Debunking another new atheist's baby talk on Youtube

[ding]

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.

As opposed to liars like you.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Men wrote the Bible

That's SEXIST!

 

[JimBowie1958]

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.

As opposed to liars like you.

It is a hall mark of ignorant ideologues that they categorize people into unflattering categories of people as a way of smearing them instead of addressing facts and ideas, which they are incapable of.

 

[BreezeWood]

Men wrote the Bible

That's SEXIST!

.

That's SEXIST!

replete throughout the desert religions ...

 

[Hollie]

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.

That statement doesnt just imply but objectively states you cannot support your specious claims.

 

[Third Party]

Men wrote the Bible

That's SEXIST!

Read the Bible-it's sexist!

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

That statement doesnt just imply but objectively states you cannot support your specious claims.

There is nothing objective in your claims. Your denials are thoughtless, reflexive and predictably without merit.

 

[Hollie]

That statement doesnt just imply but objectively states you cannot support your specious claims.

There is nothing objective in your claims. Your denials are thoughtless, reflexive and predictably without merit.

Oh, my. You're struggling with hurt feelings.

It's not surprising that that you're angry and emotive. While you are reduced to weak attempts at insult, our respective positions are posted in these threads for anyone to review and come to their own conclusions.

While my position points the the natural world as discoverable and understandable, the position of the supernaturalists points to partisan gods that are merely distillations of earlier gods. The tools we have to explore our natural world are evidence and reason. There's no need for living in fear and superstition. And starting with evidence, we have direct observational evidence that there are such things as natural forces in the universe, chemical and biological mechanisms and methods available to demonstrate and examine those elements. In contrast, we have absolutely no direct observational evidence that there is such a thing as “gods.” And this is how we begin to keep score.

The arguments of ID'iot creationists are not driven by evidence that can be observed in the natural world. Special creation or supernatural intervention is not subjectable to meaningful tests, which require predicting plausible results and then checking these results through observation and experimentation. Indeed, claims of "special creation" reverse the scientific process. The explanation is seen as unalterable, and evidence is sought only to support a particular conclusion by whatever means possible.

Let's examine your claims wherein you state: "There is nothing objective in your claims. Your denials are thoughtless, reflexive and predictably without merit."

Identify for us how the relevant sciences "are thoughtless, reflexive and predictably without merit" while your claims to supernaturalism do hold merit.

OR

Do what you usually do and retreat to name-calling.

 

[BreezeWood]

The laws of physics that govern the development of the universe are the very same that affected its (our) creation. In other words, the laws of physics are fundamental and ontologically precede the universe (our creation).

what are you talking about ... singularity occurred inside the eternal universe you have confused our world with what has existed for eternity. - our time began with singularity, not the universe.

The simplest way I can describe it is that he spoke to me with a voice that only the mind can hear.

tell us tombstone, was it a happy chat - anything to relay to the rest of humanity ... did they tell you where the dow will be in 2020.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Oh, my. You're struggling with hurt feelings.

It's not surprising that that you're angry and emotive. While you are reduced to weak attempts at insult, our respective positions are posted in these threads for anyone to review and come to their own conclusions.

If your petty insults weren't canned, repetitive, without any hint of wit or originality that would be one thing.
But your insults are pro forma exercises in drab lifeless foolishness. I can't even reply in kind with other insults.
I just pity you.

While my position points the the natural world as discoverable and understandable, the position of the supernaturalists points to partisan gods that are merely distillations of earlier gods. The tools we have to explore our natural world are evidence and reason. There's no need for living in fear and superstition. And starting with evidence, we have direct observational evidence that there are such things as natural forces in the universe, chemical and biological mechanisms and methods available to demonstrate and examine those elements. In contrast, we have absolutely no direct observational evidence that there is such a thing as “gods.” And this is how we begin to keep score.

If you were remarkably smart (IF...you aren't even of average intelligence, it seems) or just perceptive, you could do like Einstein, Kaku, myself (not that I rank my intellect with theirs) or my theistic friends here and infer God based on all of creation, just like one would infer a bike maker when looking at bicycles.

But that seems way out of your realm of reasoning and perception and even though you claim evidence and reason
you display none of this in your posts. You talk about natural forces and bio-chemical mechanisms as if these things just happened to exist one day.
Gravity, time, space, energy, the scientific rules and principles that govern over the vast universe from one end to the other.
You can babble about "gods" all you like but it wasn't Bacchus, Vesta or Minerva that put them in place.

The arguments of ID'iot creationists are not driven by evidence that can be observed in the natural world. Special creation or supernatural intervention is not subjectable to meaningful tests, which require predicting plausible results and then checking these results through observation and experimentation. Indeed, claims of "special creation" reverse the scientific process. The explanation is seen as unalterable, and evidence is sought only to support a particular conclusion by whatever means possible.

