Debunking another new atheist's baby talk on Youtube

[Hollie]

You identified in your earlier post you paraphrased what I wrote.

You don't know what paraphrase means?

Jeebus H. Christ but you're a dishonest hack.

Paraphrase...
a rewording of something written or spoken by someone else.

I took the pertinent verbatim wording from you and melded it into an example of your view of religion and your contempt for the religious themselves.

Do you have a problem with my
usage of the word, verbatim? Because you can go look at your post #665 and you certainly
can't say I didn't use your exact words and phrases.

And it's bizarre because I could have gone to dozens of posts from you where you dismiss religion as "magic" and "supernaturalism" and you dismiss the religious as "gullible" believers of fables and tales.
Only you know why this one instance of me capturing your exact typical words set you off in a fit.

Yes, you paraphrased what I wrote and then tried to dishonestly attribute your comments as mine.

You whined and moaned for several pages refusing to acknowledge your dishonest tactic and tried to justify your dishonesty.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

The concept of an infinite universe, without beginning or end, is beyond your paygrade, and you will always fall back on magic to make it fit your earth grounded world view.

Hilarious how you take unsupported theory and conjecture and try to make it an undeniable reality by calling it "beyond your paygrade".

This is about as disingenuous as it gets.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Yes, you paraphrased what I wrote and then tried to dishonestly attribute your comments as mine.

I used your exact words, a-hole!

You whined and moaned for several pages refusing to acknowledge your dishonest tactic and tried to justify your dishonesty.

Untrue and I already cited two early posts (#676 and #678) where I made it clear I was not quoting
you per se. This is my last word on the matter.
I won't entertain and baby sit you any longer.

 

[Hollie]

Yes, you paraphrased what I wrote and then tried to dishonestly attribute your comments as mine.

I used your exact words, a-hole!

You whined and moaned for several pages refusing to acknowledge your dishonest tactic and tried to justify your dishonesty.

Untrue and I already cited two early posts (#676 and #678) where I made it clear I was not quoting
you per se. This is my last word on the matter.
I won't entertain and baby sit you any longer.

You identified just two posts back that you paraphrased my comments.

You paraphrased my comments within your post 671 and then tried to attribute your comment as something I wrote.

Run along now. Learn to use the "quote" function so you can accurately attribute comments without re-writing the comments of others and then dishonestly claiming your comments convey the writing of others.

 

[Ringtone]

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.

Contradiction is your middle name, skank. Pathological Liar is your vocation, skank.

We both know what the empirical and rational evidence for God's existence is because I've expounded it many times replete with an incontrovertible argument for God's existence from the first principles of ontology per the imperatives of logic. And you have yet to refute these things by giving a coherent explication for an infinite regress of causality or by giving a coherent explication for how existence could possibly arise from nonexistence. Therefore, you have not made a "supportable case" for a natural mechanism for the existence of the material world. You are a lying skank. Not only have you not provided any such case, you're still pretending that no such evidence or argument was given to you in the first place, skank.

And you did not employ my standard, you filthy, stinkin', lying skank. I don't live in the pseudoscientific world where science is the beginning and the end of knowledge, skank. I live in the real world where logic and metaphysics necessarily precede and have primacy over scientific methodology, skank. I don't live in a world where science defines itself or where empirical data interpret themselves, you silly ass of a mindless, slogan-spouting buffoon. I don't live in your magical world where mindless things think and speak, skank.

I live in the real world where minds define science and interpret data.

By your own standard, the imperatives of logic are not reliable guides or sources of knowledge, skank. That's your mindless position, skank, not mine.

Moreover, science cannot address metaphysical issues in my world, the world of reality. That only happens in your world, the world of fantasy.

Please provide the peer-reviewed scientific paper that falsified God's existence.

 

[Ringtone]

In reality, there is no reason that the universe is not infinite, and without beginning, or end.

So, of course, you can give a coherent explication how an actual infinite is possible after all, and you're going to provide a peer-reviewed scenario entailing a cyclic or multiverse cosmogony that has not been shown to require a beginning?

One moment, please. . . .



Okay, go ahead, you slogan-spouting fool of a mathematically and scientifically illiterate doofus.

The concept of an infinite universe, without beginning or end, is beyond your paygrade, and you will always fall back on magic to make it fit your earth grounded world view.

The reason you can't explain how an actual infinite could possibly exist is because an actual infinite cannot be traversed to the present, let alone to the future, and the future of the material world can never be anything more than a potential infinite tending toward infinity as the limit, but never reaching infinity.

Shut up, !

 

[Hollie]

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.

Contradiction is your middle name, skank. Pathological Liar is your vocation, skank.

