Another Foolish Atheist Claim

The list of foolish -often very stupid- claims made by atheists is long indeed.  A great many of the claims made by the so-called “New Atheists” from Dawkins to Harris to Dennet to… you-name-em, and the claims based on those claims fall into that category.

This is rather astounding. Why? Because a large part of of the population in the West and in Europe have bought into this. What kind of average IQ rating can we give people,  in spite of how blatantly obvious the endless self-contradictions are, that cannot see these contradictions?

I my own view, that average IQ goes down by several points every time one of these “new atheist” priests opens his mouth to speak or writes another book.  Truly, these people, blind leaders of the blind, could reduce the average IQ of the entire world population by several points every year they continue to promote the bunk they perpetually try to pass off as “fact”, “reason”, “logic”, “true” etc,,

These people just don’t get it or else they really are wicked – deliberately speaking what they know is nonsense.

The often ludicrous propositions they think are so weighty against the existence of a God, a supreme, supernatural being are just bad logic, blind faith in nothing and among the worst of the dumb ideas devised since the beginning of the 20th century.

To illustrate this I’ll quote a recent comment I felt sadly obliged to confront on a blog.  Of course anyone that reads my articles here knows how harsh I can be to the adamant atheists.  Let me explain this just a little here.  I’ve been debating atheists and atheism for many long years -over 30- on and off the web for a about 20 years now.

About 99% of every single debate I’ve either had myself, or watched some other poor theists attempting to reason with atheists in, has been little more than an insult fest.  Most of them almost devoid of any sign of honest reasoning in atheism.  As soon as the atheist is faced with the glaring problems of logic and reason in his untenable position, the discussion is over; the insult session begins.  And in this it doesn’t matter how much proof, evidence, logic, fact or reason one brings against atheism’s multitude of errors, the theist receives a slew of often vulgar, nasty, four-lettered superlatives and accusations of stupidity etc. from the atheist crowd.

Ok so are you ready?  I hope so.

If you’re not an atheist you will no doubt see the foolishness of such comments immediately.  If you’re unfortunate enough to be an atheist you will almost certainly not see a thing.

Here’s the original comment :

“That’s simply because it’s based on observation and rational thought. It’s consistent not because it’s manufactured to be so, but because it actually is consistenct with reality.
Religion relies on dogma to be consistent and does a pretty poor job of it (as numerous schisms have shown).”

And here are my comments -with all my usual angst against atheism and its all too often willfully blind and willfully ignorant victims.  I’ve modified the format and presentation order, and also added some comments in square brackets to make it a bit clearer :

He stated,  “That’s simply because it’s based on observation …”

My response:

Tell us, oh rational one, what observation are you referring to exactly?
Which observation is it that proves there is no God or even no supernatural?
None whatsoever & you know it well too; therefore you’re doubly guilty -of both willful stupidity and fraud.

He said, “…and rational thought”

My response:

What rational thought are you pretending here?
Where is the rational thought that proves atheism?
Atheism denies the very reality of rationality itself by relegating all thought to mere materialism.

“If naturalism [atheism] were true then all thoughts whatever would be wholly the result of irrational causes…it cuts its own throat.” [C.S Lewis]
Simple.

Atheism according to atheists [American Atheists web site],

“Atheism is the lack of belief in a deity, which implies that nothing exists but natural phenomena (matter), that thought is a property or function of matter, … there are no forces, phenomena, or entities which exist outside of or apart from physical nature, or which transcend nature, or are “super” natural, nor can there be”

My response:

My, such a slew of glaring self contradictions in such a small paragraph is amazing!
They claim that “nothing exists but natural phenomena (matter), that thought is a property or function of matter”

Can they prove this? Using their own feeble methodologies [methodological naturalism]?
No, of course not, and they themselves say so!!

If, by default [and using your own method], you cannot posit [or detect] any supernatural existence then how on earth could you ever possibly “know” that there is no such thing!?
A child could see through such blatant stupidity, but not the well potty-trained atheist!

A wiser man (ex-atheist) wrote,

“The theory that thought is merely a movement in the brain is, in my opinion, nonsense; for if so, that theory itself would be merely a movement, an event among atoms, which may have speed and direction but of which it would be meaningless to use the words ‘true’ or ‘false'”

This undoes the self contradicting atheist statement on thought, in one single simple phrase.

He adds,

“If he is honest,… the materialist will have to admit that his own ideas are merely the “epiphenomenon which accompanies chemical or electrical events in a cortex which is itself the by-product of a blind evolutionary process.” … In other words, there is no reason according to materialism for materialism itself to be regarded as true”

You are nothing but a pack of neurons“, said atheist Francis Crick.

So tell us, why should anyone give a crap about what your neurons are doing?  Under atheism you’re just a slab of animated meat.   Rationality cannot be defined as meat.   The sooner you finally use your brain to figure out that, if atheism is true, then you really are nothing but animated meat, the sooner you might get free from the abject intellectual poverty of atheism.

The atheist said,  “It’s consistent not because it’s manufactured to be so, but because it actually is consistenct with reality.

My response:

Atheism isn’t even consistent with itself! Wake up and smell the oxymorons.
Atheism IS denial of reality.
He then said, “Religion relies on dogma to be consistent and does a pretty poor job of it (as numerous schisms have shown).

My response:

You were raised on humanism and you swallowed its ubiquitous lies and propaganda. You’re bound in the snares of its multitudinous idiocies, all while thinking yourself to be “free” and a “thinker”.
Packs of neurons can neither be free nor thinkers.

