VIDEO: Atheists Confounded as MIT Scientist Offers Proof that God Exists!

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Well, that's only because in reality... for there to be an effect, there is a cause.

Your statement assumes causality. Perhaps the universe is not an effect. Perhaps it merely is.

But even if we accept your premise, it still leads you right back to Alan's question. What created God?

There's no regression... reason does not require certainty to hypothesize.

That you say this shows that you lack both an education/knowledge regarding the First Cause issue, as well as any kind of understanding of it.

The infinite regression of causality is inherent to the nature of the First Cause question. The regression is, in fact, fundamental to arriving at the question of a First Cause to begin with. What caused today? Today was caused by yesterday. What caused yesterday? The day before that. What caused the day before yesterday? The day before that. So on and so forth. It is through this regression that we arrive to the question of what caused the universe? If you demand that there must be a cause for the universe, then you why don't you demand that there also be a cause for God?

That some must have preceded God, does not undermine the potential for God to exist.

But First Cause arguments aren't about potential for God's existence. A First Cause argument claims a necessity for God's existence. Those are two drastically different things. There's potential that life exists somewhere else in the universe, but it's not necessary.

God exists... that is a fact. Now, what is that fact based upon? It is based upon reason.

Can reason establish a fact? Of course it can. Right up to the point where contravening reason or tangible evidence refutes it.

God is the Creator of the Universe... The Universe exist, therefore the Creator Exist.

That we do not understand what God IS... is IRRELEVANT to the argument. That God must have been caused by something else, is likewise irrelevant. That some people deny that God was not created by something else is just as irrelevant... .

See how that works?

Yeah, you state belief as fact and expect people to just accept things as given, you suck at this.

Sadly, for your feelings, that you do not accept truth, has no actual bearing upon truth.

LOL! But there is no way you could have known that. As it rests within objective reasoning. And that is not within the intellectual scope of the lowly relativist.

(But hey! I can see that you're doin' the best you can... and I want you to know that I can see that. So buck up. At some point, you're bound to strike a valid point. The odds of probability require it. )

LOL, an unfocused ridicule smokescreen of pseudo-intellectualism! I can see through it easily though. You have run headlong into the brick wall people who try to argue for the existence of a creator all run into, eventually it all comes down to faith. Don't feel bad, far better debaters than you have been stymied at this point too.

ROFLMNAO! I SO adore the sweeter ironies.

Thank you, THAT was a beauty!

 

[occupied]

Your statement assumes causality. Perhaps the universe is not an effect. Perhaps it merely is.

But even if we accept your premise, it still leads you right back to Alan's question. What created God?

That you say this shows that you lack both an education/knowledge regarding the First Cause issue, as well as any kind of understanding of it.

The infinite regression of causality is inherent to the nature of the First Cause question. The regression is, in fact, fundamental to arriving at the question of a First Cause to begin with. What caused today? Today was caused by yesterday. What caused yesterday? The day before that. What caused the day before yesterday? The day before that. So on and so forth. It is through this regression that we arrive to the question of what caused the universe? If you demand that there must be a cause for the universe, then you why don't you demand that there also be a cause for God?

But First Cause arguments aren't about potential for God's existence. A First Cause argument claims a necessity for God's existence. Those are two drastically different things. There's potential that life exists somewhere else in the universe, but it's not necessary.

God exists... that is a fact. Now, what is that fact based upon? It is based upon reason.

Can reason establish a fact? Of course it can. Right up to the point where contravening reason or tangible evidence refutes it.

God is the Creator of the Universe... The Universe exist, therefore the Creator Exist.

That we do not understand what God IS... is IRRELEVANT to the argument. That God must have been caused by something else, is likewise irrelevant. That some people deny that God was not created by something else is just as irrelevant... .

See how that works?

Yeah, you state belief as fact and expect people to just accept things as given, you suck at this.

Sadly, for your feelings, that you do not accept truth, has no actual bearing upon truth.

LOL! But there is no way you could have known that. As it rests within objective reasoning. And that is not within the intellectual scope of the lowly relativist.

(But hey! I can see that you're doin' the best you can... and I want you to know that I can see that. So buck up. At some point, you're bound to strike a valid point. The odds of probability require it. )

LOL, an unfocused ridicule smokescreen of pseudo-intellectualism! I can see through it easily though. You have run headlong into the brick wall people who try to argue for the existence of a creator all run into, eventually it all comes down to faith. Don't feel bad, far better debaters than you have been stymied at this point too.

ROFLMNAO! I SO adore the sweeter ironies.

Thank you, THAT was a beauty!

So how do you convince someone to take your interpretation on faith? Your logic is flawed, ridicule does not make it less flawed, it only serves to indicate that you are out of arguments. If you were really equipped to argue this topic you would know there is a counter argument to what I and others have said but I am not going to help you, go google it.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I'm making a list of basic concepts that apparently are beyond your comprehension, as demonstrated in this thread.

-Question begging fallacy

Oh... Good. And while you're at it, you should make one for yourself and begin that list with 'Straw Reasoning'. As you've just committed that intellectual failure.

Begging the question is circular reasoning... there's nothing even remotely complex about it.

And given that there is nothing circular in my position; you've certainly not shown such to be the case.

Also.. you should know, a position which promotes a query is not fallacious, despite your addled implication that that such is the case.

But... such does show the reader how they can know to an absolute certainty that you've virtually no understanding of logic, or for that matter, any of the natural laws which govern human reasoning.

Of course, there was know way you could have known that... given your demonstrated intellectual limitations.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

So how do you convince someone to take your interpretation on faith? Your logic is flawed, ridicule does not make it less flawed...

Neither does your assertion make my position flawed. (See how that works?)

If you'd care to state your claim in specific terms, I'll happily consider what ya have to say. But given your demonstrated intellectual means, there is virtually no chance that you will be able to provide anything even remotely valid, let alone something intellectually sound.

 

[occupied]

So how do you convince someone to take your interpretation on faith? Your logic is flawed, ridicule does not make it less flawed...

Neither does your assertion make my position flawed. (See how that works?)

If you'd care to state your claim in specific terms, I'll happily consider what ya have to say. But given your demonstrated intellectual means, there is virtually no chance that you will be able to provide anything even remotely valid, let alone something intellectually sound.

I've already stated my retort to your position, you say a god is self-evident because the universe exists to which I say no god is required. Reread the thread if you need further expansion of my obviously futile effort to show the holes in your logic, you can also hold the silly ridicule if you wish me to respond further.

 

[Hollie]

Second even if we assume that such is true, that the universe has a beginning does not have any bearing on whether that beginning has a cause.

A beginning, actually does, in fact, require causation.

Nothing, in fact, suggests your gawds of anyone else's gawds were a causation for anything.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

So how do you convince someone to take your interpretation on faith? Your logic is flawed, ridicule does not make it less flawed...

Neither does your assertion make my position flawed. (See how that works?)

If you'd care to state your claim in specific terms, I'll happily consider what ya have to say. But given your demonstrated intellectual means, there is virtually no chance that you will be able to provide anything even remotely valid, let alone something intellectually sound.

I've already stated my retort to your position, you say a god is self-evident because the universe exists to which I say no god is required. Reread the thread if you need further expansion of my obviously futile effort to show the holes in your logic, you can also hold the silly ridicule if you wish me to respond further.

God is Nature... That you claim such does not exist, is as irrelevant to this discussion as it is to nature.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Second even if we assume that such is true, that the universe has a beginning does not have any bearing on whether that beginning has a cause.

A beginning, actually does, in fact, require causation.

Nothing, in fact, suggests your gawds of anyone else's gawds were a causation for anything.

Nothing, IN FACT, suggests that your recognition or rejection of God, is in any way relevant to even this very discussion, let alone God's existence.

 

[occupied]

So how do you convince someone to take your interpretation on faith? Your logic is flawed, ridicule does not make it less flawed...

Neither does your assertion make my position flawed. (See how that works?)

If you'd care to state your claim in specific terms, I'll happily consider what ya have to say. But given your demonstrated intellectual means, there is virtually no chance that you will be able to provide anything even remotely valid, let alone something intellectually sound.

I've already stated my retort to your position, you say a god is self-evident because the universe exists to which I say no god is required. Reread the thread if you need further expansion of my obviously futile effort to show the holes in your logic, you can also hold the silly ridicule if you wish me to respond further.

God is Nature... That you claim such does not exist, is as irrelevant to this discussion as it is to nature.

The question of God's existence is the core of the discussion, also my position has not been that god does not exist but that there is no direct scientific evidence that any being created the universe as the "scientist" in your video seems to suggest and that you simply claim outright.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The question of God's existence is the core of the discussion

No sir... that is a false inference which you have created all by yourself.

This discussion is about the scientific evidence that God does, in point of fact, exist. And this wholly without regard to your feelings to the contrary or your desire that your feelings should be accepted as fact.

 

[Hollie]

Second even if we assume that such is true, that the universe has a beginning does not have any bearing on whether that beginning has a cause.

A beginning, actually does, in fact, require causation.

Nothing, in fact, suggests your gawds of anyone else's gawds were a causation for anything.

Nothing, IN FACT, suggests that your recognition or rejection of God, is in any way relevant to anything, let alone God's existence.

Recognition or rejection of your gawds or anyone else's gawds is irrelevant to claims associated with the expansion of the universe.

In fact, there is no evidence that your gawds or anyone else's gawds were a mechanism in the expansion of the universe. There is no indication that magical / supernatural gawds played any role in the formation of the universe.

 

[occupied]

Second even if we assume that such is true, that the universe has a beginning does not have any bearing on whether that beginning has a cause.

A beginning, actually does, in fact, require causation.

Nothing, in fact, suggests your gawds of anyone else's gawds were a causation for anything.

Nothing, IN FACT, suggests that your recognition or rejection of God, is in any way relevant to even this very discussion, let alone God's existence.

