Debunking the atheist Irrationality Drools

[G.T.]

Typical nonsense thread opened by the OP.

Opening post is a wall of text that is little more than a paraphrased William Lane Craig speech. When you press the religious extremist to defend any of the tired, worn slogans, he disappears.

Every time Craig debates a physicist, he gets slaughtered.

Its because his entire premise is based on what he THINKS the physics imply, and don't, and he's been corrected to the point of being tongue tied dozens and dozens of times.

There's a reason for that, and in the same way that cultists dont see, are dissonant, dont understand or else outright lie that the President is a serial-liar...cult worship is a brain function for many.

For many, the brain is a tool thats unique in that it can supercede some of its evolutionary inheritence. We are pack animals, which explains cults ~ but we also have the ability to contemplate...which explains how some are not susceptible.

Some can use it well, others dont.


When we say "we dont know" what created the Universe, if it was created at all...what was before the big bang, etc...

Most scientists agree. We dont know.

Others posit theories, but they're only hypothesis' at this point and not solidified, scientific theory.


So when these non physicists feel free to proclaim to KNOW.....point to cherry picked physicists who have said x, y, z ~ usually taken out of context and usually mis-understood, but we dont even NEED that to belabor this point...

They are wearing their lack of discernment right on their sleeves. They are proving they are not disciplined in their seeking of knowledge.


WE DONT KNOW, is the correct answer for origins, pre big bang, pre everything...- and that is science backed. There is no consensus. What would cause someone to overlook that fact and pretend, not being a physicist themselves...not on a chaulkboard with equations themselves...

pretend it is known?

Ignorance is what causes that.

And cultish thinking, as well.


Dont take my word for it, watch Craig debate any actual physicist and prove it.

 

[G.T.]

Hollie - Here is a great conversation - where Lawrence cuts through the gish-gallops and points out the very glaring problems with these sorts of..

"arguments."

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Actually, Meme and I are defending horizontal forms of the cosmological argument as we expose the erroneous objections for what they are.

No you aren't, you shameless fraud. When I criticized your arguments for having dubious premises, you put me on ignore. You are not capable of debate. Only dictation. Because you are a pseudo intellectual fraud.

 

[Ringtone]

Hollie - Here is a great conversation - where Lawrence cuts through the gish-gallops and points out the very glaring problems with these sorts of..

"arguments."

Please identify the supposed gish-gallops Krauss talks about and tells us why he's right.

Thanks.

 

[G.T.]

Hollie - Here is a great conversation - where Lawrence cuts through the gish-gallops and points out the very glaring problems with these sorts of..

"arguments."

Please identify the supposed gish-gallops Krauss talks about and tells us why he's right.

Thanks.

Call my program. I dont get into tedious arguments with bad actors via text on the internet. Im more than willing to hash out anything youd like vocally.

 

[Ringtone]

Deleted and reposted, as I failed to get at what I was after the first time:

What you've provided is an ontological argument for the existence of G-d. These aren't new. In xtian tradition, the first ontological argument for proof of G-d dates back over 1,000 years.

The rough idea is that something MUST exist that is greater than what we can see because what we see had to have come from somewhere.

My question is, why do you feel inclined to convince anyone (atheist or not) of the existence of G-d? Surely belief in G-d is a matter of faith. Faith, once proved, is no longer faith.

You're a little confused. Actually, Meme and I are defending horizontal forms of the cosmological argument as we expose the erroneous objections for what they are. The cosmological argument is predicated on the impossibility of nonexistence, self-causation and actual infinities. The ontological argument goes to the necessary existence of constructs of the first ontological order.

The first principles of ontology--not to be confused with the ontological argument--per the imperatives of logic manifestly prove God exists. Faith doesn't immediately go to God's existence, but to the reliability of the imperatives of logic. If the latter are reliable, God must be and the next major issue of faith, then, goes to one's response to His existence.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The first principles of ontology--not to be confused with the ontological argument--per the imperatives of logic manifestly prove God exists

They don't do that, as they are not only not axioms, but are completely dubious.

