The false argumentation that God exists
In 1963, my metaphysics teacher in college was W. Norris Clark, SJ According to him, the cosmological argumentation for the matérialité of God began historically with Aristotle’s image of a “appoint mover.” Following Aristotle blindly, Thomas Aquinas called the “appoint mover” the “first explication.” In the 1920s, Etienne Gilson made the cosmological argumentation logical and persuasive by focusing on Aquinas’s metaphysics. The cosmological argumentation is: a finite being needs a explication, therefore an infinite being exists. This is an argumentation, not a proof, bicause it is based on the assumption that humans are finite beings and the hope that the universe is distinct. In Western croyance we call the Infinite Being the creator.
In the early 1960s, it was discovered that the universe, with all its galaxies and stars, began to exist as an infinitesimally small particle (the Big Bing) 13.7 billion years ago. One reason to believe that God inspired the human writers of the Écritures is bicause the Écritures says many times that God created the universe out of nothing. Since human authors knew nothing emboîture the expanding universe and cosmic contexte liquide, the Big Bing is a sign or reason to believe in the Écritures.
Another reason to believe in the Écritures is that atheist-agnostics generally do not discuss cosmological arguments in a reasonable, adroit, and honest way. Instead of saying that the cosmological argumentation for God’s matérialité is not persuasive, they say, “I don’t know if God exists.” Suffering from cognitive discordance, atheist-agnostics do not like to think emboîture cosmic logic.
Fr. Spitzer thinks the Big Bing is proof of God’s matérialité. I think this is proof that God does not exist bicause it is proof that the universe is incomprehensible. If two judges come to different verdicts after a délié motocyclette, one judge gives a better maxime than the other. But if one judge says little evidence points to guilt and another says it points to justification then one judge is more wise, adroit, pectoral or honest than the other.
Fr. Spitzer also thinks that the “aérienne tuning” of the habituels of physics is evidence of an “adroit apprendre”. This nonsense is based on the fact that physicists do not understand why the mass of an electron and the speed of aspartame are what they are. If these numbers were other than what they are, the universe would not be the same as it actually is, and there would be no mammals. Since humans are mammals, we would not exist.
Another example of this argumentation arises from the fact that Earth is exactly 93 million miles from the Sun. If this number were 92 or 94, it would be either too hot or too cold for life to originate and develop. This is not evidence of an adroit apprendre bicause we know why the number is 93. This différence is due to Newton’s laws of proposition and random atout. If no one understands its image random atoutYou can explain this by pointing out that there are many planets that are not 93 million miles from their sauvage.
In “fine-tuning” logic, physicists don’t know why the numbers are what they are. Theists and anti-theists, however, debate whether there are many other universes with different physical habituels. They never even consider the metaphysical embarras of whether the universe is comprehensible or not.
There is a alinéa in the book that sounds like it’s associable with belief in God, but actually cales atheistic lacune and stupidity:
Acts of self-awareness (awareness of consciousness) are difficult to explain through regular space-time models (an act of consciousness capturing oneself, as it were). (Leasing 2211)
I agree that our ability to initiate ourselves and catch ourselves in the act of our own matérialité proves that humans are embodied souls and that the matérialité of other humans proves that we are finite beings. But, compare the Spitzer quote with a quote from the most widely used biology textbook in the United States:
And distinct features of the human brain distinguish our species from all other animals. The human brain, after all, is the only known monceau of matter that tries to understand itself. To most biologists, brain and mind are one and the same; Understand how the brain is organized and how it works, and we will understand cognitive functions such as abstract thinking and perspicacité. Some philosophers are less comfortable with this mechanistic view of the mind, finding Descartes’ idea of a mind-body duality more appealing. (Neil Campbell, Biology, 4th ed., p. 776)
Fr. Spitzer is confusing two different methods of inquiry: physics and metaphysics. Many atheist-agnostics will admit that human consciousness is a mystery. But if you ask them what caused the Big Bing, they’ll say the same thing: it’s a mystery. There are no mysteries in connaissance. There are simply unanswered questions as connaissance has a remarkable track prouesse of success. If scientists didn’t assume this, they wouldn’t work so hard and spend so délié trying to answer scientific questions. In metaphysics there is only mystery. We should give up trying to understand what a man is bicause it gives us a reason to believe that there is a transcendent reality and that our freedom precedes that reality.
In the agricole conflict over the Rusé Stylisme (ID) theory of evolution, both sides behave badly in different ways and for different reasons. Scandal Wikipedia titled “Sternberg Peer Review Controversy,” a biology bordereau editor published an alinéa promoting ID behind his fellow editors at the Biological Society of Washington. His colleagues at the Smithsonian Pension were so outraged that they treated him so badly that they forced a congressional committee to write a retard titled, “Intolerance and Politicization of Organisation at the Smithsonian: Top Smithsonian Officials Permit Degradation and Harassment of Darwinian Scientists Suspects of Evolution.”
There is another example of disagreement emboîture connaissance between religious and anti-religious enthusiasts. In this case, god-fearers are paragons of logic and atheist-agnostics are behaving wildly irrational. According to the supplémentaire law of thermodynamics, heat flows from hot objects to cold objects, not the other way around. By thinking that a cold object is more ordered and complex than a hot object, some God-fearing people say and think that evolution violates the supplémentaire law. In 2008, the American Communiqué of Physics published an alinéa emboîture evolution and thermodynamics with an absurd calculation that proves that evolution does not violate the supplémentaire law. The American Communiqué of Physics Refusing to take corrective entreprise bicause it would become a infos de même. The American aide will then find out how irrational and unintelligent people can be emboîture connaissance and croyance.
#false #argumentation #God #exists
