Once you have bought into the atheist mindset, even the most irrational and obviously absurd idea is accepted provided it is useful to reject the existence of God. I call this the ultimate atheistic irrationality.
The most egregious example of this is the common atheist conviction that something fundamental (=the law of gravity, the law of entropy, the quantum vaccum, etc.) is equivlent to "nothing". Therefore (so the irrational atheist reasons), if you can explain something in terms of such laws, quantum vacuum, etc. you have successful to explain something from "nothing".
Only mentally retarded, intellectually deficient, stupid and inept people would conflate nothing (=non-being) with some fundamental (and hence, something actually existing) reality. This is why only hard-core atheists buy into this idea. Normal people (even ignorant ones) wouldn't be so irrational.
As philosopher Edward Feser recently wrote in a post entitled "What part of "nothing" you don't understand?": "You might as well say: “Let me explain how this whole house is held up by nothing. Consider the floor, which is what I really mean by ‘nothing.’ Now, the rest of the house is held up by the floor. Thus, I’ve explained how the whole house is held up by nothing!” Well, no you haven’t. You’ve “explained” at most how part of the house is held up by another part, but you’ve left unexplained how the floor itself is held up, and thus (since the floor is itself part of the house) you haven’t really explained at all how the house as a whole is held up, either by “nothing” or by anything else. Furthermore, you’ve made what is really just sheer muddleheadedness sound profound by using “nothing” in an eccentric way.
The most egregious example of this is the common atheist conviction that something fundamental (=the law of gravity, the law of entropy, the quantum vaccum, etc.) is equivlent to "nothing". Therefore (so the irrational atheist reasons), if you can explain something in terms of such laws, quantum vacuum, etc. you have successful to explain something from "nothing".
Only mentally retarded, intellectually deficient, stupid and inept people would conflate nothing (=non-being) with some fundamental (and hence, something actually existing) reality. This is why only hard-core atheists buy into this idea. Normal people (even ignorant ones) wouldn't be so irrational.
As philosopher Edward Feser recently wrote in a post entitled "What part of "nothing" you don't understand?": "You might as well say: “Let me explain how this whole house is held up by nothing. Consider the floor, which is what I really mean by ‘nothing.’ Now, the rest of the house is held up by the floor. Thus, I’ve explained how the whole house is held up by nothing!” Well, no you haven’t. You’ve “explained” at most how part of the house is held up by another part, but you’ve left unexplained how the floor itself is held up, and thus (since the floor is itself part of the house) you haven’t really explained at all how the house as a whole is held up, either by “nothing” or by anything else. Furthermore, you’ve made what is really just sheer muddleheadedness sound profound by using “nothing” in an eccentric way.
The “scientific” “explanations” of the origin of the universe from “nothing” one keeps hearing in recent years are really no less stupid than this “explanation” of the house. They aren’t serious physics, they aren’t serious philosophy, they aren’t serious anything except seriously bad arguments, textbook instances of the fallacy of equivocation."
In the case of Loftus, the fallacy of equivocation regarding "nothing" is committed when he conflates this term with the concept "balance of energy". But how the hell of the balance of something actually existing (namely, energy = the fundamental property of matter) is equivalent to "nothing" in the relevant, ontological sense of "non-being"?
Again, I'm being 100% serious, honest and sincere in my opinion that only people with strong intellectual deficiences and serious cognitive impairments can be so blind as to not realize the obvious fallacy of that position.
This is another reason why I'm convinced that, as a rule, hard-core atheists are irrational (I've recently called this position Jime's Iron Law, inspired in Shermer's Last Law).
Moreover, I'm also convinced that people like that are charlatans and deserve to receive public exposing and intellectual pounding.
A similar irrationalistic position is defended by atheist apologist Peter Atkins:
In the case of Loftus, the fallacy of equivocation regarding "nothing" is committed when he conflates this term with the concept "balance of energy". But how the hell of the balance of something actually existing (namely, energy = the fundamental property of matter) is equivalent to "nothing" in the relevant, ontological sense of "non-being"?
Again, I'm being 100% serious, honest and sincere in my opinion that only people with strong intellectual deficiences and serious cognitive impairments can be so blind as to not realize the obvious fallacy of that position.
This is another reason why I'm convinced that, as a rule, hard-core atheists are irrational (I've recently called this position Jime's Iron Law, inspired in Shermer's Last Law).
Moreover, I'm also convinced that people like that are charlatans and deserve to receive public exposing and intellectual pounding.
A similar irrationalistic position is defended by atheist apologist Peter Atkins:
This evidence provides interesting insights into the psychology of contemporary atheists.
0 comments:
Post a Comment