Wednesday, December 16, 2009

Hume Rolls Over - Again

You remember David Hume? The brilliant sceptic who was the atheist darling until -

Yes, until. This truly is a tragic tale. David Hume famously said, “I have never suggested anything so absurd as that something could begin to exist without a cause.”

Dave Hume, held in high regard by atheists until we arrived at a point in history where the evidence for the beginning of the universe points directly to a Cause called Creator God.

Poor David Hume. Consigned to the atheist dump - reserved exclusively for those who refuse to go along with atheist dogma.

This should come as no surprise of course. When push comes to shove, atheist's scientific methods and hypothesis, and observations and confirming experiments; everything they claim to hold dear can take a flying leap for all they care. For when it comes to preserving their pre conceived world-view, atheists are perfectly willing to say that something CAN begin to exist without a cause.

Atheist: “True, we don’t have any examples of where something has begun to exist without a cause. But some day science will find an example. That’s why we say that some things that begin to exist don’t need a cause. Like the universe. Hey! We’ve already got an example - The Universe!”

Well, here we go again, Mr. Hume. Even though everything that we experience, everything that we’ve observed confirms and affirms again and again that specified complexity (formulated information) is the result of an intelligent agent - yep - you guessed it.

Every day and in every way, human beings of normal intelligence are easily and quickly able to infer intelligent design as an adequate explanation for the specified complexity or formulated information that they encounter. Why? Because an intelligent mind is the only known cause of specified complexity unless -

Yes, unless. There was a time when atheists were perfectly willing to accept that formulated information (specified complexity) was / is the right term for the information that is found only in DNA, RNA , proteins and from the minds of Intelligent Agents. They were even willing to accept that the specified complexity that’s found in DNA was “required” for the development of life itself. They were perfectly willing to accept that conclusion until they starting asking, “So where did that information come from? How did that information arise?” The best answer, the most logical answer, the answer that best explains what we observe points directly to an Intelligent Mind - a Cause some call Creator God.

As one by one their naturalist and materialist explanations fall by the wayside, just as happened with origins of the universe, here too, acceptance of the implausible and the impossible becomes acceptable in atheist world.

Suddenly, the origin of life doesn’t need specified formulated instructions. It just happened. Suddenly, specified complexity doesn’t need an Intelligent Agent for its existence. It just happens.

When one’s life is governed by an a priori rejection of any evidence that challenges your faith, in atheist world, making up solutions is as easy as falling off a piece of cake. (Yes I know. A mixed metaphor.)

In atheist world, like the beginning of the universe, when it comes to formulated information and the origin of life - “Nothing did it!”

Coming soon to an atheist meet-up near you

“Material life has always existed.” OR

Atheist: “Even though we don’t know of any specified complexity or formulated information that doesn’t find its origin in an Intelligent Agent, some day science will discover an example. Therefore, we say with complete and total blind atheist faith, “An Intelligent Agent is not required for specified complexity or formulated information. Like in the first living cell. Hey! We’ve already got an example.””

Hang on David Hume. Rolling over that fast can make you dizzy.


Hugo said...

You know what Makarios; before I went on vacation, I felt frustrated sometimes when reading your blog, due to the absurdity of the claims you make and the various strawmen argument you convey regarding atheists. But being away from my computer, in the real world, talking with real people about various things, meetings people from around the world in a place which is remote from my own home, made me realize how funny you are. I mean I do go out and meet people everyday, but not using a computer for 3 weeks changes the perception a little bit. So yes, seriously, it's really really funny to read you, and I guess I will keep commenting here because it's very entertaining and I actually learn a few things along the road. The argument from specified complexity is a good example...
Have a nice day.

Makarios said...

Thank you - I'll try to have a nice day.

Gorth Satana said...

specified complexity (formulated information)

Tautology. Formulated information needs a formulator to do the formulating.
You might as well say the universe was made by a god because the word "creation" implies a creator to do the creating.

"Specified complexity" cannot occur naturally because Dembski has defined it as so.

Don't make me link to this again:

Ginx said...

From the preliminary results of the largest survey of philosophy scholars, professionals, and students:

Laws of nature: Humean or non-Humean?
non-Humean 57.1%
Humean 24.7%
Other 18.1%

God: theism or atheism?
atheism 72.8%
theism 14.6%
Other 12.5%

Ginx said...

Damn, the link worked when I previewed it...

Makarios said...

Formulated information needs a formulator to do the formulating."

What you've just written is formulated information. You are the formulator of that information. What's so awful about saying that?

Ginx said...

What's so difficult with presenting a scenario for God's formulation? What's so difficult with understand that chemistry occurs without chemists?

Makarios said...

"Specified complexity" cannot occur naturally because Dembski has defined it as so."

I've never read Dembski so I'm not sure what you don't like about him.

On the other hand, if you have examples where large quantities of naturally occuring specified complxity exists, that might be helpful.

Hugo said...

God: theism or atheism?
atheism 72.8%
theism 14.6%
Other 12.5%

12.5% other? What the...?

In the general population I would not be surprised, the numbers would probably be completely different anyway, but I am surprised to see a 12.5% or other among educated philosophers for a valid dichotomy such as this one.
Anyway, it's satisfying to see the 72,8% ;)

Ginx said...

Other would probably be agnostic.

Hugo said...

Gorth: Don't make me link to this again:

I like this sentence:
Critics also reject applying specified complexity to infer design as an argument from ignorance.

Hugo said...

Ginx: Other would probably be agnostic.

Yes of course, but agnostism still falls in the non-theism category, i.e. atheism in the survey.
But anyway, I know that this can lead to all sorts of questions and debates so I understand why they left this "other" box there ;)

Ginx said...

There's a huge debate over whether "practical atheism" agnostics are "actually atheist." I think they are "agnostics," because we have a word for the idea of claiming that we don't know for certain, and people may self-apply any term they choose. I also think it's an attempt to inflate the number of "Atheists."

I denote a difference between atheists and Atheists. Little "a" atheists lack a belief in gods; big "A" Atheists believe there are no gods. Put another way: atheists are rejecting "The Theory of Gods," while Atheists adhere to the "There Are No Gods Theory."

I consider myself an atheist, not an agnostic, because agnostic sounds like an invitation to convert. "Oh, he's not sure, maybe if he just read this book..."

To me, it's all ridiculous semantics which are interesting to discuss, but which hold no real importance in life.

Hugo said...

To me, it's all ridiculous semantics which are interesting to discuss, but which hold no real importance in life.

Yep, that's the important.

But since it's interesting to discuss... ;) I like the way you make a difference between the use of 'A' or 'a' in atheist, because it's quite close to an explanation I gave to someone recently.

I was saying that I find interesting the fact that theist will use their religious denomination as a noun, associating themselves with the group, while atheist will use it as an adjective, since for them the label atheist, even though it is appropriate, has no value.
In other words, theists will say for example "I am a Christian", while atheists will say "I am atheist".

But I am not sure if that works in English (it was a conversation in French...) so tell me if that makes sense...?