Debunking another new atheist's baby talk on Youtube

[ding]

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.

What am I guilty of? Not separating God from religion?

I’m not sure how you made that leap. My discussion on the origin questions is based upon the evidence of what was created. Not what my religion teaches. Although they are in complete agreement. I’m not making a religious case for God, I have always made a logical case for God.

My only references to Genesis is to correct your childish interpretation of Genesis.

 

[Ringtone]

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.

I mostly agree with you, but not entirely. I came to the view that God must be via the first principles of ontology and the imperatives of logic as a child. It was via the very same that I came to recognize that Judeo-Christianity was the one and only true religion in my early twenties. Hence, my question about revelation. I'm a student of comparative religion. I don't mind saying that Islam, for example, is a horrifically evil ideology—full of depravity, oppression and atrocity—and that Hinduism is an incoherent mess. The revelation that God is an eternal relationship—a triune Being—is both startling and obvious. The notion that from eternity God sat around all by his lonesome twiddling his thumbs, as it were, before he gave actuality to other entities is absurd. Of course he's a personal being! Notwithstanding, it was not until God directly revealed himself to me in my early twenties that I knew beyond all doubt that my reasoning and subsequent faith were sound.

 

[Hollie]

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...

I always get a kick out of the “uncaused cause” mantra they recite to claim the universe must have been created by the gods. Yet, when you ask them why the gods get a special exception from the “ uncaused cause”, mantra, well, that’s a special exception... because.

Join in on the chorus... wait for it to come around... OK, here we go.

Row, Row, Row your boat gently down the stream.....

 

[Hollie]

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.

I mostly agree with you, but not entirely. I came to the view that God must be via the first principles of ontology and the imperatives of logic as a child. It was via the very same that I came to recognize that Judeo-Christianity was the one and only true religion in my early twenties. Hence, my question about revelation. I'm a student of comparative religion. I don't mind saying that Islam, for example, is a horrifically evil ideology—full of depravity, oppression and atrocity—and that Hinduism is an incoherent mess. The revelation that God is an eternal relationship—a triune Being—is both startling and obvious. The notion that from eternity God sat around all by his lonesome twiddling his thumbs, as it were, before he gave actuality to other entities is absurd. Of course he's a personal being! Notwithstanding, it was not until God directly revealed himself to me in my early twenties that I knew beyond all doubt that my reasoning and subsequent faith were sound.

You obviously missed it. Islam has perfected your corrupted religion.

How do we know that? Muhammud said so. He was visited by the angel Gabriel so you know it’s true.

Convert to the only true religion.

 

[G.T.]

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...

I always get a kick out of the “uncaused cause” mantra they recite to claim the universe must have been created by the gods. Yet, when you ask them why the gods get a special exception from the “ uncaused cause”, mantra, well, that’s a special exception... because.

Join in on the chorus... wait for it to come around... OK, here we go.

Row, Row, Row your boat gently down the stream.....

Truth isn't burdened by the ego-centric "wisdom" of the assertion spewing machines.

 

[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...

I always get a kick out of the “uncaused cause” mantra they recite to claim the universe must have been created by the gods. Yet, when you ask them why the gods get a special exception from the “ uncaused cause”, mantra, well, that’s a special exception... because.

Join in on the chorus... wait for it to come around... OK, here we go.

Row, Row, Row your boat gently down the stream.....

Bullshit. That’s not what I have argued at all.

I have argued that matter and energy cannot exist outside of space and time. That matter and energy cannot exist forever without reaching thermal equilibrium. So matter and energy cannot be an eternal cause.

I have argued that the scientific evidence shows that space and time literally popped into existence from nothing 14 billion years ago. And that the laws of nature were in place before space and time were created from nothing. And that those laws predestined that beings that know and create would arise.

And that the only thing that can exist forever is something which must be beyond matter and energy and that that means it can be no thing.

And since we already have proof that the laws of nature existed before space and time that we literally have an example of a no thing existing before space and time.

