Debunking another new atheist's baby talk on Youtube

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Ringtone

Third Party

JimBowie1958

G.T.

hobelim

BreezeWood

Is the following statement true, or is it false?

"If dolphins build skyscrapers, then a millimeter is equal to a cubic kilometer."

.

"If dolphins build skyscrapers, then a millimeter is equal to a cubic kilometer."

I'll take a guess - no.

Ha, i knew you would have the stones to at least guess. Thank you.

Gotta wait for a few others to chime in...

 

[ding]

There is no empirical evidence. You can't just point to something and say that is evidence of X. You first have to demonstrate there is a connection between the evidence and X. I can't pick up a bit of sandstone from the ground and claim it is evidence of snakes. In order to demonstrate the connection between the empirical evidence, you first must determine what are the properties of God. Otherwise, you could be staring at the evidence and not know. Or just assuming something is evidence on the basis that you want it to be. If you don't know the properties, you can't make the connection with any evidence.

The existence of the universe is the empirical evidence for God's existence. What else could the evidence possibly be? Define God and the connection is manifest. To define God is to extrapolate precisely what the empirical and rational evidence for God's existence is.

I think, therefore I am. I think about God, therefore he exists. Easy peasy.

I made no such argument.

Rather, define God. The idea of God is that of the Creator. Creator of what? The universe, that's what!

I say again:

The existence of the universe is the empirical evidence for God's existence. What else could the empirical evidence possibly be? Define God and the connection is manifest. To define God is to extrapolate precisely what the empirical and rational evidence for God's existence is.
​

Finally, both the empirical and rational evidence tell us that the universe began to exist; i.e., the universe is not the eternal ground of existence!

Easy peasy.

You can’t argue with liars.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You are one seriously dishonest dude, bro

Yeah, you charlatans dont like playing by your own rules. I expected your little fit.

 

[ding]

You are one seriously dishonest dude, bro

Yeah, you charlatans dont like playing by your own rules. I expected your little fit.

Stop your lying.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You are one seriously dishonest dude, bro

Yeah, you charlatans dont like playing by your own rules. I expected your little fit.

Stop your lying.

Oh boy, now ding is going to fawn over me for 3 pages...

 

[Third Party]

Mad theists? Factual atheists?

You want some facts? The universe literally popped into existence out of nothing 14 billion years ago and then began to expand and cool.

How’s that for facts?

One theory among many

Really? Name the many.

No-do some research on religions-you may learn something as I have.

Besides, you weren't talking about religions, you claimed that there are many theories on the creation of the universe.

Can you name the many theories?

.

Besides, you weren't talking about religions, you claimed that there are many theories on the creation of the universe.

you are confused, the universe has always been and will always be.

There is another one, and no claim, just fact.

 

[Third Party]

There is no empirical evidence. You can't just point to something and say that is evidence of X. You first have to demonstrate there is a connection between the evidence and X. I can't pick up a bit of sandstone from the ground and claim it is evidence of snakes. In order to demonstrate the connection between the empirical evidence, you first must determine what are the properties of God. Otherwise, you could be staring at the evidence and not know. Or just assuming something is evidence on the basis that you want it to be. If you don't know the properties, you can't make the connection with any evidence.

The existence of the universe is the empirical evidence for God's existence. What else could the evidence possibly be? Define God and the connection is manifest. To define God is to extrapolate precisely what the empirical and rational evidence for God's existence is.

I think, therefore I am. I think about God, therefore he exists. Easy peasy.

I made no such argument.

Rather, define God. The idea of God is that of the Creator. Creator of what? The universe, that's what!

I say again:

The existence of the universe is the empirical evidence for God's existence. What else could the empirical evidence possibly be? Define God and the connection is manifest. To define God is to extrapolate precisely what the empirical and rational evidence for God's existence is.
​

Finally, both the empirical and rational evidence tell us that the universe began to exist; i.e., the universe is not the eternal ground of existence!

Easy peasy.

So , what did you say???

 

[ding]

You are one seriously dishonest dude, bro

Yeah, you charlatans dont like playing by your own rules. I expected your little fit.

Stop your lying.

Oh boy, now ding is going to fawn over me for 3 pages...

Nope. Discussions with you are a waste of time. You are a liar and you are incompetent. Your arguments are illogical and you think you are more than you.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You are one seriously dishonest dude, bro

Yeah, you charlatans dont like playing by your own rules. I expected your little fit.

Stop your lying.

Oh boy, now ding is going to fawn over me for 3 pages...

Nope. Discussions with you are a waste of time. You are a liar and you are incompetent. Your arguments are illogical and you think you are more than you.

What you are saying makes no sense. You must post videos.

Also:you have disqualified yourself from using the word "illogical". If you don't even know what constitutes valid logic, then you could not know what makes something "illogical".

 

[ding]

You are one seriously dishonest dude, bro

Yeah, you charlatans dont like playing by your own rules. I expected your little fit.

Stop your lying.

Oh boy, now ding is going to fawn over me for 3 pages...

Nope. Discussions with you are a waste of time. You are a liar and you are incompetent. Your arguments are illogical and you think you are more than you.

What you are saying makes no sense. You must post videos.