Atheism rational?!
You, like all atheists, are exactly like the man born blind that denies the existence of light and color because he himself cannot see it, and then you claim this is “rational”!

Think on that and maybe you’ll start really thinking for the 1st time in your life.

Ok, so there you have my initial admittedly angry response.

The greatest contradiction in atheism is this pretension that you can have rationality in an atheist universe.  You cannot have rationality in a universe that is itself irrational.  You cannot have rationality in a universe that is purely and solely material -matter.  Matter is not rational, it doesn’t think, has no consciousness and no will. You may as well assign an IQ to a rock, intelligence to a piece of meat, as to believe rationality exist by accidents in matter.

Rationality itself is purely conceptual. It relies completely on the absolute laws of logic to even exist. Which do not exist in atheism.

I’m always amazed, astounded and confounded when I hear atheists smugly bragging of reason, logic, rationality etc. within a world view, a philosophy that itself, by default, by its own tenets, denies even the possibility that these things can even exist as anything real. Rationality, under atheism, is nothing but a material pack of neurons. It’s nothing but animated meat, chemical reactions, electrochemical activity in meat.  It can never be more because according to atheism, that’s all that exists.

Yet the average atheist never can’t seem to figure this simple fact out.  Crick did, so did many others, but they always end up denying the necessary logical implications and consequences of their ideas.

Therefore, all while claiming to be perfectly logical, the atheist must deny major facets of logic, in order to keep his position “consistent” with itself.  Yet, the very act of denying these vital aspects of reason and logic, the atheist automatically, whether hes sees it or not, has denied his own foundations for atheism. It’s the ultimate intellectual self-destruct.

 

Another Headache for Darwin

In 2008 Vladimir ShCherbak published information his book “The Codes of Life” with a chapter entitled “The Arithmetical Origin of the Genetic Code”.  (Biosemiotics Volume 1, 2008, pp 153-185 – http://www.springerlink.com/content/t85w0h771510j187)

The discoveries covered in this are yet another wonderful refutation of Darwinism.

Of course, we know beforehand that the Darwinians will deny these clear implications, as they always do when any discovery challenges their secular humanism-based theory.  That’s because Darwinism is materialism’s origins myth.

For example shCherbak writes,

“There seems to be but one conclusion: the genetic code is itself a unique structure of arithmetical syntax. The arithmetical syntax is separated from natural events by the unbridgeable gap between the fundamental laws of nature and the abstract codes of the human mind (Barbieri, 2005). Chemical evolution, no matter how long it took, could not possibly have stumbled on the arithmetical language and initialized the decimalization of the genetic code. Physics and chemistry can neither make such abstractions nor fit the genetic code out with them.”

“The zero is the supreme abstraction of arithmetic. Its use by any alphabet, including the genetic code, can be an indicator of artificiality.”

“First, a general and the most forcible argument: it has been found that the genetic code is governed directly by the arithmetical symbol of zero. This striking fact is verified simultaneously by several independent orderlinesses – logical, arithmetical, and semantical… Incidentally, such an acting zero alone might be sufficient to assume an artificial nature of the genetic code.”

Zero is indeed an abstraction, as is the decimal point.  Only minds can entertain abstractions. Nature, being mindless, cannot therefore create or use abstract data like this. Abstractions don’t exist in nature’s matter and energy.

Indeed, the very definition of the word abstract is as follows:

1. thought of apart from concrete realities, specific objects, or actual instances: an abstract idea.
2. expressing a quality or characteristic apart from any specific object or instance, as justice, poverty,  and speed.
3. theoretical; not applied or practical: abstract science.
4. difficult to understand; abstruse: abstract speculations.

8. an idea or term considered apart from some material basis or object.
9. an abstract work of art.

Note: removed unrelated definitions (related to arts)

Abstractions are only and always conceptual, requiring a mind.  Thus Nature, DNA and life as a whole, cannot know or understand abstract concepts like zero and the decimal point.  Matter and energy alone cannot abstract.

The obvious conclusion of the existence of abstraction being used in the genetic code is a proof – not mere evidence – that the genetic code was created by a mind, an intelligence.

ShCherbak states this very clearly in his statement- that I repeat for emphasis, “Incidentally, such an acting zero alone might be sufficient to assume an artificial nature of the genetic code.

An “artificial origin” is the same as “intelligently designed”.

There is no other source for abstraction but mind and only mind can understand it.

Is this thus the end of Darwinism?

Well the truth is that Darwinism died many years ago with the discovery of the genetic code itself.  How so? Code is a symbol system.  Codes do not write themselves. Codes are conventions of symbols contrived to represent something other than themselves.  Algorithms cannot create themselves. No random process can create algorithmic symbol systems. Algorithms, being instructions and how to do something – like make a blueberry pie or build car –  require a mind.

As Dr. David Abel explains,

“Not even Descriptive semantic information is achievable by inanimate physicodynamics (Pattee, 1972, 1995, 2001). Measuring initial conditions in any experiment and plugging those measurements appropriately into equations (e.g., physical “laws”) is formal, not physical. Cybernetic programming choices and mathematical manipulations are also formal.

The specific term PI originated out of a need to qualify the kind of information being addressed in peer-reviewed scientific literature. Shannon measured only probabilistic combinatorial uncertainty. Uncertainty is not information. It is widely recognized that even reduced uncertainty (“R,” poorly termed “mutual entropy”) fails to adequately describe and measure intuitive information. Intuitive information entails syntax, semantics and pragmatics. Syntax deals with symbol sequence, various symbol associations, and related arbitrary rules of grouping. Semantics deals with the meanings represented within any symbol system. Pragmatics addresses the formal function of messages conveyed using that symbol system.” – http://www.scitopics.com/Prescriptive_Information_PI.html

More information and several articles one should read to grasp the concepts discussed can be found here.

