Is The New Atheist Literature Intellectually Frivolous?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlundererer,

There's just the small matter of the big bang........or was that just the cosmic equivalent of a discrete but audible Botty pop?

.......That was easy.

Only if you're dimwitted enough to confuse "a" beginning with "the" beginning despite having your mistake pointed out to you already. 

Perhaps if you didn't keep ignoring the arguments that undo you you'd be less likely to vlunder into the same mistakes over and over again?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlunderer,

Be my guest.........(This'll be a laugh )

Oh no no no…given your track history here of deep, deep dishonesty you don’t seriously think you can just post a link and then have me critique it only to be met with your usual cocktail of dull incomprehension, straw men and abuse do you?

Do you?

Well then, here’s the deal: you set out the arguments you think to be persuasive and I’ll tell you why you’re wrong.

Look, I’ll even help you along a little: Feser commits a series of basic logical fallacies that you deploy in your own efforts here. I suggest you try at least to avoid repeating them if you seriously think you finally have an argument to make.     

Hillside this has less content in it than usual...mind you 50% of fuck all is still fuck all.

That you fail utterly to grasp and so just ignore the “content” says nothing to the fact that there is in fact plenty of it. It’s clearly set out, albeit that you just respond with your usual avoidance and evasion. I told you for example why “God” and “the universe” are not on an even footing when discussing possible non-creation. Why did you just dodge that?

Seriously, why?

There is one resort to ''Oh well God isn't proved anyway.''

“Proved”? Try getting out of the ghetto into which you’ve painted yourself of "not even wrong" before worrying about proof.

Really – why not finally tell us the method you propose to get you off the hook of your “whateverpopsintomyhead-ism” notion of objective fact?

Surely you must have something more in the locker than mindless assertion mustn’t you?

Mustn’t you?

(Cue sound of Vlad disappearing yet again out of the nearest fire exit.)

Perhaps you're missing the whole point of the debate having crashed in half way through.

A universe existing tells us nothing about whether it created itself or whether it was created as you seem to make out.

And perhaps you have. No it doesn’t, but the bonkers cosmological argument with which you’re in thrall positively asserts that it did have a beginning, so the burden of proof (another idea you’ve never understood) is entirely with you to make the case for it.

Good luck!   

That means you haven't even got an argument Son.

Actually it means that you’ve been buried by several arguments, only you’re too slow or too dishonest to rebut them..

You choose.

Son.

I'm a dullard.
Feser is a dullard.
Aristotle was a dullard
Only Bluehillside.....Antitheisms Mr Big has the knock down arguments........

Bring 'em on son.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlundererer,

There's just the small matter of the big bang........or was that just the cosmic equivalent of a discrete but audible Botty pop?

.......That was easy.

Only if you're dimwitted enough to confuse "a" beginning with "the" beginning despite having your mistake pointed out to you already. 

Perhaps if you didn't keep ignoring the arguments that undo you you'd be less likely to vlunder into the same mistakes over and over again?

All I say is why something and not nothing? Hillside.

The big bang being just a beginning? That's possible but how would we know.....using science?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Oh and Hillside, before I forget......If you are arguing an uncreated universe let's have no more of that ''who created God'' stuff from you.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlunderer,

I'm a dullard.
Feser is a dullard.
Aristotle was a dullard
Only Bluehillside.....Antitheisms Mr Big has the knock down arguments........

Bring 'em on son.

You?

Yes. And/or dishonest.

Feser?

Don't know yet, but the obvious mistakes so far are not a good portent.

Aristotle?

No, and your effort to hide behind behind him is noted.

As are your further evasions.

Son.
 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlunderer,

All I say is why something and not nothing? Hillside.

The big bang being just a beginning? That's possible but how would we know.....using science?

Actually yes, but more to the point that's not "all you said" at all. You made a mistake about "a" beginning and "the" beginning, and then repeated it.

Maybe if you didn't just ignore every argument you can't rebut you'd stop vlundering like this?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlunderer,

Oh and Hillside, before I forget......If you are arguing an uncreated universe let's have no more of that ''who created God'' stuff from you.

