VIDEO: Atheists Confounded as MIT Scientist Offers Proof that God Exists!

[occupied]

Second even if we assume that such is true, that the universe has a beginning does not have any bearing on whether that beginning has a cause.

A beginning, actually does, in fact, require causation.

Nothing, in fact, suggests your gawds of anyone else's gawds were a causation for anything.

Nothing, IN FACT, suggests that your recognition or rejection of God, is in any way relevant to even this very discussion, let alone God's existence.

Oh well, if you reject my rebuttal out-of-hand instead of sticking to logical debate then I guess we are done here, enjoy your thread.

Your rebuttal amounts, in effect, to: "Nuh Huh". It's logically invalid and intellectually unsound.

Look here doofus, I am not going to argue this topic with someone who cannot argue their side without preaching and seeing my arguments as an attack on their faith, you started out OK but then went off the rails about the time you realized that hard logic does not support your position. I've already said that I do not attack a person's personal faith but I will jump all over faith masquerading as logic. You have faith that there is a god, that's wonderful, why do you need scientific proof? I have a pretty high bar for proof of God's existence and this trash you have presented does not meet the standard of scientific proof. Be happy in your faith and accept that you are not going win any converts with this.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

A beginning, actually does, in fact, require causation.

Nothing, in fact, suggests your gawds of anyone else's gawds were a causation for anything.

Nothing, IN FACT, suggests that your recognition or rejection of God, is in any way relevant to even this very discussion, let alone God's existence.

Oh well, if you reject my rebuttal out-of-hand instead of sticking to logical debate then I guess we are done here, enjoy your thread.

Your rebuttal amounts, in effect, to: "Nuh Huh". It's logically invalid and intellectually unsound.

Look here doofus, I am not going to argue this topic with someone who cannot argue their side without preaching and seeing my arguments as an attack on their faith...

Good. But hey, it's not like ya had a chance, now is it? After all, you're argument is that nature doesn't exist and your very presence is literally evidence that it does.

 

[occupied]

Nothing, in fact, suggests your gawds of anyone else's gawds were a causation for anything.

Nothing, IN FACT, suggests that your recognition or rejection of God, is in any way relevant to even this very discussion, let alone God's existence.

Oh well, if you reject my rebuttal out-of-hand instead of sticking to logical debate then I guess we are done here, enjoy your thread.

Your rebuttal amounts, in effect, to: "Nuh Huh". It's logically invalid and intellectually unsound.

Look here doofus, I am not going to argue this topic with someone who cannot argue their side without preaching and seeing my arguments as an attack on their faith...

Good. But hey, it's not like ya had a chance, now is it? After all, you're argument is that nature doesn't exist and your very presence is literally evidence that it does.

There is ample proof nature exists, none that God exists or ever did.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Nothing, IN FACT, suggests that your recognition or rejection of God, is in any way relevant to even this very discussion, let alone God's existence.

Oh well, if you reject my rebuttal out-of-hand instead of sticking to logical debate then I guess we are done here, enjoy your thread.

Your rebuttal amounts, in effect, to: "Nuh Huh". It's logically invalid and intellectually unsound.

Look here doofus, I am not going to argue this topic with someone who cannot argue their side without preaching and seeing my arguments as an attack on their faith...

Good. But hey, it's not like ya had a chance, now is it? After all, you're argument is that nature doesn't exist and your very presence is literally evidence that it does.

There is ample proof nature exists, none that God exists or ever did.

God IS Nature. That you feel otherwise is, again... irrelevant.

 

[occupied]

Oh well, if you reject my rebuttal out-of-hand instead of sticking to logical debate then I guess we are done here, enjoy your thread.

Your rebuttal amounts, in effect, to: "Nuh Huh". It's logically invalid and intellectually unsound.

Look here doofus, I am not going to argue this topic with someone who cannot argue their side without preaching and seeing my arguments as an attack on their faith...

Good. But hey, it's not like ya had a chance, now is it? After all, you're argument is that nature doesn't exist and your very presence is literally evidence that it does.

