Debunking another new atheist's baby talk on Youtube

[BreezeWood]

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 the "boomerang theory."

if you can not understand the Boomerang Theory there is a simple question to resolve the issue - when you fire a rife in outerspace vacuum where eventually will the bullet travel and be stopped ... the finite angle trajectory will return the bullet to the breech of the rifle it was fired from - without ever changing its direction.

the same as matter expelled from the point after the moment of singularity.

newtons cannon without gravity ... replaced by the (finite) angle of trajectory.

* someone from the military, ordinance could verify the theory for the skeptics ... ringtone.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

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?

God does not exist because I say so and it's very disingenuous and dishonest of you to say so.
By your standard, your claims that God is nonexistent are also false because you have absolutely no way to disprove God and the claim rests entirely on your own biases and claims.

On the other had we can infer God through the existence of the universe and all of creation because nothing can account for everything (including time and space itself) except for a creator of some sort.

When I see a magnificent skyscraper I don't have to have personally seen it being built to know it was constructed by architects, engineers and construction workers.

I can logically and sensibly infer the building was built by workers even though I didn't see it happen because nothing else could account for a skyscraper. In the same way we can say the same of the universe itself.
It didn't make itself. Someone, or thing, had to do it. Even a child knows intuitively things don't just appear out of thin air.
Something or someone must account for them.

Why is it you aren't as smart and sensible as a mere child?

 

[G.T.]

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?

God does not exist because I say so and it's very disingenuous and dishonest of you to say so.
By your standard, your claims that God is nonexistent are also false because you have absolutely no way to disprove God and the claim rests entirely on your own biases and claims.

On the other had we can infer God through the existence of the universe and all of creation because nothing can account for everything (including time and space itself) except for a creator of some sort.

When I see a magnificent skyscraper I don't have to have personally seen it being built to know it was constructed by architects, engineers and construction workers.

I can logically and sensibly infer the building was built by workers even though I didn't see it happen because nothing else could account for a skyscraper. In the same way we can say the same of the universe itself.
It didn't make itself. Someone, or thing, had to do it. Even a child knows intuitively things don't just appear out of thin air.
Something or someone must account for them.

Why is it you aren't as smart and sensible as a mere child?

I think the shoe is on the other foot, no offense.

The arguments from design do not work as proof for anything, and you can find this articulated in multiple literature sources (Recommend Stanford University), Multiple video documentaries, multiple youtube Vlogs, Multiple youtube debates...multiple collegiate-level moderated debates, philosophy forums...charity debate events...

And here you sit asserting that it's some sort of bullet-proof...proof, of a deity...lest one have the cognition of a "mere child?" When there's clearly valid, academic points of contention with it....?

Your bar for believing in something is low, like a child's.
Your thought is undisciplined, like a child's.

This is why messageboard arguments are frivolous.

 

[BreezeWood]

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?

God does not exist because I say so and it's very disingenuous and dishonest of you to say so.
By your standard, your claims that God is nonexistent are also false because you have absolutely no way to disprove God and the claim rests entirely on your own biases and claims.

On the other had we can infer God through the existence of the universe and all of creation because nothing can account for everything (including time and space itself) except for a creator of some sort.

When I see a magnificent skyscraper I don't have to have personally seen it being built to know it was constructed by architects, engineers and construction workers.

I can logically and sensibly infer the building was built by workers even though I didn't see it happen because nothing else could account for a skyscraper. In the same way we can say the same of the universe itself.
It didn't make itself. Someone, or thing, had to do it. Even a child knows intuitively things don't just appear out of thin air.
Something or someone must account for them.

Why is it you aren't as smart and sensible as a mere child?

.

Something or someone must account for them.

is there a litmus test for accuracy ...

your problem is requiring as proof the forged 4th century christian bible that is nothing more than a political document disguised as a religion.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

is there a litmus test for accuracy ...

your problem is requiring as proof the forged 4th century christian bible that is nothing more than a political document disguised as a religion.

