More of atheism’s errors of logic

Error: ” In any event, no knowledge whatsoever is required to reject supernaturalism.”

Correction: It only requires rejection of the evidence. It’s easy for the “natural” man to reject the things of God. But it only takes willful ignorance to believe that the universe created itself, especially after being shown the truth:

And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:-
Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:–2 Peter 3:4-6

Willful because it takes a desire to reject the evidence.

Here’s why it’s easy to reject the overwhelming scientific and historical evidence for the Genesis history:

And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:-2 Thessalonians 2:11

Actually it only takes pagan proclivities, and contrary to the satanic and literally self-righteousness of Ayn Rand’s preaching, an irrational mystical religion of spontaneous design, the universe itself designing life, a pagan “mystery” religion as old as 3,000 years:

Saying to a stock, Thou art my father; and to a stone, Thou hast brought me forth: for they have turned their back unto me, and not their face: but in the time of their trouble they will say, Arise, and save us–Jeremiah 2:27

You say the cosmic background microwave radiation supports the Big Bang belief, but that’s cherry-picking your evidence. I already pointed out, for example, that the Big Bang fails to fit the visible universe. In other words, the Big Bang requires FAITH, blind faith, in a universe made up of almost all fantasy props.

Advertisements

13 Responses to “More of atheism’s errors of logic”

  1. timsteppingout Says:

    “But it only takes willful ignorance to believe that the universe created itself, especially after being shown the truth:”
    The most plausible answer about the universe that we can possibly gather is that there was some event that caused rapid (and currently increasing) expansion of a much smaller space. We don’t know what caused it, and saying that we do is making stuff up. Cosmologists are interested in dark matter and dark energy, because the hypothesized characteristics of them make a universe from nothing more plausible. Lawrence Krauss wrote a book on it (Universe from Nothing). Feel free to peruse it if you want a valid response to your criticisms. I’m not qualified to defend dark matter or dark energy

    I was a Deist for several years because of the complexity surrounding this issue. Deism is a belief system that was born during the enlightenment, and was “practiced” by people like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Thomas Paine, James Monroe, and many other “founding fathers”. The idea of deism (and pantheism) is that revelation and creation stories in the bible are implausible, given what we understand about the natural world; yet, the flip side of deism is that the complexity and inner workings of the world are so complex, that it’s reasonable that some supernatural ignition would have been required.

    My only problem with Deism right now is that it’s special pleading – https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/special-pleading

    I don’t blame Tony Flew for assuming Deism in his later life; it’s an artifact of the complexity of this matter. Einstein might well be considered a pantheist (I don’t think he was, but a liberal interpretation and cherry-picking could reveal that – personally, I think it’s clear Einstein was an atheist). If you’re interested in this topic, I’d recommend checking out Baruch Spinoza. He really is a good example of enlightenment philosophy surrounding this matter, though he wasn’t a Deist

    The answer in the natural world never seems to be magic; yet, that’s precisely what Deism posits.

    Ultimately, the problem of any logical fallacy is that it’s intellectually dishonest; that’s not saying that a logical fallacy requires the proposition to be false, it just means that the support for the claim is invalid when a logical fallacy is committed.

    “Here’s why it’s easy to reject the overwhelming scientific and historical evidence for the Genesis history:”
    I don’t believe Genesis. I think it’s wrong – we can walk through line-by-line and talk about what can be easily demonstrated as incorrect. Feel free to check out the following link to see what I mean about that – there’s just too many examples to even begin:
    http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/gen/1.html

    “Actually it only takes pagan proclivities, and contrary to the satanic and literally self-righteousness of Ayn Rand’s preaching”
    Be careful – you’re at the risk of committing another logical fallacy: straw man – https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman

    I’m not a pagan, I don’t believe in Satan, and I think Ayn Rand was an a-hole

    “You say the cosmic background microwave radiation supports the Big Bang belief, but that’s cherry-picking your evidence. I already pointed out, for example, that the Big Bang fails to fit the visible universe. In other words, the Big Bang requires FAITH, blind faith, in a universe made up of almost all fantasy props.”
    You don’t seem to do any of that. As Richard Feynman (and by extension, Karl Popper) would say, if it doesn’t agree with reality, it’s wrong.

    What would it imply if there was an event that caused the universe to start expanding? It would imply that we could observe the universe expanding. As it turns out, we can; Hubble recognized this at around the turn of the 20th century – we call it the red shift.

    Also, if there were an expansion event, there would probably be radiation evidence, as is evidenced by CMB.

    Does the big bang imply that it was at the beginning of everything? Some people think it does, some aren’t so sure – see the multiverse theory for more on that.

    In any event, that about reaches my qualifications to discuss the big bang. It’s not really a huge concern to me personally, but I think if you have criticisms about the theory surrounding the big bang idea, you should definitely speak to a qualified physicist who understands and supports the idea, because he or she will be much better qualified to respond to your criticisms – maybe you’ll convince the physicist.

  2. Gideon Jagged Says:

    Begging the question: assuming the conclusion of an argument—a type of circular reasoning. This is an informal fallacy where someone includes the conclusion they are attempting to prove in the initial premise of their argument—often in an indirect way that conceals it.