Feel free to come up with some other theory that accounts for the universe itself. Oh...right. You have none.
You only have the super power to remain ignorant of everything except your certainty that God does not exist.
And how do you know this? Oh, right...you don't!

We have posited that God is the only thing that could account for this all. Otherwise why is everything here?
Don't bother with a comeback. There is none. Big Bang: Is there room for God?

The universe exists. It didn't have to. You must struggle with the problem that there is something instead of nothing and you can't possibly account for it.

Let's examine your claims wherein you state: "There is nothing objective in your claims. Your denials are thoughtless, reflexive and predictably without merit."

Identify for us how the relevant sciences "are thoughtless, reflexive and predictably without merit" while your claims to supernaturalism do hold merit.

OR

Do what you usually do and retreat to name-calling.

I never said science is thoughtless, etc. I said your
boring repetitious expositions of denial are without merit, and so they are.

 

[Hollie]

Oh, my. You're struggling with hurt feelings.

It's not surprising that that you're angry and emotive. While you are reduced to weak attempts at insult, our respective positions are posted in these threads for anyone to review and come to their own conclusions.

If your petty insults weren't canned, repetitive, without any hint of wit or originality that would be one thing.
But your insults are pro forma exercises in drab lifeless foolishness. I can't even reply in kind with other insults.
I just pity you.

While my position points the the natural world as discoverable and understandable, the position of the supernaturalists points to partisan gods that are merely distillations of earlier gods. The tools we have to explore our natural world are evidence and reason. There's no need for living in fear and superstition. And starting with evidence, we have direct observational evidence that there are such things as natural forces in the universe, chemical and biological mechanisms and methods available to demonstrate and examine those elements. In contrast, we have absolutely no direct observational evidence that there is such a thing as “gods.” And this is how we begin to keep score.

If you were remarkably smart (IF...you aren't even of average intelligence, it seems) or just perceptive, you could do like Einstein, Kaku, myself (not that I rank my intellect with theirs) or my theistic friends here and infer God based on all of creation, just like one would infer a bike maker when looking at bicycles.

But that seems way out of your realm of reasoning and perception and even though you claim evidence and reason
you display none of this in your posts. You talk about natural forces and bio-chemical mechanisms as if these things just happened to exist one day.
Gravity, time, space, energy, the scientific rules and principles that govern over the vast universe from one end to the other.
You can babble about "gods" all you like but it wasn't Bacchus, Vesta or Minerva that put them in place.

The arguments of ID'iot creationists are not driven by evidence that can be observed in the natural world. Special creation or supernatural intervention is not subjectable to meaningful tests, which require predicting plausible results and then checking these results through observation and experimentation. Indeed, claims of "special creation" reverse the scientific process. The explanation is seen as unalterable, and evidence is sought only to support a particular conclusion by whatever means possible.

Feel free to come up with some other theory that accounts for the universe itself. Oh...right. You have none.
You only have the super power to remain ignorant of everything except your certainty that God does not exist.
And how do you know this? Oh, right...you don't!

We have posited that God is the only thing that could account for this all. Otherwise why is everything here?
Don't bother with a comeback. There is none. Big Bang: Is there room for God?

The universe exists. It didn't have to. You must struggle with the problem that there is something instead of nothing and you can't possibly account for it.

Let's examine your claims wherein you state: "There is nothing objective in your claims. Your denials are thoughtless, reflexive and predictably without merit."

Identify for us how the relevant sciences "are thoughtless, reflexive and predictably without merit" while your claims to supernaturalism do hold merit.

OR

Do what you usually do and retreat to name-calling.

I never said science is thoughtless, etc. I said your
boring repetitious expositions of denial are without merit, and so they are.

Gee, whiz. You’re angry and emotive. No need to vent your anger at me. I’m simply requiring you to support your claims to supernaturalism with facts.

You have provided no facts.

The existence of the universe does nothing to support the contention of your gods. You can “posit” as you wish that your gods are the caus3 of the universe but such claims are meaningless.

You first need to support the existence of your gods before you can employ those gods as creators of anything.

How do you know the universe didn’t have to exist? That’s another of the “..... because I say say”, claims that seem to define the arguments of the supernaturalists.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

How do you know the universe didn’t have to exist?

How do you know it did? The universe exists, nothing comes from nothing.
Show me anything without a beginning or that is uncaused.

 

[Hollie]

How do you know the universe didn’t have to exist?

How do you know it did? The universe exists, nothing comes from nothing.
Show me anything without a beginning or that is uncaused.

