Atheist Incredulity and Bullying.

Jasque Derrida about mid life


Dave Ellis came to my boards (I invited him) asking to be given God arguments to answer. I told him "I would rather not do that because we have to lay the ground work or my arugment will just sound stupid to you." But he kept insisting. So eventually I put some arguments out there. He says:

Have you ever tried to get one of these essays published in any sort of philosophy journal?

I suspect that anyone reviewing your work for publication in any journal of philosophy of even modest standards would have much the same reaction I have.

there's another atheist on the board whose intelligence I respect a lot. He doesn't think the argument is so stupid, look what he says:

e: TS argument

Postby fleetmouse on Tue Apr 07, 2009 10:37 pm
What interests me about the TS argument is how it parallels TAG. It's sort of a more refined TAG, one that doesn't insult the intelligence with that smugness that makes me want to smack someone.

I don't think it falls into the same fallacies that I've seen TAG defenders step in either, and that's because you have a philosopher's understanding of what logic is and not a superstitious yokel's. So instead of ridiculously positing "logic" at the core of everything, you have this much deeper and subtler concept of an organizing principle. And that has an intuitive appeal, because it seems to me that there is a parallel between intellectual organizing principles and the way things in the natural world appear to spontaneously self organize. And so it seems to me that what you're saying complements and extends rather than contradicts the worldview of naturalism.

I'm going to read your background material on Derrida and come back to this later.

edit: your two part essay on Derrida was terrific. I had thought from things you'd said earlier on CARM that you'd misunderstood Derrida but now I see that you just disagree with him, and I think you're performing a rescue-hijacking of the TS, like a philosophical Bruce Willis - Die Hard. :mrgreen:

User avatar
fleetmouse

What get's me is I asked Dave to read two blog pieces I did on the Derridian background and he refused. he was content to just think the argument is stupid so he doesn't have to deal with it. But I told him that we would think that if we jumped and went to the arguments before laying the ground words. Of course part of that ground work is the stuff he refuses to read. So he would rather be narrow and ignorant and just use bully tactics and incredulity than to actually think about the arguments. so typical of hate group atheism. they get this big rush out of pretending that they are so superior to Christians that they have real strong vested interest in seeing everything we say as stupid. They are really just little ignoramuses because they refuse to read the material so they fill in the gaps.

Here's the arguemnt:

A. Logic of the Argument.

Definitions

(1)Transendental Signifier (TS):


The signification mark (word) which refurs to the top of metphysical hieararchy; the organizing principle which makes sense of all sense data and groups it into a meaningful and coherent whole, through which meaning can be understood.The corrolary, the thing the Transcendental Signifier signifies, is the "Trnascendental Signified (designated as TSed)"

(2) Signifier:

The term used of writtern words in the linguistic theories know as "structurailsm" and in the theories of French Linguist Ferdenand Sassure. A signifer is a "marK," that is writting, which designates a concept forming a word, that which points to an object as the thing that it is and no other. ie, a phsyical tree is the signified, the object of the signifier "t-r-e-e."


Preliminary Observations:

(1) Any rational, coherent and meaningful view of the universe must of necessity presuppose an oranizing principle which makes sense of the universe and explains the hierarchy of conceptualization.

(2) Organizing principles are summed up in a single first principle which grounds any sort of metaphysical hierarchy, the Transcendental Signifier (TS)

(3) It is impossible to do without a Trancendental Signifyer, all attempts to do so have ended in the re-establishment of a new TS. This is because we caannot organize the universe without a princinple of organizing.

(4)TS functions Uniquely as Top of The Metaphysical Heirarchy.It's function is mutually exclusive.



Argument:


P1) TS's function is mutually exclusive, no other principle can superceed that of the TS since it alone grounds all principles and bestows meaning through orgnaization of concepts.

P2)We have no choice but to assume the relaity of some form of TSed since we cannot function coherently without a TS
P3) We have no choice but to assume the reality of some form of TSed since the universe does seem to fall into line with the meaning we bestow upon it.

P4) The logical conclusion would be that There must be a TSed which actually creates and organizes the Universe.

P5) The sifnifier "God" is one version of the TS, that is to say, God functions in the divine ecnomy exacly as the TS functions in a metaphysical hierarchy.

P6) Since "God" is a version of the TS, and since TS and God concept share a unique function which should be mutually exclusive, the logical conculusion is that: God and TS share identity.ie "God" concept is descrition of the Transcendental Signified.

P7)Since the TS should be assumed as real, and TS and God share identity, we should assume that God is the Transcendental Singified, and thus is an actual reality.

rational warrent for belief in God's existence, QED.

If this sounds like gibberish and Dave says it's probably because you haven't studied Derrida. Which is part of the ground work that must be laid. So given that you need to read the material that Dave wont read. here it is:



This is a summary of Derrida on the Transcendental Signifier and why it "proves" the existence of God (in my special sense of "proof" that I use as "for practical purposes").


Derrida was from French North Africa, 1930-2004. here are two articles on him that will give you a basic run down:

Derrida on Wiki


Derrida in Philosophical Encyclopedia



Derrida was a student of Martin Heidegger. Derrida is the best known philosopher of recent times. Heidegger was an existentialist, then dropped that and began to call himself a "phenomenologist." Everything Derrida says came from Heidegger. Every move of decontracution is found in Heidegger, but Derrida put it together in a different package than Heidegger's.

"Deconstruction" was Derrida's babby. He invented it although one can find it's roots all over Western letters. He's plugging in elements from Heidegger, Sartre, Brintano, Nicholas of Cuza, Charles Sanders Pierce and all over the place.This is the run down on [B][I]Deconstruction.[/I][/B] I was taught Derrida by someone who had been his student in Paris in the late 60s before he moved to Yale.

Phenomenology is an attempt to place the observer at the center of awareness to allow sense data to be understood in ways that are not predetermined by preconceived categories. The idea is that the data will form its own categories. Attempts to gather sense data and heard it all into pre selected categories biases reality. In vernacular one might say "don't pigeon hole but remain open to possibilities for everything no matter how familiar or or obvious we think it might be. This attempt to pre select categories of knowledge is what Heidegger calls "Metaphysics." In this sense even science is metaphysics!

Derrida wants to explicate the end of western metaphysics,(his phrase). What does this mean? It means he, and most postmoderns, believe that the paths along which western metaphics have led us are dead ends. We have run out of metaphysics. We haven't run out of science, in the sense that there plenty of facts to look at, but in a way we have because reductionism has lowered our expectations about what we will find. But Derrida's beef is not with science. A Major segment of of postmodernists tried to attack modern science, but they were swept aside with the Alan Sokal stuff. Derrida was never one of them.

Derrida argues that Western metaphysics has always been predicated upon an organizing principal that orders reality and organizes sense data. William James Sums it up well in his Gilford Lectures:

"Plato gave so brilliant and impressive a defense of this common human feeling, that the doctrine of the reality of abstract objects has been known as the platonic theory of ideas ever since. Abstract Beauty, for example, is for Plato a perfectly definite individual being, of which the intellect is aware as of something additional to all the perishing beauties of the earth. "The true order of going," he says, in the often quoted passage in his 'Banquet,' "is to use the beauties of earth as steps along which one mounts upwards for the sake of that other Beauty, going from one to two, and from two to all fair forms, and from fair forms to fair actions, and from fair actions to fair notions, until from fair notions he arrives at the notion of absolute Beauty, and at last knows what the essence of Beauty is." 2 In our last lecture we had a glimpse of the way in which a platonizing writer like Emerson may treat the abstract divineness of things, the moral structure of the universe, as a fact worthy of worship. In those various churches without a God which to-day are spreading through the world under the name of ethical societies, we have a similar worship of the abstract divine, the moral law believed in as an ultimate object."




