Sunday, May 03, 2009
This is a joke, right?
I've finally decided that this is a monstrously clever practical joke. Anything else is just scary.
P.S. I love Mr. Ball's first set of axioms (1-7), for which 1-6 are actually quite unobjectionable, whereupon number 7 takes a spectacular leap into utter illogic. Seriously, read 1-6 carefully, and shrug your shoulders and admit that, sure, you can accept them. Then try to figure out where 7 came from.
P.P.S. Actually, no, I take it back. Number 1 is utterly retarded.
AFTERSMIRK: The best part of watching buffoons like Ball torture apologetics is the ease with which they invent, out of whole cloth, spanking new metaphysical concepts. Take axiom 1, which refers to "a reality beyond our finite, material cause-and-effect universe," which is just all kinds of awesome given that Ball tosses off the idea of such a thing as an axiom.
These are the people who are never satisfied with the amount of evidence for biological evolution, but will glibly assume the existence of a divine being "outside of space and time," whatever that could possibly mean and for which they have no actual evidence whatsoever.
One should remind Ball why they call it "apologetics": Because whenever you're about to defend it, you have to preface every statement with, "I'm sorry that this is going to sound unspeakably stupid but ...". And it just goes downhill from there.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
ball is daffy.
his "logic" works along these lines:
god is good
and pudding is good
therefore
god is pudding.
stupid atheists... la la lalila lala...
#3 damn near proves itself.
KEvron
You guys need to talk to these people directly. There's nothing they love more than defending their faith through argument and their curious form of reason. They live for it. The anger appears to them as evidence of spiritual decay, as opposed to what it really is; the very natural, adaptive human reaction of hostility with regard to imbecility.
Wait - why do numbers exist? What, exactly, is '2'? They are abstract thoughts... they aren't 'real'.
That, and the whole thread of reasoning is silly.
He doesn't seem to understand the difference between symbols and things that are immaterial. There is evidence for the former, none whatsoever for the latter.
It's like the top philosophical and intellectual minds for the past bunch of centuries haven't wrestled with this issue at all...
Waittaminit! Here comes Ball! Well, no one considered his stuff! He answers everything...
Discussion over.
Sparky,
The Kalam Cosmological argument (which is what he is using) has been pretty well debunked for a while now. Dawkins destroyed it in the God Delusion. In fact Zeno's paradox pretty much destroyed it a few thousand years before it existed.
Ball is a gibbering fool.
WV=comica
I disagree with numbers 2 and 3, which are directly contradicted by number 8 anyway. This destroys numbers 4 and 6. 1 and 5 are somewhat circular, and well, we're nowhere, aren't we?
If he keeps this up, Ball is going to grow hair on his palms.
Post a Comment