Again Abel notes,

“No one has ever observed PI flow in reverse direction from inanimate physicodynamics to the formal side of the ravine—the land of bona fide formal pragmatic “control.” The GS Principle states that selection for potential function must occur at the molecular-genetic level of nucleotide selection and sequencing, prior to organismic existence (Abel, 2009b, d).

Differential survival/reproduction of already-programmed living organisms (natural selection) is not sufficient to explain molecular evolution or life-origin (Abel, 2009b). Life must be organized into existence and managed by prescriptive information found in both genetic and epigenetic regulatory mechanisms. The environment possesses no ability to program linear, digital folding instructions into the primary structure of biosequences and biomessages.

The environment also provides no ability to generate Hamming block codes (e.g. triplet codons that preclude noise pollution through a 3-to-1 symbol representation of each amino acid) (Abel and Trevors, 2006a, 2007). The environment cannot decode or translate from one arbitrary language into another. The codon table is arbitrary and physicodynamically indeterminate. No physicochemical connection exists between resortable nucleotides, groups of nucleotides, and the amino acid that each triplet codon represents. Although instantiated into a material symbol system, the prescriptive information of genetic and epigenetic control is fundamentally formal, not physical.”

What he is saying, for those not used to the terms of reference and concepts of the laws and nature of information, is that Darwinism cannot be true because matter + energy, random mutations + “selection” (a mere filter) cannot create abstractions like codes and symbol systems.  It just doesn’t happen. No more than your rose bush can do arithmetic.  Math is abstract in itself, nature knows nothing out it.

Therefore this arithmetical nature of the genetic code, with its zero and decimal, its algorithmic information, cannot be natural. This is a defeater for Darwinian evolution – period.

The current generation of elder Darwinian fundamentalists will probably never accept these obvious facts since it counters their whole worldview and makes them nervous and insecure.  That’s why the Darwinistas are so enraged, loud and adamantly resistant.  They are the new inquisition. It’s about religion for them, not science, whether they confess this “sin” or not.

This was revealed by one of their own, who at least was honest enough to admit it. Richard Lewontin,

“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.  It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated.  Moreover the materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”

‘Scientists, like others, sometimes tell deliberate lies, because they believe that small lies can serve big truths.’ – Lewontin, R.C., The Inferiority Complex, New York Review of Books, 22 October 1981, p. 13.

Well we can take his word for it, right? Well um … if you can trust a scientist that tells you that he lies!   This is nevertheless a very strange statement. He says the materialism is absolute, and we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. But atheism has no absolutes. Curiouser and curiouser.

The Darwinists only logical response to this is to claim some version of panspermia, an extra-terrestrial origin for DNA.  But that only pushes the problem back one step, for then we need to ask, “How did they get here?” Now, supposing that the ETs themselves are DNA based will only leave us with the same question of the origin of life.

It will of course take a long time before these perfectly logical conclusions are accepted – perhaps the next generation of students of biology and other related domains will accept the truth. I fear that we’ll have to wait till this generation dies off.

charles-darwin-headache 😉

On the Problem of Evil & Suffering

Atheists often argue against the existence of God, and specifically an almighty and good God on the basis of the existence of evil and suffering in the universe.   The argument goes something like this:

God is all-powerful, loving, and perfect.
A perfect, good God would create a universe that was perfect (e.g., no evil and suffering).
The universe is not perfect but contains evil and suffering.
Therefore, God does not exist.

Basically, it’s always some form of the Epicurean paradox.

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”- Epicurus

So in short, either God is not good, or not all-powerful or he does not exist, because if he did exist then surely he could stop all the suffering. The atheist then concludes that both the idea of a bad God and the idea of a limited God make no sense, therefore God must not exist. Variations on this ages old theme exist but that is the gist of it.

So how does one answer this type of objection?

Most apologists go into lengthy arguments concerning why a good and almighty God could and does allow evil & suffering in the world.  They will usually get into the biblical fall of Lucifer and of man to explain how such evils and sufferings came to be.

That’s all well and good. But forget all that for now. There is a much simpler way to demonstrate why this argument is flawed.

First you must see that in a universe with no God, there cannot be any absolute moral values. Most atheists admit this. For example:

“Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3)no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent.” -William B. Provine, atheist professor of biology at Cornell University

“In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, and other people are going to get lucky; and you won’t find any rhyme or reason to it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is at the bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good. Nothing but blind pitiless indifference. DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is, and we dance to its music.”Richard Dawkins, –Out of Eden, page 133

“If there is no God, everything is permitted.” – Jean Paul Sartre on Ivan Karamazov – Fyodor Dostoevski’s character

“Morality is no more … than an adaptation, and as such has the same status as such things as teeth and eyes and noses. . . . [M]orality is a creation of the genes”. – Michael Ruse

“Nature has no concern for good or bad, right or wrong. . . . We cannot get behind ethics.” – Naturalist Simon Blackburn

Evolutionary biologist E. O. Wilson said that morality is just a survival mechanism. Ethics, he claims,

“is an illusion fobbed off on us by our genes to get us to cooperate,” and “the way our biology enforces its ends is by making us think that there is an objective higher code to which we are all subject.”

Now how does one refute the atheist argument against God based on evil & suffering?

Easy.  Without God, there is no good or evil.
The atheist high priests, quoted above say so.

