Debunking another new atheist's baby talk on Youtube

[Eric Arthur Blair]

On the other hand, I have read your juvenile, ill-considered, Jimmy Swaggert stylized bible thumping / proselytizing and found it tedious and pointless.

That makes me sad.

 

[Hollie]

On the other hand, I have read your juvenile, ill-considered, Jimmy Swaggert stylized bible thumping / proselytizing and found it tedious and pointless.

That makes me sad.

In his newest incarnation of "Ringtone", the boy continues his hair-on-fire, screeching, angry, tirades aimed at those horrible non-believers. Challenges to his specious opinions is the internet version of a misbehaving school child being scolded for bad behavior.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

I see nothing to indicate that any supreme being (it's OK, you can say the "g" word), has provided any order to the cosmos. The very existence of Black Holes, the mass extinction on this plant 65 million years ago, collisions of galaxies, conditions utterly inhospitable to life as we know it across so much of the cosmos speaks to a very chaotic cosmos.

None of that indicates or negates the necessary function that a
supreme creating force would necessarily fill. Car accidents or break downs do not indicate that autos were not created by auto makers and just somehow manage to exist

Black holes are functions of severe gravitational pull. Actually gravity is one of the universe wide primary forces that science does not understand that keeps everything from flying away. Think of it as God's super glue.

Yes, the church had no choice but to rescind edicts that called Galileo a heretic. The seeds of knowledge and learning began germinating in the work of Renaissance thinkers and scientists, and started to bloom during the Enlightenment. The Renaissance was sparked by the waning authority of the Church and the advances of Western/European scientists. The church simply could not enforce its authoritarianism forever.

OK.
The point remains some of the things we now see as nonsense were once commonly accepted wisdom by the scientists of the day.

I would propose the following:

"Gods do not exist because there is no logical reason to believe they do."

This is a logical statement supporting the non-existence of Gods and a direct response to the challenge of those who claim otherwise. In effect, it puts the onus back where it logically belongs, upon those who wish to assert existence. The rules of evidence require that arguments against must be made in refutation of proposing arguments. The null hypothesis is always logical.

There actually is a very simple and basic reason to believe in God.
Because the universe exists. A bicycle is proof of a bicycle maker. The universe is proof of a supreme force that created or caused it.
Absurd to you or not it is far more absurd to claim the universe has no reason for being.

The point was not to prove non-existence, but to show the absurdity of using logic in an attempt to provide evidence for or against the supernatural.

Your comments imply that the existence of the universe pre-supposes a creation of the universe which must then be considered a logical argument for the existence of a creator who must then be considered one or more Gods.

Did the universe come into existence?
If so, does the appearance of the universe imply a creator?
If so, must this creator be one or more Gods?

I would answer all of these questions negatively.

You answer in the negative so you advocate a vast universe
that just is and has always existed which science demonstrates cannot be.

"If this were not enough, there is a second line of scientific evidence for the beginning of the universe based on the laws of thermodynamics. According to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, processes taking place in a closed system always tend toward a state of equilibrium. Now our interest in the law is what happens when it is applied to the universe as a whole. The universe is, on a naturalistic view, a gigantic closed system, since it is everything there is and there is nothing outside it. What this seems to imply then is that, given enough time, the universe and all its processes will run down, and the entire universe will come to equilibrium. This is known as the heat death of the universe. Once the universe reaches this state, no further change is possible. The universe is dead.

Now the question that this implication of the Second Law inevitably forces upon us is the following: If, given enough time, the universe will reach heat death, then why is it not in a state of heat death now, if it has existed forever, from eternity? If the universe did not begin to exist, then it should now be in a state of equilibrium. Like a ticking clock, it should by now have run down. Since it has not yet run down, this implies, in the words of one baffled scientist, “In some way the universe must have been wound up.” Creation ex nihilo: Theology and Science | Reasonable Faith

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

In his newest incarnation of "Ringtone", the boy continues his hair-on-fire, screeching, angry, tirades aimed at those horrible non-believers. Challenges to his specious opinions is the internet version of a misbehaving school child being scolded for bad behavior.

It's an appropriate response to your comment. You can thank yourself if you disapprove of the tone of it.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

there is no reason to believe the material worlds appearance was not a cyclical event that has repeated itself indefinitely from a previously untold event accountable for the emergence of both matter and energy that is yet to be discovered. and for the metaphysical forces responsible for all that has evolved.

Actually there is no reason to believe it was a cyclical event. There is a school of theory that purposes this model but it is by no means universally accepted or proven.

On top of that a cyclical universe still needs something to kick it off or create it.