There is ample proof nature exists, none that God exists or ever did.

God IS Nature. That you feel otherwise is, again... irrelevant.

You are talking theological philosophy while I talk hard science. If you want to have a philosophical discussion on this then maybe I will be back later, but abandon the idea that hard scientific proof of god has been found, he is still hiding from our best efforts to find him.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Your rebuttal amounts, in effect, to: "Nuh Huh". It's logically invalid and intellectually unsound.

Look here doofus, I am not going to argue this topic with someone who cannot argue their side without preaching and seeing my arguments as an attack on their faith...

Good. But hey, it's not like ya had a chance, now is it? After all, you're argument is that nature doesn't exist and your very presence is literally evidence that it does.

There is ample proof nature exists, none that God exists or ever did.

God IS Nature. That you feel otherwise is, again... irrelevant.

You are talking theological philosophy while I talk hard science. If you want to have a philosophical discussion on this then maybe I will be back later, but abandon the idea that hard scientific proof of god has been found, he is still hiding from our best efforts to find him.

God is nature... that is obvious unto itself. For goodness sake, the ancient authors of Genesis explained the origins of the universe thousands of years before Science existed.

 

[SwimExpert]

Second even if we assume that such is true, that the universe has a beginning does not have any bearing on whether that beginning has a cause.

A beginning, actually does, in fact, require causation.

If your premise is true, then God requires causation. So what caused God?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Second even if we assume that such is true, that the universe has a beginning does not have any bearing on whether that beginning has a cause.

A beginning, actually does, in fact, require causation.

If your premise is true, then God requires causation. So what caused God?

Beats me... Does it matter?

If so, why?

If not, why not?

 

[SwimExpert]

And given that there is nothing circular in my position; you've certainly not shown such to be the case.

*shakes head*

The sad thing is, I'm pretty sure you actually believe what you just said here. You really believe that "God is the creator of the universe, the universe exists, therefore God exists" is not circular reasoning. Whether it's due to lack of education in the field of logic, extreme stuborness, or delusion masquerading as "religious faith" I can't be positive. But I suspect it's a combination of all three.

It's absolutely impossible for any wisdom or truth to penetrate your poisoned mind. You've hidden your dogmas inside of bigger dogmas. Eh, what the hell? If you can't beat 'em, join 'em!

Alright, I'm ready to accept your reasoning. Zeus is the creator of the universe. The universe exists. Therefore Zeus exists! Hurry everyone, let's all convert to Greek Paganism.

 

[SwimExpert]

We know, to an absolute certainty that such is not the case, that the universe DID begin at a single moment in space/time.

First of all, we don't know "with certainty" that the universe began at a moment in time.

Yes, we actually do... .

No, we don't. And the problem really highlights both your lack of understanding of science, but also some of the finer problematic issues in your entire position. To illustrate, let me ask you a few questions....

1) You say that we know the universe began at a moment in time. What time what is? What was the date? How would you identify that moment in time?

2) What came first, the chicken of the egg? More precisely to this discussion, did time begin before the universe, or did the universe begin before time?

3) What was there before the universe? And while we're on the subject, what is there outside of the universe? What time is it one meter beyond the edge of the universe?


Time is perhaps the most bizarre oddity there is. We know very little about it, and what we do know is in many ways being shot to shit because the more we learn, the more we discover that many of our base assumptions about the nature of the universe may be flawed.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

And given that there is nothing circular in my position; you've certainly not shown such to be the case.

*shakes head*

The sad thing is, I'm pretty sure you actually believe what you just said here. You really believe that "God is the creator of the universe, the universe exists, therefore God exists" is not circular reasoning.

Wow... I take it in the next three paragraphs, you're going to demonstrate the circular construct.

Let's take 'em one at a time, shall we?

Whether it's due to lack of education in the field of logic, extreme stuborness, or delusion masquerading as "religious faith" I can't be positive. But I suspect it's a combination of all three.

Hmm... Nothing there. Must be in the next one...