That's not my problem at all. I don't stand up for religions, per se. I am interested in God, not in Christianity though I admire a lot about it.

I don't defend all of Christianity not do I mock or hate it but the God that made Christians also makes Hindus, Buddhists, etc.
There are many religions. Only one God. Try another tactic.

 

[Hollie]

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?

God does not exist because I say so and it's very disingenuous and dishonest of you to say so.
By your standard, your claims that God is nonexistent are also false because you have absolutely no way to disprove God and the claim rests entirely on your own biases and claims.

On the other had we can infer God through the existence of the universe and all of creation because nothing can account for everything (including time and space itself) except for a creator of some sort.

When I see a magnificent skyscraper I don't have to have personally seen it being built to know it was constructed by architects, engineers and construction workers.

I can logically and sensibly infer the building was built by workers even though I didn't see it happen because nothing else could account for a skyscraper. In the same way we can say the same of the universe itself.
It didn't make itself. Someone, or thing, had to do it. Even a child knows intuitively things don't just appear out of thin air.
Something or someone must account for them.

Why is it you aren't as smart and sensible as a mere child?

That's a rather silly comparison. You can infer a building was built by humans. There's nothing supernatural about buildings. You "infer" the christian gods because those are the gods customary to your place of birth / cultural proclivities. A Hindu would "infer" entirely different gods for reasons of place of birth / cultural proclivities.

As we see with regularity, religionists insist their gods are true and extant but are unable to offer even the most basic of proofs fof these gods. Most people accept what their theistic beliefs are for many reasons, but rarely do they apply very hard standards to those reasons. They tend to be cultural (i.e., you grew up in a social environment that preferred one belief over another), or anecdotal; you believe in a certain religion because that's the religion you were given.

Science is amenable only to investigations of repeatable phenomena that exists in the retinal world. Religion is amenable only to investigations of personal spiritual phenomena. This is the hidden philosophical bias of religion. Trapped by its own subjectivity.

But insofar as the world around us is natural, science remains our best tool for investigating it. The methodology used by investigators employing science is presently the best that life on earth has yet devised. In contrast, any attempt to see the origin of our natural selves through the theistic accounts is doomed to fail due to its scripturally bounded nature and appeals to supernaturalism.

In fact, the only model I see that opens up the possibility of nature gone awry is the theistic one. How often does nature simply allow a sea to part, or a dead man to rise? How many natural pillars of fire, burning bushes, or global floods are there? How often do virgins spontaneously impregnate? Where else do angels and demons fly about with abandon or men ascend golden staircases to heaven?

 

[Hollie]

is there a litmus test for accuracy ...

your problem is requiring as proof the forged 4th century christian bible that is nothing more than a political document disguised as a religion.

That's not my problem at all. I don't stand up for religions, per se. I am interested in God, not in Christianity though I admire a lot about it.

I don't defend all of Christianity not do I mock or hate it but the God that made Christians also makes Hindus, Buddhists, etc.
There are many religions. Only one God. Try another tactic.

I suspect the Hindus relegate your gods to also-rans as you do theirs.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

That's a rather silly comparison. You can infer a building was built by humans. There's nothing supernatural about buildings. You "infer" the christian gods because those are the gods customary to your place of birth / cultural proclivities. A Hindu would "infer" entirely different gods for reasons of place of birth / cultural proclivities.

I don't know how you missed the point that was so clear other than you didn't want to understand.
The inference is in the thing itself, be it a building or the universe. Somebody or thing is responsible for it.
And as I've said many times there are many religions but only one God. I have my preferences due to cultural
inculcation, ethical preferences and familiarity but religion is man's creation. Period.

As long as you continue to argue over or disparage a burning bush or angels you are just farting in the wind.

I came to my views despite Christian teachings, not because of them. It's pure logic that makes me believe God must be responsible for what only a supreme being could cause. The universe did not come out of a cereal box.

