An atheist stumbles around in the dark…part 1?

So far the second worst atheist I’ve come across, and by worst I don’t mean morally bankrupt even though this person’s views on infanticide are utterly disgusting, is the blogger at Confessions of a Young Earth Creationist. This person is like a mini me version of Lawrence Krauss and if you think that’s a compliment you need your head examined. “Limey” is his handle and he’s a real piece of work. If I hadn’t met the FSN guy first Limey would be my pick for dumbass of the year…decade…whatever.

Christians aren’t “supposed to talk this way” about others, but part of the problem with contemporary American Christianity is that it has no bite. We’re nice when we shouldn’t be (to assholes, terrorists, arrogant morons) and we aren’t nice when we should be (to homosexuals, democrats, Muslims). “Limey” isn’t someone who we should be nice to. We should treat fundamentalist atheists with contempt. Not because they disagree with us but because the New Atheist hates reason, facts, and truth. The new atheist is an idiot. 

There are lots of Atheists I respect. Stefan Molyneaux is a very good atheist. But Limey is not someone I respect and he deserves to be called an asshat, because he is an asshat. This person has demonstrated (like Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Dennet, and the mythicists) that he is deeply deeply ignorant and incapable of dealing with the relevant issues in a manner resembling intellectual responsibility. Limey’s blog is essentially a troll. It is a waste of time and should be called such. That’s all the New Atheists are: trolls. They are anti intellectuals like Kent Hovind, Pat Robertson, Donald Trump, Al Sharpton, Jeremiah Wright, Samantha Bee, Barack Obama, and Isis. 

Civil responsible academic intellectual endeavor is hard, it requires discipline and virtue. It requires patience and reliance on those who are truly knowledgeable and wise. Sadly Limey has none of these qualities and refuses to pursue them.

Here is the turd part of Limey’s current attempt to deconstruct Theism:

So far each post has been equally terrible. In any case I feel some responsibility to attempt to help this lost soul and hopefully deter other lost souls from his errors by responding to Limey when I can. Usually it’s with comments but I don’t feel like cutting and pasting 20 comments today so I’m just going to put my responses here and just post this on Limey’s pathetic excuse for a blog (to be fair its far better maintained than this blog, but Limey’s content is abysmal). 

Here’s my responses:
Did you notice the bait and switch in this one?”

No but you’re about to very poorly attempt a bait and switch.

Before I address that though, I am noticing a pattern in these first three items. They all focus on the fact that the universe exists and because we (as in our current state of human knowledge) can’t explain why, therefore there must be a god that put it in place.”

That’s simply inaccurate. They are logical demonstrations based upon premises that are very hard to deny. As usual you misunderstood the argument.

At its most basic it is an argument from ignorance in that a god is inserted where there is no currently accepted explanation. The language has evolved into something more sophisticated and of course I would expect adherents to deny this assertion. They have to.”

This is just nonsense. You don’t understand logic, and you don’t understand the argument. I know you don’t understand logic because part of your “argument” here is a common form of an Ad Hominem, aka a fallacy. What is so ironic about these statements is that you presume this desperation on the part of a Theist like Kreeft to meet some kind of “Freudian Need” but that in and of itself is a genetic fallacy. Also both claims can be levied at you! You have no reason for thinking Kreeft needs to believe in God nor any reason for why a need like that means Theism is false. This is pathetic. Plantinga has destroyed this line of reasoning many decades ago.

The issue that this item tried to answer is that of infinite regress, a subject that will be revisited by later items I am sure. Whatever exists must have something that existed before it. A tree came from a seed which came from a previously existing tree and so on. The universe exists and so must come from something that existed before it. Therefore god. But wait, what about before god? Where is the super god that created the universe god? Why stop at the first god that is assumed from the existence of the universe? How can the author of this argument be sure of anything regarding the god that supposedly caused this universe? They can’t be sure, that’s the problem. They’ve presupposed a god then created an argument to support it, but as with all arguments for god, they can’t step beyond imagining, the imagined god can never be tested or confirmed. We are supposed to just accept it.”

The problem with this sort of reply is that you’ve actually granted the whole argument. It wouldn’t matter how many “gods” were between the physical universe and the initial cause. Whatever the first cause is, that we call god. It isn’t an argument for the truth or falsehood of the Christian God or any god, it’s a logical conclusion that there is an uncaused thing that causes all other things. That’s it. You do this quite often, grant the premise and the form but dispute the conclusion. This is a very poor attempt at a response.

This brings me to the bait and switch. See this bit.

