Debunking another new atheist's baby talk on Youtube

[Vandalshandle]

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]

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

Michio Kaku's opinions and conclusions are exceptionally well informed and educated and that's the whole point.
One can always find contrary opinions on anything at all. How informed and biased are those opinions however?

Without knowing why Michio Kaku reached his conclusions it's impossible to critique his conclusions except in a knee jerk reflexive sort of way and that seems to be your point, i.e. we don't care what he says, he's wrong!

By the way, Albert Einstein held the same exact view that the more one learns about the workings of the universe it becomes impossible to ignore the empirical evidence that some supreme intelligence has engineered the cosmos under a rubric of all encompassing principles and laws.
Both men illustrate the truism that great scientists must have minds that are not calcified in place but open to any and all possibilities, a truism that some people (ahem) would do well to remember.

It's not unusual for some to cut and paste other people's opinions which they purport to be fact.

I don't purport Kaku's statement to be fact but the supremely well informed opinion of an expert in the field of theoretical physics. And his words are so well informed you apparently have to misrepresent my post in order to malign them.

It's just worth noting that cherry-picking opinions is just cherry-picking opinions.

Small frightened minds
refer to the informed views of others as "cherry picked" opinions. Your coping mechanism is acknowledged.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

George Carlin? "Hilarious" but not in a humorous sort of way. More like ridiculous in an ironically unintended sort of way.

 

[Hollie]

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

Michio Kaku's opinions and conclusions are exceptionally well informed and educated and that's the whole point.
One can always find contrary opinions on anything at all. How informed and biased are those opinions however?

Without knowing why Michio Kaku reached his conclusions it's impossible to critique his conclusions.except in a knee jerk reflexive sort of way and that seems to be your point, i.e. we don't care what he says, he's wrong!

By the way, Albert Einstein held the same exact view that the more one learns about the workings of the universe it becomes impossible to ignore the empirical evidence that some supreme intelligence has engineered the cosmos under a rubric of all encompassing principles and laws.
Both men illustrate the truism that great scientists must have minds that are not calcified in place but open to any and all possibilities, a truism that some people (ahem) would do well to remember.

It's not unusual for some to cut and paste other people's opinions which they purport to be fact.

I don't purport Kaku's statement to be fact but the supremely well informed opinion of an expert in the field of theoretical physics. And his words are so well informed you apparently have to misrepresent my post in order to malign them.

It's just worth noting that cherry-picking opinions is just cherry-picking opinions.

Small frightened minds
refer to the informed views of others as "cherry picked" opinions. Your coping mechanism is acknowledged.

I think your choice of terms is lacking. There is no empirical evidence for gods or some intelligence as the cause of the universe, unless of course you have such evidence.

I'll note that Kaku used the term "intelligence" in the comment you posted. I'll note he never used "gods". It seems you're reaching a bit and inferring some "meaning" that Kaku never offered. An intelligence to the universe could be Amun Ra. Is that the "intelligence" you think Kaku meant?

 

[Vandalshandle]

George Carlin? "Hilarious" but not in a humorous sort of way. More like ridiculous in an ironically unintended sort of way.

No, I think that he pretty much condensed the whole issue down convincingly to a 10 minute summary.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

I think your choice of terms is lacking. There is no empirical evidence for gods or some intelligence as the cause of the universe, unless of course you have such evidence.

You are welcome to your hidebound rigid orthodoxy.
Many open minded perceptive people disagree with you and some of them are uniquely qualified to notice what passes
well over your head unnoticed.

I'll note that Kaku used the term "intelligence" in the comment you posted. I'll note he never used "gods". It seems you're reaching a bit and inferring some "meaning" that Kaku never offered. An intelligence to the universe could be Amun Ra. Is that the "intelligence" you think Kaku meant?

Okay. Trying to make this a matter of semantics now.
That's very, ummm, credible of you.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

No, I think that he pretty much condensed the whole issue down convincingly to a 10 minute summary.

Carlin, a lapsed Catholic, and his views on Christianity have absolutely nothing to do with you and your support of
a theoretical eternal cyclical universe so why bring it up?

I've never been a fan of Carlin and that goes for his bitter cliched denunciations which are nothing more than easily
constructed straw men good for a few minutes of time in some moldy comedy bit which are as dead as he is.

