This article is written exclusively to creationists. Specifically, creationists who read more than a few sentences at a time. The assumptions (belief, faith, even trust) made herein are based on the theory of creationism, which postulates that the universe was – at minimum – designed by an intelligent designer. A theory consistent with the known laws of physics, such as the first & second laws of thermodynamics. Since the violation of these known laws has never been observed, we consider it anti-scientific to support any theory that assumes that said laws were violated. If you are not a creationist, you are hereby warned and forbidden to continue reading. You have chosen to make assumptions that violate the scientific method. You have chosen the weaker theory and are most likely delusional. So please retreat to one of your infamous echo-chambers. Perhaps spend this time with your dear leaders & priests at RationalWiki. They will certainly encourage and enable your religious trust, beliefs, and faith in the unobserved circumstances which justify ignorance of the known laws of physics. In other words, you’ll enjoy your time there much more than continuing here.
See the irony? Spaghetti represents a tangled mess of logic…
Hello fellow creationist. The picture above is what atheists refer to as the FSM or “Flying Spaghetti Monster”. It represents a line of “reasoning” proposed by one Richard Dawkins in which he describes the method by which he formulates his varied (and so far unoriginal – he has literally contributed nothing to science) scientific hypotheses. Ok, just kidding, he actually invented the FSM as a false-equivalence to how he imagines the God of the Bible as well as any other “gods” have come about. I include the picture (at the top of the article) because it is incredibly ironic. Look closely at the FSM, because while it lacks 10,000 years of testimonies from hundreds of millions of humans, while only in Dawkins’ fantasies does the FSM’s book have remotely the readership that Jehovah’s book has, while it’s wholly inadequate to persuade anyone but the already persuaded, it does look eerily like the tangled spaghetti mess that the scientific community has made with what they refer to as orthodoxy. The arrogance to write off the testimonies of hundreds of millions of humans in preference for one’s own individual gut feeling, is not only predictable, it’s to be expected. Especially from those who are “exceptional” in their own eyes.
In computer programming there is a form of entropy (definition linked, definition #2: “decline into disorder”, militant atheists please don’t tell me that I don’t know what the word means… again… thank you) that occurs when inexperienced programmers, lacking discipline, make up their algorithms as they go along. What expert programmers call this is “spaghetti code”. See the irony? Spaghetti represents a tangled mess of logic, that can barely be called logic.
The reason amateurs descend into such “spaghetti” entropy is because they stubbornly take lazy shortcuts. Dawkins’ analogy is exactly that. A lazy shortcut. He’s preaching to the choir, a mistake common among the religiously dogmatic and bigoted, but inappropriate for academic circles if one is to contribute anything of original and practical value.
Amateur programmers wouldn’t keep making this mistake if there weren’t some rewards early on for their nearsightedness. The fact is, very simple things work fine this way. So long as they work, the amateur gains quite the ego boost. “Look at me, I’m such a great programmer, I made the computer say: ‘Hello World!’.” Yes, even I must admit, it’s kinda hard to make a tangled mess of “Hello World”. I must admit, Newtonian physics is physical fact, and capable of predicting amazing things.
So ignoring him begins here.
Newtonian physics was an epiphany, but not everyone is Newton, his predecessors, nor his contemporaries. There were plenty of “hacks” that preceded and succeeded him. Where he accomplished an unprecedented unification of physical laws while assuming: “a monotheistic God as the masterful creator whose existence could not be denied in the face of the grandeur of all creation”; Dawkins has accomplished, well…. he’s written some children’s books. His actual “science” has been ridiculed almost relentlessly by his contemporaries. He found a niche preaching to the atheist choir but for thinking men his hypotheses are best ignored, especially as they relate to theism. So ignoring him begins here.
Stephen Hawking, among others, are at least respected in their fields. Hawking is a modern spokesperson for a lot of these guys, so let’s let his “spaghetti code” speak for itself, as he’s revised his view as recently as 2015.
J.R.R. Tolkien was consistent as well. Creating a believable fiction requires consistency…
Before proceeding with an attempt to summarize a rather large pile of “spaghetti”, realize that Hawking is respected for good reason. His pile is quite consistent. So consistent that he has been forced to recant a few of his claims, most recently his assumptions concerning the “information paradox” which I’ll attempt to summarize in 4 sentences or less shortly. Yet J.R.R. Tolkien was consistent as well. Creating a believable fiction requires consistency, such consistency that one almost has to believe and exist in the fantasy that they are composing. The talent is the same today, theoretical science (and origin science is by definition theoretical) is the art of creating a believable fiction. In the time of Newton, science required practical outcomes. There are infinite possible “consistent” fictions once practical application is no longer a factor. The science of the 21st century produces little in the way of practical application.
