Enter John Loftus, a pastor turned atheist who has the equivalent of a P.H.D in the philosophy of religion. He mentored under Christian apologist William Lane Craig and James D Strauss, but when it comes to actually presenting a valid rational argument this means little to nothing. Now don't get me wrong as these accomplishments are great and I do not seek to diminish them in anyway, but they have nothing to do with the merits of his claims, nothing, not one thing. Now I am not here to discuss his academic accomplishments, I am here to point out his glaring errors and support my claim that his book and the arguments at his blog 'debunking Christianity' are for uneducated ignorant Christians. Any Christian with a basic grasp of logic, history, theology , common sense and life experience should be able to see through these bad arguments, but enough of the pre fight hype, as I like to approach discourse the way I approach fighting, getting right to the action, and like all fights the combat takes place over multiple rounds, just like the exposure of his errors will take multiple blog posts.
Round 1
On page 85 he states "David Ramsay Steele reminds us that according to quantum mechanics "Things begin to exist without any cause all the time." So if some things can begin to exist without a cause, the universe could be one of them, which does not require a creator at all"
This might seem plausible to one that is ignorant in quantum mechanics, however there is no such thing as NOTHING in quantum mechanics. "Nothing" in reference to quantum mechanics has properties and a measurable existence as part of the quantum-mechanical vacuum, so there is SOMETHING there, but it is referred to as 'nothing' because there is no matter, but there are physical fields, so there IS something there, not to mention an entire universe of existence around it. Furthermore, the things he is talking about that exist without a cause are quantum fluctuations, but to say they exist without a cause is outstandingly incorrect, since they pop in and out of existence due to the uncertainty principle, not to mention that these things happen when there is ALREADY something in existence, principles, fields, physics, etc.
On page 85 he also criticizes william craig on his premise (Kalam cosmological argument) that the universe began to exist. Loftus states "Craigs second premise is that the universe began to exist. It too has difficulties when it comes to scientific discussions abotu time, relativity, cosmic singularities and quantum mechanics." Then on page 266 he states "There is overwhelming evidence our universe originated from a big bang."
He quotes Wes Morriston on page 84 in response to william craigs assertion that 'tigers don't spring into existence uncaused' (they were talking about the kalam argument, premise 1. Everything that beings to exist has a cause of its existence) "We have no experience of the origin of worlds to tell us that worlds don't come into existence like that. We don't even have experience of the coming into being of anything remotely analogous to the 'initial singularity' that figures into the big bang theory of the origin of the universe. That is why the absurdity of tigers and the like popping into existence out of nowhere tells us nothing about the utterly unique case of the beginning of the whole natural order."
But on page 85, as I noted above me, Loftus tries to use quantum mechanics as an analogy that the universe could exist without a cause.
On page 85 he cites Richard Carrier as saying "though there are a few philosophers and scientists on his side, Craigs theory of time still goes against the current scientific consensus, and is far from being established," Richard Carrier is a historian and citing him in regards to realitivity, quantom mechanics and singularities qualifies as an fallacious appeal to authority.
On page 90 he brings up the multiverse which is a nonscientific concept, if we accept Dawkins’s naked assertion that a universal designer is more complex than the one known universe, a designer is probably less complex than any two universes and infinitely less complex than an infinity of them. Dawkins does not inform us of the degree to which God’s complexity exceeds the complexity of the universe, but if we concede, for the sake of argument, that a universal designer must be 1,000 times more complex than the universe in order to create it, and therefore 1,000 times more improbable, a universal designer is still more mathematically likely than the squared improbability of there being two universes of similar complexity. For example, if the probability of one universe is one in one million, then the probability of the universal designer would be one in one billion, but the probability of there being two universes of similarly complex natures would be a much more improbable one in one trillion.
-vox day the irrational atheist
Not only that but appealing to the multiverse is hypocritical since it goes against Loftus own control methods
Since the multiverse cannot be observed, verified, and is untestable and as unfalsifiable the God hypothesis, and was created specifically to get around the telological argument, one wonders why Loftus would be appealing to it.
In his summary of the book Loftus states "a distant God is hardly distinguishable from no God at all" it is interesting however that a God that interacts with the universe but is hidden, is hardly distinguishable from no God at all."