 

[Hollie]

That's a rather silly comparison. You can infer a building was built by humans. There's nothing supernatural about buildings. You "infer" the christian gods because those are the gods customary to your place of birth / cultural proclivities. A Hindu would "infer" entirely different gods for reasons of place of birth / cultural proclivities.

I don't know how you missed the point that was so clear other than you didn't want to understand.
The inference is in the thing itself, be it a building or the universe. Somebody or thing is responsible for it.
And as I've said many times there are many religions but only one God. I have my preferences due to cultural
inculcation, ethical preferences and familiarity but religion is man's creation. Period.

As long as you continue to argue over or disparage a burning bush or angels you are just farting in the wind.

I came to my views despite Christian teachings, not because of them. It's pure logic that makes me believe God must be responsible for what only a supreme being could cause. The universe did not come out of a cereal box.

"Inference" is mere conjecture. People whose place of birth is in a different culture infer entirely different gods.

Christianity is a prosytelizing religion and I've seen others get angry and emotive when they can't recruit for their christian sect.

I'm not disparaging a burning bush, I was simply trying to challenge you with supporting your claims to supernaturalism. Dont you find it odd that not a single discovery in science has had natural underpinning?

Can you identify a single, verifiable event in human history that had a supernatural causation?

For the purpose of this thread, let's suppose there are two worldviews: the one that establishes reality as all encompassing and has no need for the supernatural realm. This is the "rational" (within the bounds of reason exclusively) worldview.

The other view, the theistic view, asserts that reality requires a supernatural causation; thus, the supernatural --and less diplomatic sounding-- "irrational" (outside the bounds of reason exclusively) worldview.

I conclude the rational worldview simply because the paradigms offered by theists do not hold together for me (it really isn't any more complicated or diabolical than that)-- they are fatally flawed for one reason or another. For instance, the assertion that creation "clearly is evidence of god" ignores that "creation" and "nature" are indistinguishable in that sense, and if they are indistinguishable, no assertion that they are "created" holds value. This is the "coming upon a watch in the woods" paradigm, which ignores the fact that-- I know it is a watch because it is clearly and quantitatively different from a supernatural object.

Pray to your gods, worship them, burn women at the stake for them, hallelujah down the street if you want, teach your children about flying winged men in nightgowns, fat naked babies playing harps, chariots of fire cruising through the clouds, that seas part and books predict the end of the world, teach them all of these things if you want to, believe in them all if you must, but I find absolutely no reason to believe any of it.

 

[ding]

is there a litmus test for accuracy ...

your problem is requiring as proof the forged 4th century christian bible that is nothing more than a political document disguised as a religion.

That's not my problem at all. I don't stand up for religions, per se. I am interested in God, not in Christianity though I admire a lot about it.

I don't defend all of Christianity not do I mock or hate it but the God that made Christians also makes Hindus, Buddhists, etc.
There are many religions. Only one God. Try another tactic.

I suspect the Hindus relegate your gods to also-rans as you do theirs.

Not the ones I know.

And I don’t denigrate their perception of God either.

This country was founded in part on the belief that each person should worship God as they see fit.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

"Inference" is mere conjecture. People whose place of birth is in a different culture infer entirely different gods.

Christianity is a prosytelizing religion and I've seen others get angry and emotive when they can't recruit for their christian sect.

Inference is not mere conjecture. I see a blackened smoking smoldering house and I can infer there has been a fire there recently. Yes, religion is a cultural phenomena, for the most part. So what?

And I've see atheists get very angry and hostile when I don't buy what they are selling. So what again.

Can you identify a single, verifiable event in human history that had a supernatural causation?

I don't believe in a personal God that interacts with people.

For the purpose of this thread, let's suppose there are two worldviews: the one that establishes reality as all encompassing and has no need for the supernatural realm. This is the "rational" (within the bounds of reason exclusively) worldview.

Atheists call it "rational". I never would. An uncaused world is anything but rational.

 

[Hollie]

"Inference" is mere conjecture. People whose place of birth is in a different culture infer entirely different gods.

Christianity is a prosytelizing religion and I've seen others get angry and emotive when they can't recruit for their christian sect.

Inference is not mere conjecture. I see a blackened smoking smoldering house and I can infer there has been a fire there recently. Yes, religion is a cultural phenomena, for the most part. So what?

And I've see atheists get very angry and hostile when I don't buy what they are selling. So what again.

Can you identify a single, verifiable event in human history that had a supernatural causation?

I don't believe in a personal God that interacts with people.

For the purpose of this thread, let's suppose there are two worldviews: the one that establishes reality as all encompassing and has no need for the supernatural realm. This is the "rational" (within the bounds of reason exclusively) worldview.

Atheists call it "rational". I never would. An uncaused world is anything but rational.

There's nothing magical or supernatural about a house fire. The question is whether you can identify a single, verifiable event in human history that had magic or supernaturalism as its cause. I don't know of any. Maybe you do?


Yes, the cultural phenomenon of religions is interesting. Just think: had you been born in the isla.ic Middle East, almost inevitably you would be posting in these forums as a Moslems, pounding the Koran as opposed to a bible.


I'm not aware any atheist is selling you anything. I see the more excitable of the religionists insisting their gods are the true, extant gods but offering no support for their specious claims.

A house on fire is not evidence of anyone's partisan gods.


It's been addressed repeatedly but lets try it again. Existence is not uncaused. As far as science can determine so far, existence a we know it began from a singularity.

Yet, here you are purporting uncaused gods.

let's look at this from another perspective. When people say they believe in an entity that cannot be seen, cannot be felt, exists outside of the natural realm in an asserted supernatural realm, that has attributes we need to worship but cannot understand or even describe, who lives in eternity in both directions, who can create existence from nothing and is uncreated himself and uses methods and means we can never know or hope to understand, that stands outside proof which is exactly why it's for certain he exists-- I would say that qualifies as being under a delusion.

 

[Ringtone]

if you can not understand the Boomerang Theory there is a simple question to resolve the issue - when you fire a rife in outerspace vacuum where eventually will the bullet travel and be stopped ... the finite angle trajectory will return the bullet to the breech of the rifle it was fired from - without ever changing its direction.

the same as matter expelled from the point after the moment of singularity.

newtons cannon without gravity ... replaced by the (finite) angle of trajectory.

* someone from the military, ordinance could verify the theory for the skeptics ... ringtone.

And the peer-reviewed citation regarding the cyclic cosmogony of the boomerang theory?

crickets chirping

 

[Ringtone]

That's a rather silly comparison. You can infer a building was built by humans. There's nothing supernatural about buildings. You "infer" the christian gods because those are the gods customary to your place of birth / cultural proclivities. A Hindu would "infer" entirely different gods for reasons of place of birth / cultural proclivities.

I don't know how you missed the point that was so clear other than you didn't want to understand.
The inference is in the thing itself, be it a building or the universe. Somebody or thing is responsible for it.
And as I've said many times there are many religions but only one God. I have my preferences due to cultural
inculcation, ethical preferences and familiarity but religion is man's creation. Period.

As long as you continue to argue over or disparage a burning bush or angels you are just farting in the wind.

I came to my views despite Christian teachings, not because of them. It's pure logic that makes me believe God must be responsible for what only a supreme being could cause. The universe did not come out of a cereal box.

Is revelation man's creation?

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Yes, the cultural phenomenon of religions is interesting. Just think: had you been born in the isla.ic Middle East, almost inevitably you would be posting in these forums as a Moslems, pounding the Koran as opposed to a bible.

I'm not pounding a bible OR the koran, moron. I admit your incessant ignorance is getting to me.
I can tell you something twenty times and twenty-one times you come back with the same regurgitated crap as if I'd never
corrected you at all before.

