Debunking another new atheist's baby talk on Youtube

[Hollie]

There is no inescapable conclusion of gods. I suspect your use of the term “guiding consciousness” is a way to side-step around a simple admission that you’re referring to the gods.

I'm referring what these great thinkers and scientific minds were referring to:
A conclusion that the vast universe is run by an all encompassing
orderly system of rules, laws and amazing scientific principles that we know only to a very paltry degree at this point.
For instance we don't know what time is or why gravity works, or what dark matter is.

I purposely did not use the G word for fear of triggering people. You can use whatever word you like that describes a supreme being that exist outside of time and space and has given order to the cosmos.

Let’s also understand that belief in a flat earth, an earth-centric solar system and that illness was caused by an imbalance of "humors" in the body were policies mandated by the European church for 800 years.

No they weren't. These were the views of the best scientific minds of the day. As science slowly disproved these dogmas
the church also slowly began rescinding edicts that called Galileo a heretic, for instance.
But science and the church were frequently of one mind.

Dissent from that “belief” was the cause of some of the best minds of the time being squashed by religious doctrine.

The Church literally held back the advance of western civilization for nearly 1,000 years.

I think that goes too far
and the point is moot anyway.

Here are a couple thoughts. If you want to understand how the math of gravity, time and distance relate in order to reach another planet, you could ask a priest, or, you could ask scientists at Lockheed-Martin.

If you need a cure for a bacterial infection, you consult with a church Deacon, or, you could consult a trained doctor. If you want to know the time and date for every lunar eclipse in the next 100 years you could ask a church pastor, or, you could ask an astronomer.

That's all moot also. No one is asking a priest to get us to other habitable planets.

I see nothing to indicate that any supreme being (it's OK, you can say the "g" word), has provided any order to the cosmos. The very existence of Black Holes, the mass extinction on this plant 65 million years ago, collisions of galaxies, conditions utterly inhospitable to life as we know it across so much of the cosmos speaks to a very chaotic cosmos.

Yes, the church had no choice but to rescind edicts that called Galileo a heretic. The seeds of knowledge and learning began germinating in the work of Renaissance thinkers and scientists, and started to bloom during the Enlightenment. The Renaissance was sparked by the waning authority of the Church and the advances of Western/European scientists. The church simply could not enforce its authoritarianism forever.

I would propose the following:

"Gods do not exist because there is no logical reason to believe they do."

This is a logical statement supporting the non-existence of Gods and a direct response to the challenge of those who claim otherwise. In effect, it puts the onus back where it logically belongs, upon those who wish to assert existence. The rules of evidence require that arguments against must be made in refutation of proposing arguments. The null hypothesis is always logical.

The point was not to prove non-existence, but to show the absurdity of using logic in an attempt to provide evidence for or against the supernatural.

Your comments imply that the existence of the universe pre-supposes a creation of the universe which must then be considered a logical argument for the existence of a creator who must then be considered one or more Gods.

Did the universe come into existence?
If so, does the appearance of the universe imply a creator?
If so, must this creator be one or more Gods?

I would answer all of these questions negatively.

 

[Ringtone]

I agree with you, but your talking to someone in this post who has not even bothered to read or understand what ding and are are writing.

Most of the atheists on this board are mindless zombies.

And I agree with you. Some are vile and insulting off the bat and some are cordial and friendly until they begin to realize that their anti God rhetorical tricks aren't working but in the end, they all wind up pretty bitter and hostile.

They have a belief in nothing, which they will tell you is not true yet they cannot explain the presence of the universe itself
(It just is....I don't know...it's always been here....etc.). I know it's not God, they all say
not explaining how they know that either.

As I always say the idea of God is absurd, until you consider the alternative (a universe that just happens to exist, like a Sears Craftsman tool chest that just happens to sit on the back side of Mars). The bicycle is proof of the bicycle maker. The universe is proof of it's maker.

It has been my experience that the response you describe works on both sides of the issue. Many people just don't like having their beliefs questioned. The only real response to the question of the beginning of the universe is a simple "I don't know". Any claim of knowledge on either side is nothing more than a wish. You are all making up the answer.

diver, you're among those who have not grasped the essence of the OP from the jump! (See my previous post.)

Further, speak for yourself.

I don't know?!

More atheist slogan speak.