After all a God hidden from us is completely biblical based (Isaiah 45:15) even Blaise Pascal said “what can be seen on earth indicates neither the total absence of God nor his manifest presence, but rather the presence of a hidden God.” As Loftus so erroneously states that moving from the deist God arguments to full blown Christianity is like trying to fly a plane to the moon, but since the Christian God is a hidden God which is hardly distinguishable from no God or a distant God (as Loftus puts it) it seems that the deist god arguments that Loftus so happily concedes also favor a hidden God. So Loftus should correct his statement: a distant God is hardly distinguishable from no God at all which in turn is hardly distinguishable from a God that interacts with the universe but is hidden. Just as a good portion of the covert operations that go on against terrorists and drug lords are hidden from the American public, which to the American public, is no different than no covert operations being done at all.
It is interesting to note that I think arguing Gods existence is silly and pointless, since theists will use X as evidence God exists and atheists use that same evidence as God doesn't exist, the universe for example, theists point to the unvierse as evidence that God exists and atheists point to the universe as evidence that God doesn't exist, however this is no excuse for Loftus's errors regarding these arguments.
stay tuned for round 2.
Update: Fixed some grammatical errors, thanks Keith, however the errors in Loftus book are still there, my grammatical errors does not make them go away.
Round 1
On page 85 he states "David Ramsay Steele reminds us that according to quantum mechanics "Things begin to exist without any cause all the time." So if some things can begin to exist without a cause, the universe could be one of them, which does not require a creator at all"
This might seem plausible to one that is ignorant in quantum mechanics, however there is no such thing as NOTHING in quantum mechanics. "Nothing" in reference to quantum mechanics has properties and a measurable existence as part of the quantum-mechanical vacuum, so there is SOMETHING there, but it is referred to as 'nothing' because there is no matter, but there are physical fields, so there IS something there, not to mention an entire universe of existence around it. Furthermore, the things he is talking about that exist without a cause are quantum fluctuations, but to say they exist without a cause is outstandingly incorrect, since they pop in and out of existence due to the uncertainty principle, not to mention that these things happen when there is ALREADY something in existence, principles, fields, physics, etc.
On page 85 he also criticizes william craig on his premise (Kalam cosmological argument) that the universe began to exist. Loftus states "Craigs second premise is that the universe began to exist. It too has difficulties when it comes to scientific discussions abotu time, relativity, cosmic singularities and quantum mechanics." Then on page 266 he states "There is overwhelming evidence our universe originated from a big bang."
He quotes Wes Morriston on page 84 in response to william craigs assertion that 'tigers don't spring into existence uncaused' (they were talking about the kalam argument, premise 1. Everything that beings to exist has a cause of its existence) "We have no experience of the origin of worlds to tell us that worlds don't come into existence like that. We don't even have experience of the coming into being of anything remotely analogous to the 'initial singularity' that figures into the big bang theory of the origin of the universe. That is why the absurdity of tigers and the like popping into existence out of nowhere tells us nothing about the utterly unique case of the beginning of the whole natural order."
But on page 85, as I noted above me, Loftus tries to use quantum mechanics as an analogy that the universe could exist without a cause.
On page 85 he cites Richard Carrier as saying "though there are a few philosophers and scientists on his side, Craigs theory of time still goes against the current scientific consensus, and is far from being established," Richard Carrier is a historian and citing him in regards to realitivity, quantom mechanics and singularities qualifies as an fallacious appeal to authority.
On page 90 he brings up the multiverse which is a nonscientific concept, if we accept Dawkins’s naked assertion that a universal designer is more complex than the one known universe, a designer is probably less complex than any two universes and infinitely less complex than an infinity of them. Dawkins does not inform us of the degree to which God’s complexity exceeds the complexity of the universe, but if we concede, for the sake of argument, that a universal designer must be 1,000 times more complex than the universe in order to create it, and therefore 1,000 times more improbable, a universal designer is still more mathematically likely than the squared improbability of there being two universes of similar complexity. For example, if the probability of one universe is one in one million, then the probability of the universal designer would be one in one billion, but the probability of there being two universes of similarly complex natures would be a much more improbable one in one trillion.
-vox day the irrational atheist
Not only that but appealing to the multiverse is hypocritical since it goes against Loftus own control methods
1. The scientific method is the most reliable (and probably the only) guide we have for determining the truth about the world."
Since the multiverse cannot be observed, verified, and is untestable and as unfalsifiable the God hypothesis, and was created specifically to get around the telological argument, one wonders why Loftus would be appealing to it.
In his summary of the book Loftus states "a distant God is hardly distinguishable from no God at all" it is interesting however that a God that interacts with the universe but is hidden, is hardly distinguishable from no God at all."
