To establish the existence of sufficient evidence that theism is true, the theist must demonstrate a chain of divine causation from the Big Bang to the present. For instance, it must be shown that the Big Bang cannot possibly be a natural phenomenon resulting from natural causation. By definition, the God of classical theism is said to be the sole exclusive cause, such that it and only it can be the cause, of any possible Universe in any possible world. Thus to refute the definition of the God of classical theism, it is sufficient to show the existence of possible, plausible, and thus to some extent probable, scientific, naturalistic, explanatory hypothesis for the origin of the Big Bang. Such scientific, naturalistic, explanatory hypothesis of the Big Bang do exist. Dr. Lee Smolin’s “Cosmological Natural Selection”, Dr. Andre Linde’s “Chaotic Eternal Inflation”, Dr. Martin Bojowald’s “Loop Quantum Gravity”, and Dr. Stephen Hawking’s “Wave Function of The Universe” all provide naturalistic possible, plausible, and thus to some extent probable, models of the Big Bang that both explain and are supported by the evidence we have. Therefore the God of classical theism does not and cannot exist.
It is in no ways adequate for the purpose of demonstrating the possibility of theism to simply assert that scientific, naturalistic, explanatory hypothesis fail to account for the cause of the Big Bang. To do so is to make a fallacious “god of the gaps” and “ad-hoc false attribution” argument. The believer must shoulder a burden of positive proof to show that their god, and only their god rather than some other natural or supernatural cause is responsible for the Big Bang. However, since no god or supernatural entity of any sort is ascertainable by any known means, there cannot be any valid concept of god. Then to assert god as a cause of the Big Bang, or anything else, is Non Sequitur.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Atheism is a lack of belief that a transcendent immaterial non-casual consciousness interacts with human beings, obtains in either existence or in some other reality. Liberalism is the moral stance that the power of government should be used to bring about some ideal of social justice. Liberalism is motivated by the proposition that a categorical moral imperative obtains such that all human beings are obligated to ensure that all other human beings have access to basic requirements to sustain life and further resources to enable all human beings to have an acceptable standard of living. Details of requirements associated with competing versions of Liberalism are not relevant to this discussion. Statements of form [A should B] are moral prescriptions to action B. Under theism morality is alleged to be absolute proceeding from the basal nature of the supposed deity via way of some means other than uniformity of nature, i.e. a super-nature. Liberalism's motivating supposition of a categorical moral imperative is premised on an unstated enthymeme that the source of the CMI is some super-nature. Consider, human genetics cannot account for CMI as humans are not controlled by their genes. Genes dictate phenotype, but cerebral phenotype cannot yield predictive power to ascertain a future state of behavior. Liberalism assumes the CMI is foundational to the human constitution, however history shows humans have evolved from primates. With few exceptions, primates are self interested and will struggle for dominance while cooperating in groups to aid hunting, mating, rearing young, and defending against predators. Evolutionary history cannot account for CMI. If Categorical Moral Imperative cannot be traced to nature, then Liberalism must premise CMI from some undefined super-nature or other than nature. Since CMI is categorical in only applying to humans, then it appears just like the production of a discriminating casual process. Since Universal Common Descent is known true, then for a Moral Imperative to not be universal, whatever caused it must be discriminating for Homo Sapiens. Consciousness is one such process with which Liberalism is familiar. People have a tendency to assume that with which they are well acquainted is common. knowledge. Its very likely that Liberalism assumes as an an unstated enthymeme that the source of the CMI is some discriminating supernatural consciousness. This qualifies as a form of theism albeit weak theism. Therefore, a Strong Atheist knows what the weak atheist/agnostic doesn't, that Liberalism is built on bullshit mythology and false morality. No one should accept Liberalism.