The goes the ball game for the atheist objector. The atheist shoots himself in the foot with such arguing against God based on “there is so much evil”.  For such an argument becomes too obviously wrong given that “no God = no evil”. So how does the atheist argue against God based on something that does not and cannot exist in his own worldview? Contradiction much? Indeed.

Suffering becomes a mere amoral, purposeless event in a cold uncaring cosmos. Or as Dawkins put it, a blind, pitiless, indifferent universe. Suffering, but without God suffering is neither evil nor good nor “bad”, since godd and bad only exist as humans illusions.

Thus we see how the atheist in using the existence of evil and suffering to refute the existence of God is unwittingly assuming the existence of God in the very argument itself.

Therefore, how can one claim God doesn’t exist while admitting the existence of evil? If there is no God how does one define evil?  Indeed, how does one claim that suffering is “wrong” in a universe without God?

One might even state,

“Evil exists.  Therefore God exists. God defines ultimate good. Evil is all that is contrary to that good. No God, no evil”

The fact that all men everywhere and at all times have recognized the existence of evil, demonstrates the existence of a transcendent moral law, else, evil does not exist. Things simply are what they are – neither right nor wrong; neither evil or good.

Without an absolute law giver, there can be no such thing as evil or good and since atheists, as shown above, really do admit that without God there is no real good or evil, how can they then contradict themselves by claiming God doesn’t exist based on it? Intellectual blindness, that’s how.

Thus the atheists using this argument, show a rather stunning lack of perception.  But in this case it is a lack of perception of their own arguments logical implications and flaws! To argue against God based on the existence of evil is to argue for God based on the existence of moral right and wrong. So when atheists use the old “problem of pain and evil” argument they are unwittingly admitting of a transcendent Law that defines evil by the existence of absolute good – which is the ONLY way evil can be defined!

C.S. Lewis wrote,

“Truth and falsehood are opposed; but truth is the norm not of truth only but of falsehood also.”
–The Allegory of Love

Indeed, without God (ultimate truth) there is no reason to call anything at all “evil”.

Thus the whole “evil and suffering” based argument falls apart under its own underlying assumptions. This argument actually does more to uphold the existence of God than it can ever do to refute it.  Sadly, most atheists do not and will not see this, such is the hardness of their hearts.

The Atheist That Still Doesn’t Get It

In my last article I posted in response to an atheist that claimed that I don’t understand, atheism, metaphysics, information, evidence etc..  I attempted to show how most atheists don’t understand their own position by using some of his claims and dismantling their obvious errors.  Not surprisingly this same atheist has once again responded with the same insistence and of course, the same errors.  He has still not seen any light.  Of course not, he would have to off his blinders to see any light.

So here, once again, I’ll post some of his further misguided comments and respond. This time for the last time as I’ve learned over the years that arguing with adamantly religious atheist fundamentalists is a waste of time.  They cannot see because they don’t want to see and thus live in perpetual denial of reality and darkness.

So let’s deal with his first, unsurprising because almost universal with web debate atheists, but utterly wrong claim,

“Evidence for atheism? No, atheism is the default position.”

This is a ubiquitous claim among modern atheists but still very wrong and that for several reasons:

1. Who says atheism is the default position?

Can anyone seriously make this claim and back it up?  No.  It is a positive claim to knowledge that no atheist possesses.  Worse – Can atheists prove this? Have they proved this? No they have not and no they cannot.

The claim assumes, or rather presumes, that metaphysical beliefs, religion and faith if you please, are taught and learned from early childhood.  It assumes that no metaphysical concepts exist in initially in very young children.  It also assumes,  (once again revealing that the atheist here doesn’t understand that he has a positively chosen metaphysical position, a religious belief),  that atheism is a non position – no position at all!  This is rather amazing persistence in the foolishness of denial of reality that is atheism.  Yet, this same atheist implores me to open up comments so he (in his own mind) can refute what I’m saying here!  He has not understood the real nature of atheism yet, but still wants to refute it. This is so common today that it’s a tragedy.

2.  If atheism is the default position, where is the proof of this?

The atheist wrongly assumes that a default position doesn’t require proof.  If this were the default position it still requires proof that it ought truly be the default position.  Back to square one! More atheist circular reasoning that, in their default cognitive dissonance creating position, hinders them from detecting.

3. There is ever mounting evidence that atheism is not the default position.

Dr. Justin L. Barrett is senior researcher at University of Oxford’s Centre for Anthropology and Mind and the Institute for Cognitive and Evolutionary Anthropology.  Barrett has published studies demonstrating that metaphysical beliefs or innate or born in humans.  His research, which is also based on or associated with the research of many others who have come to the same conclusions, is that humans are born with a natural propensity to believe in God, purpose in life, and they demonstrate a clear recognition of designed artifacts versus natural ones right from the earliest stages of cognition.  Here is a link to a short article.  Dr. Barrett has even written a book on the subject called Born Believers: The Science of Children’s Religious Belief.

As one commenter of the book put it,

“A fascinating and readable account of why religious beliefs are perfectly normal and virtually universal. In an age of atheism, this book will challenge widespread assumptions that nonbelief is the default and that children must be indoctrinated to believe.  Jam-packed with insight and wit, Born Believers should be required reading for all parents and for anyone else interested in the spiritual lives of children.”  — Robert A. Emmons, Professor of Psychology, University of California

Barrett stated,

“The preponderance of scientific evidence for the past 10 years or so has shown that a lot more seems to be built into the natural development of children’s minds than we once thought, including a predisposition to see the natural world as designed and purposeful and that some kind of intelligent being is behind that purpose,” – on BBC Radio “4 Today”.
“If we threw a handful on an island and they raised themselves I think they would believe in God.”

