Debunking another new atheist's baby talk on Youtube

[Third Party]

You guys get too wrapped up in this. Agree to believe your own way.

To embrace relativism is to say that all things are true and that nothing is true simultaneously. As Jim said, you might as well try to nail jello to the wall. Relativism is inherently self-negating.

Relativism: There is no absolute truth, but the absolute truth that there is no absolute truth; hence, the absolute assertion that there is no absolute truth is necessarily false.

Behold the mind of God speaking to you sans the Bible telling you that relativism is nuts!

I will believe as I choose and afford you the same privilege.

 

[BreezeWood]

the exploration of the Almighty's mind at best is a superfluous, nefarious pursuit that only someone out of their mind would pursue ... however to accomplish the religion of antiquity, the triumph of good vs evil, as prescribed may encompass your above (whatever) however in the simplest of terms the religion requires the being to become sinless through triumph, a permanent state for their admission to the Everlasting to be granted -

"I know this is difficult for you to get your head around " - the religion of antiquity is all there is - in freeing one's spirit to be eligible for judgement.

So who or what informed you about this religion of antiquity of yours?

.

So who or what informed you about this religion of antiquity of yours?

the prescription issued by the Almighty after the remedy taken at the time of noah, the spoken religion of antiquity. for all humanity, abandoned by the three desert religions.

 

[MisterBeale]

You and every other physicist need to re-examine their assumptions.

What assumptions am I making? It seems pretty clear to me that if our universe is the one and only role of the dice, as it were, and produced the prerequisite, elemental chemistry and astronomical structures to support life in the first place purely by chance--by some unguided, natural mechanism--well, that's pretty damn astonishing on the order of a statistically staggering improbability.

You have faith that this universe will continue after you expire. That it isn't a construct purely for your own ego, or, indeed for mine.

You have faith that the subjective isn't identical to the objective. Your belief in your own ego is incredible!

Keep creating that reality or focusing on that which you desire. . . or. . .

 

[BreezeWood]

Don't try to read the mind of God-you can't.

That is why He gave us the Bible, right?

.

That is why He (they) gave us the Bible, right?

you kid yourself bowie and do so at the discretion of others.

 

[Third Party]

Don't try to read the mind of God-you can't.

That is why He gave us the Bible, right?

Among other spiritual texts.

I don't argue with relativists.

Who's arguing?

I trust everything's okay now.

I was always OK

 

[JimBowie1958]

Well, I'll give discussing this a shot even though I am skeptical you will keep up and keep it rational.

1) This is not a case of special pleading as, say for example, a Yahtzee has significance and the other roles dont other than that they are not Yahtzees. If one needs a Yahtzee to fill out one's card and not record a big fat 0 for it, you need that one roll in 7, 000/6 as it can be any of six different rolls all of one value. That is what makes such things significant and it is not an arbitrary value. If you are just rolling dice to hear the freaking sound of clattering dice, then who the **** cares anyway?

2) Improbability is a nowhere arguement since given enough time anything can happen in theory. What is indisputable by reasonable people are IMPLAUSIBILITY. If you sat down to play a game of Five Card Draw with several other players and on the very first hand the dealer dealt everyone a flush but gave himself Five of a Kind, how many times would he have to do that before you decided he was cheating and stacking the deck? I wouldnt stay past the first hand, and I doubt anyone else would either because the odds of such a thing happening at all, let alone the first hand, are extremely IMPLAUSIBLE. Is it possible, sure, but if you dont appreciate that such a thing is IMPLAUSIBLE, you might lose your shirt in Reno.

Anyway, that is all I have time for.

Now you can yell and scream and tell me I am a superstitious idiot. lol.

 

[JimBowie1958]

It’s pretty hard to argue that the laws of nature are such that they don’t predispose that intelligence will eventually arise given the correct conditions and enough time.

The overarching direction of evolution is for ever increasing complexity. This is true regardless if we are discussing cosmic evolution, stellar evolution, chemical evolution, biological evolution and evolution of thought.

It is literally the nature of nature.