 

[Hollie]

I see nothing to indicate that any supreme being (it's OK, you can say the "g" word), has provided any order to the cosmos. The very existence of Black Holes, the mass extinction on this plant 65 million years ago, collisions of galaxies, conditions utterly inhospitable to life as we know it across so much of the cosmos speaks to a very chaotic cosmos.

None of that indicates or negates the necessary function that a
supreme creating force would necessarily fill. Car accidents or break downs do not indicate that autos were not created by auto makers and just somehow manage to exist

Black holes are functions of severe gravitational pull. Actually gravity is one of the universe wide primary forces that science does not understand that keeps everything from flying away. Think of it as God's super glue.

Yes, the church had no choice but to rescind edicts that called Galileo a heretic. The seeds of knowledge and learning began germinating in the work of Renaissance thinkers and scientists, and started to bloom during the Enlightenment. The Renaissance was sparked by the waning authority of the Church and the advances of Western/European scientists. The church simply could not enforce its authoritarianism forever.

OK.
The point remains some of the things we now see as nonsense were once commonly accepted wisdom by the scientists of the day.

I would propose the following:

"Gods do not exist because there is no logical reason to believe they do."

This is a logical statement supporting the non-existence of Gods and a direct response to the challenge of those who claim otherwise. In effect, it puts the onus back where it logically belongs, upon those who wish to assert existence. The rules of evidence require that arguments against must be made in refutation of proposing arguments. The null hypothesis is always logical.

There actually is a very simple and basic reason to believe in God.
Because the universe exists. A bicycle is proof of a bicycle maker. The universe is proof of a supreme force that created or caused it.
Absurd to you or not it is far more absurd to claim the universe has no reason for being.

The point was not to prove non-existence, but to show the absurdity of using logic in an attempt to provide evidence for or against the supernatural.

Your comments imply that the existence of the universe pre-supposes a creation of the universe which must then be considered a logical argument for the existence of a creator who must then be considered one or more Gods.

Did the universe come into existence?
If so, does the appearance of the universe imply a creator?
If so, must this creator be one or more Gods?

I would answer all of these questions negatively.

You answer in the negative so you advocate a vast universe
that just is and has always existed which science demonstrates cannot be.

"If this were not enough, there is a second line of scientific evidence for the beginning of the universe based on the laws of thermodynamics. According to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, processes taking place in a closed system always tend toward a state of equilibrium. Now our interest in the law is what happens when it is applied to the universe as a whole. The universe is, on a naturalistic view, a gigantic closed system, since it is everything there is and there is nothing outside it. What this seems to imply then is that, given enough time, the universe and all its processes will run down, and the entire universe will come to equilibrium. This is known as the heat death of the universe. Once the universe reaches this state, no further change is possible. The universe is dead.

Now the question that this implication of the Second Law inevitably forces upon us is the following: If, given enough time, the universe will reach heat death, then why is it not in a state of heat death now, if it has existed forever, from eternity? If the universe did not begin to exist, then it should now be in a state of equilibrium. Like a ticking clock, it should by now have run down. Since it has not yet run down, this implies, in the words of one baffled scientist, “In some way the universe must have been wound up.” Creation ex nihilo: Theology and Science | Reasonable Faith

Nothing about the universe existing is evidence for your gods or a to be else's gods. You first need to substantiate your claims to tge gids before you can use them for proofs of any material objects.

I see nothing in nature that requires a supreme creating force. If you mean one or more identifiable gods, I would expect the positive asssrtion of such to be accompanied by evidence.

Please explain, (since the gods have not, it falls to you), the universe's purpose? I'm not sure who decided the universe had to have a purpose so I'll need some help here.

A bicycle is proof of a builder, of course. There's nothing supernatural about a bicycle. We're again left to those making extraordinary claims of supernaturalism to make a case for supernatural designers and the hierarchy of designers of those supernatural designers. Why should I, or anyone else, accept claims to supernaturalism when nowhere in the natural world do we see supernaturalism extant?

I'll note that the universe is not in equilibrium as it is expanding. I would view equilibrium as a static state. Black holes swallowing portions of space and collisions of galaxies don't suggest equilibrium.

An astronomer can explain gravity to you. Gravity is used to "slingshot" the mars explorers, for one example, to their destination.

I note that "Reasonable Faith" is a William Lane Craig enterprise. He is a strident apologist with a predefined conclusion. Among the many Christian ministries, there is every reason to accept their "statements of faith" as holding a bias toward a specific religious perspective that precludes them from honest debate. William Lane. Craig is no different.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Nothing about the universe existing is evidence for your gods or a to be else's gods. You first need to substantiate your claims to tge gids before you can use them for proofs of any material objects.

Either there is a reason that the universe exists or there isn't and it just exists....just like nothing else at all just exists.
Is that your argument? That the universe itself just happens to be.....just like nothing else at all?

