Tuesday, June 10, 2008
A Challenge, Part Deux
Uh, oh! Another challenge to atheists!
And boy! Are you guys in trouble now! 'Cause this time it comes from a business planner!
Anyway, Yomin Postelnik says he has simple proofs that no atheist has ever been able to counter effectively. Indeed, he says that "even after much debate on the issue I have yet to meet an atheist who can make even a feeble argument to counter any of these points."
Let me summarize for our intrepid challenger. Essentially it boils down to the "self-evident" conclusion that an entire universe, containing all of the billions of elements necessary for life to form, could not have come about without a "builder." Like all arguments, the proof is in the details, where, I'm sure, you will find the most interest:
[Atheists] believe that not only did whole planets appear spontaneously, but also believe that the fact that these planets do not collide as meteors do, that they have gravity, that they contain the proper atmospheric conditions for life to take hold and contain sustenance to sustain this life all happened by mere fluke.
Even if all the planets somehow formed themselves, all somehow staying in perfect orbit and possessing gravity, even take for granted that all the chemicals needed for life were so[me] how there as well, by sheer happenstance, would it then be possible for billions of species to spontaneously come about, each with a male and female of each kind so that they could exist in the long run?
Even if this were possible, would the simplest of animals have been able to survive were it missing even one essential organ? Would human beings survive if one organ or cavity was missing or displaced, even after somehow being otherwise perfectly formed with no designer? The simple fact is that even if humans were so perfectly formed, if food, water, sunlight or any one of a host of details necessary for life to exist were somehow missing, human life would have lasted on this planet for a maximum of a few days.
The contention of atheists, that life simply adapted to the conditions it found itself in is also irrational, as were this to be the case we'd have animals that could solely subsist on snow and ice in some regions.
Just as a man who spends years coming up with a thousand reasons why an elephant is really a duck will not be persuaded of his error without first addressing all of his complicated fallacies, so too the atheist's contentions must be addressed in detail.
Truth in advertising: I confess to being one of those godless people who thinks there are sophisticated -- though, obviously, unconvincing -- arguments for god(s). But Lordy! These ain't them!
"Encouraging atheists to open their minds to pure logic and to possibilities that they hitherto only sought to counter or to avoid on any pretext also involves an emotional challenge for them".
Hilarious stuff, but we really shouldn't make fun of the mentally ill.
Something that any rational person should ponder. Scientists are fairly intelligent and well educated. Even more so than the average person (I know, how elitist of me). If such arguments were as foolproof as claimed, isn't it surprising that so few scientists buy into to them? Really, the only way that an intelligent, rational person could reject a truly foolproof argument would be if that person started with some particular premises that were counter to reality. Since it is highly improbable that the vast majority of scientists continue to reject a supposedly foolproof theory, perhaps it is time to look at the alternative hypothesis?
Consider me duly gobsmacked. Or maybe godsmacked is more apt.
And here's a question for him: Do you think you could live without your appendix? Or without your tonsils? Apparently, you are doing well without your brain.