My personal librery is composed mostly of books written by atheists (just since some recent years, it has become increasingly filled with books by theists, specially Christian theists). As consequence, I'm pretty familiar with atheistic thinking, the main arguments for atheism and the overall atheist minset (which includes a wide spectrum but that you can discern into types when analyzed carefully).
My reading of the atheist literature plus my interaction with online hard-core atheists have lead me to postulate what I've named (inspired by Michael Shermer) Jime's Iron Law, according to which (roughly) hard-core atheists are irrational, in the sense that their thinking is positively illogical, strongly limited and their cognitive faculties are seriously damaged and impaired to track the truth or understand deep questions. I'm seriously convinced that, more or less accurately, this law holds for hard-core atheists in general (I'm sure there are a few exceptions). Note that this law doesn't exclude the irrationality of some non-atheists (my law doesn't say that "only" atheists are irrational; it simply states that, as a rule, hard core atheists are irrational and positively stupid in the literal sense of this word).
A dramatic, irrefutable and devastating confirmation of my law comes from the recent atheistic tendency to conflate "nothing" (=not anything = the absense of existence), with "something which is basic or fundamental" (e.g natural laws, quantum vacuum, quantum particles, entropy, gravity, or any other basic something).
Derek Parfit, a prominent atheist philosopher, wrote:
"No question is more sublime than why there is a Universe: why there is anything rather than nothing" (Derek Parfit, "Why Anything? Why This?" London Review of Books 20/2 (January 22, 1998), p.24.)
Parfit is posing a philosophical question which has been dabated by thousand of years, namely, the question why something exists (instead of not existing at all). Why does being (something) exist instead of non-being (sheer non-existence)?
Do you understand the above question? I've explained this question for children of 10 years old and they grasp it. I must assume that most of my readers understand the question too. So, let's continue.
Philosophers have replied to this question saying that something necessary has to exist (either God or the universe) which contains in its essence the reason of its existence, because it makes no sense saying that something came from absolute non-being (i.e. out of nothing). Some atheists have claimed that the universe has necessary existence (i.e. it cannot not to exist) and hence it is eternal too. But the cosmological evidence has shown that the universe began to exist and hence is not eternal (therefore, it is not necessary either). Hence, the universe is contingent and therefore cries out for an explanation outside itself.
But replying to this question is not my interest in this post. My interest is to reflect in the level of intelligence needed to understand the question (regardless of the answer that we could provide to it).
I submit that any sane, rational, normal intelligent person would understand the question. And I submit too that, in general, hard-core atheists are intellectually unable to fully understand the question, because their minds don't work properly (Jime's Iron Law).
Consider Lawrence M. Krauss's following short video (in which he says that "nothing is unstable"):
My reading of the atheist literature plus my interaction with online hard-core atheists have lead me to postulate what I've named (inspired by Michael Shermer) Jime's Iron Law, according to which (roughly) hard-core atheists are irrational, in the sense that their thinking is positively illogical, strongly limited and their cognitive faculties are seriously damaged and impaired to track the truth or understand deep questions. I'm seriously convinced that, more or less accurately, this law holds for hard-core atheists in general (I'm sure there are a few exceptions). Note that this law doesn't exclude the irrationality of some non-atheists (my law doesn't say that "only" atheists are irrational; it simply states that, as a rule, hard core atheists are irrational and positively stupid in the literal sense of this word).
A dramatic, irrefutable and devastating confirmation of my law comes from the recent atheistic tendency to conflate "nothing" (=not anything = the absense of existence), with "something which is basic or fundamental" (e.g natural laws, quantum vacuum, quantum particles, entropy, gravity, or any other basic something).
Derek Parfit, a prominent atheist philosopher, wrote:
"No question is more sublime than why there is a Universe: why there is anything rather than nothing" (Derek Parfit, "Why Anything? Why This?" London Review of Books 20/2 (January 22, 1998), p.24.)
Parfit is posing a philosophical question which has been dabated by thousand of years, namely, the question why something exists (instead of not existing at all). Why does being (something) exist instead of non-being (sheer non-existence)?
Do you understand the above question? I've explained this question for children of 10 years old and they grasp it. I must assume that most of my readers understand the question too. So, let's continue.
Philosophers have replied to this question saying that something necessary has to exist (either God or the universe) which contains in its essence the reason of its existence, because it makes no sense saying that something came from absolute non-being (i.e. out of nothing). Some atheists have claimed that the universe has necessary existence (i.e. it cannot not to exist) and hence it is eternal too. But the cosmological evidence has shown that the universe began to exist and hence is not eternal (therefore, it is not necessary either). Hence, the universe is contingent and therefore cries out for an explanation outside itself.
But replying to this question is not my interest in this post. My interest is to reflect in the level of intelligence needed to understand the question (regardless of the answer that we could provide to it).
I submit that any sane, rational, normal intelligent person would understand the question. And I submit too that, in general, hard-core atheists are intellectually unable to fully understand the question, because their minds don't work properly (Jime's Iron Law).
Consider Lawrence M. Krauss's following short video (in which he says that "nothing is unstable"):
Since "unstable" is a property (=a characteristic), it can be only predicated of something. But nothing (in the philosophical sense that Parfit is asking the question) is the DENIAL of something, namely, not anything (=non-being). Now, how the hell can you say that "non-being" is stable or unstable, blue or red, big or small, expensive or unexpensive (adds any property that you want) if, by definition, non-being DOES NOT EXIST? How could you predicate something of absolutely nothing (total non-existence)?