Derrida begins with Plato's theory of knowledge, this is the basis of Western metaphysics. Plato says that prior to birth we are in contact with the forms, thus knowledge is a matter of remembering, no learning for the first time. But then the question arises is speech closer to what we remember, or is writing? Socrates says the spoken word is closer to the ideas inside us, the memory of the forms, thus spoken word is better (more true, closer to reality) than written word. As he puts it "a writer dies his written words are like orphans since he is not there to defend them." This supremacy of the spoken word sets up a hierarchy of meaning and importance in western culture. We have come to value reason as the organizing principle of truth, as the "natural light" because it's an extension of the concept of this true Platonic knowledge. Reason becomes this overarching truth regime (Faucault's word) that organizes all reality. Everything is paired up into hierarchies, little hierarchies that fit into the big over all hierarchy, these are called "binary opossitions." They they take the form of couplets, consisting of the "true" or "correct" term and it's supplement; the false term or the unimportant addition to the "real thing." Examples are: up/down, black/white/ true/false/ male/female. Reason is construed as male and this resutls in "phalologocentrism."

Derrida's goal is to destroy hierarchies, to show that there is no truth, there is no meaning. We can't know anything. Derridian postmodernism is like archaeologists who try to piece together fragments of a broken vase. Some say "there is a vase here, we just have to fin out how the peices fit." Another says "there may be two vases." The postmodernist says "we don't have all the pieces, they may not have been a vase, it may be 16 vases, we can't know, there is no final answer, it's always going to be a jumble. The Deridian position is a good philosophical justification for nihilism. The difference being a nihilism takes too much effort.. The logical conclusion of Derridianism if one were consist would be to sit in a chair and say nothing until one starves to death. Of course Derrida himself was not consistent. He was one of the most prolific writers. His overall project was to tear down hierarchy and destroy the concept of the TS. Here is his argument against reason:


He asks "does reason ground itself?" Can we use reason to prove reason?



"Are we obeying the principle of reason when we ask what grounds this principle [reason] which is itself a principle of grounding? We are not--which does not mean that we are disobeying it either. Are we dealing here with a circle or with an abyss? The circle would consist in seeking to account for reason by reason, to reason to the principle of reason, appealing to the principle to make it speak of itself at the very point where, according to Heidegger, the prinicple of reason says nothing about reason itself. The abyss, the hole, ..., the empty gorge would be the impossibility for a principle of grounding to ground itself...Are we to use reason to account for the principle of reason? Is the reason for reason rational?"(Derrida in Criticism and Culture, Robert Con Davis and Ronald Schlefflier, Longman 1991, 20.)



Derrida sought to destroy metaphysical hierarchy. How did he intend to do that? He did it by creating a method of reading a text, a critical tool that would allow him to dissect and destroy any hierarchy simply because it was a hierarchy. That tool was known as "deconstruction." To reconstruct one takes apart, in the sense of destroy; destruction = destruction.

Hierarchy is based upon the binary opposition. That means hierarchies are like stacks of couplets, each contianing a major term and suppolamental term:

God/
evil

up/
down

male/
female

the assumption is that the term on top is the "major term" the "real" thing, the one on the bottom is tacked on or er zots, or somehow inferior. A hierarchical metaphysics is constructed out of these binaries. These are among the categories we use to order our perception of sense data; and thus to order the world. We can see this in the atheist metaphysics of scientism:

Objective/
subjective

empirical/
logical


Derrida inverts the couplets. The "inferior term" is taken as the superior term, and the assumption is made that the hierarchy is false. But what move allows this? He accomplishes this move by the realization of the principle of "differance." This is not my dyslexia at work. He spells it with an "a" in order to out over the point that there is more to it than just "difference" as we understand it. That is, difference is the basis of meaning in language. Meaning of signifier is based upon the difference in one signifier and another. That means we call a "tree" a "tree" not because it is intrinsically endowed with treeness, but because we don't call it a "frog," a "bat" or an "elephant." The meaning of these terms, what they refer to, is totally arbitrary. Thus meaning arises through difference. Derrida uses this point as the staging ground for a multiple assault on all of Western thought. He derives from it the notion that meaning derives from absence (difference is absence) rather than presence. So Plato is screwed, the Platonic theory is crap. This is so because the meaning of truth in Platonic terms is presence, the proximity to the forms, remember? So the presence of the forms in our thinking is our nearness to truth. The closer the ware to what we recall of the forms the closer we are to truth. He sets up a hierarchy of presence in which speaking is closer to truth than writing.

Derrida destroys this hierarchy of presence by demonstrating that derives from absence (difference = absence because there is no presence of meaning in the signifier). He finds that meaning is never present. Meaning is always absent and sought after, always different and differed. He makes a pun on differ and deffer. Meaning is differed in that language has multiple meanings (why he likes puns) and one can never be sure that the meaning of a statement is always off stage waiting to come on, and when it does it only refers to another meaning. Life a child who always asks "why" the answer is never available, it's always in the next question, and the next, and the next. It's flickering away always. He uses the phase "always already," meaning is already absent.

Deconstruction works by finding a contradiction in the thesis and using that to flip over all the meanings. The classic Derridian example is the distinction in Rousseau between nature and nurture, the natural and civilized. Rousseau says that we can have natural morality we can be naturally good and naturally happy by being spontaneous and rooted in nature. He also says, however, that civilization is good because it nurtures us and gives us a basis in education and understanding. This is an inherent contradiction and Derrida exploits it to show that all of Rousseau's ideas are meaningless. In fact he shows that all meaning is meaningless. Everything falls apart, there is no grand edifice of truth that can stand before the onslaught of deconstruction. If one takes deconstruction seriously one must, to be totally consistent, just wind up sitting in a corner and never speaking and never assuming anything.

I ended part 1 with his statement that logic cannot be secured by logical argument He undermines logic and reason in this way and reduces them to ashes. Thus the final step in deconstruction is to show that there is no meaning, there is no truth all lies in ruin. His main objective is to destroy the Transendetal signifier because that is the essence of Platonic meaning,t he big idea at the top of the hierarchy that secures meaning and makes sense of all other marks that make sense of the world.He is quite aware that the TS equals God, he says so himself. This is his ultimate triumph over Christianity. It's a supreme moment for atheism, but of course the American scientifically obsessed, philosophically challenged atheists could never appreciates it. Once you come to truly understand Derrida and your faith survives it, nothing in the nature of an intellectual argument can ever threaten your faith again.

How does one survive it? One of the major pastimes in graduate school for student just encountering Derrida is to sit around trying to deconstruct Derrida. Everyone does this and everyone thinks he's the first person to think of it. You can just tell when student's understanding is reaching critical mass and she/he is about to say "Hey, let's deconstruct him!" Derrida knew this, and he traded in it. Its' one of the features that assured that people wanted to study him more. But it doesn't matter if you deconstruct him because it only proves his point. Since he says there is no truth there is no ultimate reality there is no meaning, ti doesn't matter if what he says is untrue and not meaningful. Except for one thing: you don't have to make the final step. If you are to reverse Derrida then you don't want to prove that he has no ultimate meaning, you want to prove that he does have meaning and he's just wrong. This is can be done by using his method, but not using the final step. Don't conclusion there's no meaning, just show that his meaning is wrong.

