Sunday, April 19, 2009

Ten retarded questions

Retard Scott Pruett posts 10 [Retarded] Questions for the Atheist. I don't know who the atheist is, but I'll the trouble to mocking Pruett's childish understanding of both science and philosophy.

First of all, all ten questions essentially say: this science, math and philosophy stuff is complicated! We don't know everything! Therefore goddidit! Fucking moronic.

As faithlessgod notes, Pruett conflates atheism, naturalism and materialism. Anyone with a triple-digit IQ who has studied philosophy on the internet for six weeks knows these are entirely different philosophical positions. (Atheism is, however, an consequence of methodological naturalism and the evidence of our senses.)

Each of Pruett's stupid questions not only proclaims his trivial, sophomoric god-of-the-gaps nonsense, but also his ignorance of science and philosophy.
1. Creation
The overwhelming consensus of science is that the entire cosmos (including space and time) came into existence at a finite point in the past. All of our observations, equations, and physical laws testify to a point of origin for this universe.
In light of the troubling evidence for a beginning, and that we may not even be able to find a natural cause in principle, what explanation is given to the questions, "Why is there something rather than nothing?" and "Where did it all come from?"
Pruett gives us two stupidisms for the price of one (aside from the trivial stupidism that "science" doesn't have an opinion (only scientists have opinions) and that "consensus" is a superlative; an overwhelming consensus is nonsense).

First, scientists are not in widespread agreement that the "entire cosmos" (which is itself not a scientific term) came into existence (again not a scientific term) at a finite point in the past. Pruett needs to read actual science books, not tendentious apologetic interpretations of science. If Pruett wishes to represent the opinions of scientists, he would do well to find out what their actual opinions are instead of putting words in their mouths.

Second, the philosophical question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Big Bang cosmology; the question would be equally applicable in an eternal, steady-state universe. Furthermore, if the "entire cosmos" means everything that exists, it's nonsense to ask where it came from.

Of course, "Why is there something rather than nothing?" is itself a stupid question. Something (the entire cosmos, the relativistic quantum field, the multiverse, or God) just is. Don't like that answer? Too bad.
2 Order
The past several decades have added profoundly to our knowledge of chemistry, physics, and cosmology. It has become increasingly clear that we live in a universe finely tuned for the support of complex life. This fact is so universally acknowledged that even secular scientists have coined the term "Anthropic Principle" to describe it.
How is it that we live in such an exquisitely fine-tuned universe? Even assuming that the universe could have popped out of nothingness, why should it have been such an orderly and hospitable one? Is there a scientific, testable answer for this question that does not simply appeal to imagination?
Pruett — surprise, surprise — does not understand the Anthropic Principle; Nor, apparently, does he understand how to use Wikipedia or Google. The Fine Tuning argument has been thoroughly debunked.
3. Abiogenesis
The problem of abiogenesis (the origin of the first lifeform) is one of the thorniest and most intractable issues in chemistry. Our increasing knowledge of microbiology and earth history has only added to the complexity of what needs to be explained. The simplest life is equivalent to modern bacteria, which is loaded with complex activity, information, and molecular "machines." The fossil record does not give evidence that there was a "prebiotic soup," or that there were any biological precursors to the first organisms, or that the atmosphere was the ideal mix to yield the necessary molecules, or that there was the expected long period of time between when the Earth could support life and when it actually appeared. Evolutionists regularly segregate the abiogenesis problem from the issue of evolution because (1) it is a challenge they'd rather not be saddled with, or (2) it is the most logical point for possible divine intervention. However, for the atheist there is no escaping this issue; they are obliged to seek out some purely natural explanation.
What hope for an explanation do you have? Are you satisfied to have problems like this that are unanswered, or even unanswerable?
In telling the tale of life on earth science writers often unconsciously use the word "miracle" for the appearance of the first organisms.
What kind of evidence is needed before we are to actually accept that something like this really is a miracle?
Wow... let's catalog the stupidisms one by one.

The problem of abiogenesis... is one of the thorniest and most intractable issues in chemistry.

JFGI. The problem of solving the quantum field equation of a deuterium atom is much more difficult than abiogenesis. There are any number of plausible hypotheses.

Our increasing knowledge of microbiology and earth history has only added to the complexity of what needs to be explained.

Quite the contrary. See above.

The fossil record does not give evidence that there was a "prebiotic soup"...