It's absolutely impossible for any wisdom or truth to penetrate your poisoned mind. You've hidden your dogmas inside of bigger dogmas. Eh, what the hell? If you can't beat 'em, join 'em!

Nope... just the usual feckless ad hom nonsense. Looks like we're down to the last one, so the sustainign element of this farce, must surely be there.

Alright, I'm ready to accept your reasoning. Zeus is the creator of the universe. The universe exists. Therefore Zeus exists! Hurry everyone, let's all convert to Greek Paganism.

NOPE... GO Figure, right?

If you need to call the Creator of the Universe Zeus, that's fine with me... . It's your eternity, I say you should spend it however ya feel ya need to.

(In well over 20 years of debating on the web, I've never once met a Leftist that had the slightest understanding of logic. Made only more hysterical by their chronic fallacious appeal to such. You absolutely cannot make this crap up!

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

We know, to an absolute certainty that such is not the case, that the universe DID begin at a single moment in space/time.

First of all, we don't know "with certainty" that the universe began at a moment in time.

Yes, we actually do... .

No, we don't.

We absolutely do. It's not even a debatable point.

 

[SwimExpert]

Second even if we assume that such is true, that the universe has a beginning does not have any bearing on whether that beginning has a cause.

A beginning, actually does, in fact, require causation.

If your premise is true, then God requires causation. So what caused God?

Beats me... Does it matter?

If so, why?

If not, why not?

Yes, it matters. It matters because your entire rationale is built upon the premise of mandatory causation. If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If you are not willing to require causation for God, then your claim that everything must have a cause is defeated by your own hand. If you are not willing to apply your own claim of mandatory causation for all things, then the remaining exploration of this subject moves into an entirely new arena.

So what is it? Is causation mandatory for all things? Or is causation only mandatory for some things?

 

[SwimExpert]

We absolutely do. It's not even a debatable point.

Which is why scientists debate it to this day. And why you didn't even bother to attempt the questions I posed to you.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Second even if we assume that such is true, that the universe has a beginning does not have any bearing on whether that beginning has a cause.

A beginning, actually does, in fact, require causation.

If your premise is true, then God requires causation. So what caused God?

Beats me... Does it matter?

If so, why?

If not, why not?

Yes, it matters. It matters because your entire rationale is built upon the premise of mandatory causation. If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If you are not willing to require causation for God, then your claim that everything must have a cause is defeated by your own hand. If you are not willing to apply your own claim of mandatory causation for all things, then the remaining exploration of this subject moves into an entirely new arena.

So what is it? Is causation mandatory for all things? Or is causation only mandatory for some things?

ROFLMNAO!


How does it matter? And BE SPECIFIC.

You're implying that because we cannot know what causes God that there must be no cause of God. Which for those keeping score: Such is the epitome of CIRCULAR REASONING.

Proving ONCE AGAIN, that where you find a Leftist advancing a claim against their opposition, that their argument is circular, that you're only MOMENTS away from being treated to a first class example of just THAT!

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

We absolutely do. It's not even a debatable point.

Which is why scientists debate it to this day. And why you didn't even bother to attempt the questions I posed to you.

That someone is compelled to debate something, does not a debatable point make. I refer you to AGW... an absolute FARCE. Yet you idiots demand to debate it, millions of times a day, EVERY SINGLE DAY! And this without a scintilla of evidence that such exists.

 

[SwimExpert]

Second even if we assume that such is true, that the universe has a beginning does not have any bearing on whether that beginning has a cause.

A beginning, actually does, in fact, require causation.

If your premise is true, then God requires causation. So what caused God?

Beats me... Does it matter?

If so, why?

If not, why not?

Yes, it matters. It matters because your entire rationale is built upon the premise of mandatory causation. If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If you are not willing to require causation for God, then your claim that everything must have a cause is defeated by your own hand. If you are not willing to apply your own claim of mandatory causation for all things, then the remaining exploration of this subject moves into an entirely new arena.

So what is it? Is causation mandatory for all things? Or is causation only mandatory for some things?

ROFLMNAO!


How does it matter? And BE SPECIFIC.