I may also point to the work of Paul Bloom of the Department of Psychology, Yale University, USA.  His essay called, “Religion is natural”, Bloom says,

“The proposal here is that there are certain early-emerging cognitive biases that give rise to religious belief. These include body–soul dualism and a hyper-sensitivity to signs of agency and design. These biases make it natural to believe in Gods and spirits, in an afterlife, and in the divine creation of the universe. These are the seeds from which religion grows.”

Many other recent research articles could be noted.

Atheists are once again shown to be off in their logic and metaphysics.  Once again, I provide solid and simple reasoning and evidence whereas the atheist provides bare assertions. Assertions that, no matter how universal, inevitably turn out to be false.

Thus you can see why the atheists’ next statement is also wrong,

“The claims that need evidence are the positive claims “there is a God” or “there is no God”. 

Worse, or perhaps better, I’m not sure, the atheist says,

“Atheism is simply the position of not accepting the positive claims. Without evidence either way I am agnostic. But I am also an atheist. Your writing undoubtedly betrays your lack of awareness of this position.”

Here the atheist has modified his definition of himself in contradictory ways.  First he states that atheism, previously a mere “absence of belief”, is now a refusal to accept evidence – which is exactly what I’ve been saying all along.  So has he accepted this at last?  Apparently no, as he is very confused as well.  How so?  He now claims to be an atheist agnostic.  But the two are mutually exclusive! One cannot be an agnostic and an atheist at the same time. Agnostics are not atheists, they simply claim they don’t know whether their is a God or not, and many also claim that such knowledge is unattainable.  Atheists, on the other hand do not believe in God at all, and many, such as this atheist friend of ours here, adamantly refuse all evidence pointing to a supreme being.  “Curiouser and curiouser”!

Then he adds,

Not only that, but even if you do attack atheism it doesn’t prove theism true.”

This is rather surprising since I stated clearly in the previous article that proving any specific evidence for God wrong does not prove there is no God. Obviously the reverse is true. Proving atheist counter propositions to God to be false doesn’t prove there is a God.  And?

Then he insults my academic and experiential credentials – a bachelors degree in informatics plus many years of experience in information technologies – by stating,

“As for your not understanding information, you don’t. The idea that you think information necessitates a mind is just a nonsense.”

Obviously our friend is very uniformed on information himself.  As he follows with this,

“Are the ice core records not information? Are tree-rings not information? Are soil layers not information? If they are then information obviously doesn’t need a mind, and if not explain why DNA is information and these things are not.”

Here we see a very common and glaring error committed by atheists attempting to refute the laws of information and the nature of  specified information. Once again the atheist fails to discern between information and the medium in which it is stored, even though I clearly explained this hereAlso here and here as well.  Not clearly enough apparently, or he didn’t read it.

Our atheist antagonist commits intellectual suicide here, not realizing that this very statement proves him wrong.

Ice cores, tree rings, soil layers etc. are information? No they are not. They are only what they are – natural phenomena. It’s like claiming that a rock is information. No it isn’t.

However, a mind can derive information from such things by obtaining previous knowledge on interpretation of ice layering properties etc..  The information on conditions of the various eras when the ice was formed exists only in a mind that can reason upon its natural properties. It is not structured information contained in the ice itself.  Moreover, this is not specified information.  It isn’t algorithmic at all.  Not is it encoded, the code exists in the mind of the interpreter alone.

The same thing applies to tree rings, soil layers, and the color of stars, a benzene molecule etc.  These things merely are what they are.  Information derived by understanding their nature and condition is completely other and can only be derived by a mind using logic.  Logic is a property only of minds.   Rocks have no logic.  Rocks carry only matter and information can be derived from them by a thinking mind with other information.

The information contained in DNA is however another matter altogether – again as I previously explained in the original article.  It is algorithmic, prescriptive and descriptive information such as one finds in a recipe or a set of plans for building a car. It’s information does not point only to itself, but describes whole information systems constructed with proteins by long sequential, algorithmically ordered molecules of amino acids.

I suggest those interested in a real understanding of information read the published papers of Dr David L. Abel and Jack T. Trevors here.  Their work and lucent reasoning is devastating to both atheism and it’s origins myth, Darwinism.

Here’s a short excerpt on their work from Biosemiotic Research Trends,

Genomic instructions are a form of what Abel (Abel, 2002, Abel and Trevors, 2005) calls prescriptive information. Such a clarifying descriptor of information is necessary to distinguish mere Shannon combinatorial uncertainty and Kolmogorov complexity from functional algorithmic strings. Algorithms steer events and behaviors towards predictable usefulness.  Prescriptive information utilizes a sign system to either instruct or direct compute utility.

Artificial life investigators and most applied biologists accepted this reality early on. Steering is required to achieve sophisticated function of any kind. Much of the life-origin research community, however, continues to “live in denial” of this fact.

The atheist/agnostic (I don’t think he knows what he is) then states,

“Now, your last post contradicts your About section”

Right.  Nuff’ said.

Then he adds, with equally unimpressive lucidity,

“See, to think about it you really need to be open to contrary views and to debate the evidence, you’re not willing to do that. What you are doing is closing the comments section and spreading dishonesty.”

Sadly, his own mind is shut like a trap and has probably been on hold for many years.  The fact is that I’ve debated thousands of times with atheists, on and off line.  So this poor dupe again insults me by claiming that I, like himself,  have a closed mind and am not willing to debate! Laughable and truly pathetic. Oh and once again, there is no evidence for atheism.