    In quoting the Bible, you are doing this. The value of the Bible as evidence of anything rests on the assumption that there is a god who could have inspired it. As it stands, the historical and literary record makes it a composite document with thousands of (mostly) accidental) authors. Every word in it testifies to the ignorance of the world that iron Age goatherders had.

    If you want to use the Bible to further your case, you must do the following:

    1) establish the existence of the god you profess to believe in.
    2) prove that said god is actually the author of the text.

    No one has yet to establish No, 1 – the existence of a god, though Deism (the belief that the Universe had a creator who took no further interest in its work and has not communicated with anyone) is a defensible position, even that has yet to be established as probable.

    Even if No. 1 were to be proven, you’d still have all your work ahead of you. The mundane origins of your holy book are very well known.

    In short, the Bible is your claim. It is not your proof.

  3. Gideon Jagged Says:

    Addendum. You have an unshakable belief in the god of scripture. No evidence can move you from this belief. it is you that are cherry-picking; selecting data (ironically, most often revealed by science in the first place) that supports your belief and rejecting (as you have demonstrated) or distorting (as you have also demonstrated) data which does not. You (attempt yo) alter facts to suit your belief.

    Science alters its beleifs to suit the data. It moves forward from one hypothesis to the next, discarding or modify beliefs depending on what the actual data reveals. It looks at all the evidence, not just some of it. Science’s understanding is always changing becuase it is always looking for more data. This is how real knowledge of Reality is gained.

    Admitting ignorance (saying, without shame, ‘I don’t know) is the first step to knowledge.

    When you’re sure you know the answers and can never be wrong, You cannot learn. You cannot, in the final analysis, really understand anything.

    You don’t have faith because of the evidence. You have it because you have a profound emotional need to believe.

    “If someone doesn’t value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn’t value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?”

    ― Sam Harris

    You are immune to facts and to reason. I will make no further attempt at dialogue.

    Good luck to you, sir.

    —Gideon

    • trutherator Says:

      My faith in scripture is based on solid fact. I’m like the “doubting Thomas” who had to see before he could believe.

      And yet you are the one who believes in a universe made up of 98 percent fantasy, that digital computer code appeared spontaneously in the origins of life, and that there is only one phenomenon that acts contrary to the law of entropy in the universe despite the lack of evidence.

      Come let us reason together. Follow rationality.

      • Gideon Jagged Says:

        News flash: it seems that life may have originated because it INCREASES the overall entropy of a system. Moving things distribute heat more efficiently than things that don’t, you see. Life was an likely inevitability in a universe winding down to maximum entropy.

        P.S. You know nothing of the mundane origins of your favourite book, but I suspect you don’t really want to know that, though it is easily verified. As I wrote previously, you are emotionally dependant on your beliefs. Contemplating the notion that they’re false is painful for you, I know. Believe me on this; I speak from painful personal experience.

        I’ve corrected your misunderstanding regarding Dark Matter and Dark Energy on my website, so I won’t repeat it here. Anyway, actual dialogue seems to be beneath you.

        —G

  4. Gideon Jagged Says:

    It should read “attempt to’ not attempt yo” Pardon my fat fingers. 🙂

  5. trutherator Says:

    Thanks for another good post, Gideon, and thanks for actually engaging the actual points:

    https://trutherator.wordpress.com/2015/05/15/the-universe-created-itself-and-us-in-it-now-thats-faith/

  6. trutherator Says:

    I came back to faith in the Creator by way of science, history, logic, and the evidence of detailed fulfilled prophecy. I made the opposite assumptions, from atheism as my default position.

    There are thousands of us who came to Christ only because the evidence demanded it. See lots of science in places like icr.org, creation.org, and drdino.com.

    • Gideon Jagged Says:

      You and I (and science) differ sharply on what constitutes evidence.

      • trutherator Says:

        Yes, I believe it is repeatable methods followed by repeatable results. Scientific method stuff.

      • Gideon Jagged Says:

        You are using a computer; a device that would not have been developed had not quantum theory been proposed and the scientific method been brought to bear to discover how the universe works at the subatomic level.

        In using a computer to tell me that science of any kind is guesses and fantasy, you are embarrassing yourself.

        The truth of my claim that science is the best way to uncover facts about Reality is the machine you’re typing your words on.

  7. trutherator Says:

    For Gideon Jagged,

    I’m using a computer that was developed with real-world science and using the scientific method.

    (Another pure PR-machine media concoction propagated by the ruling political masters is AGW scare. (See Michael Crichton’s essay “Aliens Cause Global Warming”). Another is the big vaccination scare.)

    The 98 percent-fantasy universe has never been confirmed by science. But you have FAITH in it.

    What has been confirmed in several double-blind studies is the statistically significant effect of “intercessory prayer” in the healing of sick patients.

    What was also scientifically confirmed was Russ Humphreys’ correct (and exact) prediction of the magnetic field strengths of the outer gas giants, based on Genesis One.

    Another one is Pasteur’s scientific-method experiment that shows life cannot come from non-life. Put another way, inorganic material cannot generate life.

    Darwin himself said that if fossils did not fill in the continuum between all major life groups, it would falsify his theory. By his word, his theory is falsified.

Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: