Thunderf00t on futile questions

 

series:
	Creation vs Evolution : thunderf00t ... did you actually say that? (part 1) thunderf00t, did you really say that? (part 2) Trivium, Quadrivium 7 cætera : Thunderf00t on futile questions Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... against Thunderf00t on Dembski ... on Thunderf00t having a point on feminism - and then a few not so on Ken Ham

Is it impossible for an invisible pink unicorn to exist in every corner of every universe?*

Yes, an invisible pink unicorn is a contradiction in terms, since "invisible" contradicts "pink".

So, the question is not malformed, it is answerable. Yes, it is impossible for any invisible pink thing to exist anywhere. Unless you argue it means "invisible to observer of type x - for instance man - but visible as pink to any observer who sees it of type omega, for instance God or angels".

It is also impossible for one unicorn to exist at every point in any area. Unicorns by definition have bodies or are living bodies, which by definition take place, which excludes one of them from existing at "the point between two other close points". And another to exist in each of those two.

And unless you claim an unknowable atomistic concept of space is true, in which "a point" means "a minimum quantum of space", it is actually impossible to count the number of points between two points, so the phrase "every point" is also a contradiction in terms. A point is not a quantum of space, it is a limit between quantities of space.

Question answered. It was not in any way malformed, it could very well be answered by a yes or no, and my answer is a very resounding yes, at least unless the omnipotence of God somehow make it possible.

Now to the other question: is it impossible for God to exist?

It cannot be considered a "malformed question" since the parallel (or not so parallel) question exemplified by Thunderf00t was not malformed either.

However, next round Thunderf00t scores against Eric Hovind. Asking about 1% of information in the universe is only meaningful if the amount of information is definite and therefore finite.

As a matter of fact, Theologians have dealt with that. The amount of information about not just possible but real facts in the created universe is finite, and it is accessed in relevant parts (in a definite portion of total) by the even Human mind of Jesus Christ - relevant parts meaning Him knowing all He needs to know to be a just judge when He comes to judge the living and the dead - but if we go to information about unrealised possibilities, it is infinite and the Human mind of Christ can only access a finite part of it, only His Divinity can access all of inifinity.

It is also impossible for true information to be truly contradicted by true information, say the 1% by anything in the 99% of the finite information of realised facts in the universe from Creation to Judgement Day. Truth does not contradict truth.

One man cannnot be wrong in everything he thinks he knows, because no man is without any knowledge and some of the things he thinks he knows are true. An atheist thinks he knows 2+2=4, and an atheist is not wrong in that.

Next round, Thunderf00t misunderstands question by asking "what amount of the total do you count as knowledge", but it was not a question of total amount of knowledge actually known by beings capable of knowing - on an atheist's view only men or possibly animals too - it was a question about how much is known by man of total amount of information.

Doing useful things instead of posing futile questions that can never be answered?

Some questions might not be able to be answered in themselves, but the answers possible have consequences some of which can be checked by for instance law of contradiction or some even against observed fact. But the attitude is very Arsheesh to Shasta (if you have read The Horse and His Boy, which some of the readers of this essay have done).

Next one, Thunderf00t admits that mind forms models. He reduces mind to brain and to apparatus, but he admits that one function of "brain", of "apparatus" is forming models. Any "futile" question can be posed and can be answered by two or four or eight alternative models, some of which can be rejected straight away as against the law of contradiction, others of which can be checked either directly against observed reality or against further "futile" questions. Which is why it is annoying he shirks the question by saying basically that Marconi (who was not a Theologian but a Catholic) could not have invented the radio if he had been posing the particular question Eric Hovind asks instead of asking the questions that led up to discovery of electromagnetism. Well, he would hardly have been able to pose those questions if he had not come from a culture where St Thomas Aquinas had debated the questions Thunderf00t considers pointless with Averroist opponents.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Bibliothèque Mouffetard
St Edward
5-I-2012 2013

*From video on Thunderf00t : Eric Hovind Confesses to being an Atheist!!!!
http://thunderf00tdotorg.wordpress.com/2012/04/05/eric-hovind-confesses-to-being-an-atheist/