Image via WikipediaContinuing our look at Alex Rosenberg’s The Atheist’s Guide to Reality, we come to Rosenberg’s treatment of the question “Where did the big bang come from?”...."[T]he dispute between atheism and theism is at bottom a philosophical dispute, not a scientific one." -- Edward Feser, in the combox of the above post, here.
10 comments:
No, it's a matter of intellectual honesty; if you're willing and happy to accept a BS non-answer like "I don't know the real answer, so it must be magic" to a serious question, then you'll be willing and happy to accept that non-answer for almost anything. If you want to know the REAL answer to a question like that, then you'll keep looking until you find an answer that is testable and supported by evidence.
SDC
Awesome argument, nony, (not). Lets see your scientific proof for the non-existence of God. Not being able to prove the existence of God is NOT proof of His non-existence. Can you even describe a potential test that would yield a definitive scientific answer? If not, then perhaps the question is currently best left within the realm of philosophy rather than science.
I won't accuse you of intellectual dishonesty, but I will level an accusation of lack of intellectual rigor in your argument.
Speaking of magic there SDC, how are those two big buckets of nothing working out for you? Anything approaching singularity yet?
Just remember in SDC's world believing something comes from nothing for no reason is being "intellectually honest". BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! And SDC wonders why I don't give him any clues. BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! Giving clues to the clueless HAHAHAHA now there is an exercise almost as futile as waiting for something to come from nothing for no reason!
Not being able to prove the non-existence of unicorns is also NOT proof of their non-existence, fool, or did you not bother to think through the "logic" that you're using? This is why the onus is on those who are making the claim of existence to PROVE said existence, and it's also why your chosen cult has no more validity behind it than any other cult does. How's that for intellectual rigour? Second, the pinhead posting just below you, Joe, has claimed on more than one occasion to be able to TEST his imaginary "god" (thereby apparently "proving" said imaginary "gods" existence), but he absolutely refuses to explain how this test is supposed to be conducted; that means that he is either simply LYING about this "test", or that he realizes that this "test" is nothing of the sort, and is no better than the laughable sort of wishful thinking that ALL cults indulge in.
SDC
But SDC I gave you two buckets of nothing with which you could test your theory and you haven't gotten back to me on that one yet. Once you achieve singularity by combining those two buckets of nothing then we can move on to test my theory. One thing at a time dear boy one thing at a time. Kids these days. No patience and fewer brains. sheesh.
Joe. It occurs to me that we have been looking at things too narrowly. I think SDC may be right, and we may be wrong. Here's why. In a multiverse of universes, there are going to be universes with one bucket, universes with three, four buckets, universes with no (gasp) buckets. We just happen to be the universe that got the two buckets... and these are the magic buckets!!!!
Given enough universes, and enough buckets of nothing, it's not inconceivable that a universe like ours -- with its sleek physical laws, underlying mathematics, exquisite fine-tuning of constants and constraint would pop up at least once. In fact, given an infinite number of universes and even twice as many buckets (on average), a universe like ours is... inevitable.
No god needed!
We thought we were on to Something, but why settle for something when you can have Nothing? It's Occam's razor. Somewhere in that shadowy bucket of Nothing, there was a shadowy flint of an Occam's razor just waiting to emerge!
How many OTHER things are you prepared to take "I don't know, so it must be magic" as an "answer" for, Joe and Richard? It's apparent that you certainly don't need anything in the way of solid evidence or logic in order to believe a claim, so are there ANY claims that you're willing to believe on the basis of 2000-yr old fairy tales, or just this particular one?
SDC
"It's apparent that you certainly don't need anything in the way of solid evidence or logic"
Did you actually write that SDC???? Do you even know what EVIDENCE and LOGIC is? According to you logical reasoning says 'something comes from nothing for no reason'. Ever see ANY evidence that might back up that logic?
On the other hand Richard's infinite number of infinite universes is intriguing until you do the math. After all an infinite number to the power of infinity multiplied by zero is zero.
Hickory Dickory Doc. Three mice mice ran up the clock.
Joe mouse turns to Richard and SDC mouse and says, "I believe we are in a designed clock".
Richard mouse does some deep thought and some careful observation and says, "I think you are right Joe mouse. "Look at the precision of the wheels and springs". "They had to be designed."
SDC mouse rolls his eyes and says, "Get serious there is no magic man to design a clock so the thing we are in can not be designed". Besides", says SDC mouse, "I've seen previous editions of this thing and it is quite evident that this thing evolved from its ancestors." "In fact" continues SDC mouse "all these things have that spring thing so obviously they had to have evolved from a common ancestor."
"Oh", says Richard mouse, "so those finely balanced wheels and clearly cut cogs just grew there because they needed to be there?"
"Yeah pretty much", says SDC mouse.
"But I thought you said there was no reason", said Joe mouse.
"Of course there is no reason", says SDC mouse, "there are just natural causes"
Thereupon the great clock began is Westminster Chimes and the gong knocked SDC mouse out of the tower.
And in conclusion: The clock struck one the other two giggled incessantly at the demise of the gonged SDC mouse.
Yes, Joe, I DID write that, and what colour is the sky in your deluded fantasy world where self-contradictory fairy tales and wishful thinking add up to any sort of "evidence"? Since your cult's fairy tales don't even agree with THEMSELVES most of the time, it's obvious that you DON'T need anything in the way of evidence or logic to believe in your cult.
SDC
Post a Comment