brian and kelly and there failed arguments
im just curious, how athiests defend this apparent contradiction that many so called intellectual athiests hold.
I watched the debate between kelly and brian and kirk cameron from a couple years back and i was overwhelmed by the utter lack of knowledge possesed by kelly and brian in terms of modern cosmology and physics and meta physics and in terms of being able to form strong logical arguments.
For example brian mentions the 3rd law of thermo dynamics as support for an eternal past and matter being an eternal being. This premise is only contigent in a post big bang universe according to all modern science so if we can prove that the universe came in to being which seems far more logical than this fallacy of an infinite number of past events that all but rendors that little argument useless.
Further more even if we permitted the argument based on his inaccurate depiction of the 3rd law of thermo dynamics wouldnt the second law of thermo dynamics form quite the conundrum for the athiest, specifically an athiest that holds to the eternal presence of the universe. The second law of thermo dynamics states that in a closed system( which is ultimately what an athiest/naturalist has to subscribe to) that all things eventually will lend to disorder and chaos, so if we have in fact had an infinite past would we already be destroyed by chaos and disorder? hmmm?
Additionally i was shocked at their lack of awareness of what the real question with respect to morals was. Brian and kelly were defending the epistimology of morals, which wasnt the problem.
I and many thiests can accept thiestic evolution and gauge that perhaps in Gods divine providence are knowledge of rights and wrongs could be a socially biological bi product. But that was not the question the question was whether objective rights and wrongs exist?
the athiest has 2 options he can take the utterly minescule minority of citizens and play the objective morals dont exist card or he can say objective morals do exist. Now if objective morals do not exist and everything we know to be right or wrong are merely biproducts of an evolutionary process which encourages human flourishment, then why is rape surely considered wrong?
I mean from a biological evolution processrape could be beneficial to human flourishment if the appropriate specimans were forced to breed? Interesting dichotomy the so called ethical athiets has himsefl in if he subscribes to subjectivity with respect to morals. Now if objective morals do exist, then why? Is the ethical athiest going to say that morals are some abstract objects that actually exist, hmm, sounds kind of irrational, because if " the good" existed " the good" itself could not be good because it is causally efete, wow were getting in to deeper and deeper athiest water, lol. How do we know things are really right or really wrong, these beliefs can only be placed by a transcendent being of which whom's nature is the good which this being evokes to us, and by the way that statement in and of itself eliminates the eurphphro dilemna.
I guess i could go on all night with this but i will leave you guys with this for now, hopefully i can get some truly rational reponses.