Derrdia follows Heidegger in almost everything. Almost every step he makes can be seen in Heidegger's Parmenides book. Both thinkers say that metaphysics is undeniable. Derrida wants to explicate the end of metaphysics, but he also says there is no hope of escaping metaphysics. Even language itself is metaphysical. We cannot help but do metaphysics. That means metaphysical hierarchies are inescapable which means the TS is inescapable. Thus the choice we have is to assume there is a TS or to fall silent and never speak, never try to think coherently.But we cannot live with that choice. Because we have to assume it, we can't live without it, we should assume there is a Transendental signifier, and as Derrida points out, that's just a truncated version of God.





see now isn't it better to know than to just use incredulity?

now that we know a bit about the background let's put it in context of the argument. This is a explaination of what the argument says. The basic trick you need to know is that I disagree with Derrida. I think he has a compelling point, but it should be reversed and the actual reverse of his ideas are true. His arguments can be reversed with his own logic, just a matter of looking at it right. When that happens we see there is a TS and there has to be, and it's God.


The transcendental Signifyer (TS) is the mark that gives meaning to all the marks that make sense of the world; the "zeit geist," the "urmind", the "overself", the "object of ultiamte concern", the "omega point", the "Atmon", the "one," the "Logos", "reason." all the major top ideas which bestow meaning upon the wrold are examples of the TS. People have always advanced such notions. (The word "G-O-D" is the Transcendental Signifyer, the thing those letters refurr to is the "transcendental signifyed")

1) All people have some notion the "big idea" which makes sense of everything else.

William James, Gilford lectures:

"Plato gave so brilliant and impressive a defense of this common human feeling, that the doctrine of the reality of abstract objects has been known as the platonic theory of ideas ever since. Abstract Beauty, for example, is for Plato a perfectly definite individual being, of which the intellect is aware as of something additional to all the perishing beauties of the earth. "The true order of going," he says, in the often quoted passage in his 'Banquet,' "is to use the beauties of earth as steps along which one mounts upwards for the sake of that other Beauty, going from one to two, and from two to all fair forms, and from fair forms to fair actions, and from fair actions to fair notions, until from fair notions he arrives at the notion of absolute Beauty, and at last knows what the essence of Beauty is." 2 In our last lecture we had a glimpse of the way in which a platonizing writer like Emerson may treat the abstract divineness of things, the moral structure of the universe, as a fact worthy of worship. In those various churches without a God which to-day are spreading through the world under the name of ethical societies, we have a similar worship of the abstract divine, the moral law believed in as an ultimate object."



2) All Metaphysical Constructs include a TS.

Metaphysics is not merely realms unseen, but the organization of reality under a single organizing principle (this definition comes form one reading of Heidegger). All systems and groupings of the world verge on the metaphysical. Derrida and Heidegger say that it is impossible tto do without metaphysics since even language itself is metaphysical. Everything ponts to the Transcendental Signifyer. ( see Heidegger, Parenadise, and Introduction to Metaphysics, and Derrida, Margins of Philosophy and almost any Derrida book).

3) Science has TS

William James--Gilford lectures:

"'Science' in many minds is genuinely taking the place of a religion. Where this is so, the scientist treats the 'Laws of Nature' as objective facts to be revered. ..."

Science is very Metaphysical. It assumes that the whole of relaity and be organized and studied under one central principle, that of naturalism.

"For essential reasons the unity of all that allows itself to be attempted today through the most diverse concepts of science and of writting, is in principle, more or less covertly, yet always, determined by a an historico-metaphysical epoch of which we merely glimpse the closure." [Derrida, The End of the Book and the Begining of Writting, trans. Gayatri Spivak 1967 in Contemporary Critical Theory, ed. Dan Latimer, New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovonovitch, 1989, p.166]

MetaListon Scinece and religion
http://www.meta-list.org/ml/ml_frameset.asp
Stephen Hawking's


"In his best-selling book "A Brief History of Time", physicist Stephen Hawking claimed that when physicists find the theory he and his colleagues are looking for - a so-called "theory of everything" - then they will have seen into "the mind of God". Hawking is by no means the only scientist who has associated God with the laws of physics. Nobel laureate Leon Lederman, for example, has made a link between God and a subatomic particle known as the Higgs boson. Lederman has suggested that when physicists find this particle in their accelerators it will be like looking into the face of God. But what kind of God are these physicists talking about?"

"Theoretical physicist and Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg suggests that in fact this is not much of a God at all. Weinberg notes that traditionally the word "God" has meant "an interested personality". But that is not what Hawking and Lederman mean. Their "god", he says, is really just "an abstract principle of order and harmony", a set of mathematical equations. Weinberg questions then why they use the word "god" at all. He makes the rather profound point that "if language is to be of any use to us, then we ought to try and preserve the meaning of words, and 'god' historically has not meant the laws of nature." The question of just what is "God" has taxed theologians for thousands of years; what Weinberg reminds us is to be wary of glib definitions."




C. Attempts to Deconstruct TS lead to abyss of Meaninglessness, and back to TS.

1) Derridian Dectonstruction.

The French Post-structuralist Jaque Derrida seeks to explicate the end of Metaphysics which is the final project of Western philosophy. His technique of deconstruction aims at undermining any logos or first principle that would give rationality to the universe by unseating the privileges of reason which under gird all such projects. Even logic itself is undermined.


Derrida:

"Are we obeying the principle of reason when we ask what grounds this principle [reason] which is itself a principle of grounding? We are not--which does not mean that we are disobeying it either. Are we dealing here with a circle or with an abyss? The circle would consist in seeking to account for reason by reason, to reason to the principle of reason, appealing to the principle to make it speak of itself at the very point where, according to Heidegger, the prinicple of reason says nothing about reason itself. The abyss, the hole, ..., the empty gorge would be the impossibility for a principle of grounding to ground itself...Are we to use reason to account for the principle of reason? Is the reason for reason rational?"

Derrida in Criticism and Culture, Robert Con Davis and Ronald Schlefflier, Longman 1991, 20.



Derrida's argument amounts to saying, "logic does not endorse itself." The point of the quotation above seems to be that logic is in a dilemma. If one tries to prove logic by its own terms, one is merely arguing in circle. But, if one does not do this, there is no foundation upon which one can base logic, because logic is the foundation.

[Quotes from Derrida from "The University in the Eyes of It's Pupils" Diactricits]

2) Into the abyss and back out to TS.

Many critics of Deconstruction have noted that if we take this principle seriously we would wind up unable to speak or think, even language requires an organizing principle which orders the world of our thought and speech (of course the basic thrust of Postmodern thought understands us to be trapped in, as Jameson said, "the prison house of language" unable to get at the real things of the world and their understanding because all we can really ever think through is language). But in opening this abyss Derrida creates a safe bridge over it as well, although that is not his intention. He uses the principle of difference (which he spells as "difference" to indicate that meaning is both differing and differing) but difference becomes the organizing principle of a Derridian universe. IT not only explains how meaning is derived from signifyers, not only does it tear down the meaning of all hierarchies, but it actually builds new ones because it becomes the foundation of value in valuing difference.

