No. Atheists don't believe God exists because they're idiots. It's as simple as that. For example, like moron, you're babbling about evidence, presumably empirical, for an entity that is not empirical. What a dingbat. I already beat ya'll down. Shut up!
_____________________
The Hugh Hewitt Show Live
Hugh: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome back to another edition of the Hugh Hewitt Show! I’ve got the one and only Mucka Rottweiler McCaw back with us again. So, how ya feelin’, Mucka?
Mucka: Much better, thank you, a little shock therapy did the trick.
Hugh: I read the piece in See What They’re Saying Now Magazine the other day, and I thought I’d get ya back here for a follow up.
Mucka: That’s great. Thanks.
Hugh: So you don’t actually concede the fact that the possibility of God’s existence can’t be rationally denied?
Mucka: Not exactly. I concede only that it cannot be conclusively denied, at least not that I've seen.
Hugh: So you’re splittin’ hairs?
Mucka: Say what?
Hugh: Never mind. You’re semantic charade is obvious.
Mucka: Uh . . .
Hugh: So the atheist doesn’t necessarily acknowledge the undeniable possibility of God’s existence in the very act of denying there be any substance behind . . . well, behind the undeniable possibility, the construct of divinity?
Mucka: No. Just that until it can be completely and definitively ruled out, it would be dishonest to say that it has . . .
Hugh: I’m sorry. Until what can be completely ruled out?
Mucka: Uh . . . it.
Hugh: It?
Mucka: The possibility of God’s existence.
Hugh: What God?
Mucka: The one that can’t be ruled out.
Hugh: And which one would that be precisely?
Mucka:
Hugh: Mucka?
Mucka: Rottweilers!
Hugh: Uh . . . right. Security, stand by. Precisely what idea of God are you saying cannot be ruled out or is not necessarily acknowledged by the atheist in his very denial? Surely you know what it is you’d have to be ruling out. Surely you don’t make it a habit of making claims about things you haven’t defined or don’t understand.
Mucka: Uh . . . Gummy Bears?
Hugh: You’re guessing?
Mucka: Grape-flavored Gummy Bears?
Hugh: Higher.
Mucka: Florescent lights?
Hugh: Higher.
Mucka: You?
Hugh: Now, Mucka, how could a finite creature like me be the Creator?
Mucka: Nervous, deranged laughter Yeah, you’re right. Uh . . . me?
Hugh: Same problem, only worse.
Mucka: Rottweilers!
Hugh: Look here, Mucka, anyone with an IQ above that of the smudge on your glasses can see that you’re a lying toad. So, first, shut up. Second, shut up again.
Mucka: Shut up?
Hugh: That’s right!
Mucka: But . . .
Hugh: Shut . . .
Mucka: . . . I . . .
Hugh: . . . your . . .
Mucka: . . . think . . .
Hugh: . . . piehole.
Mucka:
Hugh: Good. Now, let's move on. . . . I see that you make the incredible statement that the positive assertion that God must be “has the exact same logical problem” as that of hard atheism.
Mucka: Problem?
Hugh: Yeah. That’s what I thought. You unwittingly shifted from ontological analytics to teleological synthetics and knew the silly-ass rubes throwin’ ya bones wouldn’t notice, eh?
Mucka: But . . . uh . . . I . . . I mean . . .
Hugh: Stop sputtering. They’re rubes, and you’re a lying toad, aren’t you?
Mucka: Rottweilers!
Hugh: Of course, God’s existence can be readily asserted without violating the rules of logic, because it does not entail the denial of anything’s existence or a denial of any undeniable possibility whatsoever, but merely asserts the existence of the irreducible primary of consciousness in terms of origin, isn’t that right, Mucka?
Mucka:
Hugh: Earth to Mucka, isn’t that right?
Mucka: Rottweilers chewing on my brain! Goo goo g’joob!
Hugh: You also claim, mind you, in the face of the fact that hard atheism cannot be rationally asserted at all, that the universally self-evident, rational and mathematical ontologicals of being are not proofs of God’s existence.
Mucka: That’s right!
Hugh: That “God is never shown as anything more than a possibility”?
Mucka: Ya damn skippy, ya theist bastard! Got ya there. Ya got inanimateness and consciousness. See? There’s your friggin’ alternatives of origin right there, ya theist bastard!
Hugh: Indeed. That’s right. You also claim that the theist “repeatedly fails to recognize that there are always other, simpler, more potentially testable alternatives.” I believe those were your very words, isn’t that right, Mucka?
Mucka: That’s right! Uh . . . did you just say indeed?
Hugh: Indeed.
Mucka: How’s that?
Hugh: Indeed. It was this theist who pointed out to you that the irreducible primary of ontological being relative to the problem of origin includes the . . . uh . . . simplistic alternative of inanimate materiality, isn’t that right, Mucka?
Mucka: Uh . . .
Hugh: Isn’t that right?
