Debunking another new atheist's baby talk on Youtube

[Hollie]

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,

So....you're befuddled, angry and emotive which causes you to lash out like a petulant child.

 

[Ringtone]

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

Sadly, ding and I have covered this very same ground with Hollie and G.T. to no avail. They don't know the science. They don't care about the science. They don't care about reason.

They are cultists, mindless slogan spouters.

 

[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

Sadly, ding and I have covered this very same ground with Hollie and G.T. to no avail. They don't know the science. They don't care about the science. They don't care about reason.

They are cultists, mindless slogan spouters.

Sadly, you have addressd nothing and your posting history is evidence of that.

 

[Ringtone]

Sadly, you have addressd nothing and your posting history is evidence of that.

Ignorantia affectata.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

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.

Because everything has such a reason for being or a source. I'm stunned you would thing the universe itself would be the exception. I guess when one has an ideology that's based
on denial and and a belief in nothing it might seem quite natural to assert the universe has no need for any act of creation.
Such an opinion flies in the face of reality. Nothing exists for nothing at all.

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.

Religions are cultural manifestations and way of explaining the world. And as such they are fallible just as the people that made them are. Religion is man's doings. The universe and laws that govern the natural world are God's.
But just like a bicycle needs a bicycle maker so the universe needs a maker as well. Everything needs a maker.

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.

Science is great at answering the how questions. Not so great explaining the why.

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.

I consider myself a Christian only in a cultural and ethical sense and put no stock in the stories I was told in Sunday School.

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.

Once again your pitch for science is nice but pointless. Religion could no more show us pictures of the far flung universe and analyze planets than science could hope to address the reasons for their being.
Hopefully you will stop giving sermons about all the things science can do that religion cannot. Because the obverse is just as true.

 

[Hollie]

Sadly, you have addressd nothing and your posting history is evidence of that.

Ignorantia affectata.

Ah, a name caller. That adds credibility to your comments.

Because you can't respond with a rational argument, your only option is to retreat to your usual pattern of lashing out like a petulant child.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Sadly, ding and I have covered this very same ground with Hollie and G.T. to no avail. They don't know the science. They don't care about the science. They don't care about reason.

They are cultists, mindless slogan spouters.

I generally don't hang out much in the religion section here for just this very reason.
It doesn't take long to figure out a solid wall of denial and psychologically formed belief in nothing just isn't going to give way to reason. Atheists bristle when they are accused of a belief in nothing but really it all comes down to that.

They cannot account for all of creation and don't really try to. As I keep saying a belief in God is absurd until you consider the alternative, which is easily much much more absurd.

Something created the universe and laws it conforms to. If it isn't God I don't know what it could be and will keep referring to God until someone comes up with a more likely explanation (which will never happen).

 

[Hollie]

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.

Because everything has such a reason for being or a source. I'm stunned you would thing the universe itself would be the exception. I guess when one has an ideology that's based
on denial and and a belief in nothing it might seem quite natural to assert the universe has no need for any act of creation.
Such an opinion flies in the face of reality. Nothing exists for nothing at all.

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.

Religions are cultural manifestations and way of explaining the world. And as such they are fallible just as the people that made them are. Religion is man's doings. The universe and laws that govern the natural world are God's.
But just like a bicycle needs a bicycle maker so the universe needs a maker as well. Everything needs a maker.

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.

Science is great at answering the how questions. Not so great explaining the why.

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.

I consider myself a Christian only in a cultural and ethical sense and put no stock in the stories I was told in Sunday School.

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.

Once again your pitch for science is nice but pointless. Religion could no more show us pictures of the far flung universe and analyze planets than science could hope to address the reasons for their being.
Hopefully you will stop giving sermons about all the things science can do that religion cannot. Because the obverse is just as true.

"Everythng has a reason for being"? I see nothing to support that claim. Please define the "reason for being" that applies to the universe.

You claim the "universe and laws that govern the natural world are God's." I'm not convinced. Please make a defendable case for one or more gods and then we can examine how those gods made the universe and natural laws.

Why would supernatural gods make "natural" laws?

Science answers "why" questions all the time. We know why tornados (twisters) rotate in the fashion they do because of science. Do the bibles tell us why?

Science tells us why the planets orbit the sun in the ellipses we can predict. What does the bible tell us?

I'm not pitching science, I'm explaining that the notion science and reason are subordinate to various and competing versions of supernaturalism is not the case. The problem is not science and technology which is actually sweepingly majestic, but in the perception of people being trained to think belief in magic and supernaturalism are more reliable than reason.

 

[Hollie]

Sadly, ding and I have covered this very same ground with Hollie and G.T. to no avail. They don't know the science. They don't care about the science. They don't care about reason.

They are cultists, mindless slogan spouters.

I generally don't hang out much in the religion section here for just this very reason.
It doesn't take long to figure out a solid wall of denial and psychologically formed belief in nothing just isn't going to give way to reason. Atheists bristle when they are accused of a belief in nothing but really it all comes down to that.

They cannot account for all of creation and don't really try to. As I keep saying a belief in God is absurd until you consider the alternative, which is easily much much more absurd.

Something created the universe and laws it conforms to. If it isn't God I don't know what it could be and will keep referring to God until someone comes up with a more likely explanation (which will never happen).

Is it really "cultist" to expect you to support your argument?