It is readily self-evident from the empirical and rational evidence that not only did our universe began to exist, but the material world in toto necessarily began to exist at some time in the finite past. The theological ramifications of that are self-evident.

 

[Hollie]

I wouldn't put all my stock in what scientists believe. Over time they have believed in a flat earth, an earth-centric solar system and that illness was caused by an imbalance of "humors" in the body.

Scientists are a self selecting group putting much faith, if you'll forgive the word, in what they can see, touch and know about the world all around them, which is all well and good.

But what we know about the universe and the natural world is limited. Greatly limited. So therefore what the scientist believes in is also limited. I am encouraged that science is starting to branch out into fields that were once considered silly or taboo. Why We Need to Study Consciousness

Once scientists start to believe in larger numbers that not everything we should know comes from textbooks
and wall charts I am confident more scientists will follow the lead of Albert Einstein, Erwin Schrodinger and Michio Kaku
who saw there are common threads that intertwine all throughout the cosmos, most of which we have yet to discover,
and the inescapable conclusion is there is a guiding consciousness to it all.
Some people will chafe at the thought but knowledge is good for us all.

I agree with you, but your talking to someone in this post who has not even bothered to read or understand what ding and I are writing.

Most of the atheists on this board are mindless zombies.

On the other hand, I have read your juvenile, ill-considered, Jimmy Swaggert stylized bible thumping / proselytizing and found it tedious and pointless.

 

[Hollie]

I agree with you, but your talking to someone in this post who has not even bothered to read or understand what ding and are are writing.

Most of the atheists on this board are mindless zombies.

And I agree with you. Some are vile and insulting off the bat and some are cordial and friendly until they begin to realize that their anti God rhetorical tricks aren't working but in the end, they all wind up pretty bitter and hostile.

They have a belief in nothing, which they will tell you is not true yet they cannot explain the presence of the universe itself
(It just is....I don't know...it's always been here....etc.). I know it's not God, they all say
not explaining how they know that either.

As I always say the idea of God is absurd, until you consider the alternative (a universe that just happens to exist, like a Sears Craftsman tool chest that just happens to sit on the back side of Mars). The bicycle is proof of the bicycle maker. The universe is proof of it's maker.

It has been my experience that the response you describe works on both sides of the issue. Many people just don't like having their beliefs questioned. The only real response to the question of the beginning of the universe is a simple "I don't know". Any claim of knowledge on either side is nothing more than a wish. You are all making up the answer.

diver, you're among those who have not grasped the essence of the OP from the jump! (See my previous post.)

Further, speak for yourself.

I don't know?!

More atheist slogan speak.

It is readily self-evident from the empirical and rational evidence that not only did our universe began to exist, but the material world in toto necessarily began to exist at some time in the finite past. The theological ramifications of that are self-evident.

Nonsense. There are no "theological ramifications".

That must be why you cannot dafine any.

 

[diver52]

Many people just don't like having their beliefs questioned.

And then you have scientists and other evidence-based thinkers, who invite all questioning of their determinations.

Science does more than invite questioning, it requires it. But that really doesn't apply to this issue since there is no evidence upon which to base anything.

 

[diver52]

There is no inescapable conclusion of gods. I suspect your use of the term “guiding consciousness” is a way to side-step around a simple admission that you’re referring to the gods.

I'm referring what these great thinkers and scientific minds were referring to:
A conclusion that the vast universe is run by an all encompassing
orderly system of rules, laws and amazing scientific principles that we know only to a very paltry degree at this point.
For instance we don't know what time is or why gravity works, or what dark matter is.

I purposely did not use the G word for fear of triggering people. You can use whatever word you like that describes a supreme being that exist outside of time and space and has given order to the cosmos.

Let’s also understand that belief in a flat earth, an earth-centric solar system and that illness was caused by an imbalance of "humors" in the body were policies mandated by the European church for 800 years.

No they weren't. These were the views of the best scientific minds of the day. As science slowly disproved these dogmas
the church also slowly began rescinding edicts that called Galileo a heretic, for instance.
But science and the church were frequently of one mind.

Dissent from that “belief” was the cause of some of the best minds of the time being squashed by religious doctrine.

The Church literally held back the advance of western civilization for nearly 1,000 years.

I think that goes too far
and the point is moot anyway.