Yes, it is as long as more energy is being put into a system than leaves it.

 

[Ringtone]

Again, a straw man from one who doesn't grasp the science of the fine-tuning problem and the anthropic principle. If our universe is the one and only role of the dice, the odds that it has the elemental chemistry and astronomical structure to support life is a staggeringly improbable state of affairs via a purely natural mechanism as there is nothing intrinsically necessary about the laws of physics producing the initial conditions and constants of a life-supporting universe . The overwhelming number of the leading lights of science, theists and atheists alike, agree that our universe is finely tuned for life and that if it were the one and only universe to have existed it would be very unlikely to exist as it does via a natural mechanism! Dawkins, for example, acknowledges this. Not only does he acknowledge the fine-tuning problem, but holds to the weak anthropic principle.

Do you know why?

Hint: The fine-tuning problem and the fine-tuned argument for God's existence are not the same thing. The fine-tuned argument for God's existence and the strong anthropic principle only come to fore if our universe is the one and only to have ever existed.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Well, I'll give discussing this a shot even though I am skeptical you will keep up and keep it rational.

1) This is not a case of special pleading as, say for example, a Yahtzee has significance and the other roles dont other than that they are not Yahtzees. If one needs a Yahtzee to fill out one's card and not record a big fat 0 for it, you need that one roll in 7, 000/6 as it can be any of six different rolls all of one value. That is what makes such things significant and it is not an arbitrary value. If you are just rolling dice to hear the freaking sound of clattering dice, then who the **** cares anyway?

2) Improbability is a nowhere arguement since given enough time anything can happen in theory. What is indisputable by reasonable people are IMPLAUSIBILITY. If you sat down to play a game of Five Card Draw with several other players and on the very first hand the dealer dealt everyone a flush but gave himself Five of a Kind, how many times would he have to do that before you decided he was cheating and stacking the deck? I wouldnt stay past the first hand, and I doubt anyone else would either because the odds of such a thing happening at all, let alone the first hand, are extremely IMPLAUSIBLE. Is it possible, sure, but if you dont appreciate that such a thing is IMPLAUSIBLE, you might lose your shirt in Reno.

Anyway, that is all I have time for.

Now you can yell and scream and tell me I am a superstitious idiot. lol.

The gaping, fatal hole in your argument being that you have absolutely no idea of what the probabilities are to which you allude, while it is quite easy to calculate the odds of getting a certain hand in cards.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Hint: The fine-tuning problem

There is no fine tuning problem. That problem vanished when we came to understand selection and the vastness of the universe. The only "problem" here is in the minds of people addled by religious nonsense who are slowly coming to the realization that we dont need sky daddies to explain anything. So, you choose to rant about problems that disappeared long ago.

 

[BreezeWood]

You and every other physicist need to re-examine their assumptions.

What assumptions am I making? It seems pretty clear to me that if our universe is the one and only role of the dice, as it were, and produced the prerequisite, elemental chemistry and astronomical structures to support life in the first place purely by chance--by some unguided, natural mechanism--well, that's pretty damn astonishing on the order of a statistically staggering improbability.

.

- to support life in the first place purely by chance--by some unguided, natural mechanism--well, that's pretty damn astonishing on the order of a statistically staggering improbability.

we are all we know of living in the universe, nothing else most certainly in our solar system - and what is living on our planet is being destroyed by humanity ...

- that's pretty damn astonishing on the order of a statistically staggering improbability.

- more proof by chance than any other ...

 

[ding]

It’s pretty hard to argue that the laws of nature are such that they don’t predispose that intelligence will eventually arise given the correct conditions and enough time.

The overarching direction of evolution is for ever increasing complexity. This is true regardless if we are discussing cosmic evolution, stellar evolution, chemical evolution, biological evolution and evolution of thought.

It is literally the nature of nature.

Yes, it is as long as more energy is being put into a system than leaves it.

Agreed, creating order from chaos doesn’t violate the SLoT because useable energy was lost along the way as a cost of creating the order from chaos.