A house on fire is not evidence of anyone's partisan gods.

No, it isn't.
Are you trying to confuse the issue by your inability to understand the most simple of analogies? Or is this way too hard for you to keep up with?

let's look at this from another perspective. When people say they believe in an entity that cannot be seen, cannot be felt, exists outside of the natural realm in an asserted supernatural realm, that has attributes we need to worship but cannot understand or even describe, who lives in eternity in both directions, who can create existence from nothing and is uncreated himself and uses methods and means we can never know or hope to understand, that stands outside proof which is exactly why it's for certain he exists-- I would say that qualifies as being under a delusion.

Do you also find the universe to be a delusion? God is a ridiculous concept. But not as ridiculous as the billions of planets, stars, time and space, gravity, black holes, etc. that make up the universe without a cause for being.

Btw...the singularity requires a cause too. Nothing comes from nothing.

 

[Hollie]

Yes, the cultural phenomenon of religions is interesting. Just think: had you been born in the isla.ic Middle East, almost inevitably you would be posting in these forums as a Moslems, pounding the Koran as opposed to a bible.

I'm not pounding a bible OR the koran, moron. I admit your incessant ignorance is getting to me.
I can tell you something twenty times and twenty-one times you come back with the same regurgitated crap as if I'd never
corrected you at all before.

A house on fire is not evidence of anyone's partisan gods.

No, it isn't.
Are you trying to confuse the issue by your inability to understand the most simple of analogies? Or is this way too hard for you to keep up with?

let's look at this from another perspective. When people say they believe in an entity that cannot be seen, cannot be felt, exists outside of the natural realm in an asserted supernatural realm, that has attributes we need to worship but cannot understand or even describe, who lives in eternity in both directions, who can create existence from nothing and is uncreated himself and uses methods and means we can never know or hope to understand, that stands outside proof which is exactly why it's for certain he exists-- I would say that qualifies as being under a delusion.

Do you also find the universe to be a delusion? God is a ridiculous concept. But not as ridiculous as the billions of planets, stars, time and space, gravity, black holes, etc. that make up the universe without a cause for being.

Btw...the singularity requires a cause too. Nothing comes from nothing.

My, but you’re getting angry and emotive.

I’m wondering where you have corrected me? I’ve commented on your “house on fire” comment as somehow being evidence of the gods and you seem to take exception to that.

You’re attempt st analogy seems rather far-fetched. What in the rational, natural world is analogous to magic and supernaturalism?

If nothing comes from nothing, why do you exempt the gods? Just for conveniences’s sake?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

God is a ridiculous concept. But not as ridiculous as the billions of planets, stars, time and space, gravity, black holes, etc. that make up the universe without a cause for being.

You are basiclaly countering the idea that "magical sky daddies are ridiculous" with "NOT having magical sky daddies is ridiculous"..

... Which is laughable. Of course, all evidence ever collected supports the first notion, and no have no support for your notion. That's kind of important...

 

[ding]

An uncaused world is anything but rational.

I concur. I can’t see how it could be any other way.

You do realize that the ones arguing against this can’t separate God from religion, right?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You do realize that the ones arguing against this can’t separate God from religion, right?

Of course, im typical dithering ding fraudulent fashion, you accuse everyone else of that of which you are most guilty.

 

[ding]

God is a ridiculous concept. But not as ridiculous as the billions of planets, stars, time and space, gravity, black holes, etc. that make up the universe without a cause for being.

You are basiclaly countering the idea that "magical sky daddies are ridiculous" with "NOT having magical sky daddies is ridiculous"..

... Which is laughable. Of course, all evidence ever collected supports the first notion, and no have no support for your notion. That's kind of important...

No. What is laughable is you not recognizing how you have elevated your atheism to a religion.

You are one of the ones I just mentioned. You can’t separate God from religion.