"The constant danger of deconstruction is that it falls into the same kinds of hierarchies that it tries to expose. Derrida himself is quite aware of this danger--and his response--which is really a rhetorical response...is to multipy the names under which deconstruction traffics..." [--Con Davis,Culture and Critique 178-179]

D. unavoidable nature of TS indicates God is a priori.

Either way, weather we try building a reductionist notion of the universe or whether we tear down the hierarchies of reason that implies a TS, we can never escape the TS. This inescapable nature of the transcendental signifier points to the a priori nature of the God concept. That reality is ordered by a single principle which gives meaning and rationality to all other principles is inescapable, but humanities multifarious attempts to understand that principle, and the frightening conclusion that the principle leads to a creator God is the logic inference. All of the many signs which have been used to understand this uber-sign imply an intelligent ordering rationality which makes sense of the universe, and therefore, logically must have created it in the first place.

1) Transcendental signifer is unavoidable.

As has been pointed out above, there is no possibility of holding a rational view of the universe without an organizing principle, a "thing at the top." This indicates the ultiamte necessity of a TS. In other words, the fact that we cannot get away from the TS indicates that there must really be one.

2) God is the ultimate Transcendental Signifyer.

"Without God, who has been the ultimate Transcendent Signified, there is no central perspective, no objective truth of things, no real thing beyond language." [Nacy Murphy and James McClendon jr." Distinguishing Modern and Postmodern Theologies." Modern Theology, 5:3 April 1989, 211]

E. God is the ultimate unifying principle.

1) Coincidence of Oppossites.

Nicholas of Cuza's concept that God's infinity is a universal set subsuming all finite sets of oppossites. (See Westminster Dictinary of Christian Theology)

"The universe of Nicholas of Cusa is an expression or a development, though of course necessarily imperfect and inadequate, of God--imperfect and inadequate because it displays in the realm of multiplicity what in God is present in an indisaluable and intmate unity (complicatio) a unity which embraces not only the different but even the oppossite, qualities or determinations of being. In its turn every single thing in the universe represents it--the Universe-- and thus also God in its own particular manner; each in a manner different from that of all others, by contracting the wealth of the universe in accordence with its own unique individuality."[--Alexandre Koyre' From Closed World to The Infinite Universe, Baltimore: Johns Hoppkins University press, 1957, 8-9.]



Cuza's vision of a universe taken up metaphyiscally in God in an undifferentiated unity is grounded in the paradoxical nature of geomoetry. One example Cuza gives is of the dicotomy between straightness and curvelinarity. But if one was dealing with an infintie circle, from every point along the circle it would appear that the circle was a stairght line. Or another example; large and samll are opposites in a finite perspective, but in dealing with the infinitely large circle and the infinitely small one the center loses its special qualitie, both are at the same time both nowhere and everywhere, and thus equally meaningful and meaningless.This may not seem like a particularly Christian notion of God, but Paul Tillich remarks that Martin Luther embracced it," one of the most profound conceptions of God ever developed." Paul Tillich, A History of Christian Thought.

2) God as Being itself.

As being itself God is Metaphysically above the level of existing things in the universe and constitues all the potentiality and all actuality. This the nature of God is to order and to bring to concreseance potentialities. The signifyer 'G-o-d' universally signifies and therefore takes up into itself all concepts and principles of rationality.

3) All people seek TS, therefore, this reflects innate sense of God.

Not only do we seek it, we cannot avoid it. The alternative is a meaingless universe, and more than that, a universe without coherence to reality. Of course we have the rules of logic, and we have science to tell us facts, but those move toward the TS becasue they are both predicated upon organizing reality under a logos, a rationale.

btw Dave Ellis

I've had arguments waiting for you to answer on my boards for several days or a whole week now.

Should we outlaw brownshirtism?

This guy Russ who got so worked up on DC is reacting t the statement I mad in the past about making atheism illegal. Of course, he totally ignores the context, he ignores the fact that I said "this is not applicable to all atheists, just tot he segment I call "hate group atheism." Of course the atheists have never acknowledged that I have always made that distinction. I have distinguished between other atheists and hate group atheists since the first day I ever began to speak of hategroup atheism. I made that distinction no the first time I posted on atheist watch, on the old version of atheist watch.

I said it over and over again almost every single post for the first 40 or so posts but they never acknowledged it. They through fits, they set up a hawl, they accussed me of being evil, they all mannar of evil against me over and over, but never once did acknowledge that I distinguished between one kind and another. Eventually I just quite saying it becasue they couldn't see it. they were just blind to the words. every single time they would go "you think all atheists are Nazis." I would say "only those in the hate group segment" but then they would just say "You think they all are."

Now they think if I say Nazis should be illegal then I'm a Nazi. I said hounding and persecuting people for their religious faith should be illegal (and really it actually is). Atheists are oblivious to the fact that religious people are persecuted minorities. Atheist so selfish and busy feeling sorry for themselves (most of them) that they just never think of religious people are persecuted they only think them as persecutors and they themselves as victims That's really quite stupid because American atheists at any rate are totally free to believe anything they want.

They are pissed at me because I want to close down their little game of belittling Christians. They do get so much out of feeling superior to Christians it would really hurt them to lose their hobby. It is illegal to slander people. It is illegal to ruin someone's reputation. Atheists have lied about me, they have organized a conspiracy and I can prove it. they did it on the secular web I can prove it was an organized conspiracy. The very day someone converted becasue of my arguments that was the day they banned me for life. Prior to that I had apologized for getting upset and not been insulting people for several says. Then after the banning they laid and made up things to attribute to me which I had not said (they said that I admitted that I"m stupid and I didn't go to graduate school and that I know I"m no good at debate--these are obviously things I would never say). But since I was banned I could not get back on and deny it.

Prior to that time they had watched my board closely. Every time I sneezed they would upt up a thread. But they said nothing at all about my denials of those statements. I can prove that they curse the net looking for people to harass and belittle. When I first put up my boards they wold go on there and start their crap "there's no proof for our God." I would say "we don't do that here." Now they don't even brother to go on. Also another time I went on a board and before I even got into a spat the board leaders say "You are that Metacrock, we have been warned not allow you to come on here becasue will be so insulting." Of course I'm suer Hermit will say "O you are so insulting" but he never did admit that I am insulted becaseu of how I'm treated.

do you think people in real life find me that way? no they do not. they lik me. I'm considered a nice inoffense littel guy> in ever insult anyone. as I a child I was the favotire of old ladies. I have been that sort of insulting person. everyone likes me althoguh none of them ever think of me as dynmatic jsut bland and inoffenseive. ITs' only on the net becuase its here I amb fight back against the bullies.

I can show you many many other people who have very similar experinces. most of htem just figure O well it's the internet and move on. I a'm the only stupid enough to think I can do something to stop the wave of hate and oppression tath these little anti-Christ persecutors are starting.

the really are a band of bullying apes running around trying to force their views on the world any one who gets in their way they stomp on. What's their method of disproving it? they start slandering more.

When I demanded that Hermit show me what I said in that comment section that set off Russ. He admits it's based upon past things I said. This is a clear principle that atheists work buy. If you ever screw them you can never be forgiven. You will be guitly all your life becasue yous aid something at some point in the past. So he goes from "you were insulting him" no it's proven I wasn't read the thread, to "hell it's justified to hold a grudge from the past.

The kind of world an atheist would have, violent, rude, ran by bullies, were one must grab for anything one can get at any cost. In other words, a world like the one we live in. That's why the Bible talks about "the world." Because they are the world. They are the world lost sinful boys who are wiling bully anyone who gets in their way and they can't see any other kind of world because they are so cynical and it makes them feel good to bully people anyway.

