A former 40 year Atheist analyzes Atheism, without resorting to theism, deism, or fantasy. *** If You Don't Value Truth, Then What DO You Value? *** If we say that the sane can be coaxed and persuaded to rationality, and we say that rationality presupposes logic, then what can we say of those who actively reject logic? *** Atheists have an obligation to give reasons in the form of logic and evidence for rejecting Theist theories.
Sunday, June 15, 2014
Information Theory and Evolution
If you have an hour, this is a very good presentation.
Whenever Billy Nye speaks he is so condescending I want to wrench his bow-tie into a tourniquet. "When your in love you want to tell the world" he quips. We'll start with, how is that different from people claiming to actually have divine experiences? Aren't they in love and want to tell the world? Bill Nye insists they keep it to themselves. Especially don't tell your kids, that for Bill Nye and his ilk to do, to educate your children to their self-evident world-view. They must not teach irony is science class.
Secondly when Bill Nye said he was in love, I couldn't help but picture some hormone raging tween with a crush on some knuckle dragging loser at school, not understanding that she's in for a world of heartache when the truth about her true loves comes out.
I've been searching your blog for material related to the fine-tuned universe theory but i can't find anything.Do you have a link I can look at please?
I don't address arguments which amount to theodicies because they are actually ineffective, logically. By that I mean that they will not convince an Atheist of anything, even though they are convincing to a theist in an ancillary fashion. In other words, if the only argument for theism was one like the fine-tuned universe, it would not be convincing on its own.
My thrust here is to take on Atheist claims, and in this case, the Atheist claim is the multiverse fantasy, which is easily destroyed as a simplistic fantasy designed as an answer to the fine tuned universe argument. It has zero evidence, zero basis in objective fact, zero reason to be believed except as a support strut for Atheism.
For an infinite universe story - not a theory but an hypothesis - in which universes differ in, say, one variable at one point in time from our own, as well as universes varying from those universes, ad infinitum, there will necessarily exist universes which violate all of our known First Principles as well as our principles of physics regarding existence. Further, the infinite universe series would necessarily contain universes which contain nothing whatsoever, and those which contain everything simultaneously. The absurdity of this is palpable, and the necessity for this is zero, except as an excuse to eliminate agency outside of our own universe. But it does not eliminate agency outside our own universe, it actually necessitates it, for example, in meta-universes which would contain meta-agents. (That's one reason that our own agency is being denied, of course, in order to eradicate agency from all universes).
And in that vein it does nothing to the concept of creation by an agent, so it is a failure, both scientifically and intellectually.
I get what you're saying.Also, theists may say that the universe was fine-tuned for life,whereas atheists will say that we evolved to adapt to the conditions of the universe,and that the former is a more arrogant approach.Then couldn't life have evolved on the moon and adapted to those conditions?
4 comments:
Whenever Billy Nye speaks he is so condescending I want to wrench his bow-tie into a tourniquet. "When your in love you want to tell the world" he quips. We'll start with, how is that different from people claiming to actually have divine experiences? Aren't they in love and want to tell the world? Bill Nye insists they keep it to themselves. Especially don't tell your kids, that for Bill Nye and his ilk to do, to educate your children to their self-evident world-view. They must not teach irony is science class.
Secondly when Bill Nye said he was in love, I couldn't help but picture some hormone raging tween with a crush on some knuckle dragging loser at school, not understanding that she's in for a world of heartache when the truth about her true loves comes out.
Stan
I've been searching your blog for material related to the fine-tuned universe theory but i can't find anything.Do you have a link I can look at please?
I don't address arguments which amount to theodicies because they are actually ineffective, logically. By that I mean that they will not convince an Atheist of anything, even though they are convincing to a theist in an ancillary fashion. In other words, if the only argument for theism was one like the fine-tuned universe, it would not be convincing on its own.
My thrust here is to take on Atheist claims, and in this case, the Atheist claim is the multiverse fantasy, which is easily destroyed as a simplistic fantasy designed as an answer to the fine tuned universe argument. It has zero evidence, zero basis in objective fact, zero reason to be believed except as a support strut for Atheism.
For an infinite universe story - not a theory but an hypothesis - in which universes differ in, say, one variable at one point in time from our own, as well as universes varying from those universes, ad infinitum, there will necessarily exist universes which violate all of our known First Principles as well as our principles of physics regarding existence. Further, the infinite universe series would necessarily contain universes which contain nothing whatsoever, and those which contain everything simultaneously. The absurdity of this is palpable, and the necessity for this is zero, except as an excuse to eliminate agency outside of our own universe. But it does not eliminate agency outside our own universe, it actually necessitates it, for example, in meta-universes which would contain meta-agents. (That's one reason that our own agency is being denied, of course, in order to eradicate agency from all universes).
And in that vein it does nothing to the concept of creation by an agent, so it is a failure, both scientifically and intellectually.
I get what you're saying.Also, theists may say that the universe was fine-tuned for life,whereas atheists will say that we evolved to adapt to the conditions of the universe,and that the former is a more arrogant approach.Then couldn't life have evolved on the moon and adapted to those conditions?
Post a Comment