And really,that's all anyne needs to know. Thusly, your entire argument is obliterated.

And that's why you out me on ignore. This is also why the only retort you can muster is to insist your arguments are sound. Over and over and over. That's what a child does.

 

[Ringtone]

Hollie - Here is a great conversation - where Lawrence cuts through the gish-gallops and points out the very glaring problems with these sorts of..

"arguments."

Please identify the supposed gish-gallops Krauss talks about and tells us why he's right.

Thanks.

Call my program. I dont get into tedious arguments with bad actors via text on the internet. Im more than willing to hash out anything youd like vocally.

So your post was just a gish-gallop, eh?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So your post was just a gish-gallop, eh?

Clearly this fraud does not know what a ""Gish Gallop" is.

 

[Hollie]

Deleted and reposted, as I failed to get at what I was after the first time:

What you've provided is an ontological argument for the existence of G-d. These aren't new. In xtian tradition, the first ontological argument for proof of G-d dates back over 1,000 years.

The rough idea is that something MUST exist that is greater than what we can see because what we see had to have come from somewhere.

My question is, why do you feel inclined to convince anyone (atheist or not) of the existence of G-d? Surely belief in G-d is a matter of faith. Faith, once proved, is no longer faith.

You're a little confused. Actually, Meme and I are defending horizontal forms of the cosmological argument as we expose the erroneous objections for what they are. The cosmological argument is predicated on the impossibility of nonexistence, self-causation and actual infinities. The ontological argument goes to the necessary existence of constructs of the first ontological order.

The first principles of ontology--not to be confused with the ontological argument--per the imperatives of logic manifestly prove God exists. Faith doesn't immediately go to God's existence, but to the reliability of the imperatives of logic. If the latter are reliable, God must be and the next major issue of faith, then, goes to one's response to His existence.

Those are the same nonsensical cut and paste paragraphs you litter every thread with.

It’s just comical that when you’re pressed to actually make a meaningful argument supporting that silly pontificating, you run away, hoping for several pages of the thread to roll by so you can escape further embarrassment.

 

[G.T.]

Hollie - Here is a great conversation - where Lawrence cuts through the gish-gallops and points out the very glaring problems with these sorts of..

"arguments."

Please identify the supposed gish-gallops Krauss talks about and tells us why he's right.

Thanks.

Call my program. I dont get into tedious arguments with bad actors via text on the internet. Im more than willing to hash out anything youd like vocally.

So your post was just a gish-gallop, eh?

No, bud. My post was not even an attempt to make an argument, let alone was it an extended length diatribe being overly verbose and using anything but normative language in attempt to cloak the weakness of what I'm saying. THATS a gish gallop.

It was literally advising you that you'd have to be super invested to bother with your gish gallop deconstruction(universal "you"), and Im afraid that Im not but I also offered you an aleternative, less tedious avenue to contact me if you really wanna pretend anyones scared or something goofy/childish like that.

Does that make it more clear? Thought I nailed it the 1st time.

 

[Ringtone]

It was literally advising you that you'd have to be super invested to bother with your gish gallop deconstruction(universal "you"), and Im afraid that Im not but I also offered you an aleternative, less tedious avenue to contact me if you really wanna pretend anyones scared or something goofy/childish like that.

Does that make it more clear? Thought I nailed it the 1st time.

Gish gallop.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It was literally advising you that you'd have to be super invested to bother with your gish gallop deconstruction(universal "you"), and Im afraid that Im not but I also offered you an aleternative, less tedious avenue to contact me if you really wanna pretend anyones scared or something goofy/childish like that.

Does that make it more clear? Thought I nailed it the 1st time.

Gish gallop.

You are a fraud who doesn't know what "Gish Gallop" means.

Why not just put everyone on ignore, sock puppet? You have never once responded honestly to anyone who wasn't affirming your mental diarrhea. And you don't need a message board for that.... Just a mirror.