October 4, 2010

Showing the Foolishness of Atheism

Just a brief note. Recommended reading, take a look at "The Lawman Chronicles" by Tony Miano. He has a common-sense article (plus some fabulous photographs), "Dirty Car Art and the Foolishness of Atheism". Definitely worth a look.


Whateverman said...

I have a hard time taking Tony seriously. Even if you buy the logic of the First Cause argument, it takes a rejection of logic to not apply it to a Creator.

Someone who advocates reason only when it's convenient is someone who rejects reason.

Stormbringer said...

You appear to be defining your own rules, and rejecting reason yourself because it does not bring a result that you are predisposed to accept. Starting at the bottom, in simplest terms, doesn't it seem logical that design indicates a designer? Fantastically intricate design and complexity indicates a highly intelligent designer; design does not indicate the explosion of hydrogen. Ask any soldier or disaster-relief professional if he or she has ever seen order result from an explosion.

Or did I misunderstand your comment?

Whateverman said...

I don't think I'm defining my own rules. I see it as an issue of (in)consistency.

Lets ignore the problems with defining and identifying design, for the moment; they're significant problems, but I don't want that to prevent me from answering your question:

Yes, logic dictates that design implies a designer.

At that point, logic starts to work against the Creationist's idea of their deity, though, and that's what I was trying to point out. If everything logically needs a creator, The Creator needs one as well.

If He is the exception to the rule, then there's no standing to claim there can't be other exceptions.

Whateverman said...

By the way, the Big Bang wasn't an explosion as such.

You might find quantum fluctuation to be an interesting read. It's a physical fact that particles can actually spring from nothing. The details get complicated, involving matter and energy moving forward and backward through time.

I'm not trying to tell you that we have an infallible understanding of how the universe came into being. Rather, I'm trying to suggest that some of the things you're incredulous of are actually real and can be demonstrated in a lab.

Stormbringer said...

I disagree. By definition, The Creator is transcendent of space and time and does not need to have an origin. It seems to me that we are finite beings expecting to understand an infinite being; human logic rules have their limitations.

Whateverman said...

Yes, I understand the definition(s) of The Creator include Him being the first cause, existing outside of time and space, being infinite, etc. If such a being exists, then I agree that it's futile to try to understand him with finite minds.

The problem is that Tony appeals to logic when he claims that design --> designer. That same finite mind, who's not at all shy about trying to explain the infinite, then claims logic has no explanatory power to resolve the conundrum (re. who created the Creator?).

It's like me telling you that math is used to answer questions like "what is 2+3?", but when asked "what's the ratio of a circle's circumference to its area?", I answer "math can't be trusted".

It is illogical to try to resolve conundrums (re. 'who created the creator?') by appealing to faith.

Stormbringer said...

"It is illogical to try to resolve conundrums (re. 'who created the creator?') by appealing to faith."

For the most part, I agree. Especially with uninformed Christians who, when Junior asks a hard question, replies with, "Just have faith", when there may be an answer after all, and Pappy is too lazy to ask or look it up.

However, we have to be careful to define our terms, because Christians have a different understanding of "faith" (or to me, Faith is Jill's older sister) than other people. Some have defined faith as "believing in something that you know is not true", or as a kind of filler because you do not know what happened. (In the latter case, I believe that science philosophy has a great deal of faith, but never mind about that now.)

I agree with Sherlock Holmes: "When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth". Or, "Follow where the evidence leads".

What if the evidence and human reasoning lead to a supernatural cause? I believe it is wrong to believe that a supernatural cause must be eliminated from discussion.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating a rush to judgment. But I do believe that the evidence supports an Intelligent Design model better than a materialistic/naturalistic model.

Whateverman said...

I can respect that.

I also agree with the idea that terms must be defined. Faith & god & religion & science (et al) mean different things to different people, making discussions involving them unlikely to be productive (or even entertaining).

I should be clear, also: I don't believe that logic is the only method we can or should use to understand the universe and our place in it. It has its uses and limits, as does empiricism and spirituality. Really, the best approach to understanding it all should (imho) involve a mix of them.

Stormbringer said...

"...making discussions involving them unlikely to be productive (or even entertaining)."

I know you think I'm an a**hole and a pr*ck, but it appears that you may be finding this particular exchange to be possibly productive and entertaining. I have.

As to your last comment...cut it out. I fully agree, and if we keep that up, people will start to talk.

Subscribe in a reader