You’re a bit confused. The universe didn’t come from nothing.

As your claim is ”nothing comes from nothing”, either that applies to your gods or you must claim a special pleading to exempt your gods from the very standard you apply to the natural, rational world.

Why do your unnatural, irrational, supernatural gods get an exemption?

Could it be because unnatural, irrational, supernatural gods get an exemption due to “....because I say so”, is intended to replace a rational argument?

 

[Ringtone]

So , what did you say???

The precision with which you continuously miss the points or misstate the points of my posts is eerie . . . and, now, suddenly, you're asking me what I said.

We both know what your game is. What I want to know: what's with the psychology that feigns ignorance rather than seriously regard the problem of existence and go where logic leads?

 

[Hollie]

So , what did you say???

The precision with which you continuously miss the points or misstate the points of my posts is eerie . . . and, now, suddenly, you're asking me what I said.

We both know what your game is. What I want to know: what's with the psychology that feigns ignorance rather than seriously regard the problem of existence and go where logic leads?

There’s no “problem of existence”.

Nothing in logic leads to supernaturalism.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

You’re a bit confused. The universe didn’t come from nothing.

As your claim is ”nothing comes from nothing”, either that applies to your gods or you must claim a special pleading to exempt your gods from the very standard you apply to the natural, rational world.

Why do your unnatural, irrational, supernatural gods get an exemption?

Could it be because unnatural, irrational, supernatural gods get an exemption due to “....because I say so”, is intended to replace a rational argument?

Tell me what there was before the universe existed. You could help cosmologists who frankly have no idea at all.
No time, no space, no gravity before the singularity. Do tell.

 

[Hollie]

You’re a bit confused. The universe didn’t come from nothing.

As your claim is ”nothing comes from nothing”, either that applies to your gods or you must claim a special pleading to exempt your gods from the very standard you apply to the natural, rational world.

Why do your unnatural, irrational, supernatural gods get an exemption?

Could it be because unnatural, irrational, supernatural gods get an exemption due to “....because I say so”, is intended to replace a rational argument?

Tell me what there was before the universe existed. You could help cosmologists who frankly have no idea at all.
No time, no space, no gravity before the singularity. Do tell.

I can't tell what was before the beginning of the universe we know.

Classical laws of physics...such as Conservation of Energy only came into being after Planck time...which is 10exp-43 seconds after the big bang. Before that time, due to the immense density of the universe, we have no idea what "laws" prevailed. We only know that they begat the laws of physics as we know them today.

Not surprisingly, it is scientists, not religious institutions, who are studying and learning about the beginnings of the universe.

By the way, the Big Bang has been measured, at least the cosmic background radiation resulting from it, which is the "glow" left over from the "explosion" itself. Confirmation of this radiation was discovered in 1964 by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, two Bell Labs researchers, who later won the Nobel Prize for their discovery.

What "the gods" environment does is illustrate that only by pursuing experimentation, using tools available to expand perception (science), would we ever stand a chance at detecting/discerning the force behind our existence. What we learn is that supernatural hypotheses, (religious dogma in this case) moves us further and further from our goal, or any hope of achieving our goal of coming to terms with our existence. The term “supernatural” essentially defines out of science what is knowable and understandable. By adhering to the theistic paradigm, you can never know. You already "know" what you need to know, and that's contained in one of many “holy texts”. I find it interesting that human nature pursues deeper than the superfluous non-answer. We pursue knowledge. Allegorically speaking, it's both the blessing and curse of our nature-- which is why the "Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil" is a very apropos symbol of eternal sin.

 

[Third Party]

So , what did you say???

The precision with which you continuously miss the points or misstate the points of my posts is eerie . . . and, now, suddenly, you're asking me what I said.

We both know what your game is. What I want to know: what's with the psychology that feigns ignorance rather than seriously regard the problem of existence and go where logic leads?

There’s no “problem of existence”.

Nothing in logic leads to supernaturalism.

Hollie Holy-that just hit me!

 

[Ringtone]

I can't tell what was before the beginning of the universe we know.

Except Hollie seems to absolutely know that the "[c]lassical laws of physics...such as Conservation of Energy only came into being after Planck time."

Actually, Hollie, this materialist notion of yours rests entirely on the physics of general relativity as we know them now and the calculi thereof as extrapolated backwards. You're unwittingly assering the metaphysics of materialism, your religion, as if it were science.

Zoom! Right over your head.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

ctually, Hollie, this materialist notion of yours rests entirely on the physics of general relativity as we know them now and the calculi thereof as extrapolated backwards.

In other words, it rests on everything we know. While your magical horseshit is madeup nonsense that rests on everything we DON'T know. Which makes him reasonable and makes you a fraud.