Btw, I know that gravity exists but no astronomer or anyone else can tell me what it is.
Believe It or Not, Science Still Can't Explain Gravity

With your "driving curiosity" and intellectual integrity we could just say gravity exists
just because it does (just like the universe, in your view). But the job of science is not
to blandly admit they don't know why things are the way they are.

Brilliant minds like Albert Einstein, Erwin Schrodinger and Michio Kaku all believe that
only God can explain why the universe behaves in the way it does. It seems to have been created by a super intelligence, they feel. What do they know that you don't?

 

[G.T.]

Nothing about the universe existing is evidence for your gods or a to be else's gods. You first need to substantiate your claims to tge gids before you can use them for proofs of any material objects.

Either there is a reason that the universe exists or there isn't and it just exists....just like nothing else at all just exists.
Is that your argument? That the universe itself just happens to be.....just like nothing else at all?

The argument is that we <humanity> doesnt know.

And so those asserting that they do are just faithful, being charitable...deluded in some sense.. loosening the belt of charitability or charlatans/liars, being least respectful.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

On top of that a cyclical universe still needs something to kick it off or create it.

False. A cyclical universe may have always been. So, no.

 

[Ringtone]

Yeah, there's no agreed upon basis in science regarding "pre" big bang...only proposed models.

Misunderstanding set theory...misunderstanding infinity <actual vs. conceptual>, misunderstanding time, misunderstanding prescriptive vs. descriptive


Are all of the reasons that the Philosophers asserting that they have "proof" of a deity have gotten it wrong.

It typically fails as special pleading, or baseless assertion.

You can gish-gallop 700 paragraphs on a messageboard or chat-snipe some kid on youtube who at least has bigger balls than you do in light of him showing up in person to debate these beliefs of his....

But at the end of the day, a deity has not been proven...and whining and screaming that it has on the internet isnt going to change that. Thorough peer review and a nobel prize, perhaps...but not walloftext walloftextwalloftext..

The reason your walls of text arent even worthy of academic rigor is because they're tediously long and with their length comes so many assertions and red herrings to break down that its too much of a fuckin hassle to even deal with. Youd have to be re-taught how to even fucking THINK properly, first...what skepticism actually MEANS, first...how to discipline yourself...first.

Before paragraph ONE of any argument can even be had.

Mindless slogan speak.

Tell us the difference between an actual infinite and a conceptual infinite. Define time. Tells us the difference between prescriptive and descriptive imperatives, and cite my posts with examples of my supposed misunderstandings. Be sure to include actual arguments that explain how and why I'm wrong. Thanks.

 

[G.T.]

Yeah, there's no agreed upon basis in science regarding "pre" big bang...only proposed models.

Misunderstanding set theory...misunderstanding infinity <actual vs. conceptual>, misunderstanding time, misunderstanding prescriptive vs. descriptive


Are all of the reasons that the Philosophers asserting that they have "proof" of a deity have gotten it wrong.

It typically fails as special pleading, or baseless assertion.

You can gish-gallop 700 paragraphs on a messageboard or chat-snipe some kid on youtube who at least has bigger balls than you do in light of him showing up in person to debate these beliefs of his....

But at the end of the day, a deity has not been proven...and whining and screaming that it has on the internet isnt going to change that. Thorough peer review and a nobel prize, perhaps...but not walloftext walloftextwalloftext..

The reason your walls of text arent even worthy of academic rigor is because they're tediously long and with their length comes so many assertions and red herrings to break down that its too much of a fuckin hassle to even deal with. Youd have to be re-taught how to even fucking THINK properly, first...what skepticism actually MEANS, first...how to discipline yourself...first.

Before paragraph ONE of any argument can even be had.

Mindless slogan speak.

Tell us the difference between an actual infinite and a conceptual infinite. Define time. Tells us the difference between prescriptive and descriptive imperatives, and cite my posts with examples of my supposed misunderstandings. Be sure to include actual arguments that explain how and why I'm wrong. Thanks.

I'm not obligated to argue with some overly verbose recluse on the internet who spends his 20s spiddling religious dogma from behind a keyboard as opposed to weird things like...working, or getting laid.

I gave you my analysis of all of you generic presuppers, and you all fail in the same exact ways and youre no different, at all. You havent presented new or novel information, havent collected your nobel prize or sought peer review...youre just a regular guy that thinks that he's socrates and hasnt gotten off the starting line: his keyboard.

 

[Hollie]

Nothing about the universe existing is evidence for your gods or a to be else's gods. You first need to substantiate your claims to tge gids before you can use them for proofs of any material objects.

