic and deitistic: language, terminology, displays, and symbols, will be removed from ALL public properties, including schools and legal settings; excluding cemeteries and graveyards."


===========================================================================
The first two things that came to my mind when reading this were A) it had no exception for minors and B) Islam.

Also rather contentious sections:


"Section 13. Life does not begin at conception and the Government cannot pass any law supporting the belief that it does…Regardless of the point wherein people personally judge or believe that a human life begins…a pre-human being is considered a part of the woman’s sovereign being and cannot be judged of greater value than the woman who carries it. Stem Cells, zygotes, morulas, blastocysts, embryos, and fetuses are not people.

Marriage:

“A civil right to make a legal contract and legal union between two people of any gender to live as a couple, committed to one another, forming a familial and economic bond, pledging themselves to each other in a formal-monogamous union.

Anonymous hygate January 15, 2014 10:25 AM  

My understanding of the flaw in the "infinite universes" argument is that we can't verify their existence because they are separate universes. The theory cannot be falsified. Therefore, the theory is idle speculation. No more scientific than the flying spaghetti monster, but sounding more sophisticated.

And since that's the case, why should it be privileged over a creator God?

Anonymous x January 15, 2014 10:27 AM  

" History shows a considerable degree of convergence on specific faith propositions; 2,000 years ago, there were a plethora of pagan religions and only 11 Christian apostles. Now most of those pagan religions are defunct and there are 2.2 billion Christians around the world, accounting for more than one-quarter of the global population."

The impossible faith argument?
http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nowayjose.html

Anonymous Pat Hannagan January 15, 2014 10:28 AM  

The true atheist doesn't reject God, for there is nothing to reject.

The true atheist is indifferent, just as the universe is not indifferent, but feelingless.

The true atheist doesn't emote about a for or against with regard the existence of aliens or gods, he sticks to facts. Sceptical, as Vox would define the term.

The world is not indifferent. The world has no feeling. It's not anthropomorphic. It is.

Blogger IM2L844 January 15, 2014 10:29 AM  

Government cannot pass any law supporting the belief that it does

They already have. How else can he interpret the laws that commonly allow a person who murders a woman and her unborn child to be charged with double homicide?

Anonymous Pat Hannagan January 15, 2014 10:32 AM  

Yet, we are born with feelings. And those who don't share them we call sociopaths.

Anonymous hygate January 15, 2014 10:37 AM  

That being the case, if a atheist argued against the "fine-tuning" of the universe as indicative of a creator God using the "multiple universes" theory, I would think that an effective tactic is to ask for scientific proof (meaning an actual experiment) that proves that other universes exist.

When the atheist is unable to provide such proof I would then ask that if he is unwilling to believe in Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny, or a creator God without proof then why is he willing to believe in multiple universes.

At this point it is self-evident that his disbelieve in God is aesthetically based and reason has nothing to do with it.

Anonymous x January 15, 2014 10:38 AM  

No True Atheist....

says the reason-monster.

Anonymous reason-monster January 15, 2014 10:39 AM  

Comparing God to Santa Clause is like...

...comparing JRR Tolkein to Frodo Baggins.

I'm an atheist in regards to hobbits.

Anonymous Harsh January 15, 2014 10:42 AM  

The world is not indifferent. The world has no feeling. It's not anthropomorphic.

That sounds like anti-Gaianist hate speech to me. Why do you hate Mother Earth?

Anonymous George of the Hole January 15, 2014 10:48 AM  

Beautifully done, Vox Day. This is thoroughly enjoyable!

Blogger IM2L844 January 15, 2014 10:50 AM  

Yet, we are born with feelings. And those who don't share them we call sociopaths.

Voltaire was right...about some things.

Anonymous Freddy January 15, 2014 10:59 AM  

The Apostle Paul (Acts 17), refuted the hostiles and simply preached to the intellectually ignorant of Athens.

Blogger James Dixon January 15, 2014 11:05 AM  

> As for your appeal to the multiverse hypothesis, if you are going to insist upon an infinite number of universes, then you must admit that at least one of those universes would have to contain a Creator God,

Oh, it's worse than that. One of those universes would have to contain a Creator God who was created the entire multiverse. :)

Anonymous Mountain Man January 15, 2014 11:07 AM  

If the universe always existed, that makes it eternal. Seems like the only thing the atheist god lacks is consciousness.