 

[Hollie]

I think your choice of terms is lacking. There is no empirical evidence for gods or some intelligence as the cause of the universe, unless of course you have such evidence.

You are welcome to your hidebound rigid orthodoxy.
Many open minded perceptive people disagree with you and some of them are uniquely qualified to notice what passes
well over your head unnoticed.

I'll note that Kaku used the term "intelligence" in the comment you posted. I'll note he never used "gods". It seems you're reaching a bit and inferring some "meaning" that Kaku never offered. An intelligence to the universe could be Amun Ra. Is that the "intelligence" you think Kaku meant?

Okay. Trying to make this a matter of semantics now.
That's very, ummm, credible of you.

My rigid orthodoxy hinges on facts and evidence. Humanity has had thousands of years of alleged gods, none of which have ever made themselves extant. Knowledge over the last 150 years has illuminated more about the universe than the past 2,000 years of gods and djinn and spirits and things that go bump in the night.

Very strange how the rigid orthodoxy of rational thinking has allowed the exploration of space, something all of the gods ever designed by mannkind couldn't do.

My comment regarding Kaku and his specific term has nothing to do with semantics. Why would he use the term "intelligence" vs "the gods"?

Maybe he was just careless?

 

[BreezeWood]

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

Michio Kaku's opinions and conclusions are exceptionally well informed and educated and that's the whole point.
One can always find contrary opinions on anything at all. How informed and biased are those opinions however?

Without knowing why Michio Kaku reached his conclusions it's impossible to critique his conclusions except in a knee jerk reflexive sort of way and that seems to be your point, i.e. we don't care what he says, he's wrong!

By the way, Albert Einstein held the same exact view that the more one learns about the workings of the universe it becomes impossible to ignore the empirical evidence that some supreme intelligence has engineered the cosmos under a rubric of all encompassing principles and laws.
Both men illustrate the truism that great scientists must have minds that are not calcified in place but open to any and all possibilities, a truism that some people (ahem) would do well to remember.

It's not unusual for some to cut and paste other people's opinions which they purport to be fact.

I don't purport Kaku's statement to be fact but the supremely well informed opinion of an expert in the field of theoretical physics. And his words are so well informed you apparently have to misrepresent my post in order to malign them.

It's just worth noting that cherry-picking opinions is just cherry-picking opinions.

Small frightened minds
refer to the informed views of others as "cherry picked" opinions. Your coping mechanism is acknowledged.

.

Without knowing why Michio Kaku reached his conclusions it's impossible to critique his conclusions except in a knee jerk reflexive sort of way and that seems to be your point, i.e. we don't care what he says, he's wrong!

"When scientists use the word God, they usually mean the God of Order. For example, one of the most important revelations in Einstein’s early childhood took place when he read his first books on science. He immediately realized that most of what he had been taught about religion could not possibly be true. Throughout his career, however, he clung to the belief that a mysterious, divine Order existed in the universe."

- not wrong if he is not a christian

Kaku is not a christian ... whatever is meant by "divine" order is anyone's guess. without order the infinite mind could not think therefore, they are. is correct.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

No, I think that he pretty much condensed the whole issue down convincingly to a 10 minute summary.

Surprise! I thought you posted that because you thought it was ridiculous.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

My rigid orthodoxy hinges on facts and evidence. Humanity has had thousands of years of alleged gods, none of which have ever made themselves extant. Knowledge over the last 150 years has illuminated more about the universe than the past 2,000 years of gods and djinn and spirits and things that go bump in the night.

Very strange how the rigid orthodoxy of rational thinking has allowed the exploration of space, something all of the gods ever designed by mannkind couldn't do.

Yeah. blah blah. That concludes the sermon for today. Come back for the same sermon tomorrow. And tomorrow.
And tomorrow. And tomorrow, and all the days after that. Thanks. Be sure to wake up the person next to you on
your way out.

My comment regarding Kaku and his specific term has nothing to do with semantics. Why would he use the term "intelligence" vs "the gods"?

Because only a nut job like yourself uses the term "the gods". Have you tried asking him?

Maybe he was just careless?

Or maybe due to the supreme intelligence of the creator that
was the most appropriate and obvious term to use.
That would be the most apparent attribute to someone observing how the universe regulates itself.