It's very obvious that Krauss has not (and, if Jime's Iron Law is correct, CANNOT) understand the question. The question is simply beyond Krauss' intellectual powers. He BELIEVES he's understanding the question, but actually he doesn't get it at all. This provides a dramatic and painful confirmation of Jime's Iron Law.
But perhaps some of you are thinking that using just one example is not confirmatory at all. But it is not the case. Consider atheist John Loftus' position that "Nothing = Balance of Energy":
It's very obvious that Krauss has not (and, if Jime's Iron Law is correct, CANNOT) understand the question. The question is simply beyond Krauss' intellectual powers. He BELIEVES he's understanding the question, but actually he doesn't get it at all. This provides a dramatic and painful confirmation of Jime's Iron Law.
But perhaps some of you are thinking that using just one example is not confirmatory at all. But it is not the case. Consider atheist John Loftus' position that "Nothing = Balance of Energy":
Not convinced yet of Jime's Iron Law? Consider leading atheist propagandist Peter Atkins's positive claim "the universe is in fact a big confidence trick. There's truly nothing here":
Still skeptical of Jime's Iron Law? Consider atheist Stephen Hawking (who's considered an intellectual genius, just because most people don't understand quantum mechanics and think Hawking is able to understand profound things that they don't) assertion "Because there is a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing" (The Grand Design’, p. 25)
Still unconvinced of Jime's Iron Law? Consider atheist Victor Stenger's claim "Since “nothing” is as simple as it gets, we cannot expect it to be very stable. It would likely undergo a spontaneous phase transition to something more complicated, like a universe containing matter." (Cosmic Evidence’ from "God: The Failed Hypothesis")
I could to continue with tons of further examples, but I think it suffices to prove my point.
Hard-core atheists like Krauss, Stenger, Dawkins, Harris, Hawking, Wolpert, Atkins and many others are fine examples of the solid veracity of my Jime's Law. They're positively stupid, mentally incapable of understanding profound questions and demostrably illogical and irrational. Moreover, their intellectual impairment implies that they CANNOT realize their own limitations and this is why they write entire books defending positions which are obviously absurd, irrational and ridiculous.
Hard-core atheists subjected to Jime's Iron Law will praise these popular books as first-rate scientific contributions and masterpieces by towering intellects, while the rest of the world (rational atheists included) will laugh in their imbecility and the persistent stupidity of "thinkers" like the ones mentioned.
In this recent podcast that I've just heard, philosopher William Lane Craig explains the obvious confusions and fallacies of Krauss's use of "nothing". Craig sympathetically attributes Krauss' use of "nothing" as a product of Krauss' ignorance of philosophy. I think Craig is partially wrong here.
While I agree that Krauss is solidly ignorant of philosophy, I think his use of "nothing" (common among atheists) is not simply a product of ignorance, but that it is a symptom of a deeper phenomenon described by my law: Atheists like Krauss simply cannot (in an intellectual level) understand the actual and philosophically relevant meaning of "nothing".
So, even though Craig is basically correct in his critique of Krauss, he fails to realize the actual cause of Krauss' misleading use of "nothing". This cause has nothing to do with ignorance (even though could be increased by it) but with the hard-core atheist's psychological, intellectual and spiritual structure and limitations.
Only a person armed with Jime's Iron Law will understand what's happening here.
Still unconvinced of Jime's Iron Law? Consider atheist Victor Stenger's claim "Since “nothing” is as simple as it gets, we cannot expect it to be very stable. It would likely undergo a spontaneous phase transition to something more complicated, like a universe containing matter." (Cosmic Evidence’ from "God: The Failed Hypothesis")
I could to continue with tons of further examples, but I think it suffices to prove my point.
Hard-core atheists like Krauss, Stenger, Dawkins, Harris, Hawking, Wolpert, Atkins and many others are fine examples of the solid veracity of my Jime's Law. They're positively stupid, mentally incapable of understanding profound questions and demostrably illogical and irrational. Moreover, their intellectual impairment implies that they CANNOT realize their own limitations and this is why they write entire books defending positions which are obviously absurd, irrational and ridiculous.
Hard-core atheists subjected to Jime's Iron Law will praise these popular books as first-rate scientific contributions and masterpieces by towering intellects, while the rest of the world (rational atheists included) will laugh in their imbecility and the persistent stupidity of "thinkers" like the ones mentioned.
In this recent podcast that I've just heard, philosopher William Lane Craig explains the obvious confusions and fallacies of Krauss's use of "nothing". Craig sympathetically attributes Krauss' use of "nothing" as a product of Krauss' ignorance of philosophy. I think Craig is partially wrong here.
While I agree that Krauss is solidly ignorant of philosophy, I think his use of "nothing" (common among atheists) is not simply a product of ignorance, but that it is a symptom of a deeper phenomenon described by my law: Atheists like Krauss simply cannot (in an intellectual level) understand the actual and philosophically relevant meaning of "nothing".
So, even though Craig is basically correct in his critique of Krauss, he fails to realize the actual cause of Krauss' misleading use of "nothing". This cause has nothing to do with ignorance (even though could be increased by it) but with the hard-core atheist's psychological, intellectual and spiritual structure and limitations.
Only a person armed with Jime's Iron Law will understand what's happening here.
0 comments:
Post a Comment