Debunking another new atheist's baby talk on Youtube

[Ringtone]

No time, no space, no gravity before the singularity. Do tell.

With all due respect, Eric, the following question is what you should ask Hollie to answer: What ontologically preceded the material world of being according to your religion?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

What ontologically preceded the material world of being according to your religion?

Which would make you both sound like morons, since Hollie's entire point is that we do not know. Only you religious freaks are claiming to know.

 

[diver52]

What ontologically preceded the material world of being according to your religion?

Which would make you both sound like morons, since Hollie's entire point is that we do not know. Only you religious freaks are claiming to know.

Interesting, eh? Afraid of not knowing. Perhaps because of a lack of faith in what they believe.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

What ontologically preceded the material world of being according to your religion?

Which would make you both sound like morons, since Hollie's entire point is that we do not know. Only you religious freaks are claiming to know.

Interesting, eh? Afraid of not knowing. Perhaps because of a lack of faith in what they believe.

I would say the shakiness of their faith is the only reason they are performing these specious and dishonest exercises. Else they would be content simply to say, "reasoning and evidence have no bearing, my faith is my faith".

 

[Ringtone]

What ontologically preceded the material world of being according to your religion?

Which would make you both sound like morons, since Hollie's entire point is that we do not know. Only you religious freaks are claiming to know.

Interesting, eh? Afraid of not knowing. Perhaps because of a lack of faith in what they believe.

More slogan speak. ding and I have demonstrated on this and other threads that we are steeped in the pertinent peer-reviewed science of cosmology and astrophysics while the atheists on this board have unwittingly divulged the fact that they know next to nothing.

 

[Hollie]

No time, no space, no gravity before the singularity. Do tell.

With all due respect, Eric, the following question is what you should ask Hollie to answer: What ontologically preceded the material world of being according to your religion?

Why don’t you tell us?

Tell us about what preceded the material world. Please tell us about the immaterial world.

Be sure to hold your expected appeals to magic and supernaturalism. The material world is separate from your asserted immaterial realm that you claim somehow preceded the material world.

Why don’t you make that nonsense argument and provide support for that, rather than carelessly and dishonestly suggesting someone else should.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

With all due respect, Eric, the following question is what you should ask Hollie to answer: What ontologically preceded the material world of being according to your religion?

If I were smarter I would have.

 

[Hollie]

What ontologically preceded the material world of being according to your religion?

Which would make you both sound like morons, since Hollie's entire point is that we do not know. Only you religious freaks are claiming to know.

Interesting, eh? Afraid of not knowing. Perhaps because of a lack of faith in what they believe.

More slogan speak. ding and I have demonstrated on this and other threads that we are steeped in the pertinent peer-reviewed science of cosmology and astrophysics while the atheists on this board have unwittingly divulged the fact that they know next to nothing.

I missed the pertinent peer-reviewed science of supernaturalism.

Of course, you can provide some sources, right?

Something from Harun Yahya, perhaps that was reviewed in the journal Nature, for example.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

More slogan speak. ding and I have demonstrated on this and other threads that we are steeped in the pertinent peer-reviewed science of cosmology and astrophysics

Another shameless lie.

 

[Hollie]

With all due respect, Eric, the following question is what you should ask Hollie to answer: What ontologically preceded the material world of being according to your religion?

If I were smarter I would have.

How smart do you need to be to make a supportable argument for magic and supernaturalism?

 

[BreezeWood]

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.

.

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.

singularity occurred within the universe and was the beginning time for our celestial existence - the universe itself is eternal it has always been and will always be its metaphysical forces may or may not remain the same. the forces responsible for the moment of singularity. guided or not.

 

[Hollie]

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.

Do you have any data to contradict what I wrote?

I’ll answer for you: No.

You will want to assert metaphysics and make your usual appeals to religious dogma but I’m curious to know what predictions about gravity, the speed of light, principles of conservation of energy, etc., you can relay to us from the Bibles that will tell us about the early universe.

Here’s something to keep in mind; your gods must played a cruel joke on you as the planet is older than 6,000 years and the Hubble telescope has imaged light from the very distant past.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

How smart do you need to be to make a supportable argument for magic and supernaturalism?

The Big Bang singularity is a great magic trick, isn't it. Having the whole of the universe come shooting out of this
infinitely hot, small point with the gravitational pull of a black hole.
Most black holes draw things down into it until even light cannot escape it. In this case the universe came shooting out
like confetti out of a child's cheap party toy and the universe still expands.


"The initial singularity was a gravitational singularity of seemingly infinite density thought to have contained all the mass and space-time of the Universe before quantum fluctuations caused it to rapidly expand in the Big Bang and subsequent inflation, creating the present-day Universe"

Science can explain what happened. Science cannot make these things happen. That's the difference between some guy with a degree from MIT and a job at Stanford and God.

 

[Hollie]

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.

What a shame we learn and adapt from data we know now.

Life would be so much simpler if we just didn’t stray from hewing Arks out of cubits of gopherwood.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

In case anyone cares:

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


.... Is a TRUE statement.

 

[Hollie]

How smart do you need to be to make a supportable argument for magic and supernaturalism?

The Big Bang singularity is a great magic trick, isn't it. Having the whole of the universe come shooting out of this
infinitely hot, small point with the gravitational pull of a black hole.
Most black holes draw things down into it until even light cannot escape it. In this case the universe came shooting out
like confetti out of a child's cheap party toy and the universe still expands.


"The initial singularity was a gravitational singularity of seemingly infinite density thought to have contained all the mass and space-time of the Universe before quantum fluctuations caused it to rapidly expand in the Big Bang and subsequent inflation, creating the present-day Universe"

Science can explain what happened. Science cannot make these things happen. That's the difference between some guy with a degree from MIT and a job at Stanford and God.

You may want to promote your theory that science is one grand conspiracy, but you appear rather foolish doing so.

If you’re comfortable with “the gods did it” as the answer to every question, that’s your issue to deal with.

Just don’t make the mistake assuming that others accept fear and superstition as humanity’s existence.

 

[Hollie]

In case anyone cares:

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


.... Is a TRUE statement.

Clever. I get it now.

 

[BreezeWood]

In case anyone cares:

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


.... Is a TRUE statement.

.
just guessing, bing presently must be attending sundayschool ... can't be bothered.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

In case anyone cares:

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


.... Is a TRUE statement.

Clever. I get it now.

It's a fundamental rule of logic.

The practical side is that, once incredulity has been suspended (the ignoring of the falseness or even the dubiousness of the first expression of the conditional statement), one can seemingly correctly argue virtually anything.

It's quite the money maker.

Witness:

"If nothing can come from nothing, then magic."

Leave a fiver in the plate on your way out....

 

[diver52]

In case anyone cares:

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


.... Is a TRUE statement.

I still disagree. Whether the statement is true or false is dependent upon whether A or B is true or false. You have not established either. Therefore, the truth of the statement itself cannot be determined.