"Without a trace of irony, Krauss approvingly cites physicist Frank
Wilczek’s unflattering comparison of string theory to a rigged game of
darts: “First, one throws the dart against a blank wall, and then one
goes to the wall and draws a bull’s-eye around where the dart landed.”
Yet that is exactly Krauss’ procedure. He defines “nothing” and other
key concepts precisely so as to guarantee that only the physicist’s
methods he is comfortable with can be applied to the question of the
universe’s origin—and that only a nontheological answer will be
forthcoming."
--Edward Feser, "Not Understanding Nothing", from a review of A Universe from Nothing, by the philosophically adolescent Lawrence Krauss.
The atheists themselves don't seem to see the need to be precise, exact, and consistent in their definitions or reasoning, yet chide believers in God for allegedly not doing so.
Meanwhile, the atheist crawlers, cheerleaders, and other histrionic underlings come along and---also without any reasoning---dismiss the obvious fallacies pointed out by theists.
Where's the scientific reasoning? Where's the strict rigorous numbering and inference-derivation documentation and proofs of the atheists' claims, like any logic, sets, and functions course exercises? I don't see a single atheist scholar that is even attempting such a thing. It's the theists who are taking the analysis of issues to greater degrees of argumentative meticulousness, facing the self-referential issues, asking the meta-theoretic questions, and so on---not the atheists.
I smell blood in the water.
The atheists themselves don't seem to see the need to be precise, exact, and consistent in their definitions or reasoning, yet chide believers in God for allegedly not doing so.
Meanwhile, the atheist crawlers, cheerleaders, and other histrionic underlings come along and---also without any reasoning---dismiss the obvious fallacies pointed out by theists.
Where's the scientific reasoning? Where's the strict rigorous numbering and inference-derivation documentation and proofs of the atheists' claims, like any logic, sets, and functions course exercises? I don't see a single atheist scholar that is even attempting such a thing. It's the theists who are taking the analysis of issues to greater degrees of argumentative meticulousness, facing the self-referential issues, asking the meta-theoretic questions, and so on---not the atheists.
I smell blood in the water.
