Debunking another new atheist's baby talk on Youtube

[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?

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.

No need to wait. The gods came out of nothing, by magical means, because supernaturalism relieves the theist of any burden of proof. How cool is that?

I just see no reason to accept that particular exception. So where did your gods come from? I have no reason to accept that your gods get a pass from the very standard you insist must be applied to the material world. Aside from the insistence that supernaturalism and magic get a pass from any verifiable standard, I don’t believe in supernaturalism and magic.

As far as science can define, the universe as we know it did not come out of nothing, it started as a singularity. Therefore, the “started from nothing” claim regarding the universe doesn’t make sense.

 

[diver52]

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.

Then it isn't an axiomatic truth.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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.

Then it isn't an axiomatic truth.

I get so tired of these frauds misrepresenting Einstein...

 

[Ringtone]

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.

Like I said, it's the stuff of ignorantia affectata.

 

[Hollie]

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.

Like I said, it's the stuff of ignorantia affectata.

You’re now on the third cut and paste of the above spam. Your stuttering and mumbling is becoming quite a pathology.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You’re now on the third cut and paste of the above spam.

...which is grifted right from Aquinas, just as all of his arguments are. He would get an 'F' in philosophy class for plagiarism.

 

[Ringtone]

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.

Then it isn't an axiomatic truth.

Ignorantia affectata.

Something does exist rather than nothing (axiom).
Existence from nonexistence is an absurdity (axiom).
An infinite regress of causality is an absurdity (axiom).
Hence, something has always existed (axiom).
Hence, not all things began to exist (axiom).
Hence, not all things that exist were created (axiom).
By definition God is not a creature, but the wholly transcendent and eternally self-subsistent Creator of unparallelled greatness who exists outside of space and time, and created everything else that exists (axiom).
You are an obtuse and mindless (fact).

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Existence from nonexistence is an absurdity (axiom).

This is not an axiom. This has been pointed out to you repeatedly, you stupid shit.

 

[G.T.]

Existence from nonexistence is an absurdity (axiom).

This is not an axiom. This has been pointed out to you repeatedly, you stupid shit.

& that wasnt even the worst one

 

[BreezeWood]

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.

.

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.

the cyclical boomerang theory - the finite angle trajectory of all expelled matter from the point of singularity will return the matter in unison as a mirror image to its origin causing recompaction into pure energy that will cyclically expelled as matter as the moment of the next singularity. it's not my job to do the math for you, the theory is sound till found otherwise which has yet to be done.

- from a previously untold event accountable for the emergence of both matter and energy that is yet to be discovered.

pre cyclical singularity, as its cause.

 

[Ringtone]

boomerang theory - the finite angle trajectory of all expelled matter from the point of singularity will return the matter in unison as a mirror image to its origin causing recompaction into pure energy that will cyclically expelled as matter as the moment of the next singularity. it's not my job to do the math for you, the theory is sound till found otherwise which has yet to be done.

Please provide a link for the peer-reviewed paper on the "boomerang theory."

 

[ding]

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.

The only solution to the first cause conundrum is something which is eternal and unchanging.

This we know to be God.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

No need to wait. The gods came out of nothing, by magical means, because supernaturalism relieves the theist of any burden of proof. How cool is that?

Not that cool since proof
of God is always provided. I have myself provided a logical and sensible rationale for God many times.
Maybe you should try reading what is provided, though you may have problems understanding something that you
really don't want to know to begin with.

I just see no reason to accept that particular exception. So where did your gods come from? I have no reason to accept that your gods get a pass from the very standard you insist must be applied to the material world. Aside from the insistence that supernaturalism and magic get a pass from any verifiable standard, I don’t believe in supernaturalism and magic.

Really? Then how do explain your insistence that the entire universe was uncreated and just happens to be? Still waiting for you to show me something, anything, that is unsourced.

As far as science can define, the universe as we know it did not come out of nothing, it started as a singularity. Therefore, the “started from nothing” claim regarding the universe doesn’t make sense.

There Was No Big Bang Singularity
Science has yet to clarify what happened 13.7 billion years ago when, apparently, the entire universe burst forth and is still expanding to this day. Whatever the final consensus is (if there is one) it's certain the universe did not pop out of a box
of Cracker Jacks. Something triggered the "birth" of the universe.
No matter how you look at it something caused that amazing act. https://www.letu.edu/academics/arts-and-sciences/files/big-bang.pdf
From a scientist, astronaut and Christian.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Something triggered the "birth" of the universe.
No matter how you look at it something caused that amazing act.

God of the gaps. Same shit, different millennium.

 

[Ringtone]

There Was No Big Bang Singularity
Science has yet to clarify what happened 13.7 billion years ago when, apparently, the entire universe burst forth and is still expanding to this day. Whatever the final consensus is (if there is one) it's certain the universe did not pop out of a box
of Cracker Jacks. Something triggered the "birth" of the universe.
No matter how you look at it something caused that amazing act. https://www.letu.edu/academics/arts-and-sciences/files/big-bang.pdf
From a scientist, astronaut and Christian.

