Debunking another new atheist's baby talk on Youtube

[Ringtone]

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.

Try to keep up, Hollie, both the rational and empirical (scientific) evidence evince that the material world began to exist. We've discussed this on other threads as you well know. The material world is not the eternal ground of existence.

 

[ding]

I really don’t know how anyone can argue that the material world did not begin to exist.

 

[Hollie]

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.

Try to keep up, Hollie, both the rational and empirical (scientific) evidence evince that the material world began to exist. We've discussed this on other threads as you well know. The material world is not the eternal ground of existence.

Oh,

Well, then.

I'm hoping you can account for this immaterial / supenatural world and tell us more about this supernatural realm.

Your rambling tirades that always corkscrew into the abyss of " ....because I say so", are worn and tired, Laddie.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

But merely inventing a conditional...doesn't make it magically "true," ontologically.

It does, ontologically or otherwise, if you intend to work within the rules of logic.

Remember: to call the conditonal statement "true" is NOT necessarily to call either expression in it, "true".

A conditional statement is equivalent to its contrapositive. Therefore, they must both exhibit the same truth value. And this only works if the rule i stated is observed.

 

[G.T.]

But merely inventing a conditional...doesn't make it magically "true," ontologically.

It does, ontologically or otherwise, if you intend to work within the rules of logic.

A conditional statement is equivalent to its contrapositive. Therefore, they must both exhibit the same truth value. And this only works if the rule i stated is observed.

Yes, I get ya

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

But merely inventing a conditional...doesn't make it magically "true," ontologically.

It does, ontologically or otherwise, if you intend to work within the rules of logic.

A conditional statement is equivalent to its contrapositive. Therefore, they must both exhibit the same truth value. And this only works if the rule i stated is observed.

Yes, I get ya

And I understand what you are saying. But, try to craft an argument from the conditional statement i started with. You wont get far, without complete suspension of incredultiy.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

But merely inventing a conditional...doesn't make it magically "true," ontologically.

It does, ontologically or otherwise, if you intend to work within the rules of logic.

A conditional statement is equivalent to its contrapositive. Therefore, they must both exhibit the same truth value. And this only works if the rule i stated is observed.

Yes, I get ya

While mathematics may seem esoteric to some, it is not esoteric or exotic in the way it presents arguments. In mathematics, arguments are presented in complete sentences, following the rules of logic. And the rule of conditional statements I present must be observed in these mathematical arguments, for the use of arguments (aka, proofs).

 

[Ringtone]

Do you have any data to contradict what I wrote?

Of course! Exposing the gibberish of pathological liars and irrational twits like you is child's play.

Without the slightest hint of self-awareness, Hollie hilariously writes about me: "You will want to assert metaphysics and make your usual appeals to religious dogma. . . ."

The rational and empirical evidence for God's existence is not in any way, shape or form drawn from any religious dogma. But you know that, you filthy skank of a sociopathic reprobate.

Let's review, given that my initial expression of the observation was too subtle apparently:

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.

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.

More to the point, you're pretending to know something about existence before the beginning of the universe. You're claiming to have knowledge supposedly beyond your ken. This is a claim to knowledge, not predicated on scientific observation, the only kind of knowledge you claim to be valid when it suits you, but predicated on a line of reasoning (logic) that presupposes the metaphysics of materialism. In other words, you're not telling me or ding or Eric anything we don't already know about the state of things after Planck time, but, suddenly, out of the metaphysical crack of yawn, you claim to know that the classical laws of physics didn't exist before Planck time.

How do you know they didn't exist in the mind of God?

And how do you know they didn't exist in other universes of a cyclic or multiverse cosmogony before the birth of our universe?

 

[BreezeWood]

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.

Try to keep up, Hollie, both the rational and empirical (scientific) evidence evince that the material world began to exist. We've discussed this on other threads as you well know. The material world is not the eternal ground of existence.

.

Try to keep up, Hollie, both the rational and empirical (scientific) evidence evince that the material world began to exist. We've discussed this on other threads as you well know. The material world is not the eternal ground of existence.

no, that is the eternal universe, the Everlasting.

there are no observations beyond our own celestial boundary - no doubt material or other substances exist in the universe we are unaware of or will ever have knowledge for.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Of course!

No you don't. Not a shred.

 

[Hollie]

Do you have any data to contradict what I wrote?

Of course! Exposing the gibberish of pathological liars and irrational twits like you is child's play.

Without the slightest hint of self-awareness, Hollie hilariously writes about me: "You will want to assert metaphysics and make your usual appeals to religious dogma. . . ."

The rational and empirical evidence for God's existence is not in any way, shape or form drawn from any religious dogma. But you know that, you filthy skank of a sociopathic reprobate.

Let's review, given that my initial expression of the observation was too subtle apparently:

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.

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.

More to the point, you're pretending to know something about existence before the beginning of the universe. You're claiming to have knowledge supposedly beyond your ken. This is a claim to knowledge, not predicated on scientific observation, the only kind of knowledge you claim to be valid when it suits you, but predicated on a line of reasoning (logic) that presupposes the metaphysics of materialism. In other words, you're not telling me or ding or Eric anything we don't already know about the state of things after Planck time, but, suddenly, out of the metaphysical crack of yawn, you claim to know that the classical laws of physics didn't exist before Planck time.

How do you know they didn't exist in the mind of God?

And how do you know they didn't exist in other universes of a cyclic or multiverse cosmogony before the birth of our universe?

