In a recent on line discussion with an internet atheist he (or she, I don’t really know but I’ll be referring to this person as he) made two startlingly immature statements. Well less statements and more positions.
First, when I pointed out that because we are at the end day in history (tomorrow will be the end day of history tomorrow) time cannot be infinite as an infinite number does not have an end. His response was that well maybe time had a beginning in our universe but not in the multiverse as a whole. This is unusual for two reasons. First, if he has a reason to expect time to operate using different rules in a multiverse he did not present them. This is more curious since he said he would expect all universes to operate under the same general laws of physics (which is also odd because it obliterates the reason a multiverse was postulated). Secondly, as a person who claimed to believe in only what he knew to be true (those things he can verify to be true like gravity), it is curious that he would use an unprovable idea (I won’t even call it a hypothesis) to try to strengthen his position. The multiverse clearly lies in the domain of science fiction. Not the type of science fiction that takes current science and extrapolates it out and applies it to our society (like Fahrenheit 451). Rather the type of science fiction that is normally relegated to comic books and pulp novels (you know, like humans being able to mutate to shoot lasers out of their eyes). This isn’t rational position but rather grabbing at straws.
It has ceased to be about competing ideas on the beginning of the universe and more about him throwing anything at the wall to see if something sticks. If this is what people think counts as science it’s no wonder people didn’t have a problem with Dr. McCoy injecting a tribble with Khan’s blood as a method of science. That’s not the way science works.
Secondly was his childishly circular logic when asking for proof for the claims of the supernatural. This is essentially how it went (it was a lot of tweets and he would always circle around to it).
Him: I need proof of the supernatural.
Me: Would you accept the claims of the different witnesses in scripture?
Him: No, I need some proof outside of the Bible.
Me: Here read book X as it outlines the reliability of scripture and the trustworthiness of it’s claims.
Him: LOL you don’t think the Bible is sufficient!
Me: But you said you won’t accept the Bible.
Him: You still admitted you don’t think it’s sufficient!
Most people can see how he’s moved in a circle here. If he won’t accept the claims in scripture where does he expect me to turn? It’s not even as though I was offering him a book that was not demonstrating the reliability of the Bible (in this case specifically the New Testament).
I thought I’d write about this here mostly because it was, at least in part, funny. It’s hard for me to imagine an adult thinking these are cogent arguments. But he seems to. I’ve come to the conclusion he’s either a 13 year old (which is good for him as he kept me on the hook for a while) or just an adult troll (again, he kept me going for a while, so good for him). Of course there’s always the possibility that these are the actual thoughts and opinions of an adult. If that’s the case it’s no wonder our world is going to hell in a handbasket.