And again with the same mistakes. Why not instead try reading the rebuttals you've had and actually responding to them? That way you might at least minimise the embarrassment you're bringing on yourself here.

[Outrider]

Read this article for why not having a cosmological argument is problematic for the New Atheists;

http://edwardfeser.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/naturalism-in-news.html

Point 1 is a straw-man - neurologists aren't suggesting consciousness resides within particular neurons, they are saying consciousness is an emergent property of the activity, collectively, of neurons.

Point 2 is one that's actively under discussion in physics - the best models we currently have suggest that time is a property that emerges with the universe, not something that is imposed from outside, but those models of the early universe are still awaiting experimental backing. The paradigm shift required to try to adapt to a timeless idea of physics is inconceivable, literally: it's beyond the cognitive capacity of a brain that has evolved within a time-laden region to conceptualise such a thing directly. Change can be defined as the actualisation of potential as much as it likes, but defining a time-dependent concept in terms of other time-dependent concepts doesn't mean that any of it is justified in a time-less domain.

Point 3 - science does not require a cosmological argument - the universe is finite, it has a defined start, but time starts with that beginning. What exists beyond that universe, that domain into which the universe manifests is a realm with its own natural laws that is, functionally, infinite, there is no requirement for any 'creator' urge, there is just the natural existence of energy which cannot be created or destroyed, merely re-ordered.

O.

[Outrider]

Oh and Hillside, before I forget......If you are arguing an uncreated universe let's have no more of that ''who created God'' stuff from you.

They are fundamentally different propositions. The description of the universe's creation is from simple event to complexity through gradual processes. If you mean the claim of an extra-universal infinite (and therefore uncaused) reality, that's still a basic simplicity - a region of quantum interactions - rather than ordered complexity.

In making the case for a deliberate agency 'causing' the universe you have to explain the prior existence of something complex enough to conceive of a universe and control and influence whatever environment it exists within sufficiently to effect that creation.

It's the spontaneous existence of complexity that's undermining the claim - if you wanted to extend the idea and make it an eternal complexity, that still requires an explanation. The complexity of the universe is explained from simple origins. The existence of the universe is explained from simple extra-universal concepts. The existence of a complex intelligence as a creator, as yet, remains unexplained.

O.

[Shaker]

Point 2 is one that's actively under discussion in physics - the best models we currently have suggest that time is a property that emerges with the universe, not something that is imposed from outside, but those models of the early universe are still awaiting experimental backing. The paradigm shift required to try to adapt to a timeless idea of physics is inconceivable, literally: it's beyond the cognitive capacity of a brain that has evolved within a time-laden region to conceptualise such a thing directly.

Not so fast Mr Bond - perhaps not; try The End of Time by Julian Barbour. Popular science but at the "Bloody hell, this is difficult" end of the spectrum. Hard going and requires a significant investment of time and effort, but it persuaded me.

[Outrider]

Point 2 is one that's actively under discussion in physics - the best models we currently have suggest that time is a property that emerges with the universe, not something that is imposed from outside, but those models of the early universe are still awaiting experimental backing. The paradigm shift required to try to adapt to a timeless idea of physics is inconceivable, literally: it's beyond the cognitive capacity of a brain that has evolved within a time-laden region to conceptualise such a thing directly.

Not so fast Mr Bond - perhaps not; try The End of Time by Julian Barbour. Popular science but at the "Bloody hell, this is difficult" end of the spectrum. Hard going and requires a significant investment of time and effort, but it persuaded me.

Sorry, persuaded you of what? From what I can see in a very quick review his work revolves around the idea that quantum activity occurs outside of conventional understandings of time (at least) if not outside of time entirely. This is, essentially, part of what I've been saying in order for the instigation of our universe to have occured in a region where time didn't exist.