I guess I am coming to the conclusion that I was wrong. It begins to look like it wasn't' just a segment but the whole shmear of atheism that is the hate group.

Hate groups do not stop at libel

my freind Kristen makes a nice little appeal backing me up on DC.

I read through the discussion on this thread, and here's what I saw:

Everything was going along fairly amicably, discussing the issues-- and then "Russ" decided to pull up some stuff JL Hinman had written in the past(out of context) and started personally attacking him for it. This was acknowledged by the next person who posted, saying:

"Joe, it looks like Russ just crucified your butt along with your Christianity."

Joe (who is dyslexic) began to get upset at being "crucified", which seemed to make the attacks escalate. The more he reacted, the more he was blamed for reacting, until now the conversation has descended into a feeding frenzy about Joe, including attacks on him for his spelling, which does get worse when he gets upset. That's hardly his fault. Those of you who know him as "Metacrock" surely know he's dyslexic. I sincerely hope it wasn't any of those who knew about his condition, who then started making comments like "he must be drunk." But those of you who knew he was dyslexic could have taken the high road (no matter what your opinion of his views) and spoken up for him-- which no one did.

Instead, everyone seems to be pretty much all blaming him-- when it's quite clear it's Russ who started the attacks.

So why was it necessary to do this? Before you knew he was "Metacrock," you all seemed to be able to stick to the issues.

Surely these discussions don't have to be about personality? So Joe has a temper, and tends to start cussing and stuff when things get personal. So what?

then McCall resots to Libel:

2:37 PM, April 05, 2009
Blogger Harry McCall said...

This from a newly found gospel codex just translated form the Greek:

“The disciples came to Jesus and were greatly perplexed as to the comments of one Joe Hinman.

And Jesus answered and said unto them; “Truly, I tell you! I have not seen such debauchery written by an man in all of Israel! Woe unto you Joe Hinman!

that is what hate group atheists will resort to when they are proven to be wrong. They have no limits on what they will do or how far they will go with their thug tactics. They will keep it up hoping the Christian wills ay "O it's just a blog it's not wroth it" and go away then the have shut up the truth by bullying it. They are little bullys who can't think.

There laws against libel. there are laws against hate speech.why don't we expand and enforce them. Can you not see the bankruptcy of the crusade to destroy Christianity?

Antoher example of hategroup atheism.

On DC I was discussing a post Loftus made. I was making some good points they were listening. Then they realized who I am. The whole discussion ground to a halt and they turned to character assignation. suddenly the ideas don't matter, when they think they have something on you that's what they really care about. They are nothing more than hate mongers and character assassins. They prefer adhom to real thinking any day. The people on DC that is.

All statements made that they quote they are taking out of context because they don't acknowledge that I'm talking about all atheists but about the segment of them that are into the hate movement.

L. Hinman, Joe, JL, Metacrock,
You ask,

why should I have to prove anything to you? I beileve it is verified in me every day, why should I care what you believe? I don't need your permission to hold my views.

why don't you guys go pick on people who like Marvel comics or something? I mean really. this stuff is important to those who like and understand it, why don't you find a different hobby?



Let me briefly address some of these questions.

You asked,

"why should I have to prove anything to you?"

You need to prove these things because you have also said concerning those who disagree with you,

"I think they have an organized tactic of bieng hateful to religious people. I think they are nothing but Nazis and we should not try to argue with them, we should try ot have them banned by law."

When you make it your objective to use statute to eradicate those who disagree with you, you must prove yourself to everyone who has a stake in it - that is, everyone.

Clearly, your religion, your theology, and your education all lack the power to give you what you know secular law can provide. More than that, Joe, it's a trivial observation taken from your own writings, like the one above "we should try ot have them banned by law," that your religion's moral teachings of loving one's enemies and turning one's cheek, carry no weight with you.

When you think nobody's looking, you really seem to let your true feelings come out. Like this, for instance,

I think they have some kind of organized tacktic to use ridicule. I think we should be spreading teh word for Christians not to feel intimidated by atheist rudness.

there's this asshole in Austin who has a community access show and a website.

Your religion, your theology, your education counts for nothing, Metacrock.

Yes, Joe L. Hinman, for these and many others you should have to prove things to a great many of us.

You asked,

I beileve it is verified in me every day, why should I care what you believe?


Metacrock, you clearly do care what others believe, or you would be content to ignore their comments. Realize this: are many good reasons for you to care what others believe.

You should care what I believe because, if we agree, I, we, may be wrong, which could have nasty consequences for any affected by what I, we believe. If we agree about, say, religion, but we have both chosen the wrong one, you/we should be concerned.

You should care what I believe because, if we disagree, unless we want to add more violence and distrust to the human condition, we must come to a peaceful compromise. In part we can't use your approach of "banned by law." Sadly, though, Joe, that can never happen. Your religion can never leave others to their own emotional and spiritual paths.

Concerning our religious disputes, J. L., I would be happy to leave you alone, but you, because of your religion, will never leave anyone alone. If your religion was a personal private religion, I could grant you immunity from my attacks. But, of course, your religion is nothing like that, being instead highly invasive. You want everyone to be exactly like you, through the enforcement power of the state, if need be. But, know this, other's freedom will not be yours without a fight.

In your version of Christianity, you would insist that I think of myself, my own beloved children, in fact, all of humanity, as afflicted with the disease of sin, so paid clergy can dispense mystical cures invented by theologians. You would insist that I accept your sins and cures as real, while I ignore the sins and cures proposed by other Christianities and other religions. Please understand, Hinman, that I can't comply, even if statute dictates.

My children are not miracles. They learn; they make mistakes; they grow; they are my favorite part of humanity; they are my favorite part of life. They, like all of us are part of the current state of biodiversity on this planet. I am happy they are descendants of our common ancestor with the other apes. I am happy that they, like us all, are verifiably related to the rest of the life on this planet. And, I am ecstatic that they are not the creation of that morally horrific Biblical troll you call God, and, by association, Joe, I'm glad they're nothing like you.

You said,

why don't you guys go pick on people who like Marvel comics or something?

Simple. Loving Marvel comics doesn't make people demand that we all believe the bizarre, the mystical, the magical, the super. Religion does exactly that and it almost never exists unless it does. Marvel comics readers aren't stupid enough to think that the fables they read are real. Marvel comics readers can distinguish reality and fantasy. The religious can't.

People who love Marvel comics don't demand that when I look at a newborn that I see an inherently flawed, sinful, theologically disease-ridden person whose affliction has been passed down from the beginning of time. Adam and Eve never existed, Joe. There was no original sin. Sin was not handed down. None of us is sinful. Sin is a marketing tool for clergy.

By separating that newborn from your theological bullshit, I can see her in a world of bright possibilities, including the possibility of living in a comprehensible world without the ancient useless mental and psychological obstacle of religion. Anyone who thinks that that beautiful child needs to be subject to the gruesome fantasies of theologians and clerics is a complete idiot.

You ended,

I mean really. this stuff is important to those who like and understand it, why don't you find a different hobby?

You say words, Joe. You do not understand it. "this stuff," as you call it, might be important to you, but it is not comprehensible in any way that corresponds to the world people live in. That it mutates so fast - just among Christianities the rate is a thousand new denominations a year now - tells us that just about anyone, just about anywhere can sprout their own religion.

Just think, Hinman, you could be the next L. Ron Hubbard, Mary Baker Eddy, Joseph Smith, Jim Jones or Fred Phelps. I'm sure you will be just as endeared as each of them. Real money, power, authority, and political influence can be yours. Doesn't Hinmanism, the one, the only, the TRUE religion sound good to you?