Get lost, troll.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Yeah, you charlatans dont like playing by your own rules. I expected your little fit.

Stop your lying.

Oh boy, now ding is going to fawn over me for 3 pages...

Nope. Discussions with you are a waste of time. You are a liar and you are incompetent. Your arguments are illogical and you think you are more than you.

What you are saying makes no sense. You must post videos.

Get lost, troll.

Cry it all out, ding.

Here is some more valid logic for you:

1) God eats his own boogers

2) Anyone who eats their own boogers is a pedophile

Therefore, God is a pedophile.

 

[ding]

Stop your lying.

Oh boy, now ding is going to fawn over me for 3 pages...

Nope. Discussions with you are a waste of time. You are a liar and you are incompetent. Your arguments are illogical and you think you are more than you.

What you are saying makes no sense. You must post videos.

Get lost, troll.

Cry it all out, ding.

Here is some more valid logic for you:

1) God eats his own boogers

2) Anyone who eats their own boogers is a pedophile

Therefore, God is a pedophile.

Get lost.

 

[Third Party]

Oh boy, now ding is going to fawn over me for 3 pages...

Nope. Discussions with you are a waste of time. You are a liar and you are incompetent. Your arguments are illogical and you think you are more than you.

What you are saying makes no sense. You must post videos.

Get lost, troll.

Cry it all out, ding.

Here is some more valid logic for you:

1) God eats his own boogers

2) Anyone who eats their own boogers is a pedophile

Therefore, God is a pedophile.

Get lost.

Wow. I think I banned that guy-you should ignore him too.

 

[ding]

Nope. Discussions with you are a waste of time. You are a liar and you are incompetent. Your arguments are illogical and you think you are more than you.

What you are saying makes no sense. You must post videos.

Get lost, troll.

Cry it all out, ding.

Here is some more valid logic for you:

1) God eats his own boogers

2) Anyone who eats their own boogers is a pedophile

Therefore, God is a pedophile.

Get lost.

Wow. I think I banned that guy-you should ignore him too.

Good advice. I am.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Oh boy, now ding is going to fawn over me for 3 pages...

Nope. Discussions with you are a waste of time. You are a liar and you are incompetent. Your arguments are illogical and you think you are more than you.

What you are saying makes no sense. You must post videos.

Get lost, troll.

Cry it all out, ding.

Here is some more valid logic for you:

1) God eats his own boogers

2) Anyone who eats their own boogers is a pedophile

Therefore, God is a pedophile.

Get lost.

Hmm, no, ill stay. Especially since I am actually posting on the original topic.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So, while valid logic can be used to argue anything at all, we have to determine the soundness of the logic by deciding the truth of the premises.

Outside of opinions (such as, a premise that states "blueberries are yummy"), we only have one method for doing this: empiricism.

And, of course, nobody could possibly know the truth of the first premises of the OPs argument. Yet, the OP insists to know, with absolute certainty, the truth of these premises.

People like ding, who are untrained in logic, are essentially "gullible", as their poor grasp of the rules of logic leaves them susceptible to these cheap parlor tricks.

Charlatans since the beginning of time have taken advantage of this gullibility on the part of untrained people. Listen to any late night AM radio commercial. Watch any fraud like John Edwards fool people into thinking he is communicating with dead people. Listen to Rush Limbaugh for 5 minutes.

So, what happens to these rubes (like ding) is that they become convinced they are presenting something more than a mere affinity for an arbitrary, valid argument. They think they are doing something more significant than simply affirming their personal opinion. They, in fact, are not.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Good advice. I am.

Sound move finally.

 

[Ringtone]

Inflation Theory, the First Law of Thermodynamics and quantum mechanics tells us that it is possible for matter to have a beginning. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.

Precisely! As I've written elsewhere:

The conservation laws do not forbid the creation of a universe out of nothing, and quantum mechanics tells us that whatever is not forbidden by conservation laws is not only possibly but will occur with some probability. Not only does this evince a timeless cause of the cosmos, but the simultaneity of its effect, namely, the beginning of time. The laws of physics that govern the development of the universe are the very same that affected its creation. In other words, the laws of physics are fundamental and ontologically precede the universe.

That implies mind.​

​

Nothing in that rambling essay suggests any gods are required.

And that statement implies mindlessness.

 

[BreezeWood]

One theory among many

Really? Name the many.

No-do some research on religions-you may learn something as I have.

Besides, you weren't talking about religions, you claimed that there are many theories on the creation of the universe.

Can you name the many theories?

.

Besides, you weren't talking about religions, you claimed that there are many theories on the creation of the universe.

you are confused, the universe has always been and will always be.

There is another one, and no claim, just fact.

.

There is another one, and no claim, just fact.

there may be other cyclical events, they are all contained within the same universe.

 

[ding]

Nope. Discussions with you are a waste of time. You are a liar and you are incompetent. Your arguments are illogical and you think you are more than you.

What you are saying makes no sense. You must post videos.

Get lost, troll.

Cry it all out, ding.

Here is some more valid logic for you:

1) God eats his own boogers

2) Anyone who eats their own boogers is a pedophile

Therefore, God is a pedophile.

Get lost.

Hmm, no, ill stay. Especially since I am actually posting on the original topic.

Was I too vague?