Support your claims to one or more gods "creating" the universe.

 

[Ringtone]

Is it really "cultist" to expect you to support your argument?

Support your claims to one or more gods "creating" the universe.

Ignorantia affectata.

 

[Hollie]

Is it really "cultist" to expect you to support your argument?

Support your claims to one or more gods "creating" the universe.

Ignorantia affectata.

You're stuttering and mumbling again.

 

[Hollie]

Sadly, ding and I have covered this very same ground with Hollie and G.T. to no avail. They don't know the science. They don't care about the science. They don't care about reason.

They are cultists, mindless slogan spouters.

I generally don't hang out much in the religion section here for just this very reason.
It doesn't take long to figure out a solid wall of denial and psychologically formed belief in nothing just isn't going to give way to reason. Atheists bristle when they are accused of a belief in nothing but really it all comes down to that.

They cannot account for all of creation and don't really try to. As I keep saying a belief in God is absurd until you consider the alternative, which is easily much much more absurd.

Something created the universe and laws it conforms to. If it isn't God I don't know what it could be and will keep referring to God until someone comes up with a more likely explanation (which will never happen).

"Something created the universe and laws it conforms to. If it isn't God I don't know what it could be and will keep referring to God until someone comes up with a more likely explanation (which will never happen)"


Oh. Well, if you say so.

 

[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.

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

But, of course, I never responded in any such tone in the first place. LOL! I've dispassionately satirized them, but nothing more.

 

[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.

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

But, of course, I never responded in any such tone in the first place. LOL! I've dispassionately satirized them, but nothing more.

You were so flustered you were reduced to name-calling along with your usual stuttering and mumbling.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

"Something created the universe and laws it conforms to. If it isn't God I don't know what it could be and will keep referring to God until someone comes up with a more likely explanation (which will never happen)"


Oh. Well, if you say so.

Yes. I do! Why wouldn't anyone think the universe needed to be created with all the many laws and principles that govern it?
Even if someone believed in something as speculative and theoretical as a cyclical universe there still is a need for a starting point somewhere and a creator.

I am incredulous at your powers of stubborn denial.

 

[Hollie]

"Something created the universe and laws it conforms to. If it isn't God I don't know what it could be and will keep referring to God until someone comes up with a more likely explanation (which will never happen)"


Oh. Well, if you say so.

Yes. I do! Why wouldn't anyone think the universe needed to be created with all the many laws and principles that govern it?
Even if someone believed in something as speculative and theoretical as a cyclical universe there still is a need for a starting point somewhere and a creator.

I am incredulous at your powers of stubborn denial.

It's interesting that you accuse me of stubborn denial when you write "... until someone comes up with a more likely explanation (which will never happen)"

Tell me again who is in stubborn denial.

You still have not made a case for your creator gods so why is anyone else under an obligation to believe your creator gods created anything?

Let's try this. I know with certainty that the formidible Unionized collection of Hindu gods created the universe. You must believe that because....well, I just told you.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

It's interesting that you accuse me of stubborn denial when you write "... until someone comes up with a more likely explanation (which will never happen)"

Tell me again who is in stubborn denial.

You still have not made a case for your creator gods so why is anyone else under an obligation to believe your creator gods created anything?

Let's try this. I know with certainty that the formidible Unionized collection of Hindu gods created the universe. You must believe that because....well, I just told you.

How many times should I repeat the axiomatic truth that nothing comes out of nothing? I know there is a God because of reason, logic, science and a life of empirical evidence.
Nothing else accounts for all of "creation".

But maybe you know of something that just appears one day without a source, cause, action, maker, precedent or anything else. So I'll give you the chance here to name that thing.

Go ahead. Name it. I'm waiting.

 

[diver52]

It's interesting that you accuse me of stubborn denial when you write "... until someone comes up with a more likely explanation (which will never happen)"

Tell me again who is in stubborn denial.

You still have not made a case for your creator gods so why is anyone else under an obligation to believe your creator gods created anything?

Let's try this. I know with certainty that the formidible Unionized collection of Hindu gods created the universe. You must believe that because....well, I just told you.

How many times should I repeat the axiomatic truth that nothing comes out of nothing? I know there is a God because of reason, logic, science and a life of empirical evidence.
Nothing else accounts for all of "creation".

But maybe you know of something that just appears one day without a source, cause, action, maker, precedent or anything else. So I'll give you the chance here to name that thing.

Go ahead. Name it. I'm waiting.

This is not an axiomatic truth, it is just an assumption. And it always breaks down. What created God? What created what created God? What created what created what created God? It is an infinite loop that is typically resolved with "the uncaused cause" and that is a direct contradiction to the axiomatic truth.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

This is not an axiomatic truth, it is just an assumption. And it always breaks down. What created God? What created what created God? What created what created what created God? It is an infinite loop that is typically resolved with "the uncaused cause" and that is a direct contradiction to the axiomatic truth.

This assumes God is subject to all the rules and laws as any other being or thing in the universe. The axiomatic truth is not applicable to God. That's why he is God and he exists outside our physical realm and dimension.

If you accept God created the universe, and nothing else explains it's existence, as Einstein said, why would you think such a being would be constrained by his own creation? It's absurd.

 

[ding]

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.

Thank you for proving my point.

Actually, it’s impossible.