In the next paragraph I will attempt to summarize the information paradox and will use that as a sort of apex to describe how Hawking worked himself into such a predicament. As a fiction it is commendable and fascinating. As a science, it’s a lot more like a Dilbert Cartoon, complete with “pointy haired manager” and “Catbert” determined to rule the world.
The Information Paradox is most simply stated thusly: if an event horizon represents an entirely unidirectional path into an environment of complete physical collapse, then how can the content and state of said environment have any effect (“communicate” hence “information”) external to the event horizon? In other words, Black Holes should only cause bending of space & time, the relativity version of gravity, nothing else, especially not the “Hawking radiation” (so much celebrity to be gained in pop-sci) that we’ve calculated in our otherwise consistent theory.
Notice I say “calculated” and not “observed”. Modern science is almost entirely based on numbers, and when observations don’t match we tweak any of the dozens of coefficients that have ensured that we can never be wrong. Atheism is a very thorough delusion. Hawking believes he may have a new explanation, but he wouldn’t be in this predicament if he weren’t focused on creating a believable fiction rather than discovering an observable reality.
For the purposes of science, faith is usually referred to as assumption.
So here’s how he got into this tar-pit in the first place. It begins with faith. Yes, it really does. For the purposes of science, faith is usually referred to as assumption. The scientific method is something that creationists all over the world embrace, and rightfully so. It is an ideal process by which finite minds can extend their knowledge through observation. Humans do this fairly naturally. Even children. Here is a child exercising the scientific method: “I want dessert. My parents give me dessert when I’m done with my potatos. Assuming that throwing my potatos will show my parents that I’m done with my potatos, I will get dessert when I throw my potatos.”
Note the assumption. It’s the unknown that we make a choice about in order to move forward without knowledge in order to gain knowledge. We creationists call this faith. Atheists like to pretend they don’t exercise faith, but that is purely semantics. They do, they just call them assumptions.
Numerous studies (here’s one) have identified that the human brain goes through a process from childhood to adulthood in how it deals with similar questions to the above. For instance, in general, if you ask a child (humble) to give a guess “A or B” and the answer is “B” 75% of the time, the (humble) child – after minimal experimentation – will naturally and consistently choose “B” 100% of the time obtaining the maximum known outcome from their experience. Hence the term: “maximization algorithm”.
However, if you attempt the same on an adult (arrogant), we will consistently employ something a bit more delusional called “probability matching”. On average an adult will throw in an “A” roughly 25% of the time in hopes that they will “get lucky” and match the probability. The problem is, the child will ultimately get it right more often than the adult. (Matthew 18:2, 1 Corinthians 1:27)
With the advent of the very dangerous information age humans are as arrogant as ever; especially atheists, arrogant enough to minimize the role of observation in preference for mathematical probabilities. The more arrogant, the more we employ arrogant thought processes, such as “probability matching”. Perhaps this explains why so many were willing to waste their money in an attempt to win the lottery? Seriously though, ever met a 5 year old addicted to gambling?
This type of model has a built-in, dogmatic defense against falsification.
What Hawking has done (with help of the scientific community), is he has built theories on top of theories on top of theories with a minimum of observation. A process that well known celebrity astronomer Neil deGrasse Tyson (even an atheist) calls: “Hypo-Stacking”. Mathematician & Astrophysicist Hilton Ratcliffe, in his book “Stephen Hawking Smoked My Socks” (dire warning, do not read it) , went on to describe this in detail:
“The pure form of the scientific method starts with observation or experience of something in nature that requires elucidation. What we have nowadays is conjecture (mathematical brainstorming) leading to hypotheses, which are built into a hypo-stack containing multiple tuneable parameters, which leads in turn to adjustable predictions, and the eventual creation of a fail-proof model of some or other aspect of existence. This type of model has a built-in, dogmatic defense against falsification. If the preferred conclusion to the logical processes within the model’s formalism is glorious enough, or awesome enough, then the model is inevitably canonised, no matter what anomalies it throws up.”
So here is an oversimplified version of how Hawking’s Hypo-Stack has developed:
1. 1727 – Newtonian Physics – Proven, practical, applicable. Nearly 100% of all matter in the universe is described and observed, with aether as the mainstream “unknown” theoretical substance.
2. 1844 – the first telegraph making global peer-pressure a reality.