Whether our perception of time is compatible with quantum effects within the universe is questionable, it seems entirely possible that it's a referential framework we can utilise to describe and define macroscopic effects - of which we are one. However, as I understand it, the maths at the moment doesn't work reliably for timeless physics - obviously, that's something that people are probably working on!

I shall add Barbour to my seemingly infinitely expanding 'to read' list

O.

O.

[jeremyp]

Non sequiter and just redolent of the intellectual cowardice of New Atheism.

Wrong as usual.

You guys should be made to consider the question of the origin of the universe on a regular basis.

I do. So far the answer is still "don't know". But adding a god into the equation just makes it harder.

By the way, I think you Christians should be made to consider the question of the origin of God on a regular basis. You seem to be adept at sweeping it under the carpet.

Mainly because it is meet,right and condign punishment for New Atheists but also because New Atheists scuttling from this is highly entertaining.

The bounds of your self delusion are limitless. You think of considering the origins of the Universe as a punishment?

Anyway, tell me about the origins of your god.

always been there so not really right to talk about origins Jeremy.

Bingo!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Read this article for why not having a cosmological argument is problematic for the New Atheists;

http://edwardfeser.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/naturalism-in-news.html

Point 1 is a straw-man - neurologists aren't suggesting consciousness resides within particular neurons, they are saying consciousness is an emergent property of the activity, collectively, of neurons.

Point 2 is one that's actively under discussion in physics - the best models we currently have suggest that time is a property that emerges with the universe, not something that is imposed from outside, but those models of the early universe are still awaiting experimental backing. The paradigm shift required to try to adapt to a timeless idea of physics is inconceivable, literally: it's beyond the cognitive capacity of a brain that has evolved within a time-laden region to conceptualise such a thing directly. Change can be defined as the actualisation of potential as much as it likes, but defining a time-dependent concept in terms of other time-dependent concepts doesn't mean that any of it is justified in a time-less domain.

Point 3 - science does not require a cosmological argument - the universe is finite, it has a defined start, but time starts with that beginning. What exists beyond that universe, that domain into which the universe manifests is a realm with its own natural laws that is, functionally, infinite, there is no requirement for any 'creator' urge, there is just the natural existence of energy which cannot be created or destroyed, merely re-ordered.

O.

Complete non sequiter

The part about antitheist neurologists? Reductionists were late into the emergent scene. If the universe is finite, why are you chuntering on about timeless matter? Is the the timeless matter uncreated. Anything uncreated violates cause and effect so science is not competent to cover this.

You cannot avoid the two possibilities, created matter or uncreated matter. Neither of which comes under the remit of science since something has to be out of time.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlunderer,

I'm a dullard.
Feser is a dullard.
Aristotle was a dullard
Only Bluehillside.....Antitheisms Mr Big has the knock down arguments........

Bring 'em on son.

You?

Yes. And/or dishonest.

Feser?

Don't know yet, but the obvious mistakes so far are not a good portent.

Aristotle?

No, and your effort to hide behind behind him is noted.

As are your further evasions.

Son.

That's all very well but what about demonstrating that Feser is wrong about the New atheism.

[SqueakyVoice]

That's all very well but what about demonstrating that Feser is wrong about the New atheism.

To the same standard as that used by Feser?

Okay...

Feser is wrong because Socrates, Hume, Russell and Red Giant's six year old grandmother.

[Shaker]

 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That's all very well but what about demonstrating that Feser is wrong about the New atheism.

To the same standard as that used by Feser?

Okay...

Feser is wrong because Socrates, Hume, Russell and Red Giant's six year old grandmother.

I don't think Russell had a view on the origins of the universe except a ''Don't go there'' Socrates and Hume? Were they big on cosmic beginnings?

[Outrider]

Complete non sequiter

You cite a blog that, in its own construction, calls out the fact it's making three points. I comment on those three points - how does that constitute a non sequitur?

The part about antitheist neurologists? Reductionists were late into the emergent scene. If the universe is finite, why are you chuntering on about timeless matter? Is the the timeless matter uncreated. Anything uncreated violates cause and effect so science is not competent to cover this.