Anonymous Pat Hannagan January 15, 2014 11:17 AM  

The best thought is, what if there isn't a God?

What if there wasn't any morality, but everyone else was acting like there was?

Or, forgetting the Jews for a minute, imagine a world where there was no Divine mandate and everyone did what they did, just for the hell of it. Everyone agreed there was nothing permitting them or not permitting them to do whatever.

Why do atheists never think of that world? Maybe they have. But I'm pretty sure Dawkins et al is relying on me not thinking about it because the first thing that comes to my mind is killing everyone I hate. And, I gotta tell ya, there's a hell of a lot of people I hate and most of them I haven't even met.

Anonymous Pat Hannagan January 15, 2014 11:20 AM  

And, you know what? What is it about me that the first thing I think of in a world without God is who I could kill?

It occurs to me there might be other options, now I think about it.

Blogger JaimeInTexas January 15, 2014 11:21 AM  

mountain man, you stole my thunder. That is the only conclusion available to the atheist.

Blogger JaimeInTexas January 15, 2014 11:24 AM  

Why the atheists krep babbling the result of their randomness reactioon to random phrnomena.

Anonymous E. PERLINE January 15, 2014 11:31 AM  

Our government has become a colossal overspender. Our government has burdened industry with higher and higher taxes. Our govenment has stymied enterprize with endless regulation. Our govenment is promoting fictional technology for the technology of today. Yet we are busy discussing amorphous subjects like atheism. I think such discussions may be called side tracks, and therefore reactionary..

Blogger JDC January 15, 2014 11:37 AM  

the best one that he has ever heard was presented by Ray Comfort. This isn't merely embarrassing for him, it should be so humiliating for him that he never again opines in public on the subject.

After reading this sentence I'm reminded of the great philosophical movie Blazing Saddles, when the ruffians suggest handing the sheriff over to Mongo. The response is the same one I felt after reading this sentence, "Holy sh** that's too cruel."

Anonymous Brian January 15, 2014 11:42 AM  

Vox, I think you have some work to do on #13. The type of convergence that Bog is describing with respect to math and science is convergence to a supermajority, not to a plurality. Going from 11 to 2 billion adherents over 2000 years is impressive, but so is going from zero to 1.5 billion (in the case of Muslims) in 1400 years, or zero to 500K in 50 years (in the case of Scientology). Taken as a percentage of world population, adherence to Chritianity is actually on the decline over the last 100 years (down from 35% of world population to 32%), whereas adherence to Islam is rapidly growing, which undermines the idea that convergence even to a plurality is inevitable.

Anonymous CarpeOro January 15, 2014 11:49 AM  

" “Why be astonished at being at all? To marvel at existence is to assume that nothingness is somehow more natural, more restful. But why? The ancients started with matter, not the void; perhaps nothingness is stranger than being” "

To fail to be astonished at existence shows not a mind that can't encompass it, but one that doesn't even bother. Not a general hallmark of intelligence or creativity. When I look at a forest in fall from the crest of a hill with the incredible beauty and countless "random occurrences" that make up the vista, I can't help but be awed by God's creation. I'd have to wonder how creative or powerful the intellect that doesn't ponder that could be, or what they are trying to avoid contemplating. After all, the argument for randomness or easy of combination of all the elements involved even in just that vista becomes a bit weak when it not only can't be recreated by man, but even the base components can't be recreated from scratch using any of the present theories.

Anonymous CarpeOro January 15, 2014 11:52 AM  

Oh, and there were quite a few "ancients" with creation myths that didn't start with matter. Most just start with the gods in some place that is not here and them creating the world, moon, and stars. Struggling to recall one that had a world as the start point.

Blogger IM2L844 January 15, 2014 12:22 PM  

I think there are good reasons for why I can't find anything where Bogs has actually used his methods (or anyone else's for that matter) to actually debate a Christian apologist.

Blogger Tommy Hass January 15, 2014 12:48 PM  

" Markku January 15, 2014 5:18 AM
Sure, there is a hole in the victim's back of the head and a bullet in his brain. So, who killed him then? Has anybody seen this mysterious "murderer"? You? No? What about you? No? Anybody?

Occam's razor tells you to not multiply entities. This guy died from natural causes, I'm telling you. That is the default position. Perhaps I cannot currently explain how the bullet ended up in his brain, but forensic science will eventually give us the answer for how such things happen. Or perhaps you believe in Murderer of the Gaps? How convenient for you. Sure, let's just not let forensic science develop, let's just all believe this... this Behind Killah."