You're implying that because we cannot know what causes God that there must be no cause of God. Which for those keeping score: Such is the epitome of CIRCULAR REASONING.

Proving ONCE AGAIN, that where you find a Leftist advancing a claim against their opposition, that their argument is circular, that you're only MOMENTS away from being treated to a first class example of just THAT!

You really are a moron. First of all, I'm not a leftist. Your blather about global warming should take you back to the Environment section where I known for a fact you've seen me time and again blast the bullshit theory known and man-made global warming. I know you've seen me do it because time and time again you have rated my posts on the subject with "agree" and "thank you."

I just told you how it matters. Either you didn't even read the very post you responded to, or you just don't want to actually put forth the effort to think. Everything must have a cause. It's your premise, not mine. And you're not even willing to say now whether you're willing to stick to that premise or not. Which, I suppose goes to show the complete lack of veracity for everything you've argued here.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

A beginning, actually does, in fact, require causation.

If your premise is true, then God requires causation. So what caused God?

Beats me... Does it matter?

If so, why?

If not, why not?

Yes, it matters. It matters because your entire rationale is built upon the premise of mandatory causation. If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If you are not willing to require causation for God, then your claim that everything must have a cause is defeated by your own hand. If you are not willing to apply your own claim of mandatory causation for all things, then the remaining exploration of this subject moves into an entirely new arena.

So what is it? Is causation mandatory for all things? Or is causation only mandatory for some things?

ROFLMNAO!


How does it matter? And BE SPECIFIC.

You're implying that because we cannot know what causes God that there must be no cause of God. Which for those keeping score: Such is the epitome of CIRCULAR REASONING.

Proving ONCE AGAIN, that where you find a Leftist advancing a claim against their opposition, that their argument is circular, that you're only MOMENTS away from being treated to a first class example of just THAT!

... Everything must have a cause. It's your premise. ...

False. '

Every effect, must have a cause'.

Is there a topic in which you can engage without the chronic use of straw reasoning?

 

[SwimExpert]

If your premise is true, then God requires causation. So what caused God?

Beats me... Does it matter?

If so, why?

If not, why not?

Yes, it matters. It matters because your entire rationale is built upon the premise of mandatory causation. If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If you are not willing to require causation for God, then your claim that everything must have a cause is defeated by your own hand. If you are not willing to apply your own claim of mandatory causation for all things, then the remaining exploration of this subject moves into an entirely new arena.

So what is it? Is causation mandatory for all things? Or is causation only mandatory for some things?

ROFLMNAO!


How does it matter? And BE SPECIFIC.

You're implying that because we cannot know what causes God that there must be no cause of God. Which for those keeping score: Such is the epitome of CIRCULAR REASONING.

Proving ONCE AGAIN, that where you find a Leftist advancing a claim against their opposition, that their argument is circular, that you're only MOMENTS away from being treated to a first class example of just THAT!

... Everything must have a cause. It's your premise. ...

False. '

Every effect, must have a cause'.

Is there a topic in which you can engage without the chronic use of straw reasoning?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Beats me... Does it matter?

If so, why?

If not, why not?

Yes, it matters. It matters because your entire rationale is built upon the premise of mandatory causation. If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If you are not willing to require causation for God, then your claim that everything must have a cause is defeated by your own hand. If you are not willing to apply your own claim of mandatory causation for all things, then the remaining exploration of this subject moves into an entirely new arena.

So what is it? Is causation mandatory for all things? Or is causation only mandatory for some things?

ROFLMNAO!


How does it matter? And BE SPECIFIC.

You're implying that because we cannot know what causes God that there must be no cause of God. Which for those keeping score: Such is the epitome of CIRCULAR REASONING.

Proving ONCE AGAIN, that where you find a Leftist advancing a claim against their opposition, that their argument is circular, that you're only MOMENTS away from being treated to a first class example of just THAT!

... Everything must have a cause. It's your premise. ...

False. '

Every effect, must have a cause'.

Is there a topic in which you can engage without the chronic use of straw reasoning?

LOL!

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.