Mucka: But . . . I . . . uh . . . I mean . . .
Hugh: Isn’t that right?
Mucka: Uh . . . well . . .
Hugh: You’re sputtering again, Mucka.
Mucka: Uh . . .
Hugh: You already agreed with this theist on that point, didn’t you, Mucka.
Mucka: But . . .
Hugh: Mucka, you’re a lying toad and a damn fool, aren’t you?
Mucka: What just happened here?
Hugh: Are you peeing your pants again, Mucka?
Mucka: Oh hell . . .
Hugh: Those shoes look expensive. Are they new?
Mucka: Rottweilers chewing on my brain!
Hugh: You sort of got lost when you claimed that the irreducible primary of consciousness relative to the problem of origin does not objectively exist in and of itself, didn’t you, Mucka? That’s the other alternative of the inescapable problem of origin.
Mucka. My shoes are ruined.
Hugh: The construct of divinity does impose itself on our minds without our willing that it do so, isn’t that right, Mucka? It’s the very same construct that cannot “be completely and definitively ruled out” at this time, as you put it, isn’t that right, Mucka?
Mucka: I peed my pants.
Hugh. Yes, indeed, Mucka, you peed your pants again. . . . And your shoes, they look expensive. Are they suede?
Mucka: Two-hundred bucks down the toilet.
Hugh: Almost literally so, Mucka.
Mucka: Rottweilers! Big honkin’ Rottweilers!
Hugh: Poor, Mucka, everybody knows Locke’s objection to Cartesian rationalism doesn’t hold up, that Hume is the true master of empiricism.
Mucka: Huh?
Hugh: Oh my! You didn’t know! How adorable. Still playing with the thought experiments of children and cultures and the conflation of the categorical distinction between theological abstracts and the rational-mathematical universals of ontology’s irreducible primaries? Still on that Lockean magical mystery detour, eh?
Mucka: Gummy Bears?
Hugh: I’m sorry, Mucka, no Gummy Bears for you. We’re well into the Kantian era of the analytic-synthetic dichotomy of the Cartesian-Humean synthesis, the philosophical foundation of quantum physics no less! Of course, Augustine, Aquinas and Calvin, the greatest theologians of all time, had already worked out the irreducible primaries as extrapolated from the Bible. Had Locke paid more attention to them, he could have avoided his error and not been superseded by Berkeley and then by Hume.
Mucka: Cookies?
Hugh: Sorry, Boo-boo, no cookies for you either, I’m afraid, for the construct of divinity is not a subjective abstract at the philosophical-mathematical level of apprehension at all, but an extrapolation of the objectively self-evident dichotomies of ontology’s irreducible primaries, and, sadly, “the pragmatic ones who are chiefly concerned with what they can definitively prove and work with” in your imaginary isolation would be the class retards, those stuck on sensory perception stupid, those who would apparently fail to grasp the inescapable implications of finiteness-infiniteness, divisibility-indivisibility, mutability-immutability, materiality-immateriality. . . .
Mucka: I just made a boom-boom in my pants.
Hugh: Poor, Mucka, you’re fallin’ apart at the seams, this whole farce of yours . . .
Mucka: It’s those friggin’ Rottweilers chewing on my brain! Woof
Hugh: Indeed, it’s the rational-mathematical imperatives of human cognition chewing on your brain, Mucka!
Mucka: Woof
Hugh: If your rather dull-witted and unimaginative tards of the static, tabula rasa paradigm had kept us stuck on sensory-perception stupid, we wouldn’t have had the Berkelean principle of motion, the philosophical precursor of general relativity.
Mucka: I’m a know-nothing’ twit with Rottweilers chewing on my brain.
Hugh: Are you an Objectivist loon, to boot, Mucka?
Mucka: Woof
Hugh: Ya sure talk like one.
Mucka: Bite marks on my brain!
Hugh: So it’s rational to argue that the greatest conceivable expression of cognition’s irreducible primaries of transcendence could be trumped?
Mucka: Woof
Hugh: By what exactly?
Mucka: Finkledink!
Hugh: Like Dawkins, with his risible line of teleological argumentation in The Blind Watchmaker, you’re a philosophical-theological illiterate, aren’t ya, Mucka?
Mucka: I’m a damn fool!
Hugh: Yeah, a damn buffoon of the new atheism arguing against strawmen, irrelevancies discarded centuries ago.
Mucka: Just one Gummy Bear?
Hugh: You unimaginative, closed-minded, bigoted ignoramus, the quantum vacuum is empty space!
Mucka: Huh?
Hugh: The whole point of Hawking, Krauss et al.’s desperate semantic hijinks of trying to make the gravitational energy of the vacuum of quantum physics out to be a metaphysical/existential nothingness just flies right over your head, doesn’t it, Mucka?
Mucka: Huh?
Hugh: They’re trying to negate the necessity of divinity by appealing to the energy of an existent comprised of intangible mass. For all we know its an interdimensional immateriality of transcendental proportions, ya friggin’ dolt!
