Saturday, August 6, 2011

Man with PO Box in Indiana Proves Existence of Gods?

A reader sent me this link a few months ago, and I have been shamefully slow to respond.  In the article, some Christian putz gives his "practical proof" that a god exists from a "purely scientific perspective".  Before I even begin, I must yet again point out that this is nothing more than another hand-waving argument for gods, with not a shred of positive evidence.  He's trying to think his god into existence and he has no idea what science is.  Let's now examine the argument itself.

It begins with a strawman argument, which sends the article into a comically misguided and misinformed direction:

"Most atheists maintain that there was no beginning.  The idea is that matter has always existed in the form of either matter or energy; and all that has happened is that matter has been changed from form to form, but it has always been.  The Humanist Manifesto says, 'Matter is self-existing and not created,' and that is a concise statement of the atheist's belief."

He spends half of the rest of the article arguing that the Universe had a beginning.  He then triumphantly declares that the atheists are wrong about saying the Universe had no beginning.  Thanks a lot, fucktard!  We already know, and have REAL scientific proof, that the Universe had a beginning.  Maybe some atheists believe there was no beginning at all, but then they are as misinformed as you are!

In the next section, he goes into a scientifically-illiterate rant about the usual 'something coming from nothing' creationist argument while using his god as the default position that must be true if another idea is not true.

Then we get this, which he accepts without question:

"If we know that the creation had a beginning and we know that the beginning was caused, there is one last question for us to answer--what was the cause?  The Bible tells us that God was the cause."

And we also get this gem:

"The subject of design has been one that has been explored in many different ways.  For most of us, simply looking at our newborn child is enough to rule out chance."

This last part is merely a re-stating of the old pathetic argument known as 'look at the trees', and is an argument from ignorance.  If you look at a tree or your newborn baby or insertwhateverthefuckyouwanthere and cannot think of how nature made it, then you can rule out nature.  That is what any good scientist would do.  Do not, under any circumstances, attempt to study the issue.

Feel free to send this guy hate mail at his address on the page.

4 comments:

Jim said...

Sure, there was no "beginning" in the sense that the universe has always existed in some form or another. But our universe was created with the Big Bang. I would think that "most" of us atheists can agree on that.

I always enjoyed Christians using the "something from nothing" argument. It's like they forget that they believe their invisible god created everything from nothing with a mere thought. Religious people, listen up! You can't disprove "something from nothing"! This is the basis of your entire argument!

As for the "ruling out chance" argument; I was watching one of those shows that suggests aliens built the pyramids because humans at the time were considered not far enough advanced to build them with such accuracy and what-not. Cut to guy-who-believes-in-god saying, "Just because we don't know how they built the pyramids doesn't mean some alien built them. They just haven't discovered how they built them, is all." Now, when I tried to apply this exact same logic to evolution, he said that evolution was bullshit because life is too complicated. Never mind the proof. It had to be god.

Anonymous said...

Come on, man. The BIBLE told us all of this. How could you possibly argue???? Unless, of course, you were just laughing too hard at the inanity of the statement to begin with.

Seekeraftertruth said...

I am curious as to what you think about this rational for god: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtWr04MBGYI

Admin said...

The Gandhi sermon is the same old stuff. His challenge, which he fails to meet, is to prove anything he's saying is actually true. That's not likely to happen, not only because he's dead, but because in the talk he explicitly rejects evidence and says that "realisation outside the senses is infallible."

If Gandhi were here today, we wouldn't have much to talk about in regards to this, because we're not even remotely on the same page. If he has no interest in demonstrating the truth of his claims through evidence, that's a show-stopper.