Precisely! The only sense in which we still speak of a Big Bang singularity, really, is in terms of an extremity per the calculi of general relativity as extrapolated backwards. No one really believes that there ever was an initial, cosmological singularity as such, and the prevailing evidence tells us that cosmic inflation put the bang in the Big Bang. Singularities would arise, however, in the contraction phases of cyclic cosmogonies.

 

[Hollie]

No need to wait. The gods came out of nothing, by magical means, because supernaturalism relieves the theist of any burden of proof. How cool is that?

Not that cool since proof
of God is always provided. I have myself provided a logical and sensible rationale for God many times.
Maybe you should try reading what is provided, though you may have problems understanding something that you
really don't want to know to begin with.

I just see no reason to accept that particular exception. So where did your gods come from? I have no reason to accept that your gods get a pass from the very standard you insist must be applied to the material world. Aside from the insistence that supernaturalism and magic get a pass from any verifiable standard, I don’t believe in supernaturalism and magic.

Really? Then how do explain your insistence that the entire universe was uncreated and just happens to be? Still waiting for you to show me something, anything, that is unsourced.

As far as science can define, the universe as we know it did not come out of nothing, it started as a singularity. Therefore, the “started from nothing” claim regarding the universe doesn’t make sense.

There Was No Big Bang Singularity
Science has yet to clarify what happened 13.7 billion years ago when, apparently, the entire universe burst forth and is still expanding to this day. Whatever the final consensus is (if there is one) it's certain the universe did not pop out of a box
of Cracker Jacks. Something triggered the "birth" of the universe.
No matter how you look at it something caused that amazing act. https://www.letu.edu/academics/arts-and-sciences/files/big-bang.pdf
From a scientist, astronaut and Christian.

I couldn’t find any of your claimed proofs of the gods. I must have missed it so please provide the exact citation. It’s odd because I would have thought such proofs would have come with something more than “... because I say so”. I also couldn’t find a logical or sensible rationale for supernaturalism as an answer to anything.Until theology or creation science can come up with a plausible means to investigate the method of supernatural creation, some tentative hypothesis, a beginnings of a framework, then what useful role can they have in advancement of knowledge?


I never insisted that the universe was “uncreated”. I wrote specifically that science has identified the beginning of the universe, as we understand it, began from a singularity. Once again, began from a singularity. Nothing about creation.

As to the links you supplied, that’s fine. Across the Internet, you can find whatever opinion you are hoping to find. A Christian blogger is going to find “proof” of the Christian gods. Is anyone surprised at that? I don’t necessarily use Forbes magazines or people’s blogs for my science knowledge and I will make the point that nothing in the links brings us any closer to suggesting that your version of supernatural gods had any magical hand in the beginning of the universe.

On the other hand, here’s a countering opinion, one that places no requirement for magic and supernaturalism. Existence is natural, patterns form out of the exchange of energy, life evolved in some places, competition for that life implemented social structures, sentience ignited that social structure to a more and more complicated degree... and allowed for technology to extend the perceptions of humans to further and further reaches, chipping away at old, perhaps poetic but nonetheless outdated beliefs created by a ruling class that knew the power of ignorance and fear in people made them vastly more controllable?

Just a side note - we see stars forming today by the way, in the Pleiades-- various stages of stars being formed are quite visible. Knowing the speed of light one can measure distances, showing billions of years is required to establish the size and distances we see.

 

[Hollie]

There Was No Big Bang Singularity
Science has yet to clarify what happened 13.7 billion years ago when, apparently, the entire universe burst forth and is still expanding to this day. Whatever the final consensus is (if there is one) it's certain the universe did not pop out of a box
of Cracker Jacks. Something triggered the "birth" of the universe.
No matter how you look at it something caused that amazing act. https://www.letu.edu/academics/arts-and-sciences/files/big-bang.pdf
From a scientist, astronaut and Christian.

Precisely! The only sense in which we still speak of a Big Bang singularity, really, is in terms of an extremity per the calculi of general relativity as extrapolated backwards. No one really believes that there ever was an initial, cosmological singularity as such, and the prevailing evidence tells us that cosmic inflation put the bang in the Big Bang. Singularities would arise, however, in the contraction phases of cyclic cosmogonies.

More of your stuttering and mumbling.

 

[Hollie]

boomerang theory - the finite angle trajectory of all expelled matter from the point of singularity will return the matter in unison as a mirror image to its origin causing recompaction into pure energy that will cyclically expelled as matter as the moment of the next singularity. it's not my job to do the math for you, the theory is sound till found otherwise which has yet to be done.

Please provide a link for the peer-reviewed paper on the "boomerang theory."

Please provide a link for the peer-reviewed paper on “talking snakes”.

 

[ding]

Something triggered the "birth" of the universe.
No matter how you look at it something caused that amazing act.

God of the gaps. Same shit, different millennium.

Not exactly.

The universe literally popped into existence from nothing.

No gap there. No thing created the universe. God is no thing. Science it literally telling you that no thing created the universe.

No gap.

 

[BreezeWood]

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.

The only solution to the first cause conundrum is something which is eternal and unchanging.

This we know to be God.

.

The only solution to the first cause conundrum is something which is eternal and unchanging.

This we know to be God.

there is no first cause as there is no first, the Everlasting will never be unchanging. what is debatable is the direction of the change and the metaphysical forces responsible in its guidance.