Here are a couple thoughts. If you want to understand how the math of gravity, time and distance relate in order to reach another planet, you could ask a priest, or, you could ask scientists at Lockheed-Martin.

If you need a cure for a bacterial infection, you consult with a church Deacon, or, you could consult a trained doctor. If you want to know the time and date for every lunar eclipse in the next 100 years you could ask a church pastor, or, you could ask an astronomer.

That's all moot also. No one is asking a priest to get us to other habitable planets.

I see nothing to indicate that any supreme being (it's OK, you can say the "g" word), has provided any order to the cosmos. The very existence of Black Holes, the mass extinction on this plant 65 million years ago, collisions of galaxies, conditions utterly inhospitable to life as we know it across so much of the cosmos speaks to a very chaotic cosmos.

Yes, the church had no choice but to rescind edicts that called Galileo a heretic. The seeds of knowledge and learning began germinating in the work of Renaissance thinkers and scientists, and started to bloom during the Enlightenment. The Renaissance was sparked by the waning authority of the Church and the advances of Western/European scientists. The church simply could not enforce its authoritarianism forever.

I would propose the following:

"Gods do not exist because there is no logical reason to believe they do."

This is a logical statement supporting the non-existence of Gods and a direct response to the challenge of those who claim otherwise. In effect, it puts the onus back where it logically belongs, upon those who wish to assert existence. The rules of evidence require that arguments against must be made in refutation of proposing arguments. The null hypothesis is always logical.

The point was not to prove non-existence, but to show the absurdity of using logic in an attempt to provide evidence for or against the supernatural.

Your comments imply that the existence of the universe pre-supposes a creation of the universe which must then be considered a logical argument for the existence of a creator who must then be considered one or more Gods.

Did the universe come into existence?
If so, does the appearance of the universe imply a creator?
If so, must this creator be one or more Gods?

I would answer all of these questions negatively.

You can certainly answer them that way, but that doesn't matter. Whether you think something is logical or not has absolutely no bearing on whether or not it is true. The claims there is a god and there is no god have exactly the same level of evidentiary support - zero. No valid conclusion can be made in the absence of evidence.

 

[Hollie]

There is no inescapable conclusion of gods. I suspect your use of the term “guiding consciousness” is a way to side-step around a simple admission that you’re referring to the gods.

I'm referring what these great thinkers and scientific minds were referring to:
A conclusion that the vast universe is run by an all encompassing
orderly system of rules, laws and amazing scientific principles that we know only to a very paltry degree at this point.
For instance we don't know what time is or why gravity works, or what dark matter is.

I purposely did not use the G word for fear of triggering people. You can use whatever word you like that describes a supreme being that exist outside of time and space and has given order to the cosmos.

Let’s also understand that belief in a flat earth, an earth-centric solar system and that illness was caused by an imbalance of "humors" in the body were policies mandated by the European church for 800 years.

No they weren't. These were the views of the best scientific minds of the day. As science slowly disproved these dogmas
the church also slowly began rescinding edicts that called Galileo a heretic, for instance.
But science and the church were frequently of one mind.

Dissent from that “belief” was the cause of some of the best minds of the time being squashed by religious doctrine.

The Church literally held back the advance of western civilization for nearly 1,000 years.

I think that goes too far
and the point is moot anyway.

Here are a couple thoughts. If you want to understand how the math of gravity, time and distance relate in order to reach another planet, you could ask a priest, or, you could ask scientists at Lockheed-Martin.

If you need a cure for a bacterial infection, you consult with a church Deacon, or, you could consult a trained doctor. If you want to know the time and date for every lunar eclipse in the next 100 years you could ask a church pastor, or, you could ask an astronomer.

That's all moot also. No one is asking a priest to get us to other habitable planets.

I see nothing to indicate that any supreme being (it's OK, you can say the "g" word), has provided any order to the cosmos. The very existence of Black Holes, the mass extinction on this plant 65 million years ago, collisions of galaxies, conditions utterly inhospitable to life as we know it across so much of the cosmos speaks to a very chaotic cosmos.

Yes, the church had no choice but to rescind edicts that called Galileo a heretic. The seeds of knowledge and learning began germinating in the work of Renaissance thinkers and scientists, and started to bloom during the Enlightenment. The Renaissance was sparked by the waning authority of the Church and the advances of Western/European scientists. The church simply could not enforce its authoritarianism forever.