The only dishonesty witnessed around web forums where atheists attempt to debate their “default” non-position is among atheist themselves, the most dishonest pseudo thinkers on earth.

He invites me to debate on his blog.

Sorry dear boy but no.  That’s my only sane response, given he has understood virtually nothing I’ve said thus far and I have no hopes he ever will.   I’ve seen overwhelming evidence of the following statements too many times for one person in one life and as I stated before, no longer interested in wasting time arguing endlessly with willful fools,

“The atheists are for the most part imprudent and misguided scholars who reason badly who, not being able to understand the Creation, the origin of evil, and other difficulties, have recourse to the hypothesis the eternity of things and of inevitability…..” – Voltaire: Philosophical Dictionary

“You can lead an atheist to evidence but you can’t make him think.” – Ray Comfort

“Still, even the most admirable of atheists is nothing more than a moral parasite, living his life based on borrowed ethics. This is why, when pressed, the atheist will often attempt to hide his lack of conviction in his own beliefs behind some poorly formulated utilitarianism, or argue that he acts out of altruistic self-interest. But this is only post-facto rationalization, not reason or rational behavior. One need only ask an atheist what his morality is, and inquire as to how he developed it and why it should happen to so closely coincide with the dominant societal morality to discover that there is nothing rational about most atheists’ beliefs. Either he has none and is “immorally” practicing Dennett’s doxastic division of labor by unquestioningly accepting the societal norms that surround him, or he is simply selecting which aspects to credit and which to reject on the basis of his momentary desires. In neither case does anything that can legitimately be described as reason enter into the picture. The same is often true of his atheism itself; it is telling to note that Hitchens and Dawkins became atheists after long and exhaustive rational inquiries into the existence of God, both at the age of nine.

The idea that there is any rational basis for atheism is further damaged due to the way in which so many atheists become atheists during adolescence, an age which combines a tendency towards mindless rebellion as well as the onset of sexual desires which collide with religious strictures on their satisfaction” -Vox Day, aka Theodore Beale, The Irrational Atheist, p 147-148

There is no God and I am his prophet

Yet Another Atheist Doesn’t Get His Own Position

I recently received some comments from an atheist complaining about my posts.  Oh joy.

As is ubiquitous with atheist die-hards,  he demonstrated that, all while claiming I don’t understand atheism, burden of proof, the laws of evidence and the meaning of the word metaphysical etc., that in fact he didn’t understand these things! So typical, as every theist apologist, and indeed, many atheist professional philosophers, know all too well.

I have to shake my head in disbelief you see, because invariably such atheists themselves just don’t get it.  They vehemently insist that they do and that theists don’t get it.  It gets ridiculous to the point of hilarious when one starts delving into to their own feeble arguments against God but they never see the light on any of this because their minds are usually on hold, stuck in acute cognitive dissonance that damages their logic.

The sad thing is that they wish to disprove theism or theist arguments by their alleged use of logic and reason. Unfortunately atheists never understand even this.

Continue reading

No Evidence for God?

I often encounter atheists who claim that there is no evidence for God.

Question: Is this true?

A: The most obvious answer is a quite resounding no.

No one can claim there is no evidence in the universe for the existence of a supreme being.  Yet, armchair atheist pseudo-experts and wannabe philosophers say dumb things like that all the time because they never think anything through deeply enough to see how foolish such statement is.

Proof? Ask them to prove there is no evidence for God.  End of discussion right there – if they were honest, but too many of them are not.

What has been said of lawyers easily applies to atheists – its only 99% of atheists that give a bad reputation to the rest.

It is simply not – by any means – a logical or justifiable claim.  Why? Well obviously no atheist can possibly offer any evidence for his own claim.  He can’t offer any justification for such a stupendous claim, therefore he must bare alone the burden of proof that there is no evidence for God.  Can he? No, of course not.
This is where the atheist jumps in claiming that “you can’t prove a negative”. A very infamous, and of course false, claim that so many misguided atheists make. Fact: We prove negatives every day.

The atheist positing such bunk thus puts himself in the exact same position that he insists theists are in.  Claiming that which cannot be proved.  This is hardly surprising since atheists religiously claim there is no God all while claiming they can’t prove a negative. Perhaps this is because the atheist can’t do it. Yet people can and do prove negatives all the time.

His claim implies that he has searched out and examined all proposed evidences of God and found them all lacking.  Of course there are no atheists who can even be aware of all the evidence that may exist for God, nor even of all existing proposed evidence since this would require a knowledge of every argument for God that has ever existed as well as all possible other evidences. Yet another knowledge claim that such ill-reasoning atheists cannot uphold.

To truly know there is no evidence for God’s existence implies that the atheist claiming this knows all possible evidences for God’s existence, that he understands it and has adequately refuted all.  No single human being ever has, nor ever will, be able to do this. Thus, all such flippant dismissals of all evidence for God are mere arrogant pretensions to unavailable knowledge.

That in itself destroys all claims by any atheists that there is no evidence for God.  It also demonstrates what every theist knows – that atheist website debaters are almost invariably arrogant people making foolish claims that they cannot back up.

Dismissal of all evidence for God is not an argument against God.  It is mere denial of the reality that there are indeed infinite evidences for the existence of a first cause. Claiming there’s no evidence for God is tantamount to claiming to have proved that all proposed evidences, ever,  are wrong.