Because there is a difference between the universe (finite) and the reality in which that universe resides (possibly finite, possibly infinite, possibly something else given our limited understanding of the nature of time).

You cannot avoid the two possibilities, created matter or uncreated matter. Neither of which comes under the remit of science since something has to be out of time.

I haven't tried to avoid the possibilities - I'm perfectly content with matter emerging from the big bang, an event in an otherwise timeless/infinite reality. Why you can arbitrarily define something as beyond the remit of science is something I'm curious about, though.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Complete non sequiter

You cite a blog that, in its own construction, calls out the fact it's making three points. I comment on those three points - how does that constitute a non sequitur?

The part about antitheist neurologists? Reductionists were late into the emergent scene. If the universe is finite, why are you chuntering on about timeless matter? Is the the timeless matter uncreated. Anything uncreated violates cause and effect so science is not competent to cover this.

Because there is a difference between the universe (finite) and the reality in which that universe resides (possibly finite, possibly infinite, possibly something else given our limited understanding of the nature of time).

You cannot avoid the two possibilities, created matter or uncreated matter. Neither of which comes under the remit of science since something has to be out of time.

I haven't tried to avoid the possibilities - I'm perfectly content with matter emerging from the big bang, an event in an otherwise timeless/infinite reality. Why you can arbitrarily define something as beyond the remit of science is something I'm curious about, though.

O.

Rider. The uncreated is beyond the remit of science.
Attempts to shoehorn it into science have failed so far most notably Stenger and Krauss who argue that Nothing is actually unstable....and therefore an unstable something. But there is a more subtle failure. Science cannot explain uncreated matter but merely states that matter is there.

Theology has the question though, why something and not nothing (That's a real nothing.

[wigginhall]

Why something and not nothing is a pseudo-question, which gets 15 year old girls wetting their pants, because they think it's all profound and doomy.   Oh sir.

[Outrider]

Rider. The uncreated is beyond the remit of science.

Why? Observable phenomena are the remit of science, regardless of their putative origin (or lack thereof).

Attempts to shoehorn it into science have failed so far most notably Stenger and Krauss who argue that Nothing is actually unstable....and therefore an unstable something.

No they don't, this has been explained to you. What they claim is that what you consider to be nothing is an unstable, active potential.

But there is a more subtle failure. Science cannot explain uncreated matter but merely states that matter is there.

Science doesn't need to explain uncreated matter, we have a very.good model of how matter emerged during the big bang, from the energy that came before it. I presume you mean that uncreated energy, but we have an emerging explanation for that, yet you continue to mischaracterise the work of the likes of Krauss.

Theology has the question though, why something and not nothing (That's a real nothing.

Yes, theology is begging the question, we knew this already. What gives you any basis for thinking there's a 'why'?

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Rider. The uncreated is beyond the remit of science.

Why? Observable phenomena are the remit of science, regardless of their putative origin (or lack thereof).

Attempts to shoehorn it into science have failed so far most notably Stenger and Krauss who argue that Nothing is actually unstable....and therefore an unstable something.

No they don't, this has been explained to you. What they claim is that what you consider to be nothing is an unstable, active potential.

Ah......a something.....with properties.

[Outrider]

Ah......a something.....with properties.

Yes, hence an infinite reality.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Ah......a something.....with properties.

Yes, hence an infinite reality.

O.

But God can be described as an infinite reality. That aside, you are conceding that the physicists nothing is a something.

Why did this infinite something become unstable 13 billion years ago and not 30  billion years....or indeed last Tuesday?

[Nearly Sane]

I think as regards 'nothing'. Vlad is correct here. The physics nothing is a specific term and does not map onto the idea of nothing. That said we have then no example of nothing, so any statement about it seems flawed to me. Rather like the idea of talking about existence without the idea of time, nothing seems to defy any sensible discussion.

I also have no idea what referring to something as an 'infinite reality' means. The two words don't appear to relate. It reads a bit like Chomsky's green ideas.