And since the universe is effectively information it isn’t a huge leap in logic to postulate that something like consciousness without form could create the material world. That the material world is made up of mind stuff and created a material world so that consciousness with form could exist and make smart things too.

You are the one who lacks the intellectual capacity for serious debate on this subject so instead you make foolish accusations like you are doing now and have always done.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Seems like a debate based on our ignorance. It may turn out that life can be found on billions of planets and every planet would be unique. If that is the case, each would be able to make the same argument that its existence is proof of a designer

Uh . . . sorry, but you don't understand the fine-tuning problem at all. We already know that our universe can support life. You need to reread the OP and get laced up.

The only "fine tuning" problem we have is the claim of "fine-tuning" coming from the religious zealot with events in the natural world contradicting the zealot's claim.

Au contraire, silly Hollie. Thank you for once again underscoring the scientific ignorance of the typical new atheist rube of slogan speak! The fine-tuned problem and the anthropic principle is widely recognised and discussed in the literature by dozens of atheist scientists. Here's just a small taste of the reality:

Most of the fundamental constants in our theories appear fine-tuned in the sense that if they were altered by only modest amounts, the universe would be qualitatively different, and in many cases unsuitable for the development of life. . . . The emergence of the complex structures capable of supporting intelligent observers seems to be very fragile. The laws of nature form a system that is extremely fine-tuned, and very little in physical law can be altered without destroying the possibility of the development of life as we know it. Were it not for a series of startling coincidences in the precise details of physical law, it seems, humans and similar life-forms would never have come into being. —Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow, The Grand Design

There may be a cosmological constant in the field equations whose value just cancels the effects of the vacuum mass density produced by quantum fluctuations. But to avoid conflict with astronomical observation, this cancellation would have to be accurate to at least 120 decimal places. Why in the world should the cosmological constant be so precisely fine-tuned? —Steven Weinberg, The First Three Minutes: A Modern View of the Origin of the Universe

These six numbers constitute a “recipe” for a universe. Moreover, the outcome is sensitive to their values: if any one of them were to be “untuned,” there would be no stars and no life. Is this tuning just a brute fact, a coincidence? Or is it the providence of a benign Creator? I take the view that it is neither. An infinity of other universes may well exist where the numbers are different. Most would be stillborn or sterile. We could only have emerged (and therefore we naturally now find ourselves) in a universe with the “right” combination. This realization offers a radically new perspective on our universe, on our place in it, and on the nature of physical laws. . . . If you imagine setting up a universe by adjusting six dials, then the tuning must be precise in order to yield a universe that could harbour life. —Martin Rees, Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces That Shape the Universe

Hoyle realized that this remarkable chain of coincidences—the unusual longevity of beryllium, the existence of an advantageous resonance level in C12 and the nonexistence of a disadvantageous level in O16— were necessary, and remarkably fine-tuned, conditions for our own existence and indeed the existence of any carbon-based life in the universe. These coincidences could, in principle, be traced back to their roots where they would reveal a meticulous fine-tuning between the strengths of the nuclear and electromagnetic interactions along with the relative masses of electrons and nucleons. —John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle
​

Hoyle sums up his findings as follows:

A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintendent has monkeyed with the physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. I do not believe that any physicist who examined the evidence could fail to draw the inference that the laws of nuclear physics have been deliberately designed with regard to the consequences they produce within stars.
​

Dr. David D. Deutch:

If we nudge one of these constants just a few percent in one direction, stars burn out within a million years of their formation, and there is no time for evolution. If we nudge it a few percent in the other direction, then no elements heavier than helium form. No carbon, no life. Not even any chemistry. No complexity at all.

[. . .]

