Kari Enqvist is a professor of cosmology and the chairman of the Finnish association of pseudoskeptics known as SKEPSIS RY. (Yeah, atheistic pseudo-skeptics exist in Findland too...).
Since he is a professor of cosmology and one of main arguments for God's existence is the kalam cosmological argument, I expected a lively and entertaining discussion about the cosmological evidence for the universe's beginning in the debate between Enqvist and William Lane Craig, which you can watch here:
But things turned out to be very different.
As you can watch, Enqvist didn't presented any argument for atheism at all, since for him the problem of God's existence is meaningless (note that if Enqvist is right, then atheism is meaningless too, since atheism is the denial or negation of the proposition "God exists", and you cannot affirm or deny a meaningless proposition... just try to affirm or deny the following sentence: dxhsttsiwossp usns doosmsos hahaha). As philosophers of language and semantics and logicians have realized, the meaning of a proposition is a necesary condition for it to have truth-values.
Moreover, Enqvist (like his fellow skeptic and atheist Lawrence Krauss), decided to attack formal logic in order to make his case. Remember that Krauss has embarrassed himself forever as the world's leading atheistic defender of obviously absurd, necessarily false, logically, metaphysically and mathematically impossible and incoherent propositions like 2+2=5 or "the universe came from nothing" or "nothing is unstable":
Since contemporary cosmology has shown beyond any reasonable doubt that the universe had a beginning (which is strongly suggestive that the universe had a trascendent cause of its coming to being), some atheists have changed their strategy: Defeated by empirical science, reason and logic, they are forced challenge the laws of logic and reason itself in order to avoid any inference to theism based on science. Therefore, we cannot be surprised of finding a certain tendency among contemporary atheistic physicists and cosmologists to challenge the laws of logic (this is also evidence for Jime's Iron Law) in order to defeat theism.
Note that atheists present themselves as the champtions of "logic", "reason", "science" and "critical thinking", but when logic, evidence and critical reasoning support theism over atheism, then... to the hell with logic!. Sheer atheistic deception, rhetoric and charlatanism!
This debate was supposed to be about the existence of God, or more specifically, about whether God is necessary to the universe's existence.
For everybody's astonishment, the debate turned out to be mainly about the validity of formal logic (Enqvist appealing to physics in order to destroy formal logic, and Craig trying to defend it).
Moreover, the debate was totally one-sided, with Craig being the only person presenting arguments relevant for the topic under discussion. To my astonishment, since Enqvist didn't presented any argument for atheism, Craig was forced to provide arguments for atheism for the sake of the debate!. What a weird situation (just imagine a debate between Dean Radin and James Randi about the evidence for ESP, in which Dean Radin is forced, by Randi's passivity and red herrings, to present evidence and arguments against ESP!). Absurd.
The world's leading philosophical theist posing arguments against the existence of God! Absolutely weird!.
This is one of the worst and most boring debates that I've ever seen in my life.
0 comments:
Post a Comment