Murders happening gas been observed over and over and over again. Hell I could do it. Therefore, believing that somebody blew a hole in somebody's brain isn't a big stretch and the conclusion to make.

God is something completely different. We have never seen an entity like God create a universe before.

So no.

Blogger Markku January 15, 2014 12:50 PM  

We have never seen an entity like God create a universe before.

Nor have we seen an abiogenesis before.

Anonymous VD January 15, 2014 1:16 PM  

Taken as a percentage of world population, adherence to Chritianity is actually on the decline over the last 100 years (down from 35% of world population to 32%), whereas adherence to Islam is rapidly growing, which undermines the idea that convergence even to a plurality is inevitable.

No trend moves in a straight line, Brian. I'm sure the initial surge of Islam also cut down on the percentage of Christians too. It doesn't undermine the basic point at all.

Blogger Markku January 15, 2014 1:16 PM  

And furthermore, even the simplest one cell organism is the kind of a thing that we normally would associate with design, if we look at its functions any closer. Just like a bullet in the brain is the kind of a thing we would normally associate to a murder. So, how is the naturalistic explanation then the default one?

Blogger IM2L844 January 15, 2014 1:16 PM  

We have never seen an entity like God create a universe before.

We have never observed a materialistic or a naturalist actuator create a universe or life either. Yet, here we are. What's your point?

Blogger IM2L844 January 15, 2014 1:39 PM  

And furthermore, even the concept of a materialistic or naturalistic actuator as an antecedent of space-time is completely irrational, unreasonable and logically incoherent.

Markku, you inspired me.

Anonymous dontgetit January 15, 2014 1:52 PM  

Why assume nothing is the default? Because Scripture, Science, and Reason all point to nothing having preceded the universe as we presently observe and experience it.

Exactly how does Reason or Science point to nothing having preceded something? How is science going to trace something back to nothing?

Either you are being intellectually dishonest, or you are a moron. Probably both.

Blogger Markku January 15, 2014 1:56 PM  

I'll tell you why: Because said designer wouldn't subject himself to repeatable experiments at the scientist's will. However, this exact problem exists for ALL conscious beings.

With humans, we get around it by inventing this concept of "soft sciences". But with the Designer, well, that just won't do. For some reason.

A policeman sees a drunk man searching for something under a streetlight and asks what the drunk has lost. He says he lost his keys and they both look under the streetlight together. After a few minutes the policeman asks if he is sure he lost them here, and the drunk replies, no, that he lost them in the park. The policeman asks why he is searching here, and the drunk replies, "this is where the light is."

That's methodological naturalism for you. You search there only because it's easier, and not because it's more likely the answer is there.

Anonymous chi rho January 15, 2014 2:00 PM  

>>Taken as a percentage of world population, adherence to Chritianity is actually on the decline over the last 100 years (down from 35% of world population to 32%)

... just wait:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-14838749

"It is impossible to say how many Christians there are in China today, but no-one denies the numbers are exploding.

The government says 25 million, 18 million Protestants and six million Catholics. Independent estimates all agree this is a vast underestimate. A conservative figure is 60 million. There are already more Chinese at church on a Sunday than in the whole of Europe."

Anonymous CarpeOro January 15, 2014 2:04 PM  

"Taken as a percentage of world population, adherence to Chritianity is actually on the decline over the last 100 years (down from 35% of world population to 32%), whereas adherence to Islam is rapidly growing, which undermines the idea that convergence even to a plurality is inevitable."

Depends what numbers you use. Know how many sects of Islam there are? Hint, more than the two you always hear about. Most populous Muslim country: Indonesia. Apparently the fourth largest sect (over 15% of Muslims) is in the process of converting to Christianity. A bit of news you won't hear from the well informed (/sarcasm) press. I have little doubt that it isn't the only story that was missed. Since Christianity is persecuted in basically any Muslim country, either officially or by the government tacitly ignoring it, there are more underground believers than we are ever likely to hear reported. The number of languages the Bible is printed in and smuggled into such countries continues to grow. It may never show up in a list of sales, because these are paid and often produced by missions organizations. The end recipients get them for free.

Blogger IM2L844 January 15, 2014 2:20 PM  

Exactly how does Reason or Science point to nothing having preceded something?