I would propose the following:

"Gods do not exist because there is no logical reason to believe they do."

This is a logical statement supporting the non-existence of Gods and a direct response to the challenge of those who claim otherwise. In effect, it puts the onus back where it logically belongs, upon those who wish to assert existence. The rules of evidence require that arguments against must be made in refutation of proposing arguments. The null hypothesis is always logical.

The point was not to prove non-existence, but to show the absurdity of using logic in an attempt to provide evidence for or against the supernatural.

Your comments imply that the existence of the universe pre-supposes a creation of the universe which must then be considered a logical argument for the existence of a creator who must then be considered one or more Gods.

Did the universe come into existence?
If so, does the appearance of the universe imply a creator?
If so, must this creator be one or more Gods?

I would answer all of these questions negatively.

You can certainly answer them that way, but that doesn't matter. Whether you think something is logical or not has absolutely no bearing on whether or not it is true. The claims there is a god and there is no god have exactly the same level of evidentiary support - zero. No valid conclusion can be made in the absence of evidence.

I don't disagree about the absence of proof, for or against, any of the gods. I'm really just requiring the believers to make a supportable argument without the need to use the Bible as proof of something when it’s the veracity of the Bible that is in question. That argument only tells us about their capacity to draw conclusions out of willful neglect of any real standard of care.

I’m only holding theior feet to the fire for the purpose of demanding they demonstrate the truth of claims that they have made.

 

[diver52]

There is no inescapable conclusion of gods. I suspect your use of the term “guiding consciousness” is a way to side-step around a simple admission that you’re referring to the gods.

I'm referring what these great thinkers and scientific minds were referring to:
A conclusion that the vast universe is run by an all encompassing
orderly system of rules, laws and amazing scientific principles that we know only to a very paltry degree at this point.
For instance we don't know what time is or why gravity works, or what dark matter is.

I purposely did not use the G word for fear of triggering people. You can use whatever word you like that describes a supreme being that exist outside of time and space and has given order to the cosmos.

Let’s also understand that belief in a flat earth, an earth-centric solar system and that illness was caused by an imbalance of "humors" in the body were policies mandated by the European church for 800 years.

No they weren't. These were the views of the best scientific minds of the day. As science slowly disproved these dogmas
the church also slowly began rescinding edicts that called Galileo a heretic, for instance.
But science and the church were frequently of one mind.

Dissent from that “belief” was the cause of some of the best minds of the time being squashed by religious doctrine.

The Church literally held back the advance of western civilization for nearly 1,000 years.

I think that goes too far
and the point is moot anyway.

Here are a couple thoughts. If you want to understand how the math of gravity, time and distance relate in order to reach another planet, you could ask a priest, or, you could ask scientists at Lockheed-Martin.

If you need a cure for a bacterial infection, you consult with a church Deacon, or, you could consult a trained doctor. If you want to know the time and date for every lunar eclipse in the next 100 years you could ask a church pastor, or, you could ask an astronomer.

That's all moot also. No one is asking a priest to get us to other habitable planets.

I see nothing to indicate that any supreme being (it's OK, you can say the "g" word), has provided any order to the cosmos. The very existence of Black Holes, the mass extinction on this plant 65 million years ago, collisions of galaxies, conditions utterly inhospitable to life as we know it across so much of the cosmos speaks to a very chaotic cosmos.

Yes, the church had no choice but to rescind edicts that called Galileo a heretic. The seeds of knowledge and learning began germinating in the work of Renaissance thinkers and scientists, and started to bloom during the Enlightenment. The Renaissance was sparked by the waning authority of the Church and the advances of Western/European scientists. The church simply could not enforce its authoritarianism forever.

I would propose the following:

"Gods do not exist because there is no logical reason to believe they do."

This is a logical statement supporting the non-existence of Gods and a direct response to the challenge of those who claim otherwise. In effect, it puts the onus back where it logically belongs, upon those who wish to assert existence. The rules of evidence require that arguments against must be made in refutation of proposing arguments. The null hypothesis is always logical.

The point was not to prove non-existence, but to show the absurdity of using logic in an attempt to provide evidence for or against the supernatural.