After all a God hidden from us is completely biblical based (Isaiah 45:15) even Blaise Pascal said “what can be seen on earth indicates neither the total absence of God nor his manifest presence, but rather the presence of a hidden God.” As Loftus so erroneously states that moving from the deist God arguments to full blown Christianity is like trying to fly a plane to the moon, but since the Christian God is a hidden God which is hardly distinguishable from no God or a distant God (as Loftus puts it) it seems that the deist god arguments that Loftus so happily concedes also favor a hidden God. So Loftus should correct his statement: a distant God is hardly distinguishable from no God at all which in turn is hardly distinguishable from a God that interacts with the universe but is hidden. Just as a good portion of the covert operations that go on against terrorists and drug lords are hidden from the American public, which to the American public, is no different than no covert operations being done at all.
It is interesting to note that I think arguing Gods existence is silly and pointless, since theists will use X as evidence God exists and atheists use that same evidence as God doesn't exist, the universe for example, theists point to the unvierse as evidence that God exists and atheists point to the universe as evidence that God doesn't exist, however this is no excuse for Loftus's errors regarding these arguments.
stay tuned for round 2.
Update: Fixed some grammatical errors, thanks Keith, however the errors in Loftus book are still there, my grammatical errors does not make them go away.
10 comments:
"Just as a good portion of the covert operations that go on against terrorists and drug lords are hidden from the American public, which to the American public, is no different than no covert operations being done at all."
Except for the blowback....
at the time the covert ops are going on it is no different to the American public than no covert ops going on at all, not to mention not every covert operation has blow back, Loftus conceded that the Christian God exists, by his own standards He does.
TD: you should really learn when to use a comma and when to use a period. Your readers might take you more seriously if you did.
real cute keith, you could however, try and respond to the real issues which is loftus errors that anyone with a basic grasp of logic, history, and quantum mechanics could see. Of course, you're an atheist!!! you're too ignorant to see them *duh*
Perhaps I will respond to the real issues raised here, if I find the the ideas and arguments interesting enough (and I have the time). Meanwhile, let me offer again that the posts here will be more effective without run-on sentences, which is what happens when a writer uses a comma where there should be a period.
whether the ideas and arguments are interesting is irrelevant, these are errors plain and simple, it shows loftus's logical inconsistency, his ignorance in quantum mechanics, his hypocrisy, and finally his inability to logical defend atheism as he conceded by his own words and standards that the Christian God exists, either you are going to address and respond to these errors or not, whether their interesting is irrelevant.
You do understand, don't you, that reading and commenting on your blog posts is completely voluntary?
your choice to not comment on the blog does not make the errors go away, your choice keith.
"One would think that someone who had studied Christianity and has the equivalent of a P.H.D would have better arguments than this!"That is exactly what I thought reading this book. You had more patience then I had reading that microwave manual, sorry, Book. Round 1 was well said.
Only just stumbled across this blog (from TheologyWeb), and I thought I would make a quick comment about the Big Bang, etc.
You quote Loftus: David Ramsay Steele reminds us that according to quantum mechanics "Things begin to exist without any cause all the time." So if some things can begin to exist without a cause, the universe could be one of them, which does not require a creator at all
The point Loftus is making is that this is one possibility. QM gives us a precedent for thinking that this is possible, but that is not the same as proving it did. Loftus claims no more than that (in this quite anyway).
You say: ... these things happen when there is ALREADY something in existence, principles, fields, physics, etc.
Correct me if I am wrong, but do we know that these things did not exist before the Big Bang? As far as I know, physicists have no idea what there was before the Big Bang. We just do not know. Therefore it remains a possibility that the Big Bang had no cause (that does leave the question of where the principles came from, but the only reasonable answer is "we do not know").
You say: On page 90 he brings up the multiverse which is a nonscientific concept, if we accept Dawkins’s naked assertion that a universal designer is more complex than the one known universe, a designer is probably less complex than any two universes and infinitely less complex than an infinity of them.
Does complexity add up in that way? Would you say that an infinite number of pens must be more complex than God? Sounds wrong to me.
You say: Since the multiverse cannot be observed, verified, and is untestable and as unfalsifiable the God hypothesis, and was created specifically to get around the telological argument, one wonders why Loftus would be appealing to it.
Multiverse is a possibility, not an accepted scientific theory. The point of appealing to it is to show that there are ways to get around the teleological argument. We do not know if the multiverse is right, but we do know that the teleological argument is unsound.
Post a Comment