1:59 PM, April 03, 2009
Blogger Harry McCall said...

Joe, it looks like Russ just crucified your butt along with your Christianity. (I don’t think your books on Karl Barth and Emil Brunner will help you now. Bultmann may be more in line for you here, however.)

For someone who accepts a religion that stresses a dichotomy between Light (God) and Satan (Darkness), you really need do update your blog picture; or is there something your are trying to tell us?

See he think this slander and biased hate monger bull shit that's nothing than character assassination is just fine. good propaganda. it's jsut the right show thing we need to really someone in his place.


can't you see what they are? They are not thinkers.

Arizona Atheist tries Blogging

Remember AA who with whom I discussed some issues here a few weeks ago? Now he has a blog to disprove God arguments. I hope this time he's learned to actually answer the arguments. Last time I went through ten of my arguments and how each one was not a God of the gaps argument. He did not answer a single issue I raised, but now he's over at DC claiming victory!

He lays out his major strategy which is what I said it would be back when we had our discussion. At that time I said he would come back and dennouce loigc. I've seen this so many times. Atheists can't answer the logical arguments so they decide logic itself is no good for God stuff.


he says:

The truth is, though, that I see nothing special about these arguments. Each of these arguments are fatally flawed when you think about them for just a few minutes (or when you look at the contradictory evidence). When someone comes to me and starts using a lot of philosophical arguments I often dismiss them by claiming they're using "philosophical bullshit" because, while I like philosophy, it can oftentimes be abused and just because something sounds logical doesn't mean it represents reality. Take, for example, the experiment in which a feather is dropped along with a bowling ball (taking wind resistance out of the equation). Logic would dictate that the ball would hit the ground first, but in reality they would both hit the ground at the same time. This is an example of something that seems like a logical conclusion: a heavier object will fall faster, but if you eliminate the affect air has on the objects, they will fall at the same rate and hit the ground at the same time.

then he adds:

"It is because of this that I strongly argue that logic by itself, while extremely helpful and right much of the time, can sometimes get you into trouble."

Yea logic will get you in trouble especially when you don't know anything about it. I identified the anti-intellectualism in his thinking before. We see it above. But now it comes right out in the open:

"With that in mind, let's begin smashing the logical disaster that is theology."

yea let's just do that!

His first example has nothing to with logical arguments for God. Essentially he just argues that the Euthyphro dilemma shows how horrible it would be if such a being as God existed, which is not what the dilemma says, and then he goes off on the OT ragging about how he disagrees with its morality. This is has nothing to dow ti the existence of God as a philosophical tpric, or about logic. The God of the OT is not illogical in his smiting of enemies and so forth, he's just sever. Its' not a matter of logic and he can't give us a logical reason why his moral values are any better than those of the Bible.


The Euthyphro dilemma has to do with the idea that the Greek Gods were not more powerful than the fates. Thus Socrates asks is a thing good becasue the gods desire it, or are the gods becasue they desire good things. The real issue is the question is God the standard of moral goodness, and thus God's whims could change the nature of the good at any time, or does God follow a standard higher than himself, in which case there is something higher than God.

The problem is this comes up in a polytheistic culture where they did not have any God who was like the God of Christian theology. The Greek Gods were contingent, they were produced by prior conditions and none of them created the world. So this issue is not applicable to God of the Bible becasue that God is synominous in his essence with the nature of love. Thus the moral standard is the character or God so there is no dilemma. they are one and the same.

But even if there were a dilemma this would have nothing with disproving god's existence.


Finally he ends his rant by arguing that morality is seperate from God. He then uses the examle of people who do crazy things claiming God told them to:

A related point are people who claim to do helpful and harmful things because god supposedly told them to. Because there are people who have supposedly been told to commit both good and bad acts, this doesn't do anything to fix the contradictory messages that god seems to send (assuming he is real). There are people who feel compelled by god to help the poor, but there are also people who commit horrible atrocities, such as Dena Schlosser who chopped off her eleven month old girl's arms because god told her to.

Now, an apologist will likely say that Schlosser was clearly insane and god would never command someone to do such a thing. But if they dismiss this woman's testimony so quickly, why do they accept a christian's so easily, as long as they're doing something good? The simple answer? Bias.

Morality has nothing to do with god and, therefore, it cannot be used as any kind of "evidence" of god.

Clearly he doesn't understand the basis of meta ethical thinking. He probably has never heard of grounding axioms. But why isn't it a valid answer to say the person was insane and we know God would never tel them such a thing? If we have convincing safeguards why don't they change the argument? If God has nothing to do with morality then on what basis can he judge such actions to be immoral?






Then we get into some real fun with the cosmological argument:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Of course this is the Kalam arguemnt, its' not the only version and it's not the version I like to argue. I prefer Clark's version.

AA makes some very distorted claims. I think he demonstrates that he has very little understanding of any of the issues he talks about.

There are a few major flaws with this. First, theologians assume that nothing can be eternal; that it's impossible for the universe to just be, to just exist. Second, because of their claims that the universe cannot be eternal they then make a wild claim full of hypocrisy and nonsense and state that their god is eternal and does not need a cause.

I don't think any theologian assumes that nothing can be eternal. Most theologians don't know anything about this stuff. Most liberals don't bother with arguments for God. He doesn't even know the difference in a theologian and a philosopher. Philosophers who deal with modal logic assume that contingent things can't be eternal. By definition they can't be. But more importantly it is physicists show show that the universe is not eternal. The Big Bang theory demonstrates that the universe has a beginning. Thus it can't be eternal.

AA clearly does not understand what constitutes a valid philosophical point and what is merely blubbering with his own personal hatred. He's a good prime example of the hate group element in atheism:

Second, because of their claims that the universe cannot be eternal they then make a wild claim full of hypocrisy and nonsense and state that their god is eternal and does not need a cause.

(1) this is purely an exercise in begging the question. Why would the claim that God is eternal be hypocrisy or nonsense? The idea of God being eternal is proved a prori. its' a matter of logical necessity. But let's assume there could be a reason why ti's hypo racy. No attempt is even made to link this to a logical idea. It's nothing but an emotive statement. He apparently thinks that logic just amounts to making emotive statements.

AA clearly is not convergent in cosmology, nor does he understand the basic implications of the Big Bang. He declares as the third flaw in the CA

Third, they also assume that events that took place in the past could not go on indefinitely. But again, they contradict themselves and claim their god is infinite and has always existed, though they can never articulate "where" their god was or" what" he was doing the eternity before he just happened to create this universe.

At this point I'm spitting milk through my nose. These are some of the most infantile objections that anyone whose read even a few pages should be able to see through. Even a rudimentary knowledge will demonstrate to one with the well documented fact that most physicists hold to a beginning of the universe. Evidence is even stronger that the universe will not go on forever.

Universe continuing to expand

Evidence from three recent studies reveals that the final fate of the universe will be to drift apart and cease all useful functions capable of supporting life due to missing mass, which can't produce gravitational pull to bring it all back together and start again, and heat death in which case energy is useless for work. Several major studies show this to be the case.

