The butt hair of the cracks argument, a cosmological argument

   I must confess I am blatantly using the cosmological argument as a model here. I actually take issue with my first statement. Something cannot come from nothing. There are three problems with this I see offhand. 

1) I don't know that something can not come from nothing... given the fact that we don't know the origins of our time space continuum or multi-verse theorem...who knows if that is true. It appears to be true in our state of being but I do not know it is universally true.

2) The statement defeats the entire argument as the God of the gaps is always thrown in. The cosmological argument never explains how God came into existence from nothing, but rather states it could not exist in its first statement. This is self defeating.

3) The cosmological argument assumes that a God exists with no empirical evidence.

   In order to answer the cosmological argument I wish to stay as close to it as possible for comparison...and my humorous delight. So I will accept the first statement as stated just for fun.

  I do have one thing the cosmological argument does not, an abundance of physical evidence, but we will dig deeper into my butt hair later, for now let's lay out the argument.

1) Something cannot come from nothing.

2) The universe exist.

3) It is more likely that the universe came from something that exist than something that does not exist.

4) No God has ever been proven to exist ever.

5) My butt hair exist.

6) Therefore, my butt hair

  A closer look ( at my butt hair)

  My butt hair can be proven to exist by scientists. I am sure I have enough samples to meet their satisfaction and close examination. It is very difficult for matter to come into existence or be destroyed. Most if not all of the matter that hair is composed of, scientists will agree has existed since the beginning of the universe. So I have proven that my butt hair has more to do with the origins of the universe than mythical gods that cannot even be proven to be mythical before 10,000 years ago. So put that in your pipe and smoke it....or maybe not.

Views: 259

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

>This is self defeating.

If I may humbly suggest an edit, This is self-defecating. Fixed it for you.

--A fan, eagerly awaiting your next chapter, The Suppurating Pustule on the Left Cheek Postulate.

Compu, which came first?

 Gosh I really don't know and have already put more time into this than I wish to admit.

Virtual Particles

Yes, remember physicist Dr. Lawrence Krauss has said that 90% of the mass in your body comes from empty space.

Some of what Lawrence Krauss says about physics seems as air-headed as what Catholic priests say about the Trinity.

Everything from nothing is pre-cottonpicking-posterous!

Concur Tom. I have still enjoyed many of his talks that have also involved both ethics an critical thinking.

My answers on this are not original, but they may have merit.

Consider that they say our universe had to have a beginning, but so did this mythical god the theists always talk about. They claim "god" always existed but it's the universe that had to have a beginning. That doesn't make sense. Things as we know them had to have a beginning and we see how things get recycled in many ways with nothing ever really destroyed.

What if the universe has always existed. Things within the universe are always being recycled and the universe is ever expanding. This gives it all enough change to allow us false dates for things we know, but we do not know fully because we cannot see the real picture. In time we might. We are going forward in time now. One day we may be able to go anywhere that we want to.

I have no evidence. It's just a hypothesis.

Michael, I reckon every scifi story starts with an hypothesis. With your knowledge of xianity, you could turn out a few. Maybe stories about time travelers visiting various biblical places and times, and telling what really happened.

How about one where Revelation is real and is happening now only there are 2 groups who show up claiming to be the angels of god. Mankind is shown evidence for this and goes with the good looking group. It turns out in the end that the ugly ones were the real saviors. We were duped one more time. Yes, Tom. this story is ugly.

An upbeat ending will sell more books, and you can make atheists the 'real saviors'.

 I remember an author quoting his professor. He said that if we could go back in a time machine and see early Christian practices we would have no idea what they were doing. It is fun to speculate and muse about but in truth early practices are so different now that it is like calling Jehovah's witnesses, or Mormons Knights Templars. Both of those churches would not exist without the Knights Templars, but we certainly wouldn't normally even compare them. We simply know almost nothing about the early Christian church no matter how badly we would like to believe otherwise. And yes I am quite proud of my learning of the early Christian church. That being said I'm fairly confident that Michael has forgotten more than I ever learned!


© 2018   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: The Nexus Group.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service