Comments on: A Christian Analysis Of Atheism, Part 2 http://www.bloggernews.net/121964 High-quality English language analysis and editorial writing on the news. Sun, 27 May 2012 14:18:54 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3 By: Satheist http://www.bloggernews.net/121964#comment-1399128 Satheist Sun, 30 Aug 2009 07:19:59 +0000 http://www.bloggernews.net/121964#comment-1399128 The fool hath said in his heart, "There is no God," but the wise man tells the world. Go atheists! One could say: 'The boundary condition of the universe is that it has no boundary.' The universe would be completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside itself. It would neither be created nor destroyed. It would just BE. [Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam, 1988), p. 136.] The fool hath said in his heart, “There is no God,” but the wise man tells the world.

Go atheists!

One could say: ‘The boundary condition of the universe is that it has no boundary.’ The universe would be completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside itself. It would neither be created nor destroyed. It would just BE. [Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam, 1988), p. 136.]

]]> By: chatstu http://www.bloggernews.net/121964#comment-1394303 chatstu Sat, 22 Aug 2009 11:11:09 +0000 http://www.bloggernews.net/121964#comment-1394303 Thankyou for an excellent article, both 1 and 2. I still consider the U.S a Christian Nation and wont allow a certain someone to speak for me. Thankyou for an excellent article, both 1 and 2. I still consider the U.S a Christian Nation and wont allow a certain someone to speak for me.

]]> By: josef http://www.bloggernews.net/121964#comment-1393617 josef Sat, 22 Aug 2009 01:43:15 +0000 http://www.bloggernews.net/121964#comment-1393617 This is no good: <blockquote>Employing this principle, <b>one is forced to conclude that</b>, if the universe is an infinitely-old closed system those like Sagan claim it to be, then the universe would have already wound down in eons past. </blockquote> That's not true at all. No one contends that the big bang happened an infinitely long time ago- we say that it happened about 12 billion years ago. If the universe were infinitely old, we <i>still say</i> that the big bang happened about 12 billion years ago. This isn't any good either: <blockquote> Therefore, the universe must have had a beginning. And since something finite cannot come from nothing, the hypothesis of a divine creator provides the most plausible alternative.</blockquote> Even if we were to grant an "unmoved mover," and its far from clear that we should, positing a divine entity needlessly complicates a problem that may otherwise be understood in terms of first cause consistent with physics that would necessitate its own self-creation. Add to this the circularity of citing Psalms as though it were "evidence" and the long debunked claims that atheism must entail relativism (see moral realism), or that relativism itself should have to answer for its unrepresentative instances, and you've got yourself a garbage heap of a blog post. This is no good:

Employing this principle, one is forced to conclude that, if the universe is an infinitely-old closed system those like Sagan claim it to be, then the universe would have already wound down in eons past.

That’s not true at all. No one contends that the big bang happened an infinitely long time ago- we say that it happened about 12 billion years ago. If the universe were infinitely old, we still say that the big bang happened about 12 billion years ago.

This isn’t any good either:

Therefore, the universe must have had a beginning. And since something finite cannot come from nothing, the hypothesis of a divine creator provides the most plausible alternative.

Even if we were to grant an “unmoved mover,” and its far from clear that we should, positing a divine entity needlessly complicates a problem that may otherwise be understood in terms of first cause consistent with physics that would necessitate its own self-creation.

Add to this the circularity of citing Psalms as though it were “evidence” and the long debunked claims that atheism must entail relativism (see moral realism), or that relativism itself should have to answer for its unrepresentative instances, and you’ve got yourself a garbage heap of a blog post.

]]>