Either there is a reason that the universe exists or there isn't and it just exists....just like nothing else at all just exists.
Is that your argument? That the universe itself just happens to be.....just like nothing else at all?

Btw, I know that gravity exists but no astronomer or anyone else can tell me what it is.
Believe It or Not, Science Still Can't Explain Gravity

With your "driving curiosity" and intellectual integrity we could just say gravity exists
just because it does (just like the universe, in your view). But the job of science is not
to blandly admit they don't know why things are the way they are.

Brilliant minds like Albert Einstein, Erwin Schrodinger and Michio Kaku all believe that
only God can explain why the universe behaves in the way it does. It seems to have been created by a super intelligence, they feel. What do they know that you don't?

I don't see it in such black and white terms. You don't make a case for why the universe must have a reason for existing.

There is no requirement for the universe to have a "creator" -- that is something you assert with no evidence based upon your belief in a peculiar, sectarian version of god(s). You're certainly entitled to do that, but it is not any kind of an argument. It is purely an assertion and there are equally-"authoritative" assertions by other religious entities that are just as "viable" as yours. The only standard by which we can discern the truth is evidence, so please produce evidence to support A) your assertion and B) your assertion is true but the Hindu one for instance is not.

I must note that humans have begun to explore the universe and are already answering some of the " why" questions without a single assist from any of the gods. I see no reason why mankinds exploration and learning will stop.

I see the christian view of creation as rather hopeless as far as humanity is concerned. There it sits in a couple of chapters in a book we know was written by men. We can never know more about it.

Look at the grandeur of the universe through the Hubble. Watch footage of man first landing on the moon. Watch the images from the Voyagers as they swept past the great gas planets giving us vastly more sight than any so-called revelation from a holy text.

Yes, theists see "god's handiwork" when they look at these things, but the truth is, they would be blind to it if they relied on their gods -- it is technology and reason which brought that majesty to you.

 

[Ringtone]

there is no reason to believe the material worlds appearance was not a cyclical event that has repeated itself indefinitely from a previously untold event accountable for the emergence of both matter and energy that is yet to be discovered. and for the metaphysical forces responsible for all that has evolved.

Please list the variously conceivable cyclic cosmogonies that have been proposed over the years and give a brief summary of the pertinent science regarding their characteristics and viability from the peer-reviewed papers regarding them. Thanks.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

there is no reason to believe the material worlds appearance was not a cyclical event that has repeated itself indefinitely from a previously untold event accountable for the emergence of both matter and energy that is yet to be discovered. and for the metaphysical forces responsible for all that has evolved.

Please list the variously conceivable cyclic cosmogonies that have been proposed over the years and give a brief summary of the pertinent science regarding their characteristics and viability from the peer-reviewed papers regarding them. Thanks.

Why? So you can shit on them and insist upon magic?

 

[Ringtone]

In his newest incarnation of "Ringtone", the boy continues his hair-on-fire, screeching, angry, tirades aimed at those horrible non-believers. Challenges to his specious opinions is the internet version of a misbehaving school child being scolded for bad behavior.

 

[Hollie]

In his newest incarnation of "Ringtone", the boy continues his hair-on-fire, screeching, angry, tirades aimed at those horrible non-believers. Challenges to his specious opinions is the internet version of a misbehaving school child being scolded for bad behavior.

Your most coherent post yet.

 

[Ringtone]

The argument is that we <humanity> doesnt know.

And so those asserting that they do are just faithful, being charitable...deluded in some sense.. loosening the belt of charitability or charlatans/liars, being least respectful.

More new atheist slogan speak.

 

[G.T.]

The argument is that we <humanity> doesnt know.

And so those asserting that they do are just faithful, being charitable...deluded in some sense.. loosening the belt of charitability or charlatans/liars, being least respectful.

More new atheist slogan speak.

Cool story, Craig Cultist. He makes money off you goofs. Good for him, Capitalism IS awesome.

 

[Hollie]

there is no reason to believe the material worlds appearance was not a cyclical event that has repeated itself indefinitely from a previously untold event accountable for the emergence of both matter and energy that is yet to be discovered. and for the metaphysical forces responsible for all that has evolved.

Please list the variously conceivable cyclic cosmogonies that have been proposed over the years and give a brief summary of the pertinent science regarding their characteristics and viability from the peer-reviewed papers regarding them. Thanks.

On the other hand, how about peer reviewed papers on the. ID'iot creationist authored "General Theory of Supernatural Creation".

I checked the journal Nature and found nothing submitted by William Lane Craig, the Henry Morris clones or Haryun Yahya.

 

[Ringtone]

I don't see it in such black and white terms.

Every thought in that closed-minded, intellectually bigoted and unimaginative head of yours is the black-and-white think of new atheist slogan speak,