[New Scientist Magazine, archive 11, April 98, archive; originally Oct. 96] you should be able to click here, but here's the url just in case) [http://www.newscientist.com/ns/980411/features1.html

"ON THE night of 5 March last year, the huge telescope of the Cerro Tololo Inter-American Observatory in Chile intercepted a message from deepest space. Transmitted a billion years before the Earth was born, its contents have proved to be of truly cosmic significance. The message was barely readable after its journey halfway across the Universe, and an international team of experts laboured for months to decode it. In January, Saul Perlmutter of the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory in California and his colleagues revealed to the world what they believe to be its gist: "The Universe will never end." A month later, a team led by Brian Schmidt of the Mount Stromlo and Siding Spring Observatories near Canberra in Australia published the decoded contents of more of these cosmic missives, which arrive as bursts of light from supernova explosions in far-flung galaxies. The message was the same. Now Chris Kochanek and his colleagues at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge, Massachusetts, are about to publish more evidence, this time from light that has been bent and sculpted by the gravity of unseen galaxies."



* Omega force = Continued expansion forever (no Big Cruch)

"These three sets of cosmic missives all suggest that instead of collapsing in on itself in a big crunch, our Universe will go on expanding forever. And that's not all. They also hint that the expanding Universe is in the grip of a mysterious force that is fighting against gravity--a force that pervades the entire cosmos and springs literally from nothing."(Ibid.)



[mysterious force = "omega" ie the equasion of gravitational force vs. mass needed to close the universe; omega must = 1 to close]

* Missing Mass.

[New Scinentist article April 1999] "If it [the universe] contains enough matter, gravity will eventually slow its expansion, stop it, and reverse it--producing a cataclysmic big crunch billions of years hence. But if there is too little matter--or if there is an extra source of "oomph" at work in the cosmos--then the Universe will expand forever.... Cosmologists call the ratio of the actual density of matter in our Universe to this critical density 'Omega.' And whole armies of astronomers have spent decades trying to work out if Omega is less than, more than or equal to 1.,... "Studies of the gravitational effects of clusters of galaxies have revealed that there must be at least 10 times as much mass tied up in invisible "dark matter" in the Universe as there is in the familiar form of luminous stars and gas. Yet even when all this dark matter is thrown into the equation, it still doesn't make the theorists happy. Despite searching every cosmic nook and cranny, astronomers have never found anything like the amount needed to make Omega equal to 1."

"So the take-home message looks the same as that now emerging from the supernova and quasar surveys: the Universe is going to expand forever, and it may yet prove to be flat. Certainly the idea of the big crunch seems to have gone for good, but the exact values of Lambda and Omega, and the fate of the cosmologists' theories, are still up for grabs. These values may finally be nailed early in the next century, with the launch of NASA's Microwave Anisotropy Probe (MAP) and the European Space Agency's PLANCK missions. These will use the heat left over from the big bang to try yet another way of measuring Omega and Lambda, which may lay the question to rest for good ("Genesis to Exodus", New Scientist," 19 October 1996, p 30).




Flat Universe means no contraction

Andre Linde, Scientific American, Sept 1997

"A second trouble spot is the flatness of space. General relativity suggests that space may be very curved, with a typical radius on the order of the Planck length, or 10^-33 centimeter. We see however, that our universe is just about flat on a scale of 10^28 centimeters, the radius of the observable part of the universe. This result of our observation differs from theoretical expectations by more than 60 orders of magnitude." [Messuer is a leading physicist and one of the first to invent the inflationary universe theory]



ABC News.com: Scientists: Universe is Flat another link Physics. ucsb.edu

Wayne Hu of the Institute for Advanced Studies, School of Natural Sciences in New Jersey said "temperature maps of the CMB form a snapshot image of the Universe when it was extremely young." "The...result supports a flat universe, which means that the total mass and energy density of the universe is equal to the so-called critical density," Wu wrote. "A perfectly flat universe will remain at the critical density and keep on expanding forever, because there is not enough matter to make it recollapse in a 'big crunch.'"


c) End of Universe reveals begining--universe would have already ceased.




Energy of the universe is being expended, as it burns up,it becomes useless for work. The fate of the universe will be eventual death in ciy darkness as all of its suns burn out and their energy disipates][New Scientist, April 1999, oct. 96

"But even if the Universe lives forever, its inhabitants will not be so lucky. A mere thousand billion years from now, all the stars will have used up their fuel and fizzled out. There will still be occasional flashes in the perpetual night: the death throes of stars so large that they have collapsed in on themselves to form black holes. Even these will eventually evaporate in a blast of radiation. For the next 10122 years, this Hawking radiation will be the only show in town. By then even the most massive black holes will evaporate, leaving the Universe with nothing to do for an unimaginable 10 to the power of 1026 years. Quantum theory then predicts that atoms of iron--the most stable of all elements--will undergo "tunnelling" and disappear into tiny black holes, which will themselves end in a final fizz of Hawking radiation. In the beginning there may have been light, but in the end, it seems, there will be nothing but darkness. ".[New Scientist April 1999]



Given infintie time and possibility all potentialities would have already come to fruition, the chain would have already been broken before our universe came into being. This just illustrates the impossibility of an infinte series of events. (being a series of events it would be "in time" so it's really redundant to say "an infinite series of events in time.") In other words, if this universe drifts apart because it lacks mass to produce omega, than the last universe would have too because energy and matter would be the same amount, just formulated differenlty (energy cannot be created or destroyed). The absurdity of the notion of an infinite series of big bang/cruches is driven home; how could there be an "infinite" series if one of the links in the chain can't make it? It can't "already be infifinte" and then stop because infinite means no begining and no end.

Note: If the Skeptic does not agree to this principle, that given infinite time every possibility comes to fruition than he can neither argue infinite chances nor multiple universes against the Antrhopic argument.

d) Universe contains finite stock of order, connot be eternal (because it would have burned out by now)

*Scientific conesnsus:

Paul Davies, in his article, "Space-time Singularities and Cosmology," says,"If we extrapolate this prediction to its extreme,we reach a point when all distances in the universe have shrunk to zero. An initial cosmological singularity therefore forms a past temporal extremity to the universe. We cannot continue physical reasoning, or even the concept of space-time, through such an extremity. For this reason, most cosmologists think of the initial singularity as the beginning of the universe. On this view, the Big Bang represents the creation event; the creation not only of all the MATTER and ENERGY in the universe, but also of space-time itself."[ P. C. W.Davies, "Space-time Singularities in Cosmology," in The Study of Time III, ed. J. T. Fraser (Berlin: Springer Verlag, 1978), pp. 78-79.]




* Laws of Physics break down at singularity

The laws of physics break down at the singularity. 1st Thermo. would apply after the Big Bang, then the fixed amount of energy that is "put in" to the universe (as Davies puts it) would be finite (in quantity) and subject to 1st and 2nd Thermo.


* 1 LTD applies to matter also. Thirdly, the 1st Law of Thermo. applies to matter ALSO. If you argue that energy is eternal, you've got to argue that matter is eternal, which goes against all the empirical evidence we have for the Big Bang.

* 2 LTD Energy burn to heat death

Fourthly, if you opt for 1st Thermo. before the Big Bang, try being consistent and applying 2nd Thermo. as well. If the energy (AND matter) of the universe is eternal, it would have reached MAXIMUM heat death an INFINITE amount of time ago.

Theoretical physicist Paul Davies, in his book God and the New Physics, states:

"If the universe has a finite stock of order, and is changing irreversibly towards disorder - ultimately to thermodynamic equilibrium - two very deep inferences follow immediately. The first is that the universe will eventually die, wallowing, as it were, in its own entropy. This is known among physicists as the 'heat death' of the universe. The second is that the universe cannot have existed forever, otherwise it would have reached its equilibrium end state an infinite time ago. Conclusion: the universe did not always exist."