Your comments imply that the existence of the universe pre-supposes a creation of the universe which must then be considered a logical argument for the existence of a creator who must then be considered one or more Gods.

Did the universe come into existence?
If so, does the appearance of the universe imply a creator?
If so, must this creator be one or more Gods?

I would answer all of these questions negatively.

You can certainly answer them that way, but that doesn't matter. Whether you think something is logical or not has absolutely no bearing on whether or not it is true. The claims there is a god and there is no god have exactly the same level of evidentiary support - zero. No valid conclusion can be made in the absence of evidence.

I don't disagree about the absence of proof, for or against, any of the gods. I'm really just requiring the believers to make a supportable argument without the need to use the Bible as proof of something when it’s the veracity of the Bible that is in question. That argument only tells us about their capacity to draw conclusions out of willful neglect of any real standard of care.

I’m only holding theior feet to the fire for the purpose of demanding they demonstrate the truth of claims that they have made.

I just re-read your post and I think I took it in the wrong way. I see what you were trying to do. Sorry about that.

 

[Ringtone]

You can certainly answer them that way, but that doesn't matter. Whether you think something is logical or not has absolutely no bearing on whether or not it is true. The claims there is a god and there is no god have exactly the same level of evidentiary support - zero. No valid conclusion can be made in the absence of evidence.

More nonsense. The issue of ultimate origin is simply beyond the ken of science. Metaphysics and logic necessarily precede and have primacy over science.

Any other assertions in this wise, including the claim that there is zero evidentiary support for God's existence, is sheer scientism. Your claim only exposes the fact that you have never seriously regarded the problem of existence per the first principles of ontology and logic, and do not know the pertinent science.

Define God. Define evidence.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The issue of ultimate origin is simply beyond the ken of science.

"And feast your minds, ladies and gentlemen, as I tell you what it is!


God!

Thanks, I will be here all week. Now throw some money in the pot on your way out."

Same shit, different millenium....

 

[Hollie]

You can certainly answer them that way, but that doesn't matter. Whether you think something is logical or not has absolutely no bearing on whether or not it is true. The claims there is a god and there is no god have exactly the same level of evidentiary support - zero. No valid conclusion can be made in the absence of evidence.

More nonsense. The issue of ultimate origin is simply beyond the ken of science. Metaphysics and logic necessarily precede and have primacy over science.

Any other assertions in this wise, including the claim that there is zero evidentiary support for God's existence, is sheer scientism. Your claim only exposes the fact that you have never seriously regarded the problem of existence per the first principles of ontology and logic, and do not know the pertinent science.

Define God. Define evidence.

Chuckles will be appearing here all week, folks. Be sure to tip your waitresses.

 

[BreezeWood]

I agree with you, but your talking to someone in this post who has not even bothered to read or understand what ding and are are writing.

Most of the atheists on this board are mindless zombies.

And I agree with you. Some are vile and insulting off the bat and some are cordial and friendly until they begin to realize that their anti God rhetorical tricks aren't working but in the end, they all wind up pretty bitter and hostile.

They have a belief in nothing, which they will tell you is not true yet they cannot explain the presence of the universe itself
(It just is....I don't know...it's always been here....etc.). I know it's not God, they all say
not explaining how they know that either.

As I always say the idea of God is absurd, until you consider the alternative (a universe that just happens to exist, like a Sears Craftsman tool chest that just happens to sit on the back side of Mars). The bicycle is proof of the bicycle maker. The universe is proof of it's maker.

It has been my experience that the response you describe works on both sides of the issue. Many people just don't like having their beliefs questioned. The only real response to the question of the beginning of the universe is a simple "I don't know". Any claim of knowledge on either side is nothing more than a wish. You are all making up the answer.

diver, you're among those who have not grasped the essence of the OP from the jump! (See my previous post.)

Further, speak for yourself.

I don't know?!

More atheist slogan speak.

It is readily self-evident from the empirical and rational evidence that not only did our universe began to exist, but the material world in toto necessarily began to exist at some time in the finite past. The theological ramifications of that are self-evident.

It is readily self-evident from the empirical and rational evidence that not only did our universe began to exist, but the material world in toto necessarily began to exist at some time in the finite past. The theological ramifications of that are self-evident.

there is no reason to believe the material worlds appearance was not a cyclical event that has repeated itself indefinitely from a previously untold event accountable for the emergence of both matter and energy that is yet to be discovered. and for the metaphysical forces responsible for all that has evolved.

