Tuesday, September 1, 2009

I get comments

Woo hoo, I just got my second comment from a theist! I was originally replying in the comments section, but it's an old post so nobody is likely to see it, and it turns out this guy's blog has a rather juicy "proof" of "the existence of an Intelligent and Perfect Creator". It's just damn fun to pick apart, so here goes:

The fundamental laws of physics then require a cause of the universe ex nihilo; i.e., a Prime Cause Singularity that is non-dimensional and independent of timespace. In contrast to endless opinionating of innumerable pseudo-scientific religionists, science recognizes the necessity of a Prime Cause ex nihilo

I think this is not quite correct, but it's actually an interesting topic. He is definitely correct in pointing out the need for some sort of singularity at or around t=0. However, to say that the singularity must be a "prime cause ex nihilo" is making assumptions about the laws of physics and causality beyond what is well understood at this time. In the first few picoseconds after the Big Bang, it may be that causality didn't really exist in a way that is well-captured by our logic.

Of course, when I try to think about that, my head spins. If I wanted to ridicule this answer, I might paraphrase it as "causality didn't exist until it was caused by the Big Bang." heh... I dunno, whether a first cause is necessary is a whole other debate that involves advanced philosophy, cutting edge cosmology, and quantum physics -- three topics of which I am fairly ignorant.

So for the sake of argument, let's move on and accept his premise: Let's say that science supports the idea of some kind of "cause ex nihilo".

Up until this point, the guy's argument has been reasonable, though probably not quite correct. The following sentence is where he descends into batshit-crazy territory:

Being logically consistent (orderly), the universe must mirror its Prime Cause / Singularity-Creator—Who must be Perfectly Orderly; i.e. Perfect.

Bullshit! Oh man, where do I start?

First, he suddenly and without warning injects the word "Creator", thus imbuing agency to this hypothetical "First Cause". If the universe does have a cause ex nihilo, why would we assume -- without any evidence whatsoever -- that that cause would be a thinking intelligent being?! This is classic apologist trickery. He has gotten us to agree to the idea of a thing which caused the universe to come into existence -- and then starts calling that thing a "Creator", with all of the baggage that goes along.

Two, just because thing X caused thing Y, that does not in any way mean that thing X has all of the traits of thing Y, or even that all of the traits of thing Y can be comprehended by thing X. If I chop the head off a chicken, that does not make me taste like chicken, nor does it mean that I fully understand all of the processes going on the chicken's death. Right? Similarly, there is no reason why the cause ex nihilo of a "perfectly orderly" universe would itself have to be "perfectly orderly."

Third, whence this logical leap from "perfectly orderly" to "perfect"? Osama bin Laden is "perfectly three-named", in that he has exactly three names -- not one, not two, but three. Does that mean Osama is perfect?! That's stupid. "Perfectly X" does not imply perfect. And anyway:

Fourth, "perfect" is undefined, and he is gaming us with the definition of "perfectly orderly". At the beginning of this whopper of a sentence, he defines the criteria for being "perfectly orderly" as merely being "logically consistent". But by the end of the sentence, he is implying much more.

Wow. I count an average of one grievous error per five words. That's quite a sentence. To give an idea of just how absurd this is, I have employed the same logic in the following paragraph:

I assert that if Anders commented on my blog, I must have at least one comment on my blog. The previous statement is logically consistent (i.e. perfectly orderly) and I created it. Therefore, I am perfectly orderly, hence I am Perfect. Kneel before me, bitches!

An orderly Creator necessarily had an Intelligent Purpose in creating this universe and us within it and, being Just and Orderly, necessarily placed an explanation, a "Life's Instruction Manual," within the reach of His subjects—humankind.

What? I have to provide an "instruction manual" within the reach of everything I create now?!? Dude, that's going to SUCK... I'm making pasta for dinner tonight, and I don't even know how to write in Pastanese!

Therefore, the Creator's "Life's Instruction Manual" has been available to man at least since the beginning of recorded history. The only enduring document of this kind is the Tor•âh′

Bzzzz, wrong again!

Fuck dude, according to this guy's "proof", we've all gotta start worshiping Osiris. That is going to SUCK.

1 comment:

  1. Almost looks like someone has been reading too much Plotinus along with their Judeo-Christian weirdness.

    This bit is absolutely the worst (so far):
    "An orderly Creator necessarily [really?] had an Intelligent Purpose [so you say] in creating this universe and us [now we get to the nub of the gist] within it and, being Just [where did this come from?] and Orderly, necessarily [again, really?] placed an explanation, [the second nub!] a "Life's Instruction Manual," within the reach of His subjects [royal or experimental?] —humankind." [riiight]

    Honk! Wrong.
    Who sent this guy?