3. 1887 – Michelson–Morley – puts an abrupt end (only possible with information technology) to any consideration of any celestial medium (aether) for transmission of forces paving the way for scientific irrationality.
4. 1940 – Einstein Relativity – Mathmatical, theoretical, all observable portions are inconclusive. LOTS of “tuneable parameters”, space & time become coefficients that can be changed to fit most observations.
5. 1960s+ – “Standard Model” – Pop-sci aligns with relativity and squeezes out dissent. The only hypotheses hereafter allowed (via the information age gatekeepers) must be consistent with standard model, general relativity, and quantum physics. The only remaining flexibility remaining is within quantum theory. Hawking was only 11 years old when Einstein died.
By now 96% of the matter in the universe is theoretical.
6. “Black Holes” – Einstein wrote in 1939 that black holes could never form, but by the 60s observations based on what is now called the “standard model” required black holes combined with general relativity, to explain the motion that was observed. By now 96% of the matter in the universe is theoretical.
7. “Event Horizon” – Since Black Holes violate several known physical laws the “event horizon” was postulated in order to allow for the possibility that beyond the “event horizon” anything imaginable or even unimaginable could happen.
8. 2014 – Hawking finally admits that hiding all physics behind an event horizon cannot work because then the black hole would have no effect on matter outside of the event horizon beyond time/space dilation. His calculations require that Black Holes emit energy called “Hawking Radiation”.
9. 2015 – The event horizon theory persisted so long because relativity allows for the dilation of both space and time and doesn’t itself necessitate “information” transfer to the standard model. Therefore either could be tweaked indefinitely. However, once anything other than gravity- such as radiation – needs to escape, the event horizon fails. Hawking is back in the saddle currently explaining that “quantum entanglement” can transcend the event horizon.
If the above sounds like an outline for a fictional novel about wizards and warlocks it’s because that’s exactly what it is. “Probability matching” on steroids. Realize that virtually everything beyond Newtonian Physics has been almost entirely useless for predicting anything at all with any more accuracy than a psychic can deliver. Even a recent Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded for observing the opposite of what was predicted. Remember who else received a recent Nobel Prize?
Yet Hawking wrote more of the “Atheist Bible” than Paul wrote of the Christian Bible. By coming up with an implausible origin of the universe story, that still has yet to even explain the origin or the universe, atheists have gained the audacity and the perceived power, to deny God entirely. An audacity that snowballs on itself, resulting in more “probability matching” (playing God) and less “maximization algorithm” (obedience to reality).
So based on the fictional novel that has been coming together since the beginning of the information age, here’s the gospel according to the atheist high priest Stephen Hawking:
1. In the beginning there was a dot.
2. The dot was definitely NOT sentient, it was definitely NOT intelligent, and it definitely did NOT create itself. (We know this because you cannot prove otherwise.) It was just always there in some form or another, sometimes huge, sometimes tiny.
3. #2 above sounds a bit too unconvincing, so let’s just add that since time began at the same time as the dot the dot has always been there, but that doesn’t mean that it has been there infinitely long, because that sounds weirder than the creationist’s claims. Instead time began with the dot and there was no time during which the dot did not exist, but it hasn’t been there forever, just for as long as there has been time. Which aren’t the same thing because I – your high priest – have said so.
4. From the dot, there was a bang, maybe a lot of bangs. Crunch, bang, crunch, bang… So far we’ve calculated at least 42 bangs and like monkeys sitting at typewriters given as much time as since the beginning of time (before which there was no time) could ultimately produce the complete works of Shakespeare, we humans and all of our complexity, were the result of pure probability within the scope of infinite time. Which again, is only infinite in that time didn’t exist before it did and therefore hasn’t always been but has never not been either.
5. Therefore there is no-one looking, no-one that cares, and no-one that matters except ourselves. We are the greatest intelligence (unless there are aliens, I like aliens, just not God). We are self-made men with no need for any humility or respect or obedience to anything but ourselves. We know that nobody made us, but we make things, but we also know that God could not exist and make things, because nobody made Him, that would just be irrational. I assure you, it’s better to assume that nobody made us than it is that nobody made God.
6. Therefore eat, drink, and be merry, and dogmatically oppose anyone that believes God exists. For tomorrow we die and you can assume (have faith) we are right.
the best way to shut an atheist up is to tell them that they have more faith than most religious people. they will swear they don’t while claiming to know what happened billions of years go. it is hilarious.
This is too long. I got as far as ignoring Dawkins and jumped to the end and Psalm 14:1. I agree completely with the parts I read, but I already ignore Dawkins.