Moreover, claiming that any proposed evidence is wrong or insufficient does not prove that it is in fact wrong or insufficient.   Empty assertions abound in the atheist world. Worse, even if one were able to truly refute all proposed evidence, that still does not imply that there is no God.  There may be other evidences that one is unaware of, the wrong analysis tools and methods may have been used for devising evidence, etc.

Even atheist Kai Nielsen stated,

“To show that an argument is invalid or unsound is not to show that the conclusion of the argument is false….All the proofs of God’s existence may fail, but it still may be the case that God exists.” – Reason and Practice (New York: Harper & Row, 1971), 143-44.

The low-level website atheist, though he will always deny it because of personal wishes that there be no God, is always left with nothing to found his own beliefs on.  What do we see instead?  Nothing but denial and lame attempts at shirking his share of the burden of proof.  Atheists always try to shirk this by mere caviling and, as always,  denial that they even have any such burden. But they do have such a burden anyway – shirked or not, admitted or not.

“in truth-directed enquiries, the burden of proof is on all of us alike”
– Putting the Burden of Proof in its Place: When are Differential Allocations Legitimate ? Tim Dare and Justine Kingsbury, Academia.edu

Atheists tend to assume that if one has no evidence for God’s existence, then one ought to believe that God does not exist.  False.  What the atheist fails to see is that atheism is just as much a knowledge claim “There is no God” as theism’s “There is a God”.  Thus, as Ravi Zacharias states,

“the atheist’s denial of God’s existence needs just as much substantiation as does the theist’s claim; the atheist must give plausible reasons for rejecting God’s existence”.

The atheist cannot say, “Well I don’t claim there is no God, only that I don’t believe there is”.  But such would lead to agnosticism, not real atheism.  If one does not know there is no God, one has no grounds to believe there is no God. Back to burden of proof!  Is there evidence that no God exists, that no creator exists, that nothing created everything? No.  None whatsoever.

Is there evidence of a first ultimate cause? Yes, everything that exists in the material universe is evidence of a first and ultimate cause, by implication of the law of cause and effect. (Certain interpretations of quantum phenomena notwithstanding).  To say a singularity started it all, or a quantum fluctuation started it all is to say “we have no idea what started it all”!  What already existed to create the fluctuation? It only moves the problem back one step.

Consider the following evidence, for example:

Information is evidence of God.  Information itself is metaphysical.  Logic is metaphysical.  Now, if metaphysical things exist then that itself is yet another evidence for the possibility and probability of the existence of God, who, by very definition, is metaphysical.  But most atheists claim there is no such thing as a “metaphysical” something.  All is matter and energy.

Thus atheism is little different than foolish naivety, for claiming that nothing metaphysical exists is as bad as claiming that information doesn’t exist. So where does the atheist get this tasty bit of information?

We know information is metaphysical because it is always other or different from the medium in which it is stored. The ink on the paper in a book, by itself is not information.  It’s just a dye.  Ink on paper, by the way it’s used and structured to form symbols that, in turn, represent specific concepts and meanings, is merely the container, the medium through which information is conveyed. All symbol systems imply metaphysics and intelligence.  The collective symbols, by the way they are organized on the paper can contain meaningful information, to a mind that knows the symbolic convention, or code, used.

But the pixels on your screen are not the information they contain.  They are mere colored light spots. However, the pixels encode information that requires a mind – a mind that has been taught the symbol convention used (say the alphabet or icons) – to interpret it. That information is not random – it isn’t a meaningless blotch – but is structured and semantic.  It has syntax, semantics (meaning) and purpose.  No symbolic convention (code) is without purpose. But the very concept of purpose implies intention which implies mind and volition.

Encoded algorithmic information is a symbol system, whether that symbol system be such as the English, Cyrillic or Hebrew alphabets or the ATCG chemicals of DNA.  Such symbol systems cannot exist without intelligence (they intrinsically imply intelligent origin) thereby demonstrating that metaphysical intelligence must exist in order to explain the humongous levels of algorithmic information contained in the DNA molecule.

That intelligence – given its complexity, depth and intricacy – is best and most simply (Occam’s Razor) explained by what men have always called “God”.  The Intelligent originator.

Encoded information

Encoded information

Of Invisible Pink Unicorns

How many times have I encountered the atheist standard argument about not believing in invisible pink unicorns and thus not believing in God either?  Variations on the theme are leprechauns, Santa Claus, ice cream factories on some other planet and the truly inane flying spaghetti monster (FSM) and  such.  Have you met up with one of these arguments against theism or deism?  I see it all the time.

These are nothing more than popular variations of B. Russell’s famous “Tea Pot” argument. This argument is only famous because Russell was famous.  For, it has no real validity.  Russell argued that he could assert that there was a tea pot floating in space somewhere,  so small that no telescope could detect it.  And given this assertion, no one would be required to believe in the tea pot, because there is no real evidence, just assertion.  The tea pot cannot be proved not to exist.

Typical of the logical positivists.  Logical positivism – a kind of misnomer because there was never anything either logical or positive about it – a philosophical system now bankrupt, now defunct, yet still curiously used by atheists, because it was void of reason but full of bare assertions.  Sounds like the whole of atheism doesn’t it.

The argument is devised to show that if a thing can’t be proved or disproved to exist, then the burden of proof belongs to the one asserting its existence.  Therefore since – according to atheists – God can neither be proved nor disproved to exist, the theists, who assert his existence, must prove it.  Since the atheist assumes the existence of God cannot be proved he believes himself to be thinking logically and the theist to be unreasonable or even irrational.  We see this type of position posited everywhere across cyberspace as though it were some fatal blow to theism.  It isn’t.  Not even close.