 

[Ringtone]

In reality, there is no reason that the universe is not infinite, and without beginning, or end. People just can not relate to it, so they bend their reasoning to fit their 3 dimensional world.

Bald, unsupported claim. . . .

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.

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.

Meaningless obfuscation. . . .

I think I need to introduce you to Dr. Spot and kids. . . .

Please see link: See Spot Laugh

 

[Hollie]

My rigid orthodoxy hinges on facts and evidence. Humanity has had thousands of years of alleged gods, none of which have ever made themselves extant. Knowledge over the last 150 years has illuminated more about the universe than the past 2,000 years of gods and djinn and spirits and things that go bump in the night.

Very strange how the rigid orthodoxy of rational thinking has allowed the exploration of space, something all of the gods ever designed by mannkind couldn't do.

Yeah. blah blah. That concludes the sermon for today. Come back for the same sermon tomorrow. And tomorrow.
And tomorrow. And tomorrow, and all the days after that. Thanks. Be sure to wake up the person next to you on
your way out.

My comment regarding Kaku and his specific term has nothing to do with semantics. Why would he use the term "intelligence" vs "the gods"?

Because only a nut job like yourself uses the term "the gods". Have you tried asking him?

Maybe he was just careless?

Or maybe due to the supreme intelligence of the creator that
was the most appropriate and obvious term to use.
That would be the most apparent attribute to someone observing how the universe regulates itself.

I just find it odd that for all the claims in this thread to the gods, supreme creators, etc., we're never given any indication that your alleged supremes are the real supremes as opposed to competing versions of supremes.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

I just find it odd that for all the claims in this thread to the gods, supreme creators, etc., we're never given any indication that your alleged supremes are the real supremes as opposed to competing versions of supremes.

I'm sure that all made sense in your head anyway when the idea first rattled around like dried beans inside some cheap flea market maracas. There is just one God by definition.
There can be no other supreme being.

 

[Ringtone]

I just find it odd that for all the claims in this thread to the gods, supreme creators, etc., we're never given any indication that your alleged supremes are the real supremes as opposed to competing versions of supremes.

And just who would vie for supremacy against God, you silly-ass skank of a drooling retard, given that he is the transcendent, eternally self-subsistent Creator of incomparable greatness who created all other things that exist?

crickets chirping

 

[Vandalshandle]

I just find it odd that for all the claims in this thread to the gods, supreme creators, etc., we're never given any indication that your alleged supremes are the real supremes as opposed to competing versions of supremes.

And just who would vie for supremacy against God, you silly-ass skank of a drooling retard, given that he is the transcendent, eternally self-subsistent Creator of incomparable greatness who created all other things that exist?

crickets chirping

Well, in view of the fact that god does not exist, I "vie" for supremacy against god.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Well, in view of the fact that god does not exist, I "vie" for supremacy against god.

You apparently don't know what a fact is. There is much more reason to believe there is a God than to doubt God's existence.

 

[Hollie]

I just find it odd that for all the claims in this thread to the gods, supreme creators, etc., we're never given any indication that your alleged supremes are the real supremes as opposed to competing versions of supremes.

And just who would vie for supremacy against God, you silly-ass skank of a drooling retard, given that he is the transcendent, eternally self-subsistent Creator of incomparable greatness who created all other things that exist?

crickets chirping

Oh, you mean those gods. Why didn't you say so.

However, your gods are subordinate to the true gods who are "the transcendent, eternally self-subsistent Creators of incomparable greatness who created all other things that exist?"

To the back of the line you go with your also-ran gods.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Well, in view of the fact that god does not exist, I "vie" for supremacy against god.

You apparently don't know what a fact is. There is much more reason to believe there is a God than to doubt God's existence.

That is true, if you have allowed Christianity to brainwash you for your entire life. I recognize that many are incapable of independent thought.

 

[Hollie]

I just find it odd that for all the claims in this thread to the gods, supreme creators, etc., we're never given any indication that your alleged supremes are the real supremes as opposed to competing versions of supremes.

I'm sure that all made sense in your head anyway when the idea first rattled around like dried beans inside some cheap flea market maracas. There is just one God by definition.
There can be no other supreme being.

Because you say so? By definition?

There’s no reason why there couldn’t be a multitude of gods with your gods being just minor players in a vast hierarchy of gods.