If you deny that the universe has a finite stock of order, you are essentially denying the 1st law of thermodynmics, as it requires a fixed finite amount of matter and energy. (check your Encyc. Britannica)

In your wider universe, does the 1st law of Thermodynamics apply WITHOUT the second? What reversed the entropy of this eternally existent universe? As we saw above, a universe containing eternal matter and energy would have reached maximum entropy an INFINITE amount of time ago. What organizing principle intervened 11-15 billion years ago and organized all that energy and matter that was no longer available for work? What or who (or Who) woundthe universe up?

Fifthly, we observe that the universe is expanding uniformly in all directions. Had the universe existed for an infinite period of time, the density of matter would have become zero. (Koons) How do you explain the observable expansion of the universe? We measure the recession velocity of distant galaxies by using Cepheid variables, type Ia supernovas, and now Red Clumps as standard candles. And the microwave background radiation and redshift (doppler effect that skews the red portion of thespectrum of starlight in proportion to the distance of the star) confirm this expansion also. Futhermore, within the very field equations of General Relativity, is embedded the fact of the expansion and decceleration of the universe. There are now 19 proofs of General Relativity in 12 isolated areas of Physics,making it the most exhaustively proven principle. Are you saying that General Relativity does not apply to our universe as a whole?!! It is accurate to better than a trillionth of a percent precision. Where is your scientific evidence for A) seperate portions of the universe which General Relativity does not describe B) seperate universes? If its not falsifiable, and there's no evidence for it, then its just not a threat to the standardBB model as it is not scientific.

O we should note the argument that we can't say where God was or what he was doing. Nothing could be more puerile. This guy has truly marked himself as a know nothing. Of course this is all because he doesn't read the material. He reads atheist websites and doesn't think about what he reads. BTW for those who are in the dark here, there is no "where God was." that is to think of God as a big man in an even bigger room. That sort of conventional thinking sees God as localized and the timeless void "before the big bang--yes AA says those words (anyone who knows anything about this stuff knows that we don't speak of "before the big bang" because there is no before before time) the think of that void as a big room that God is standing in. This is nothing more than the lack of brain power to push themselves to consider radical images. They don't have the imagination to ponder what infinite would mean. God is everywhere (that's what omni present means). So it's pointless to say "where is God." That's like saying "which end is up" in outer space. AS to what God is doing this is also to imagine God as a big man who has to doing things, because he's ansy and can't sit still. God is the ground of bieng, what he's doing is being.

A related point is the fact that if the currently most widely accepted model of the big bang is one in which time didn't exist before the big bang,

(you see, there he says "before time").

how could god exist in a "time" before time even existed?

obviously since there is no "before" before, we don't have a problem. Because then there is no point in trying to image a time before time. What we can do is make it special. that's why the theoretical physicists do. that's the whole point of a concept of space/time. that's space/time is. they make the time dimension spacial and speak of 'beyond even horizon." This is how Hawking speaks in a Brief History of Time. So beyond event horizon there is no big timeless void with God in it, there is only God. God is what there is beyond event horizon. There may be a mutli verse in which case there are other space/times and God fills those and goes beyond them.

It's a contradiction.

It's over your head.

Fourth, with the Kalam Cosmological Argument claiming god has no beginning, thus needs no cause, they have no proof of this, and it's unknown if the universe even had a cause to begin with. The big bang we know of may have been just one out of countless "bangs" that have occurred throughout time, following Paul Steinhardt and Neil Turok's theory.

Of course he's missing the point the fact of a need for first cause which is eternal is the proof that God is that. Because that's what God is. that thing, that must be there we call God. How we get the idea of God because there must be something on that order and that's what we call it. The proof is the contingency of the universe, that it begins, it will end, it can't be etearnl, but isnce it can't come form nothing there must be some eteranl form of being.

that is a proof of God's existence and so AA is missing the whole boat. This site I must give it one star, total ignorance!

it's not worth further critique.

What's Love got to do With it?

We have been discussing ethics. My standard attack on atheist versions of ethics is that they can't ground their axioms. Well I amend that to say that the grounding they use is not as strong as belief in God is as a grounding. Its not that they have no grounding at all, but of necessity and logic atheist are basically forced to either result to a relative and discordable grounding, or to ground axioms in something that can't produce an ought. Grounding nature is pretty solid in that it's empriical but it can't produce an "ought" becasue it's inherently ground in the world of what "is." There's no bridge to get form "is" to "ought." Since ethics is about "ought," it's not very good grounding.

The dialogue partners with whom I have been confabulating, Hermit and Dave Ellis, are exceptional. Both have grounded their axioms in love. I find that unusual for atheists because most times when I have this discussion with atheists they avoid "the subjective." In my opinion Dave and Hermit have both failed to produce a strong ground. Neither of them can really show me why their views or the values they espouse should trump any other values. They ground their ethics in the values of love, but they really can't say why we should value that any more so than someone who grounds them in hate or in violence. Both are grounding in relative personal feelings, avoiding trying to make love into some kind of universal principle which all must follow. Dave tries but i think comes dangerously close to argue God when he does so. I am sure he is balking at that but think about it.

His only recourse to the question why should your personal feelings out weight anyone else's is just a form incredulity: "well don't think love does trump everything?" I mean, come on man, who doesn't love love right? I agree but that doesn't make it so. On the other hand if there is a creator of the universe whose character is synonymous with love then love as the meaning of the universe is "written" into the fabric of reality and so is "correct" a prirori. Atheists seem to feel that there is no need to be correct in this way. Just asserting the power of the feelings is enough. yet in other matters they eschew the "subjective."

Now the thing is, in spite of all this I feel that Dave and Hermit are really close to what I believe in certain regards. I strongly believe that love is the basis of everything and that it is synonymous with God's character. All of God's basic motivations are driven by love, and love is the background of the moral universe. That means all the motivating principles that drive the grounding of axioms are based upon love. If one does not love one is acting ethically only in a legalistic sense and in "good faith." I think that does matter. The battle ground of ethics is in the heart.

I understand Dave and Hermit's views, and there's a possibility that I underrated the depth of their commitment. With some atheists I think talk of love could be cheap because it is taken by some to mean "i love doing X therefore X can't be wrong." Whereas the way I understand love to ground axioms is not a license but as motivation for duty. In other words, If I really act in love I will do X for so and so because that is the will to the good of the other. I sense that love is a grounding for Dave and Hermit in a deeper way than just licensing their desires. I say this based upon the political commitments I know about and other things they say. I understand their view of love grounding axioms. But I still I think without a larger connection to love as the foundation of all things (ie from God) then they are just grounding axioms in personal tastes and they can't really arbitrate between other personal tastes that compete with their own. No consequences to doing wrong in such a senerio. They can't even say "that's wrong." The most they can say is "that's not loving." But the other can always say "I don't value love" and all they can say is "you are missing stuff." I think ethics has a lot more force when one can say "you are acting unethically."

I think they are close to understanding the idea of God's grace. I agree that love covers a multitude of sins. In other words, what is right is motivated by duty and obligation and duty and obligations are defined by the loving regard, the will to the good of the other. A legalistic view is not an ethical one. Imposing a lot of rules for the sake of keeping the rules defeats the purpose. The true end of ethical thinking is the decision making process to act in accord with the basic motivations of love. But this only has the force of ethical power when it can be linked to the basic meaning of the universe not just one's own personal predilections.