Mucka: Huh?
Hugh: We’re venturing beyond the space-time continuum of our material senses into a realm of being that lies beyond the singularity. We can only quantify its effects from this side of things. It’s not our friggin’ senses with which we’re engaging it. We’re engaging it with the immaterial imperatives of cognition!
Mucka: Huh?
Hugh: You silly ass, general relativity and quantum mechanics don't undermine the construct and necessity of divinity at all; indeed, Berkeley and Kant anticipated that cosmological physicists would soon come to the realization that Newtonian physics break down at some point precisely because God must exist!
Mucka: Huh?
Hugh: Oh my, you didn't know this, eh? You don't grasp why that's so, do you, Mucka?
Mucka: Huh?
Hugh: Indeed, you stupidly and nonsensically asserted that that which would be an ontological immateriality would “likely not be immaterial if it actually existed”!
Mucka: Huh?
Hugh: Zoom! Right over your head, eh, Mucka?
Mucka: Huh?
Hugh: “And if it IS immaterial," you said, "its existence is going to be rather hard to verify without necessity”!
Mucka: Huh?
Hugh: You damn fool!
Mucka: Huh?
Hugh: The ultimate essence of neither a transcendent immateriality nor the materiality of an intangible mass is subject to direct scientific affirmation or falsification. Its all sheer mathematics!
Mucka: Huh?
Hugh: Berkeley and Kant understood that the heavy lifting in cosmological origins would be done by the rational-mathematical calculi of consciousness, not sensory perception, which is merely the grunt work of systematic verification.
Mucka: Huh?
Hugh: Deduction, you ignoramus! Not the inductive reasoning of a blank slate driven by sensory perception, you ignoramus! Deduction, Mucka! The closer we get to divinity! Deduction! The deductive reasoning of cognitive intuition and mathematics has to lead the way!
Mucka: Huh?
Hugh: Dawkins is not a physicist, Mucka. He doesn’t grasp the ramifications of the underlying philosophical paradigm on which general relativity and quantum mechanics rests, Mucka.
Mucka: Huh?
Hugh: Neither do the likes of Hawking and Krauss, really, but they instinctually perceive the hated specter of divinity lurking beyond the singularity, Mucka!
Mucka: I just peed my pants again.
Hugh: Someone wash this puddle of urine and boom booms down and toss it a bag of Gummy Bears.
______________________
Hugh: And we're back with Mucka, folks, well, sort of. We've washed him down and got him diapered. 'Course he's rolled up into a ball of catatonic incoherency on the floor . . . but he does have some Gummy Bears! So while we're not expecting a full recovery by any means, he's indicated with grunts that he's ready to go on. . . . We really don't care if it's good for his health or not given the lying ass toad that he is.
Mucka: Gummy Bears!
Hugh: So tell us, Mucka, do you understand why even the likes of Hawking and Kraus don’t grasp the ramifications of the philosophical paradigm on which general relativity and quantum physics rests?
Mucka: Huh?
Hugh: Just so. They’re standing on the shoulders of philosophical giants--Descartes, Berkeley, Hume, Kant--and on the shoulders of the theological giants who hammered out the primary irreducibles of ontology--Augustine, Aquinas and Calvin. No appreciation whatsoever.
Mucka: Cookie?
Hugh: Steve, toss that punk a cookie.
Mucka: Coo.
Hugh: They don’t read philosophy and theology, Mucka. They don’t think these guys can teach ’em anything, especially Krauss. The likes of Hawking and Krauss, these supposed geniuses think they’re above it all. They’re barbarians, really. Brilliant physicists to be sure, but, ultimately, of the knuckle-dragging-calculator variety without souls or the imagination to grasp the metaphysical implications of their ramblings beyond their next ragged exhalation of apostasy. They’re strictly second raters next to the likes of Copernicus, Galileo, Bacon and Newton. Stupidly, because they haven’t seriously considered the underlying metaphysics of their theorizing, these atheist barbarians are spouting pseudo-scientific claptrap about God as if it science. And if you look really close, you’re find they have no commonsense at all, spouting some of the most incredibly silly and incoherent crap about things outside their field.
http://michaeldavidrawlings1.blogspot.com/2012/10/a-mountain-of-nothin-out-of-somethin-or.html
http://michaeldavidrawlings1.blogspot.com/2011/ 03/years-of-experience-have-shown-me-that_06.html
The biologists of atheism assure the physicists of atheism that we don’t need God for the origin of life, and the physicists of atheism assure the biologists of atheism that we don’t need God for the origin of the cosmos. In the meantime, general relativity and quantum physics point toward God. and the insurmountable barrier of information confronting microbiology screams God’s absolute necessity! Those of us who grasp the metaphysical implications of rational and empirical being, and know the science laugh our asses off at the slide-rule mentality of the new atheism.
Rawlings1234