Real simple. Because corporeal substance is temporal and without a finite temporal beginning, you can't get here from there.

Anonymous Gara January 15, 2014 2:26 PM  

I don't have a lot of time to get into another lenghty debate here, but if anyone is curious and wants to know what a (somewhat more intelligent) atheist would respond to the "where does the universe comes from?" argument, I would recommend the work of Victor Senger. In particular. God: The failed Hypothesis.

In The Comprehensible Cosmos, I presented a specific scenario for the purely natural origin of the universe, worked out mathematically at a level accessible to anyone with an undergraduate mathematics or physics background. This was based on the no boundary model of James Hartle and Stephen Hawking. In that model, the universe has no beginning or end in space or time. In the scenario I presented, our universe is described as having "tunneled" through the chaos at the Planck time from a prior universe that existed for all previous time.

(...)

Prominent physicists and cosmologists have published, in reputable scientific journals, a number of other scenarios by which the universe could have come about "from nothing" naturally. None can be "proved" at this time to represent the exact way the universe appeared, but they serve to illustrate that any argument for the existence of God based on this gap in scientific knowledge fails, since plausible natural mechanisms can be given within the framework of existing knowledge


Theist who point out that none of the naturalistic modells for the origin of the universe have been proved often miss the fact that the atheist doesn't have to demostrate exactly how the world came into existence without God. He merely needs to show that God is not the only possible alternative.

Anonymous chi rho January 15, 2014 2:26 PM  

RE: Islam...

"IS JESUS CHRIST REACHING OUT TO MUSLIMS THROUGH THEIR DREAMS?"

http://www.cbn.com/spirituallife/onlinediscipleship/understandingislam/visions.aspx

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/07/05/is-jesus-christ-reaching-out-to-muslims-through-their-dreams/

Anonymous VD January 15, 2014 2:27 PM  

Exactly how does Reason or Science point to nothing having preceded something? How is science going to trace something back to nothing? Either you are being intellectually dishonest, or you are a moron. Probably both.

You don't get it so I'm the moron? Ah, you're one of those Left Side atheists. Anyhow, it's called the Big Bang, you godless idiot. The scientific theory, not the show.

I won't bother pointing out that you necessarily believe in abiogenesis, since it seems unlikely you will even understand what that means.

Anonymous VD January 15, 2014 2:31 PM  

He merely needs to show that God is not the only possible alternative.

You're wrong. And you're changing the subject. You appear to have forgotten that Boghossian is openly challenging the concept of a universe with a beginning. Explaining away God isn't even on the short list of his immediate problems there.

Blogger James Dixon January 15, 2014 2:36 PM  

> Taken as a percentage of world population, adherence to Chritianity is actually on the decline over the last 100 years (down from 35% of world population to 32%), whereas adherence to Islam is rapidly growing, which undermines the idea that convergence even to a plurality is inevitable.

You do realize that Islam considers Christianity to be an Islamic heresy, don't you? From an Islamic perspective, Christians are merely severely misinformed Muslims.

> He merely needs to show that God is not the only possible alternative.

That's not sufficient if he wants to actually prove that God doesn't exist.

The fact that there could be multiple reasons the tire on my car went flat doesn't mean that the nail in it wasn't the one that actually caused it.

Anonymous Sigyn January 15, 2014 3:24 PM  

I have just enough time for a tasteless joke before it's back to Moving Day:

It is impossible to say how many Christians there are in China today, but no-one denies the numbers are exploding.

But the number of Muslims in the Middle East has been exploding for years now.

Blogger JaimeInTexas January 15, 2014 5:26 PM  

Markku reminded me a joke.

Two insane guys escape from the assylum into a hole. They cannot climb out of the hole but on of them has a flashlight. The guy with the flash light tells the other, "hey, I will turn on the flashlight and you can climb up the light." The other guys responds, "you are crazy and what if you decide to turn off light when I am midway up?"

Now, back to our regularly scheduled programming.


Blogger IM2L844 January 15, 2014 5:41 PM  

I would recommend the work of Victor Senger.

Victor Stenger is just another puffed up idiot with a sheepskin that only those predisposed to confirmation bias think has made anything resembling a strong case against the rational plausibleness of the existence of God the Creator. Maybe Vox will make an example of him too if he gets the time. There's always room for another trophy head on the atheist wall of shame.