 

[G.T.]

Yeah, there's no agreed upon basis in science regarding "pre" big bang...only proposed models.

Misunderstanding set theory...misunderstanding infinity <actual vs. conceptual>, misunderstanding time, misunderstanding prescriptive vs. descriptive


Are all of the reasons that the Philosophers asserting that they have "proof" of a deity have gotten it wrong.

It typically fails as special pleading, or baseless assertion.

You can gish-gallop 700 paragraphs on a messageboard or chat-snipe some kid on youtube who at least has bigger balls than you do in light of him showing up in person to debate these beliefs of his....

But at the end of the day, a deity has not been proven...and whining and screaming that it has on the internet isnt going to change that. Thorough peer review and a nobel prize, perhaps...but not walloftext walloftextwalloftext..

The reason your walls of text arent even worthy of academic rigor is because they're tediously long and with their length comes so many assertions and red herrings to break down that its too much of a fuckin hassle to even deal with. Youd have to be re-taught how to even fucking THINK properly, first...what skepticism actually MEANS, first...how to discipline yourself...first.

Before paragraph ONE of any argument can even be had.

 

[ding]

I’m glad he was able to get that off his chest.

 

[G.T.]

I’m glad he was able to get that off his chest.

The OP?

I know...those youtube kids really seem to rattle his cage. He chases them around and its kinda spo0ky.

 

[ding]

That awkward moment when the guy chasing you around accuses others of what he is doing.

 

[ding]

I agree with you, but your talking to someone in this post who has not even bothered to read or understand what ding and are are writing.

Most of the atheists on this board are mindless zombies.

And I agree with you. Some are vile and insulting off the bat and some are cordial and friendly until they begin to realize that their anti God rhetorical tricks aren't working but in the end, they all wind up pretty bitter and hostile.

They have a belief in nothing, which they will tell you is not true yet they cannot explain the presence of the universe itself
(It just is....I don't know...it's always been here....etc.). I know it's not God, they all say
not explaining how they know that either.

As I always say the idea of God is absurd, until you consider the alternative (a universe that just happens to exist, like a Sears Craftsman tool chest that just happens to sit on the back side of Mars). The bicycle is proof of the bicycle maker. The universe is proof of it's maker.

It has been my experience that the response you describe works on both sides of the issue. Many people just don't like having their beliefs questioned. The only real response to the question of the beginning of the universe is a simple "I don't know". Any claim of knowledge on either side is nothing more than a wish. You are all making up the answer.

diver, you're among those who have not grasped the essence of the OP from the jump! (See my previous post.)

Further, speak for yourself.

I don't know?!

More atheist slogan speak.

It is readily self-evident from the empirical and rational evidence that not only did our universe began to exist, but the material world in toto necessarily began to exist at some time in the finite past. The theological ramifications of that are self-evident.

You know that if the evidence showed that space and time had always existed they would be arguing for that science.

 

[G.T.]

That awkward moment when the guy chasing you around accuses others of what he is doing.

Ding, you never fail to reach for the lowest common denominator.

"haha responding makes you the...."


what?

You think there's some value in asserting x's motivations for posting to y, when both x and y are posting....towards any random posters and at any given moment?

Do you even understand what that means...look over there, there's a squirrel, Ding.

 

[ding]

That awkward moment when the guy chasing you around accuses others of what he is doing.

Ding, you never fail to reach for the lowest common denominator.

"haha responding makes you the...."


what?

You think there's some value in asserting x's motivations for posting to y, when both x and y are posting....towards any random posters and at any given moment?

Do you even understand what that means...look over there, there's a squirrel, Ding.

I think you have intentionally missed the point of the OP because you have no good argument so you do what you always do when you have no good argument.

 

[G.T.]

That awkward moment when the guy chasing you around accuses others of what he is doing.

Ding, you never fail to reach for the lowest common denominator.

"haha responding makes you the...."


what?

You think there's some value in asserting x's motivations for posting to y, when both x and y are posting....towards any random posters and at any given moment?

Do you even understand what that means...look over there, there's a squirrel, Ding.

I think you have intentionally missed the point of the OP because you have no good argument so you do what you always do when you have no good argument.

Im glad you feel that way!