We both know what the empirical and rational evidence for God's existence is because I've expounded it many times replete with an incontrovertible argument for God's existence from the first principles of ontology per the imperatives of logic. And you have yet to refute these things by giving a coherent explication for an infinite regress of causality or by giving a coherent explication for how existence could possibly arise from nonexistence. Therefore, you have not made a "supportable case" for a natural mechanism for the existence of the material world. You are a lying skank. Not only have you not provided any such case, you're still pretending that no such evidence or argument was given to you in the first place, skank.

And you did not employ my standard, you filthy, stinkin', lying skank. I don't live in the pseudoscientific world where science is the beginning and the end of knowledge, skank. I live in the real world where logic and metaphysics necessarily precede and have primacy over scientific methodology, skank. I don't live in a world where science defines itself or where empirical data interpret themselves, you silly ass of a mindless, slogan-spouting buffoon. I don't live in your magical world where mindless things think and speak, skank.

I live in the real world where minds define science and interpret data.

By your own standard, the imperatives of logic are not reliable guides or sources of knowledge, skank. That's your mindless position, skank, not mine.

Moreover, science cannot address metaphysical issues in my world, the world of reality. That only happens in your world, the world of fantasy.

Please provide the peer-reviewed scientific paper that falsified God's existence.

Gee whiz, but aren’t you the typical lewd, crude, angry xtian.

I actually do have the reviewed scientific paper that falsified the existence of your various gods. Prove I don’t.

 

[Hollie]

In reality, there is no reason that the universe is not infinite, and without beginning, or end.

So, of course, you can give a coherent explication how an actual infinite is possible after all, and you're going to provide a peer-reviewed scenario entailing a cyclic or multiverse cosmogony that has not been shown to require a beginning?

One moment, please. . . .



Okay, go ahead, you slogan-spouting fool of a mathematically and scientifically illiterate doofus.

The concept of an infinite universe, without beginning or end, is beyond your paygrade, and you will always fall back on magic to make it fit your earth grounded world view.

The reason you can't explain how an actual infinite could possibly exist is because an actual infinite cannot be traversed to the present, let alone to the future, and the future of the material world can never be anything more than a potential infinite tending toward infinity as the limit, but never reaching infinity.

Shut up, !

More of your babbling nonsense.

 

[Ringtone]

Gee whiz, but aren’t you the typical lewd, crude, angry xtian.

I actually do have the reviewed scientific paper that falsified the existence of your various gods. Prove I don’t.

What did I tell you about that broken record, skank?

Please provide the peer-reviewed scientific paper that falsified God's existence.

 

[Hollie]

Gee whiz, but aren’t you the typical lewd, crude, angry xtian.

I actually do have the reviewed scientific paper that falsified the existence of your various gods. Prove I don’t.

What did I tell you about that broken record, skank?

Please provide the peer-reviewed scientific paper that falsified God's existence.

How desperate. You need me to prove your gods?

They’re your gods. Why can’t you provide some evidence they exist?

Be a good xtian and go burn some folks at the stake. You’ll feel better about yourself.

 

[BreezeWood]

The concept of an infinite universe, without beginning or end, is beyond your paygrade, and you will always fall back on magic to make it fit your earth grounded world view.

Hilarious how you take unsupported theory and conjecture and try to make it an undeniable reality by calling it "beyond your paygrade".

This is about as disingenuous as it gets.

.

Hilarious how you take unsupported theory and conjecture and try to make it an undeniable reality by calling it "beyond your paygrade".

This is about as disingenuous as it gets.

our universe is eternal, celestial objects in some form or another and their metaphysical forces may very well exist in the same manner.

whatever comprises the spirit of living beings is undoubtedly near infinitely fragile in comparison to the above though time will tell its durability to survive beyond its physiological constraints whenever that feat is accomplished.

 

[BreezeWood]

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.

Contradiction is your middle name, skank. Pathological Liar is your vocation, skank.

We both know what the empirical and rational evidence for God's existence is because I've expounded it many times replete with an incontrovertible argument for God's existence from the first principles of ontology per the imperatives of logic. And you have yet to refute these things by giving a coherent explication for an infinite regress of causality or by giving a coherent explication for how existence could possibly arise from nonexistence. Therefore, you have not made a "supportable case" for a natural mechanism for the existence of the material world. You are a lying skank. Not only have you not provided any such case, you're still pretending that no such evidence or argument was given to you in the first place, skank.

And you did not employ my standard, you filthy, stinkin', lying skank. I don't live in the pseudoscientific world where science is the beginning and the end of knowledge, skank. I live in the real world where logic and metaphysics necessarily precede and have primacy over scientific methodology, skank. I don't live in a world where science defines itself or where empirical data interpret themselves, you silly ass of a mindless, slogan-spouting buffoon. I don't live in your magical world where mindless things think and speak, skank.

I live in the real world where minds define science and interpret data.

By your own standard, the imperatives of logic are not reliable guides or sources of knowledge, skank. That's your mindless position, skank, not mine.

Moreover, science cannot address metaphysical issues in my world, the world of reality. That only happens in your world, the world of fantasy.

Please provide the peer-reviewed scientific paper that falsified God's existence.

.

- or by giving a coherent explication for how existence could possibly arise from nonexistence.

that is the eternal universe as the pathos of tombstones nonexistence.

 

[Vandalshandle]

The concept of an infinite universe, without beginning or end, is beyond your paygrade, and you will always fall back on magic to make it fit your earth grounded world view.

Hilarious how you take unsupported theory and conjecture and try to make it an undeniable reality by calling it "beyond your paygrade".

This is about as disingenuous as it gets.

I said that the "concept" was beyond his paygrade, and apparently yours too. I said nothing about it being a "reality". Perhaps confusing facts and concepts is why you are so convinced that god exists.

 

[Vandalshandle]

In reality, there is no reason that the universe is not infinite, and without beginning, or end.

So, of course, you can give a coherent explication how an actual infinite is possible after all, and you're going to provide a peer-reviewed scenario entailing a cyclic or multiverse cosmogony that has not been shown to require a beginning?

One moment, please. . . .



Okay, go ahead, you slogan-spouting fool of a mathematically and scientifically illiterate doofus.

The concept of an infinite universe, without beginning or end, is beyond your paygrade, and you will always fall back on magic to make it fit your earth grounded world view.

The reason you can't explain how an actual infinite could possibly exist is because an actual infinite cannot be traversed to the present, let alone to the future, and the future of the material world can never be anything more than a potential infinite tending toward infinity as the limit, but never reaching infinity.

Shut up, !

Now, Ringtone, that is downright unneighborly. Consider yourself flattered that I read your pseudobabble at all!

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

In reality, there is no reason that the universe is not infinite, and without beginning, or end.

So, of course, you can give a coherent explication how an actual infinite is possible after all, and you're going to provide a peer-reviewed scenario entailing a cyclic or multiverse cosmogony that has not been shown to require a beginning?

One moment, please. . . .



Okay, go ahead, you slogan-spouting fool of a mathematically and scientifically illiterate doofus.

The concept of an infinite universe, without beginning or end, is beyond your paygrade, and you will always fall back on magic to make it fit your earth grounded world view.

The reason you can't explain how an actual infinite could possibly exist is because an actual infinite cannot be traversed to the present, let alone to the future, and the future of the material world can never be anything more than a potential infinite tending toward infinity as the limit, but never reaching infinity.

Shut up, !

Now, Ringtone, that is downright unneighborly. Consider yourself flattered that I read your pseudobabble at all!

"because an actual infinite cannot be traversed to the present"

Psychobabble of a bad philosopher from the 15th century. We solved this problem when we learned how to sum infinite series.

 

[BreezeWood]

I know for a fact that God exists ... The simplest way I can describe it is that he (they) spoke to me with a voice that only the mind can hear.

why are you unwilling to elaborate was there a conversation - in your mind. were you told to vote for their candidate ...

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

I said that the "concept" was beyond his paygrade, and apparently yours too. I said nothing about it being a "reality". Perhaps confusing facts and concepts is why you are so convinced that god exists.

Yeah, umm..., actually I called your nonsense "theory" and "unsupported conjecture". I never called your
eternal circular universe claim "reality". That would be giving it way too much credence.
It deserves none.
Try reading what I actually posted.

Maybe you were too busy composing your arrogant condescending post to get any facts straight at all.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

“I have concluded that we are in a world made by rules created by an intelligence.” -- Kaku
Michio Kaku - Wikipedia
A brilliant uncalcified mind is a wonderful thing that restores faith in the open informed human mind.
The theoretical physicist knows a thing or two about what he's talking about unlike some of the mental cases encountered here.

 

[Hollie]

“I have concluded that we are in a world made by rules created by an intelligence.” -- Kaku
Michio Kaku - Wikipedia
A brilliant uncalcified mind is a wonderful thing that restores faith in the open informed human mind.
The theoretical physicist knows a thing or two about what he's talking about unlike some of the mental cases encountered here.

Logical fallacy of appeal to authority. Kaku's conclusion is an opinion, one obviously in conflict with other opinions.

It's not unusual for some to cut and paste other people's opinions which they purport to be fact. It's just worth noting that cherry-picking opinions is just cherry-picking opinions.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The theoretical physicist knows a thing or two about what he's talking about

...when it comes to physics. When it comes to mystical, magical nonsense, he is no more an authority than any nutcase on the corner with a bullhorn.