Blogger Outlaw X January 15, 2014 6:29 PM  

Including yours. You can do it now. Or you can do it later. But you will do it.

Good point overlooked by many.

Blogger Outlaw X January 15, 2014 6:45 PM  

You're wrong. And you're changing the subject. You appear to have forgotten that Boghossian is openly challenging the concept of a universe with a beginning. Explaining away God isn't even on the short list of his immediate problems there.
The calculations according to Hubble in less than a trillion years if the earth still existed which it won't a man could go outside and not see any stars. Not only that the moon is leaving the earth, This can be measured directly by laser range finders and lines up with Newtonian physics. The earth is losing the moon from its grip.

It is also temporal and the sun will eat it up (the earth). Everyone dies in this universe like it or not. If You can fly away but the universe is dying.

Blogger Tommy Hass January 15, 2014 7:26 PM  

"Markku reminded me a joke.

Two insane guys escape from the assylum into a hole. They cannot climb out of the hole but on of them has a flashlight. The guy with the flash light tells the other, "hey, I will turn on the flashlight and you can climb up the light." The other guys responds, "you are crazy and what if you decide to turn off light when I am midway up?"

Now, back to our regularly scheduled programming."

The Killing Joke. Heh.

Blogger Tommy Hass January 15, 2014 8:15 PM  

"You do realize that Islam considers Christianity to be an Islamic heresy, don't you? From an Islamic perspective, Christians are merely severely misinformed Muslims."

No they don't. Non Muslims are non Muslims.

Anonymous A Plate of Shrimp January 15, 2014 8:17 PM  

"IS JESUS CHRIST REACHING OUT TO MUSLIMS THROUGH THEIR DREAMS?"

If He is, I sort of wish He'd started doing that like a thousand years ago, and saved us all a lot of headaches.

Blogger Tommy Hass January 15, 2014 8:20 PM  

"Nor have we seen an abiogenesis before."

No shit? Did I ever claim that?

Your analogy was utter crap that would be torn apart by any r/atheist.

Blogger JaimeInTexas January 15, 2014 8:26 PM  

Tommy Hass. Forgive me but it is one of those jokes you hear in grammar school and you always remember.

The whole point is not that it is impossible to climb up a light beam but that you do not trust the other person.

Choose your companions carefully and, do not grant the premise if it is faulty.

Which reminds me of another "crazies" joke that exemplify the difference between being crazy and being stupid.

Blogger Tommy Hass January 15, 2014 9:09 PM  

"Tommy Hass. Forgive me but it is one of those jokes you hear in grammar school and you always remember.

The whole point is not that it is impossible to climb up a light beam but that you do not trust the other person.

Choose your companions carefully and, do not grant the premise if it is faulty.

Which reminds me of another "crazies" joke that exemplify the difference between being crazy and being stupid."

I meant the comic book, "The Killing Joke". It shows the Joker turning insane. After he cripples Batgirl, Batman catches him. Joker tells this joke and claims that it symbolizes them really well. At the end, Batman can't help cracking up along with Joker and laughs like a maniac as police cars approach.

One of my favorites, really.

Blogger James Dixon January 15, 2014 9:35 PM  

> No they don't. Non Muslims are non Muslims.

You're misinformed. Christians and Jews are "people of the book". See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_of_the_Book for the basics.

Blogger JaimeInTexas January 15, 2014 10:17 PM  

I googled "the killing joke". I did not know. Learned something new.

Blogger Tommy Hass January 15, 2014 10:29 PM  

"> No they don't. Non Muslims are non Muslims.

You're misinformed. Christians and Jews are "people of the book". See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_of_the_Book for the basics."

Me: not A. You: B, therefore, you're wrong.

People of the book =/= Muslims.

Blogger Markku January 16, 2014 9:06 AM  

No shit? Did I ever claim that?

Your analogy was utter crap that would be torn apart by any r/atheist.


The body has the hallmarks of murder, but nobody has seen this particular murderer. Nor any naturalistic phenomenon that causes bullets in brains.

The cell has the hallmarks of design, but nobody has seen this particular designer. Nor any naturalistic phenomenon that causes life from non-life.

The murderer hypothesis, and the designer hypothesis, should then be the default, even though they have one more entity.

Blogger Markku January 16, 2014 9:08 AM  

Please note that the modern bastardization of Occam's Razor is false. The real principle is "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity". Complexity has nothing to do with it.

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts