What utter nonsense. An extraordinary claim? Extraordinary evidence? Arguments fatally flawed?
Right.
The argument for atheism never even gets off the ground. It's inherently contradictory, asserted in defiance of the rules of logic.
The gist of that goes back to this post:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9721287/.
The point is that the new atheists never get to the science on these forums. All they ever do is philosophize . . . badly, as they stupidly imagine themselves not to be philosophizing. LOL!
For example, in response to the new atheism's God in the gaps myth I wrote the following, which alludes to the only pertinent philosophical concerns regarding the logic of theism in bold:
In addition to (
1) the readily apparent facts of human consciousness, the absolute rational forms and logical categories thereof, (2) the axioms regarding ontological origination and (3) the marvelously rational nature of existence in general: it was the nature of the things they [for example, Copernicus, Kepler, Newton. . . .]
did grasp, not the unknown, that underscored their absolute certainty that God is. That's the icing on the cake, the
coup de grâce. The unknown, the yet to be discovered or deciphered, for them or for any other sensible person, had absolutely nothing to do with the price beans in heaven.
See posts #367, #369, #372 and #375.
In these posts, on every point, the new atheism is routed.
Earlier on this thread and elsewhere on this forum, I've discussed precisely what the only pertinent philosophical concerns regarding the logic of theism are, beginning with the implications of the absolute rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness and the problem of the infinite regression of origin, including it's ontological alternatives and the ramifications thereof. I've even explained to our amateurish new atheists why Hawking's baby talk about how the cosmos would have necessarily arisen due to the laws of physics which allow for quantum fluctuations is inherently contradictory and self-negating. Right. Hawking resolved the problem of infinite regression of origin, as if the quantum vacuum were a metaphysical nothingness or must have always existed prior to the cosmos.
"Oh? Why would that necessarily be?" the centuries-old cannon of the greatest minds of philosophical and theological thought asks.
The philosophizing Hawking, who obviously has not resolved the problem and doesn't even appear to understand the question, obtusely responds: "Philosophy is dead."
LOL!
Hawking isn't talking science. He's talking metaphysics. But even more to the point: the quantum vacuum arguably resembles the very essence of divinity itself or the essence of its methodology behind the veil of the space-time continuum for all that he or anybody knows.
What atheist on this forum has ever directly addressed my observations regarding the logic of theism, which is, in fact, objectively and universally apparent to all . . . whether one subsequently decides to embrace God's existence as a fact based on that logic or not.
Answer: Never!
Ironically, AtheistBuddah is the only one I've encountered on this forum who has ever come close. Hollie is an utter waste of time with regard to both the philosophical and the scientific concerns:
a man walks into a bar and ducks.
Aside from those whose minds are as closed as a slammed-shut door, anybody with an IQ above that of a gnat grasps the fact that theism is not based on faith, but reason. Moreover, the notion that theism is based on fear is redundantly stupid, while the notion that
faith is based on fear is exponentially stupid, as both an atheist and a number of theists have irrefutably shown on this thread.
Faith doesn't even factor into the equation until one gets to theology, and theological faith that is not backed by the known facts and reason is useless.
And now we come to the clincher. It has been suggested that science, which necessarily rests on one metaphysical apriority or another, a fact that flies right over the new atheist's head, as if empirical data interpreted themselves, as if the methodology of science established itself, as if the entire enterprise of science were not necessarily contingent to the philosophy of science, is the cat's only meow. In other words, the new atheist imagines that the limitations of scientific inquiry constitute the limits of reliable human knowledge, it not the limits of reality itself.
Thusly, the obtuse new atheist thinks to philosophize the universally apparent facts of theism's rational and ontological justifications out of existence, rather than honestly engage them. The new atheist never addresses the real issues. Instead, he goes on and on about what are in fact the meanderings of teleological, anthropological and psychological irrelevancies . . . that is, when he's not mangling the pertinent metaphysics.
Straw-man argumentation is the new atheists' forte.
Fine.
Let's move onto the science then, to the facts of abiogenetic research. Let's move on to the hypothesis that must necessarily be true in order for the atheist to be right, though even that wouldn't necessarily prove that God is not.
But, no, wait a minute! Let's
not move on to the science . . . not with the likes of Hollie, as the likes of Hollie never do move on to the science.
I've only encountered one atheist on this forum who ever did, and once
this authority on the science of abiogenetic research got done with his amateurish prattle. . . . Well, we haven't heard from him on this forum since.
The atheists' "science"?
Anytime you're ready, children, let me know. [/quote]
