An “Unmoved-mover” is a cognitive requirement for humans. Without it, we could not maintain consistent causal relations.

Kindly excuse the mouthful of a heading, I could not think of a way to make it any shorter. An unmoved-mover just like the first cause argument for god posit that an indefinite regression is impossible.

Yours truly contends that an unmoved-mover or first cause is a logical absurdity and any such argument is doomed to fail. The proponents of these arguments start by making inferences about what we observe about things in the universe and infer that this must be true for the universe and arrive at a first cause. This error, I think, develops from a misunderstanding of causality.

Schopenhauer in The World as Will and Idea, Vol 2 defines causality or rather the law of causality thus

every change has its cause in another change which immediately precedes it.

The law only deals with changes in the state of matter and there is no ground a priori for inferring from the existence of given things, their previous non-existence. As such, the mere existence of a thing does not justify us in inferring it has a cause.

From the above, an unmoved mover is a logical impossibility. This is so because for this unmoved-mover to move something, it must be moved. There has to be something else preceding it’s first movement whatever that movement is. Whereas the person who made the above statement argues that it is a cognitive requirement for humans, I must contend that it is impossible to think of it. It is not given by experience[observation] or intuitively.

Anyone who makes the cosmological argument and stops at the first cause kills his own argument by negating that which was the starting point of his premise. There is no rescue possible from such a pit and the argument must be abandoned at once.

I would at this point like to hear from those who find the cosmological arguments persuasive for theism to at least demonstrate where they think this strength lies for I do not see it.

Does science contradict religion? What did you think, of course it does!

Yours truly is of the opinion that theist apologists are either not creative or you can only repeat the same lie enough times before it becomes tired. And for the purposes of this post, even if this does seem as beating an already dead horse, it can’t be said enough times that theists are simply wrong and no matter how much they try to comport religion and science, it simply doesn’t work in their favour.

In this post, the author presents several fallacious arguments in support of theism and I will in this post try to respond to just a few without making this post very long, so dear reader, please bear with me! I have tried to summarize most of the trope in the post but anyone with time on their hands could read it for their journey towards Judaism 2.0.

(1) If science contradicts religion, how do atheists explain the fact that most of the great scientists of the past believed in God and took the Bible seriously?

This doesn’t make the bible true. It only means that bright individuals can believe stupid things.

(2) If religion is an obstacle to science, how do atheists get round the fact that empirical science first arose in Christian Europe, three centuries before the rise of Darwinism?

Evolution isn’t the only science you dimwit!

(3) Why did the ‘founding fathers’ of modern science believe in God?

Most people believed in god and thought it was a sufficient explanation for causes they didn’t understand. Nothing special about it.

(4) Atheists commonly reject the design argument for God’s existence because of the problem of evil, arguing that a world marred by death, disease, cruelty and suffering cannot be the creation of an infinitely good and powerful Being.

No you twit! The problem of evil contradicts a benevolent god. The argument from design is rejected on its own, because it is a bad argument. There is nothing that says the designer has to be a god and two, the key word is nature appears to be designed, not that it is designed.

(5) The advance of science over the last half-century has revealed powerful new evidence that life and the universe are the product of intelligent design, especially in the fields of astrophysics and microbiology

What evidence?

6) The realms of microbiology and biochemistry provide equally compelling evidence that life in all its forms is the product of intelligent design rather than unguided natural forces.

You start with the assumption that life is designed and conclude life is designed. This is not a bad argument, it is plain stupid. Besides, all available evidence point to Nature as the source of all life,  and nothing outside of it.

(7) Atheism is not only challenged by the cumulative evidence for intelligent design uncovered by the progress of science; it cannot even answer the most fundamental of all questions: why does anything exist in the first place? Is the universe self-sufficient and self-explanatory or does it require an intelligent cause?

Atheism is a lack of belief in gods, has nothing to do with ID. The question that you think is fundamental can’t be answered by positing gods and yes, if by the universe you mean nature, yes, it is a self sufficient and doesn’t require an intelligence out of it.

The cosmological argument for God’s existence addresses this vital question, and is based on the premise that something cannot come from nothing – a self-evident truth supported by logic and experience.

No, the cosmological argument goes nowhere. The simple question is what caused your god? If on the other hand s/h/it is eternal, the same is true of matter. So what would god be doing?

Given these self-evident truths, does our knowledge of the universe suggest that it is self-existent?

What truths?

If, then, God is real, what can the cosmological argument tell us about His attributes and character?

Which god and what is god?

A great deal. All we have to do, as St. Paul reminds us in Romans 1: 19-20, is look at His creation – at all that He has made.

Unfortunately this verse tells us nothing other that god is invisible, how that is something you are yet to me!

This tells us, first of all, that since the universe and all it contains is unimaginably vast and powerful in terms of its mass, extent, and energy, its Creator must be supremely powerful.

How did you get to this point of the universe requiring a creator? And yes, nature is unimaginably vast and powerful. It is the sufficient cause of all it encompasses. Am waiting for you to tell me the boundaries of nature if you can…… and am patient, very patient!