If anyone claims not to be surprised by the special features that the universe has, he is hiding his head in the sand. These special features ARE surprising and unlikely.
​

Dr. Dennis Scania, the distinguished head of Cambridge University Observatories:

If you change a little bit the laws of nature, or you change a little bit the constants of nature—like the charge on the electron—then the way the universe develops is so changed, it is very likely that intelligent life would not have been able to develop.​

Dr. Paul Davies, noted author and professor of theoretical physics at Adelaide University:

The really amazing thing is not that life on Earth is balanced on a knife-edge, but that the entire universe is balanced on a knife-edge, and would be total chaos if any of the natural ‘constants’ were off even slightly. You see, even if you dismiss man as a chance happening, the fact remains that the universe seems unreasonably suited to the existence of life—almost contrived—you might say a ‘put-up job’.​

Do you get paid by the syllable?

 

[Ringtone]

Hollie incoherently rattled, "I always get a kick out of the 'uncaused cause' mantra they recite to claim the universe must have been created by the gods. Yet, when you ask them why the gods get a special exception from the 'uncaused cause' mantra, well, that’s a special exception because."

"Yes, yes, go on, complete the thought," Jane said.

"Look, Spot, look," said Dick. "Hollie won't complete the thought."

"Gosh," Jane said. "Do you see that, Spot?"

"Yes, children I see," Spot chuckled.

"What's wrong with her?" Dick said.

"Is she stupid or something?" Jane asked sadly.

"Well, children, Hollie suffers from ignorantia affectata," Spot said.

"Ignorantia affectata?" Dick wondered.

"Golly! What's that?" Jane asked.

"Ignorantia affectata is feigned or self-imposed ignorance," Spot explained.

"Oh my goodness!" Jane exclaimed.

"Is it contagious?" Dick fretted.

"Don't worry, children," Spot assured them. "Like I said, it's wholly self-induced."

Do you mean that she's lying or something?" Dick asked Spot.

Jane shuddered.

"Pretty much," said Spot.

"But why?" said Dick. "Isn't she an adult?"

"Well, children, if she were to complete the thought she would expose herself for a fool . . . by her very own words."

"But that's nuts!" Dick exclaimed.

"Yeah," Jane said, "that's nuts."

"Why doesn't she just acknowledge the truth?" Dick said.

"Well, children, in addition to being a lunatic, she's a sociopath."

"Golly!" Dick exclaimed excitedly. "I see now."

"I see too," Jane said.

"Look, Spot, look, we see," said Dick. "Jane and I see."

"She won't complete the thought for the very same reason she won't accurately and honesty define God!" Jane affirmed.

 

[BreezeWood]

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

.

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

crickets chirping

if you can not understand the Boomerang Theory there is a simple question to resolve the issue -

you had your chance ringtone - the chirping you hear is you listening yourself.

 

[Ringtone]

Do you get paid by the syllable?

What are you talking about? Hollie claimed that scientists don't widely recognize that our universe is fine-tuned . . . because she doesn't grasp the science and because she stupidly thinks the fine-tuned problem and the fine-tuned argument for God's existence are the same thing. They are not the same thing. I'm not only quoting several leading lights within the scientific community to underscore her ignorance, but quoting leading lights who just so happen to be atheists and agnostics.

I see that the point flew right over your head too.

Do you get paid by the brain cell? If so, I hope you have rich relative.

 

[Hollie]

Hollie incoherently rattled, "I always get a kick out of the 'uncaused cause' mantra they recite to claim the universe must have been created by the gods. Yet, when you ask them why the gods get a special exception from the 'uncaused cause' mantra, well, that’s a special exception because."

"Yes, yes, go on, complete the thought," Jane said.

"Look, Spot, look," said Dick. "Hollie won't complete the thought."

"Gosh," Jane said. "Do you see that, Spot?"

"Yes, children I see," Spot chuckled.

"What's wrong with her?" Dick said.

"Is she stupid or something?" Jane asked sadly.

"Well, children, Hollie suffers from ignorantia affectata," Spot said.

"Ignorantia affectata?" Dick wondered.

"Golly! What's that?" Jane asked.

"Ignorantia affectata is feigned or self-imposed ignorance," Spot explained.

