Creationism and Logic-Part 1
Anyone who has ever debated a creationist has heard the same arguments over and over again. This time, they were presented by a certain Yomin Postelnik at the Canada Free Press in a most ridiculous article called “Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism in Not Logically Sound” a lengthy piece, which uses many many words to convey precisely nothing! Mr. Postelnik opens his article with the following:
One of the beautiful aspects of self evident truths is that they can be proven on both the simplest and the most complex of levels. By contrast, to make an argument for what is in fact an illogical fallacy, one must use plenty of skill, sophistry and remain beholden to a dogmatic protection of what is really an illogical position.
Now how seriously are we supposed to take someone who starts off with such loads of crap? First of all, a self evident truth does not need to be proven at any level, let alone “complex” ones, and if such need arises then said truth is not self evident, so what in the hell is this guy really saying? His “logic” is failing him within his first sentence. Second, what in the hell is an “illogical” fallacy? I have heard of logical fallacies, but illogical ones are news to me! A “Logical Fallacy” means a failing of logic, so by extension an illogical fallacy must mean a failing of illogic, which would make it logical, right? Thirdly, you don’t make an argument for a fallacy, that statement makes no sense, because a fallacy is itself an argument, albeit an invalid one. One cannot make an argument about an argument, but this is what this guy seems to think. Fourthly, one can commit a fallacy without being dogmatic. A fallacy is simply bad logic and it does not necessarily imply dogma. To make such assertion is quite infantile and betrays a complete lack of understanding of the basics of logic. But let’s not delve too long on the first paragraph, there is so much more to sink our teeth in the rest of this piece of workd.
Proof of a conscious Creator is readily available. The simplest proof (yet one that no atheist has ever been able to counter effectively) is that a universe of this size and magnitude does not somehow build itself, just as a set of encyclopedias doesn’t write itself or form randomly from the spill of a massive inkblot.
There we go again. Since this moron seems so fond of fallacies he may like to know that he just committed one himself, one that is very typical of cretinists creationists. It is the argument from ignorance, the “I’m too stupid to understand” one. It always amazes me how the inevitable rebuttal seems to escape these childish amateurs. If you are willing to stick to the logic of the above argument then you must explain the origins of your Creator, because by God he couldn’t have come into existence on his own. A Creator does not somehow build himself. And he claims no atheist has never been able to effectively counter his “argument”. I think I just did, twice. One, you’re too stupid to understand the real explanation and you reject it and replace it with an infantile explanation, your own version of Santa Claus. Secondly, your answer is only making matters worse as you are assuming the existence of a greatly greatly complex being to explain the existence of the universe, in effect replacing one mystery with an even bigger mystery. So what kind of bullshit answer is that?
No one in their right mind would claim that 10,000 hundred story buildings built themselves from randomness, even over time. Yet those who doubt the existence of a Creator believe that an entire universe, containing all of the billions of elements necessary for life to form, may have come about without a builder. As such, they give credence to billions of times more coincidences to having come about.
As a matter of fact no one has claimed that yet, that I am aware off, about the 10,000 hundred story buildings. What we have claimed though is that some even greater things were in fact not created by any intelligent being, such as, ohh I don’t know.. freaking mount Everest? You see, geology and plate tectonics can quite perfectly explain its creation, and no 100 story building in the world even comes close to Everest. So what does his argument prove? Absolutely nothing, because it is in fact another LOGICAL fallacy, a non sequitur ( I hope I spelled that correctly, my Latin is non existent!). The fact that some things are designed or created for a purpose does not imply that everything is created or designed for a purpose. And you cannot say that just because something less complex was designed then everything more complex must have been designed. Shoe laces were clearly designed, but they are so elementary that everything else, by the above logic, must have been designed including clouds and rain which are quite more complicated than shoe laces. Does this guy think there are little elves smoking in the mountains and making clouds? Who the hell knows!
They 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. Yet the same people would (rightly) denounce as preposterous the notion that the Egyptian pyramids built themselves. They would point to the structure and detailed design of these impressive inanimate objects. Yet they outrageously chalk up to coincidence billions upon billions of times more detail and design in all parts of life found in this universe.
Planets appeared spontaneously? Now, I hate to use definitions but Answers.com defines spontaneously as “Of one’s own free will: freely, voluntarily, willfully, willingly. Idioms: of one’s own accord, on one’s own volition.” I don’t know who this moron is consulting for his astronomical facts, but no one has ever made the claim that planets have a free will, or have ever done anything willfully. This idiot keeps exposing the limits of his intelligence. To my knowledge, no astronomer ever has claimed that any planet in the universe is a “fluke”. This is an outright lie, a made up enemy. It is in fact yet another logical fallacy, the one known as the “Straw Man”, make up your own enemy, put whatever words you want in his mouth so that you may attack him easily. Furthermore, who ever claimed that all these other planets “that they contain the proper atmospheric conditions for life to take hold and contain sustenance to sustain this life”? As far as I know only one planet has the proper atmospheric conditions for life and we happen to be having this debate on it’s surface. If this genius is aware of other planets with an atmosphere similar to Earth’s he should let the rest of the world know about it and who knows maybe win a Nobel for his troubles.
While there are complex proofs of the Divine, some dating back to the philosophical writings of Plato and others using modern science, the most clearly logical concepts are all readily apparent and simple. An entire world does not create itself.
Where are these proofs he alludes to? Is he talking about Michael Behe’s irreducible complexity? Ah, yes he falls back upon the “I’m too stupid” line of reasoning. An entire world does not create itself. Of course not, no one ever claimed that. Does an entire Creator create himself?
I am getting a headache by this guy’s unending assault to reason and logic, and this entry is getting too long anyway. Stay tuned for Part 2 and (hopefully not) Part 3 in the days to come. In the mean time you can head over to the website and read his whole article. But I must warn you, without a break in between paragraphs for sarcastic and logical remarks, you run major risks. You were warned, proceed at your own risk!
3 Comments »