Howls of derisive laughter, Bruce! In addition to his deficiencies with Wikipedia and Google (not to mention Talk.Origins), Pruett appears unable to correctly employ a dictionary.

... or that there were any biological precursors to the first organisms, or that the atmosphere was the ideal mix to yield the necessary molecules, or that there was the expected long period of time between when the Earth could support life and when it actually appeared.

None of these issues are presently considered important to actual scientists.

Evolutionists regularly segregate the abiogenesis problem from the issue of evolution because (1) it is a challenge they'd rather not be saddled with, or (2) it is the most logical point for possible divine intervention.

Pruett flat-out lies here. Scientists segregate abiogenesis from evolution because they are entirely different fields of study with different evidentiary bases and that require different specialized knowledge.

In telling the tale of life on earth science writers often unconsciously use the word "miracle" for the appearance of the first organisms.

Not only does Pruett simply use the bullshit "some people say", he elevates it to the argument from phantom experts. Even if he weren't just making facts up here (which ordinary people call "lying") the linguistic solecisms of science writers do not seem a compelling challenge to atheism, naturalism or materialism: maybe they're just as stupid and mendacious as Pruett.

Ah... that's enough. The rest is a rehash of all the moronic, retarded arguments for the existence of God that any self-respecting atheist intellectual chewed up in her first six months on IIDB.

Here's a few howlers from the rest.

Skeptics often bring up the "problem of evil" as evidence against God... Do you think that this is a valid objection?

Yes.

Yet our deepest longing is for our lives to count for something.

Something more than abject subservience to a priesthood claiming to speak for a psychopathic deity.

Every known time and culture is rich with stories of near death experiences, ghosts, angels, demons, prophetic dreams and visions, and miraculous healings.

Yet only the Christian stories are real. Everyone knows that all the rest are just delusions and fantasies.

The case for the Jesus of Scripture is extremely compelling.

Snicker.

The trend of archaeology is toward validation, not denial, of what it is possible to confirm in Scripture.

Pruett apparently hasn't read The Bible Unearthed. Archaeology tends towards dismissal of the Bible, especially the Old Testament.

Christians are often accused of being simple-minded, superstitious, or irrational.

You don't say.

Is it so unreasonable for us to believe that the universe had a beginning because it actually was created; the laws of physics are so fine-tuned because it had a designer; people are preoccupied with good and evil because they are real things; we long for purpose and meaning because they exist to be had; life from non-life really is miraculous; consciousness and freewill seem real because they are; people are incurably religious because there is actually something real in religion; and the historical case for Jesus is so tenacious because it is actually true?

Yes, yes it is unreasonable.

If there really is no meaning or purpose to life, no objective good or evil, and the existence of "truth" itself is open to debate, by what standard will you condemn the beliefs of Christians?

Because you all are retards and liars.

2 comments:

  1. Man I'm glad you didn't actually shut down this blog, I don't know where I'd go for Christian crushing otherwise.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Of course, "Why is there something rather than nothing?" is itself a stupid question. Something (the entire cosmos, the relativistic quantum field, the multiverse, or God) just is. Don't like that answer? Too bad.It is a stupid question, but it's not a trivially stupid question.

    ReplyDelete

Please pick a handle or moniker for your comment. It's much easier to address someone by a name or pseudonym than simply "hey you". I have the option of requiring a "hard" identity, but I don't want to turn that on... yet.

With few exceptions, I will not respond or reply to anonymous comments, and I may delete them. I keep a copy of all comments; if you want the text of your comment to repost with something vaguely resembling an identity, email me.

No spam, pr0n, commercial advertising, insanity, lies, repetition or off-topic comments. Creationists, Global Warming deniers, anti-vaxers, Randians, and Libertarians are automatically presumed to be idiots; Christians and Muslims might get the benefit of the doubt, if I'm in a good mood.

See the Debate Flowchart for some basic rules.

Sourced factual corrections are always published and acknowledged.

I will respond or not respond to comments as the mood takes me. See my latest comment policy for details. I am not a pseudonomous-American: my real name is Larry.

Comments may be moderated from time to time. When I do moderate comments, anonymous comments are far more likely to be rejected.

I've already answered some typical comments.

I have jqMath enabled for the blog. If you have a dollar sign (\$) in your comment, put a \\ in front of it: \\\$, unless you want to include a formula in your comment.