Oh well, if you reject my rebuttal out-of-hand instead of sticking to logical debate then I guess we are done here, enjoy your thread.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Second even if we assume that such is true, that the universe has a beginning does not have any bearing on whether that beginning has a cause.

A beginning, actually does, in fact, require causation.

Nothing, in fact, suggests your gawds of anyone else's gawds were a causation for anything.

Nothing, IN FACT, suggests that your recognition or rejection of God, is in any way relevant to even this very discussion, let alone God's existence.

Oh well, if you reject my rebuttal out-of-hand instead of sticking to logical debate then I guess we are done here, enjoy your thread.

Your rebuttal amounts, in effect, to: "Nuh Huh". It's logically invalid and intellectually unsound.

 

[Hollie]

The question of God's existence is the core of the discussion

No sir... that is a false inference which you have created all by yourself.

This discussion is about the scientific evidence that God does, in point of fact, exist. And this wholly without regard to your feelings to the contrary or your desire that your feelings should be accepted as fact.

"This discussion is about the scientific evidence that God does, in point of fact, exist."

You forgot to append the obligatory "because I say so" admonition to your pointless, bellicose statement.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The question of God's existence is the core of the discussion

No sir... that is a false inference which you have created all by yourself.

This discussion is about the scientific evidence that God does, in point of fact, exist. And this wholly without regard to your feelings to the contrary or your desire that your feelings should be accepted as fact.

"This discussion is about the scientific evidence that God does, in point of fact, exist."

You forgot to append the obligatory "because I say so" admonition to your pointless, bellicose statement.

A lovely straw argument...

Now, I want ya to know that I can see that you're doin' the very best you can; such as it is... .

 

[Hollie]

Second even if we assume that such is true, that the universe has a beginning does not have any bearing on whether that beginning has a cause.

A beginning, actually does, in fact, require causation.

Nothing, in fact, suggests your gawds of anyone else's gawds were a causation for anything.

Nothing, IN FACT, suggests that your recognition or rejection of God, is in any way relevant to even this very discussion, let alone God's existence.

Oh well, if you reject my rebuttal out-of-hand instead of sticking to logical debate then I guess we are done here, enjoy your thread.

You rebutted nothing. Claims to supernaturalism does nothing to support your argument.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Second even if we assume that such is true, that the universe has a beginning does not have any bearing on whether that beginning has a cause.

A beginning, actually does, in fact, require causation.

Nothing, in fact, suggests your gawds of anyone else's gawds were a causation for anything.

Nothing, IN FACT, suggests that your recognition or rejection of God, is in any way relevant to even this very discussion, let alone God's existence.

Oh well, if you reject my rebuttal out-of-hand instead of sticking to logical debate then I guess we are done here, enjoy your thread.

You rebutted nothing. Claims to supernaturalism does nothing to support your argument.

LOL!

So Nature is "Super-natural", now?

ROFL! Adorable.

 

[Hollie]

The question of God's existence is the core of the discussion

No sir... that is a false inference which you have created all by yourself.

This discussion is about the scientific evidence that God does, in point of fact, exist. And this wholly without regard to your feelings to the contrary or your desire that your feelings should be accepted as fact.

"This discussion is about the scientific evidence that God does, in point of fact, exist."

You forgot to append the obligatory "because I say so" admonition to your pointless, bellicose statement.

A lovely straw argument...

Now, I want ya to know that I can see that you're doin' the very best you can; such as it is... .

No straw-man argument on my part.

You're the one making claims to supernatural entities you insist are responsible for the "creation" of the universe.

Where is the evidence for your alleged supernatural entities? Where is the evidence that your partisan supernatural entities, ( your gawds) had any connection with the expansion of the universe?

 

[Hollie]

A beginning, actually does, in fact, require causation.

Nothing, in fact, suggests your gawds of anyone else's gawds were a causation for anything.

Nothing, IN FACT, suggests that your recognition or rejection of God, is in any way relevant to even this very discussion, let alone God's existence.

Oh well, if you reject my rebuttal out-of-hand instead of sticking to logical debate then I guess we are done here, enjoy your thread.

You rebutted nothing. Claims to supernaturalism does nothing to support your argument.

LOL!

So Nature is "Super-natural", now?

ROFL! Adorable.

We're making progress. You have abandoned the requirement for supernatural gawds to be extant in a natural, material existence.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Nothing, in fact, suggests your gawds of anyone else's gawds were a causation for anything.

Nothing, IN FACT, suggests that your recognition or rejection of God, is in any way relevant to even this very discussion, let alone God's existence.

Oh well, if you reject my rebuttal out-of-hand instead of sticking to logical debate then I guess we are done here, enjoy your thread.

You rebutted nothing. Claims to supernaturalism does nothing to support your argument.

LOL!

So Nature is "Super-natural", now?

ROFL! Adorable.

We're making progress. You have abandoned the requirement for supernatural gawds to be extant in a natural, material existence.

Again she implies that Nature is 'super-natural'.

God is Nature, thus those who fail to equal God are sub-natural. And it is there that we find the Relativists rejection of God. They're simply pissed that THEY ARE NOT GOD.

But hey... such is the nature of evil.