There must exist something which has to exist, which cannot not exist. This sort of being is called necessary. Either this necessity belongs to the thing in itself or it is derived from another. If derived from another there must ultimately exist a being whose necessity is not derived, that is, an absolutely necessary being. This absolutely necessary being is God.

To paraphrase: before the universe, there must be something that caused it (not entirely unreasonable, but is it true? We should really test that before building arguments based on it.), that something must exist (so no test, just assume it’s true and carry on), that thing must be a being (oh?), and that being is god (boof, there it is!)
The bait and switch fallacy is explained more here:”

There is no such thing as the bait and switch fallacy and rational wiki is a huge turd, it’s basically a parody website for anti theists to engage in an intellectual circle jerk. Bait and switch is an action that can be performed with words but it’s not fallacious, it’s simply lying or “tricking.”

Bait and switch is that empty book on the Amazon bestseller list. People paid for an ebook on Democrats that had no words in it. They thought they were getting a book but instead they got nothing.

A fallacy is a mistake in reasoning. Believing a lie is simply being duped.
Lawrence Krause actually does bait and switch every time he claims that the Universe came from nothing. He’s actually openly admitted to lying about the fact that when he says nothing he doesn’t actually mean nothing, he means something. So in his view something comes from something…what a shock…and his ultimate response is that we’ve had to redefine nothing to not actually be nothing…in other words he’s granted the theist’s entire case because he’s a very arrogant stupid man. 

The bigger problem here is that yet again you granted the premise, albeit with some reservation, then brought your naive scientism back into play. The claim is a logical claim. It cannot be “tested” in the way you wish it to be tested. It must be “tested” with logic, something you have demonstrated yourself to be incapable of time and again. This is a truly epic fail on your part to respond to this argument.

“There is another issue with the argument that is presented in this item, which is the whole issue of before the universe. See this bit.

If the universe began to exist, then all being must trace its origin to some past moment before which there existed—literally—nothing at all. But From nothing nothing comes. So The universe could not have begun. But suppose the universe never began. Then, for the infinitely long duration of cosmic history, all being had the built-in possibility not to be. But If in an infinite time that possibility was never realized,

The author has forgotten (or maybe ignored) the very important detail that time is a feature of matter. I’m sure I’ve mentioned this already but I’ll do it again. How we experience time is directly related to our proximity to matter. The same is also true of how we experience gravity. This time experience is a calculatable and measurable phenomenon. It has to be accounted for in GPS satellites and it is the reason why your head is not the same age as your feet (
The ultimate conclusion from this is that time, as we understand and experience it, started with the universe. Thus the universe has existed for all of time and the question of what was before needs to first answer the difficulty of how you can have a before time. The author of this item has skipped a very important step in his rush to justify the god that he’s predetermined must exist.”

My god…I just don’t understand how you could possibly think that this is in any way a meaningful response. The idea you’re describing is actually incorrect. You’re speaking of subjective experience of time and gravity (which is evidence for dualism and a denial of materialism because subjective experience is by definition immaterial, everyone agrees on this Sam Harris and Dan Dennet included) in the context of a logical argument about sequence…which makes no sense, but also you’ve misunderstood that it is the gravitational force itself which causes time to function the way it does in relation to matter. So what you should have said was time is effected by gravity and gravity is dependent upon matter therefore time is dependent upon matter. But that argument is fallacious because time itself (a huge area of philosophical study) is not dependent upon gravity for its existence. Time would be possible without gravity, in fact the argument of a dependence relation between time and gravity makes no sense in the first place because gravity acts upon time, or effects time. That is why “time qua time” is studied by philosophers and not scientists. Scientists do study time and contribute to the philosophical discussion but ultimately the study of time is a logical one not a “scientific” study.

But more importantly if there were such a thing as the bait and switch fallacy (really it’s a red herring, which is probably what you actually meant) then you commit it constantly, especially here. Because your explanation of how you misunderstand time and beg the question that time is dependent upon matter had nothing to do with that last argument by Kreeft. This whole post really made very little sense, which is clearly your MO. Just like your heros Krause, Dawkins, Dennet, you make very little sense but try to sound “scientific” because like a pastor trying to speak Christianese you Scientismists think that sounding scientific means something is scientific. Kreeft’s arguments have nothing to do with science. They are philosophical, something you know nothing about so it’s unsurprising that you can’t comprehend these arguments. 

You are very very bad at this and really you should probably stop because your blog is itself a troll, it’s just a useless pointless piece of the internet. It’s like that empty book on Amazon. Anyone who comes here was baited and switched because they probably thought they might learn something…but you can’t learn something…from nothing.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s