Secondly, since the universe contains living, intelligent, and personal beings, and many other hallmarks of design, its Creator must be living, intelligent, and personal.

Far from it. Attributing human characteristics of goodness, intelligence and animation to nature will not get you anywhere. Nature need not be intelligent but it allows for intelligent beings disposed in a certain manner to exist.

Thirdly, since human beings possess moral awareness and feel guilty when they do wrong, their Creator must be Goodness personified, or ‘holy’, to use the language of the Bible.

You should have been using the language of the bible all along for that is where you get such silly ideas. And no again, man acts in a certain way because that is his nature and gods, whatever they are, having nothing to do with our morals. Goodness only make sense when comparing two things, what do you mean when you say god is good? What does it mean to say his nature is goodness?

Finally, since the distance between non-existence and existence is an infinite one, a God who can create an entire universe out of nothing must be all-knowing and all-powerful.

What is infinity? Do you just use the word because you hear it? Have you considered what it means? One, you haven’t established anywhere that the universe was created, the how and why, two you have not said what god is and lastly why it is necessary for one to exist.

(9) Atheists commonly argue that Darwinian evolution provides an adequate explanation of the appearance of design in Nature, without needing to invoke God as its intelligent cause.

There is nothing about atheism that requires you to hold evolution as true. But most atheists understand the evidence for evolution and why it is both fact and theory. You on the other hand seem to me to not have read about it.

(10) Another feature of life which points to God and cannot be explained by atheist philosophers and scientists, is the phenomenon of human consciousness.

So you think positing a ghost would settle the matter! Nature has arranged atoms in some of its creatures in a certain way that they are conscious, nothing magical about it except that we don’t understand how nature structured this.

Philosophy and science both support the teaching of Christian theology that humans are spiritual as well as material beings, created by God.

This statement could only have been made by an ignoramus.

At the end of his life, France’s best-known existentialist and atheist philosopher, Jean Paul Sartre, confessed: “I do not feel that I am the product of chance, a speck of dust in the universe, but someone who was expected, prepared, prefigured. In short, a king whom only a Creator could put here; the idea of a creating hand refers to God.”

Many people have said so many things at the point of death. This unfortunately doesn’t bring your ghosts into existence.

(11) Science does not and cannot rule out supernatural events like miracles.

What is a miracle and what purpose would they serve?


Blog break 5: Bad apologetics

Folks, a christian apologist claims in one of his posts that we atheists are not any different when it comes to cherry picking bible verses. I think I need help here, when is using a bible verse cherry picking? The accuser claims further that we [atheists] never venture out of the OT for fear of finding some teachings of Jesus we may not like for their moral value like when he curses a fig tree out of season or calls others brood of vipers or even worse in the sermon on the mount when he preaches it is blessed to be poor? Well, I got news for you. We don’t cherry pick.

Your accuser is here

In this post he claims talking about evidence with us is a waste of time. Last time we had the discussion on evidence with theists, it came down to see around you that is evidence of god and look at the bible it says it is the word of god and the bible is true because god says so in the bible. Beyond that all other evidence involved is quoting William L. Craig and Platinga, two apologists that it is my opinion their beliefs are far removed from the beliefs held by most other christians.

You know you are reading bad philosophy when you see an argument presented thus

. Matter cannot create itself
. Matter cannot preexist itself
. Matter cannot be eternal nor infinite
the author fails to mention the premise that matter can neither be created nor destroyed. In his argument he has created a strawman and so he is on a roll through and through, there is no beating him. He knows mentioning this important premise puts into question his other premises.
To make his case, he presents the Cosmological argument presenting it as evidence. He writes
. Everything material that begins to exist has come into existence because of an external cause.
. Matter is not eternal
. An infinite regress of cause does not exist
. Matter requires an eternal immaterial Creator
In his first premise, this can’t be said of the universe. He nor me simply do not know and will never know. The premise is also not true because radio-active decay occurs without a discernible cause and the same is true to quantum fluctuations.
I don’t know what evidence he has to support premise two. As far as we can tell if matter can’t be destroyed the only option is it is eternal.
Premise 3 is wrong on two counts. Infinity is a place holder, a term we use to represents large numbers to say it doesn’t exist then you must have performed poorly is mathematics or you attended a creationism school. The second thing that is wrong with this assertion is it can’t be applied to the universe, we can apply to human constructions but when we want to apply it to the universe, we are way out of our depth.
The conclusion in 4 above does not follow from the premises. A case hasn’t been made to warrant a creator and while we are it at it, how does an immaterial creator create what is material? At what point do they interact?
I have seen ridiculous statements, but this will get the trophy as the most ridiculous of the week!
As things stand right now, atheists have no basis for the world-view that they hold.
Atheists are simply believing what they believe on blind faith. And in this case, faith would mean, believing something in the teeth of the evidence to the contrary.
I don’t think this statement requires further comment from me.
For those of you who have time, you can visit his site for entertainment, the link is provided in the body of the post.