"Oh my goodness!" Jane exclaimed.

"Is it contagious?" Dick fretted.

"Don't worry, children," Spot assured them. "Like I said, it's wholly self-induced."

Do you mean that she's lying or something?" Dick asked Spot.

Jane shuddered.

"Pretty much," said Spot.

"But why?" said Dick. "Isn't she an adult?"

"Well, children, if she were to complete the thought she would expose herself for a fool . . . by her very own words."

"But that's nuts!" Dick exclaimed.

"Yeah," Jane said, "that's nuts."

"Why doesn't she just acknowledge the truth?" Dick said.

"Well, children, in addition to being a lunatic, she's a sociopath."

"Golly!" Dick exclaimed excitedly. "I see now."

"I see too," Jane said.

"Look, Spot, look, we see," said Dick. "Jane and I see."

"She won't complete the thought for the very same reason she won't accurately and honesty define God!" Jane affirmed.

More of your stuttering and mumbling.

 

[Hollie]

Do you get paid by the syllable?

What are you talking about? Hollie claimed that scientists don't widely recognize that our universe is fine-tuned . . . because she doesn't grasp the science and because she stupidly thinks the fine-tuned problem and the fine-tuned argument for God's existence are the same thing. They are not the same thing. I'm not only quoting several leading lights within the scientific community to underscore her ignorance, but quoting leading lights who just so happen to be atheists and agnostics.

I see that the point flew right over your head too.

Do you get paid by the brain cell? If so, I hope you have rich relative.

Hollie is correct that scientists don't widely recognize that our universe is fine-tuned.

Hollie has advised that your ID’iot creationist position of magic and supernaturalism is not widely recognized outside of the fundamentalist religious ministries.

What else can Hollie help you with?

 

[ding]

Hollie has no answer to ding’s argument.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

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?

Yes. There is some mental disconnect there and I've mentioned how the two are linked but not synonymous many times.
Still they persist.
I wouldn't say they have a screw loose but there is some psychological component, I believe, and they cannot seem
to catch on.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

My, but you’re getting angry and emotive.

Oh, yes indeed! I'm just raging, aren't I. So sorry.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I wouldn't say they have a screw loose but there is some psychological component, I believe, and they cannot seem
to catch on.

Riiight... funny how, as we learn more and more about the universe, fewer people seem to be "catching on". They must all be mentally flawed.

 

[Hollie]

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?

Yes. There is some mental disconnect there and I've mentioned how the two are linked but not synonymous many times.
Still they persist.
I wouldn't say they have a screw loose but there is some psychological component, I believe, and they cannot seem
to catch on.

It’s really a shame. A salesman for magic and supernaturalism can’t close the deal.

Let’s think about this. Rationality, reason and the disciplines of science vs. talking snakes, invisible men in space and charred bodies of witches on a bonfire.

Hmmm. Decisions, decisions.

 

[ding]

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?

Yes. There is some mental disconnect there and I've mentioned how the two are linked but not synonymous many times.
Still they persist.
I wouldn't say they have a screw loose but there is some psychological component, I believe, and they cannot seem
to catch on.

They don’t want to catch on. They like the smoke screen they have created. They can’t separate religion from God because it is their negative view of religion that validates their belief there is no God.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Hollie has no answer to ding’s argument.

What did you expect?

If she had any answers she wouldnt be an....whatever she is, lol.

 

[JimBowie1958]

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?

Yes. There is some mental disconnect there and I've mentioned how the two are linked but not synonymous many times.
Still they persist.
I wouldn't say they have a screw loose but there is some psychological component, I believe, and they cannot seem
to catch on.

They don’t want to catch on. They like the smoke screen they have created. They can’t separate religion from God because it is their negative view of religion that validates their belief there is no God.

Religion has a bad rap these days that is completely undeserved.

We have had only one major ideology that is explicitly based in part on atheism, and that is Marxist Leninism.

I'll take religion over that any day of the week.