Friday, October 2, 2009

Teacher: John why couldn't natural forces have created the Big Bang?

John: Um maybe nature hadn't evolved that far yet?

Teacher: No. Anybody? Why couldn't natural forces have created the Big Bang?

Sarah: Because,um, the molecules weren't evolved just right?

Teacher: No. C'mon kindergarten, this is not difficult. Yes, Kevin?

Kevin: Because there wasn't anything natural to be a natural cause.

Teacher: Yes, thank you Kevin. There wasn't anything natural UNTIL AFTER the Big Bang

John: But Richard Dawkins says that even if there was nothing in existence that even nothing can evolve. Richard Dawkins loves evolving things teacher.

Teacher: Yes sweety, but Richard Dawkins is an idiot.

12 comments:

Adam said...

Wow.

You just won me over.

His Lordship said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Makarios said...

I don't think that there is an atheist on the planet that is capable of comprehending the reality of what this post is pointing out.

You guys see the only two alternatives that we have regarding the origins of the universe and say:

. No, that can't be right

. There has to be a different option

. I'm sure there's a third alternative

. We just need to use our imagination

. I'm willing to wait until science thinks of something else

Even the very brightest among you is reduced to saying, "Nothing evolved," and "Inert gases evolved."

THAT is better than allowing yourselves to accept reality. And that brings us to two more alternatives.

- Either atheists WON'T understand reality.

Or as I'm beginning to believe,

- Atheists CAN'T understand the reality that's been placed before them - by science no less.

Like His Lordship, here, atheists are impotent to do anything more than crack childish jokes.

Gorth Satana said...

So where's the evidence your gods caused what is know as "The Big Bang"?

Nick Covington said...

/Like His Lordship, here, atheists are impotent to do anything more than crack childish jokes./

Yeah, and calling Richard Dawkins an idiot really raises the level of discourse.

For starters, you're hoisting up more straw-men than a blog-post comment can allow for regarding the origins of the universe. Secondly, you're positing a false dichotomy that refuses to account for scientific hypotheses and evidence outside of what you're comfortable with.

Just as with CS Lewis's "Lord, Liar, or Lunatic" fallacy regarding the divinity of Christ, there are always more options which obfuscate the simplicity that your analogy depends on. For the "trilemma", it is not the case that there are only three cleanly-defined choices to be made.

Makarios said...

So where's the evidence your gods caused what is know as "The Big Bang"?

http://makarios-makarios.blogspot.com/2009/09/irrefutable-mmm-maybe-not.html

Makarios said...

Just as with CS Lewis's "Lord, Liar, or Lunatic" fallacy regarding the divinity of Christ, there are always more options which obfuscate the simplicity that your analogy depends on.

Right. Like Dawkins says, Maybe Jesus just thought He was God. Of course that takes us back to lunatic but . . . I'd be interested in knowing what other options there are that you've thought of.

Gorth Satana said...

Option like "misquoted"

"So where's the evidence your gods caused what is know as "The Big Bang"?"

Like the first comment said, that link provides a "god of the gaps" argument. It is not a positive explanation, it's an attempt to disprove another explanation.

Gorth Satana said...

Another option could be "misquoted"

Gorth Satana said...

Your hero Craig thinks "lord, liar, lunatic" is a false dilemma.

William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics, Crossway Books (1994) pages 38-39.

Nick Covington said...

/Like Dawkins says, Maybe Jesus just thought He was God. /

You realize there are more atheists in the world than Richard Dawkins and that many non-believers. including myself, don't even pay much attention to him. He is not representative of all non-believers, and we don't all take marching orders from him. Quoting him like an infallible authority on atheism only makes you look silly(er).

Makarios said...

"He is not representative of all non-believers"

Ya I know. He's such a powerful hook for me. Hopefully he' kind of like Ted Haggard for our side - I mean an aberration, not the norm.

On the other hand, if Dawkins says, "Nothing" evolved or inert gases evolved. I'll bet most atheists posting here would agree with him.