There is no rational or empirical evidence for your gods. That is why you fail to produce such evidence.

You continue to make claims to magic and supernaturalism knowing that your claims are absent support.

That would make your claims mere partisan propaganda.

 

[Ringtone]

There is no rational or empirical evidence for your gods. That is why you fail to produce such evidence.

You continue to make claims to magic and supernaturalism knowing that your claims are absent support.

That would make your claims mere partisan propaganda.

And yet the universally objective idea of God persists, i.e., objectively exists in its own right, imposes itself on the human mind whenever the human mind seriously regards the problem of existence . . . sans the human mind willing that it do so precisely because of the manifest, rational and empirical evidence for God's existence. Gee wiz!

Define God, skank.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

And yet the universally objective idea of God persists, i.e., objectively exists in its own right

False. It exists nowhere except for in your mind.

 

[Hollie]

There is no rational or empirical evidence for your gods. That is why you fail to produce such evidence.

You continue to make claims to magic and supernaturalism knowing that your claims are absent support.

That would make your claims mere partisan propaganda.

And yet the universally objective idea of God persists, i.e., objectively exists in its own right, imposes itself on the human mind whenever the human mind seriously regards the problem of existence . . . sans the human mind willing that it do so precisely because of the manifest, rational and empirical evidence for God's existence. Gee wiz!

Define God, skank.

There is no universally objective idea of gods. That’s why there have been hundreds of versions of gods, most of which were refinements and / or remanufacturing of earlier gods.

I see you again shuffled off when tasked with supporting your failed claim to rational or empirical evidence for your gods.

Do you think the gods approve of your skankish behavior, you poor, angry, self-hater?

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

I don't find it convincing that you promote your gods with 100% certainty of their existence while supplying 0% facts.

I've supplied my reasoned logical basis for God many times.
If you don't read it or can't understand that's not my fault. By the way, you call the idea of God nonsense and
a fairy tale. Where is your proof for that?
If you KNOW God does not exist you have yet to provide that knowledge.So while you were bloviating and pontificating you forgot and let your hypocrisy show to all.

Also, I wasn't aware your gods manage the cosmos. That sounds a lot like the Greek versions of gods where various gods managed various elements of our existence. With floods, tornadoes, fires and other acts of the gods killing humanity, I might suggest your gods are rather incompetent managers.

God regulates the universe through
orderly, systematic physical laws and principles that exist all throughout the universe. It is these laws that convinced Albert Einstein that God exists.
But I guess your insights are better than his....right?

As far as fires, floods and the like they serve practical purposes and benefit the ecosystem. I guess in your godless world such things never happen.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I've supplied my reasoned logical basis for God many times.

And every time it was bunk. And every time it was a charade that has absolutely nothing to do with why you believe in your religious dogma, or in the existence of god.This is all a dog and pony show that arises from the fact that you know your faith is just faith, and you know it is embarrassing for you to make such extraordinary claims based on "because I say so".

So, instead, we are treated to this dimestore shell game.

 

[BreezeWood]

There is no rational or empirical evidence for your gods. That is why you fail to produce such evidence.

You continue to make claims to magic and supernaturalism knowing that your claims are absent support.

That would make your claims mere partisan propaganda.

And yet the universally objective idea of God persists, i.e., objectively exists in its own right, imposes itself on the human mind whenever the human mind seriously regards the problem of existence . . . sans the human mind willing that it do so precisely because of the manifest, rational and empirical evidence for God's existence. Gee wiz!

Define God, skank.

.

objectively exists in its own right, imposes itself on the human mind whenever the human mind seriously regards the problem of existence . . .

if existence is a problem for you, tombstone good luck reading the forged 4th century christian bible to make life any better -

* in fact that's most likely the source for when your problems began.

 

[Ringtone]

There is no universally objective idea of gods. That’s why there have been hundreds of versions of gods, most of which were refinements and / or remanufacturing of earlier gods.

I see you again shuffled off when tasked with supporting your failed claim to rational or empirical evidence for your gods.

Do you think the gods approve of your skankish behavior, you poor, angry, self-hater?

You're the one who claims God doesn't exist, skank . . . all the while claiming that the beginning and the end of real knowledge is purely scientific. You're the only one between the two of us incessantly contradicting yourself. Let's have your scientific proof that God doesn't exist. Hop to it, skank.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You're the one who claims God doesn't exist

Actually, you whiny liar, I don't believe he has asserted that.

 

[Hollie]

There is no universally objective idea of gods. That’s why there have been hundreds of versions of gods, most of which were refinements and / or remanufacturing of earlier gods.

I see you again shuffled off when tasked with supporting your failed claim to rational or empirical evidence for your gods.

Do you think the gods approve of your skankish behavior, you poor, angry, self-hater?

You're the one who claims God doesn't exist, skank . . . all the while claiming that the beginning and the end of real knowledge is purely scientific. You're the only one between the two of us incessantly contradicting yourself. Let's have your scientific proof that God doesn't exist. Hop to it, skank.

It’s not up to me to prove your gods. You are making the positive claim. You are the one required to support your claims.

Obviously, you cant.

There’s no contradiction on my part. I make the supportable case that the rational, natural world is understandable without the need for magic and claims to gods.

I do in fact have proof your gods don’t exist. Prove I don’t.

See how that works? I’m using your own standard of “disprove it” and requiring you to meet your own standard of disproof.

Thanks. We agree your gods are disproved until you meet your standard.