A Burden

March 11th, 2014

“”There is no God” is a knowledge claim. Therefore, as such, it demands premises. Simply asserting that you cannot “prove something that doesn’t exist” is fallacious since you can prove you are not in another city currently.”

The burden of proof is always on the person making an assertion or proposition. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of argumentum ad ignorantium, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion being made. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise.

Since there is no proof that God exists, there is no sense in believing in God. It is unreasonable to act as if there were a God, or as if the supernatural were even a possibility.

The burden of proof is on those who assert, “There is a God.” There is no burden of proof on those who say, “Really? I don’t see it.”

Notice how it is that if you are in Atlanta right now, you can prove you are not in Philadelphia.

It is illegitimate to claim that you are not in Philadelphia, or Atlanta, or anywhere else because you do not exist anywhere in nature, because you are miraculously supernatural and not of this world.

If you believe that God exists, but not in the real world, then the burden is on you to prove how He could be unreal and yet still miraculously exist (somehow). And you cannot do that.

The atheist need only point out that if this God you believe in has to be supernatural, then He cannot possibly exist (because the notion of “supernatural” is a contradiction of existence).

Atheists do not need to prove that God is not in Philadelphia, nor Atlanta, nor Denver, nor Paris, nor on the Moon, nor anywhere else ad infinitum. All atheists need to point out is that a God Who is Not-Of-This-World really cannot be anywhere.

Existence Exists

March 10th, 2014

We all face the same reality of there being no evidence or logical argument for believing in the supernatural. But some go ahead and believe in it anyway, purely on blind, i.e., religious, faith. But I don’t go by blind faith, so I simply have no reason to believe in the supernatural. There is nothing to prove or disprove in this regard.

However, when confronted with the claim that it is “rational” to
believe in God, I must respond with the observation that claims of the existence of the supernatural cannot possibly correspond to reality — since the supernatural is not-of-this-world (and therefore not open to evidence and logic, i.e., rational argumentation).

Along the same lines, it is impossible that “the universe had a beginning.”

Consider that the universe is not a specific entity like a
planet or and egg, or even like a galaxy or a city. As an exercise, think of an egg. That’s a particular entity. Even a package of a dozen eggs is a particular entity. But if you try to think of all the eggs in the world at one particular point in time, even though you know it is a finite number, you do not know that number and cannot consider the collection a “physical entity,” but rather an abstraction.

In a similar way, the universe is an abstraction, viz., the
idea of the collection of everything there is. You know the collection is finite, but you don’t know how many particulars are included — you don’t even know the nature of everything that would be covered by the idea (since there are undoubtedly things that we haven’t discovered as of right now).

The concept “egg” includes all the eggs that currently exist as well as all the eggs that ever have existed and ever will exist. But here is a key point: the concept “egg” does not cover baseballs. On the other hand, the concept “universe” covers EVERYTHING — everything that now exists, ever has existed, every will exist, or ever could possibly exist (or have existed). Therefore, while there can be “non-egg” things, there can be nothing which is “non-universe.”

So, logically, the universe could not have had a beginning, because there would have been no place for it to begin, no time for it to begin, and nothing for it to begin from.

To put it another way: a cause for existence would necessarily be non-existent.

Big Baloney

March 5th, 2014

It is important to remember that if there were anything resembling a “Big Bang,” it most certainly was NOT the beginning of the universe.

If there were nothing, nothing would have happened. Of course, something did happen, since something is always happening, so there was never nothing.

The “beginning of the universe” makes no more sense than a “square circle.”

Obama the Empty Suit in the Empty Chair

November 17th, 2013

If Obama resigns next year, then his people can fix it so Biden wins the next two elections — and Obama can spend the following 10 years or so doing the same job he’s been doing for the last five.

Obama the Careless

November 10th, 2013

Obama doesn’t care that he lied. He doesn’t care that he’s been caught at it. He could not care less about the land of the free.

Resisting Temptation

September 15th, 2013

There are probably many Americans who are tempted to resist Obama’s dictatorial depredations — but it sure looks like they’ve learned to resist temptation.

What They Mean

June 11th, 2013

Political leaders are sometimes loath to make it clear what they are really saying; and they often try saying the same things in quite different words.

Remember back in the day when Khrushchev told us he wanted to “fundamentally transform America!”? Now Obama is telling American businesses that his administration “will bury you!” — and he means the same thing the old Communist boss meant. We’ve come a long way — Khrushchev couldn’t pull it off, but Obama is doing the deed.

History Reference

May 22nd, 2013

Perhaps President Obama can figure out a way to stay in power beyond 2016 — and will change his name to “Barack Octavius.” And then maybe “Augustus Obamus.”

Here In The Universe

February 22nd, 2013

From a site called “The Web Yeshiva Blog”:

Let me ask you a simple question – how easy do you think it is to have a universe that has creatures like us. That is, a universe that contains self-aware, thinking, emotional creatures like ourselves. It seems not so easy. To create a universe with a creature like man you need numerous essential physical elements and laws precisely crafted and calibrated in order to have a working, functioning universe with conscious, sentient beings. Not only do you need obvious elements like matter and energy, but you need laws to govern that matter and energy (like the laws of gravity and the strong and weak nuclear laws). What’s more, those laws have have just the right amount of force or energy to do their job properly. Sometimes, there’s a very narrow margin of error in the midst of a rather large number of possible configurations for the elements and laws of the universe.

This is what is known as the Fine Tuned Universe – i.e., a universe which seems to have been precisely crafted and organized in order to enable creatures like man to both exist and gain some level of understanding of the world which he lives.

The answer to that opening question is: it is the easiest thing in the world. You only need to open your eyes, look around, and live your life.

But then he brings up the notion of “creating” and/or “fine tuning” the universe, which is naturally quite impossible.

In order to create the universe, you would have to start with nothing — and you cannot get there. In order to tune the universe, you would need to be able to violate the law of identity/causality — that is, to make reality be not really real after all.

Transparent Obama

February 19th, 2013

The Obama administration is the most transparently dishonest administration in history.