The tea pot in space argument is flawed.  Curiously, most atheists never figure this out and still flaunt it over and over again, ad nauseum.  I was once challenged to produce a refutation, and the challenge was stated in terms indicating that the challenger believed the argument irrefutable – even though its been refuted many times.

What they’re really doing is trying – as always – to squirm their way out of having any burden of proof of their own in asserting the non existence of God.  Whenever atheists do this, it’s mere escapism and denial.  For, to pretend they have no burden of proof is tantamount to saying they have no position, that – once again – atheism were a mere involuntary state of “lack of belief”.   This has been refuted here, here and here as well as many other places across the web.

Now for the IPU argument itself.

As Dinesh D’Souza has aptly pointed out, there are no books called “Unicorns Are Not Great”, or “The Unicorn Delusion”. Nor are there any books around called “The Flying Spaghetti Monster Delusion”, the FSM being yet another example of just how incompetent and foolish some atheists have become in their never ceasing efforts to show themselves lacking in reason and logic.

So how does one dismiss the invisible pink unicorn argument, specifically?  I respond with Rich Deem’s simple refutation:

Unicorns would be pink if they reflected pink electromagnetic radiation (i.e., light). However, in order to be invisible, the unicorns would reflect no electromagnetic radiation. Therefore, the term “invisible pink unicorn” is self contradictory. Therefore, we know absolutely that they could not exist. I don’t know who invented the term “invisible pink unicorns,” but they were obviously deficient in their physics education.

You can read the whole argument here.

So as you see, the IPU “argument” is so ignorance-based that it doesn’t even qualify as an real argument.  Now, given just how easily the IPU argument is shown to be just plain dumb, unscientific and unthinking, you would think atheists would try to find something that could at least qualify as reasonable.  Do they? Well no, not really.

Russell’s tea pot argument is just as easily refuted.  Several refutations can be proposed and William L. Craig has given a few.

But just for fun consider:  tea pots are uniquely human artifacts.  Therefore, the only possible way there could be a tea pot floating around the moon, sun etc. would be that some humanly fabricated tea pot escaped from some also humanly fabricated space ship, or, that some crazy person on earth sent one into space on a launch platform capable of sending its payload right out of earth’s magnetic field.

Is that possible? Of course something like that could be done.  So, there may very well be a tea pot orbiting Earth for all we know.  But do we have any historical records from NASA, the Russians or whoever, of a tea pot having been lost from some space mission? Well gee, I don’t think so.  But this isn’t really the point.

The point being that such arguments generally commit two logical fallacies, i.e. a fallacy of equivocation and a category error.

Again, the same reasoning applies to FSM’s or anything else the atheist may dream up to escape the logical God-inference.

Now,  back to the more important reasons to dismiss all such “tea pot” arguments.  They are category errors. They are fallacies of equivocation when used as comparisons to the inference of the existence of a supreme being logic.  Comparing the belief  in a tea pot orbiting a planet, to the logical inference based belief in the existence of a first and sufficient cause for the existence of the universe, is sadly naive.  If only it weren’t so seriously posited by unthinking atheists – obviously trying to escape their own burden of proof.

Moreover, if they have no burden of proof it could only be if atheism were not a metaphysical position at all, but a mere involuntary state of mind.  But the fact that they are everywhere stating their position and fervently arguing for it shows that they do indeed hold the “no god” stance as a metaphysical position, a chosen belief – not a bare lack thereof.

Atheists prove their religious devotion to their world view, their metaphysics, by writing so many books, debating everywhere and by frequenting web forums ever trying to refute the existence of God – and never ever succeeding. Religious fervor is the only appropriate label to put on such behavior. All while they’ll still vehemently deny it.  Denial of reality is possibly atheism’s most glaring trait.

Atheists admit they cannot prove that there is no God.  So what does that imply? Just this, that atheism is a position that can only be held by blind faith.  Since no evidence, let alone proof, of their position exists, blind faith in that position is the only thing left.

Curiously the atheist always accuses the theist of this very thing. The theist however knows that all things can be used as a starting point towards the First Cause inference and yet nothing at all can be used to the contrary.

A supreme being’s existence is logically inferred by the very existence of the universe itself.  How so?  Well, we know the universe is not eternal – it has an age.  This is not hard.  We also know it doesn’t oscillate eternally – Fred Hoyle’s hopeful hypothesis – that he was forced to abandon due to the evidence against it, though today some atheist scientists are trying to resurrect the debunked hypothesis from the dead.

This of course implies that something made it, and that whatever made it necessarily exists apart from it.

We know too that it cannot have created itself.  Something creating itself from nothing?  The very idea is preposterous – except to blind atheism.  You see – “nothing” doesn’t exist.  Nothing, as non-existence, cannot be said to have properties, energy, matter, law.  So the more recent nonsense arguments of “A Universe Fromo Nothing”, or “quantum fluctuations” in some speculative void, are still “fluctuations of nothing” – i.e.  more logical absurdity.

So where do all these glaring anomalies leave the atheist? In a logic void.  Atheism, as C.S Lewis so aptly states, “turns out to be too simple.  If the universe has no meaning we should never have discovered it has no meaning”.  Thus the arguments (tea pots, IPUs, FSMs etc.) that the new atheist is so proud of verbalizing turn out to be lame-brained nonsense as soon as the light of reason and logic is applied to them properly.

The atheist is thus left in a philosophical no mans land because taking his arguments to their logical conclusions always leads to absurdity, or else a kind of metaphysical free-for-all, in which nothing can be proved.  But if nothing can be proved, then we have no reason to believe in ourselves.

No invisible pink unicorns