Debunking another new atheist's baby talk on Youtube

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Prove it.

I should spend my time and money on an education, then spoofeed it to you? No.

You are all fur coat and no knickers too.

And you don't understand a basic concept of logic.

 

[Ringtone]

Yeah, that was corny.

No, not corny, G.T. You were lying about the actual thrust of ding's post. You got all pedantic and superior over nothing . . . as if you could teach him anything about sound arguments, as if the distinction you meant to make were something profound, all the while redundantly mangling that distinction as you pretended not to understand your initial error, your misreading of his post.

 

[ding]

Prove it.

I should spend my time and money on an education, then spoofeed it to you? No.

You are all fur coat and no knickers too.

And you don't understand a basic concept of logic.

How many more posts are you going to make where you don’t back up your claim that you can prove using valid logic that rainbow unicorns make ice cream in the 6th dimension?

Because arguing that I don’t understand logic as the reason you can’t back up your claim rings hollow.

If you understood logic then you would understand how illogical you are being. Put up or shut up. Because I don’t believe for one second that you can make a logical argument that rainbow unicorns make ice cream in the 6th dimension.

 

[G.T.]

Yeah, that was corny.

No, not corny, G.T. You were lying about the actual thrust of ding's post. You got all pedantic and superior over nothing . . . as if you could teach him anything about sound arguments, as if the distinction you meant to make were something profound, all the while redundantly mangling that distinction as you pretended not to understand your initial error, your misreading of his post.

you coulda shortened this post to "im gay for ding" and saved yourself the trouble of assuming i give any single fucks what you idiots have 2 say, bro

 

[Hollie]

There's nothing significant about the difference?

Valid refers only to the form. The entire syllogism could be FALSE, UNSOUND and still VALID.

You literally learn this...DAY 1.

SOUND means Valid and True.

If you cannot delineate the significant difference, that's in YOU. Quit pointing fingers, Sasquatch.

Your axe grinding is getting in the way again, G.T. Is your name Hollie? A valid argument is logical . . . and potentially sound. A sound argument is both valid (logical) and true. You wrote Sound Logical arguments. My point is that's redundant.

It was only a minimal effort to axe-grind away your silly attempt at argument. You were reduced to mere babbling.

 

[G.T.]

Prove it.

I should spend my time and money on an education, then spoofeed it to you? No.

You are all fur coat and no knickers too.

And you don't understand a basic concept of logic.

How many more posts are you going to make where you don’t back up your claim that you can prove using valid logic that rainbow unicorns make ice cream in the 6th dimension?

Because arguing that I don’t understand logic as the reason you can’t back up your claim rings hollow.

If you understood logic then you would understand how illogical you are being. Put up or shut up. Because I don’t believe for one second that you can make a logical argument that rainbow unicorns make ice cream in the 6th dimension.

Then you still dont understand what Valid means.

He never said prove.

He said Valid...you misapprehended and now youre being a cock about your own misapprehension.

Here is a valid logical argument that rainbow unicorns make ice cream in the 6th dimension, dummy:

p1. If the 6th dimension exists, then there are rainbow unicorns in it making ice cream.

p2. The 6th dimension exists.

c. There are rainbow unicorns making ice cream in the 6th dimension.


^ Thats valid, but not sound. Its valid because the conclusion follows from the premises...its not sound because the premises are not true.

Look it up, as opposed to sniveling at someone who understood the difference in the 1st place, and then you decided to get twatty at him based on YOUR misapprehension of terms.

 

[ding]

What can possibly go wrong with a world view like that

Thats not a world view, ding. Its a particular ethic within a world view. Youre dramatic.

See it how you want, GT. It doesn’t change the fact that it’s a failed behavior.

I don't consider reward and punishment to be a "failed behavior," in fact...its been the most fundamental way to teach in humanity since the dawn of civilization.

That’s hilarious. Who do you believe you are?

The one who decides how I behave, much to your chagrin

You have free will to exercise your choices. You don’t have free will in not experiencing the consequences of your choices.

I have no idea why you believe I have any chagrin at all. I’m not the one criticizing your character. You are the one with chagrin, GT.

The only difference between you and Hobelim is that every post he makes to me attacks my religious beliefs and my character. Whereas every post you make to me only attacks my character. I’m pretty sure you made your point the 1,000 time you told me. So the only possible reason you keep doing it is that you don’t believe you have punished me enough.

You are the one with the issue. I’m fine.

 

[G.T.]

Thats not a world view, ding. Its a particular ethic within a world view. Youre dramatic.

See it how you want, GT. It doesn’t change the fact that it’s a failed behavior.

I don't consider reward and punishment to be a "failed behavior," in fact...its been the most fundamental way to teach in humanity since the dawn of civilization.

That’s hilarious. Who do you believe you are?

The one who decides how I behave, much to your chagrin

You have free will to exercise your choices. You don’t have free will in not experiencing the consequences of your choices.

I have no idea why you believe I have any chagrin at all. I’m not the one criticizing your character. You are the one with chagrin, GT.

The only difference between you and Hobelim is that every post he makes to me attacks my religious beliefs and my character. Whereas every post you make to me only attacks my character. I’m pretty sure you made your point the 1,000 time you told me. So the only possible reason you keep doing it is that you don’t believe you have punished me enough.

You are the one with the issue. I’m fine.

You are a twat, and I treat you like a twat. News at 11 tard.

 

[Third Party]

Genetically Modified Skeptic Simpleton (GMS) Bumps His Head and Makes Baby Talk about the Fine-Tuned Argument

By Ringtone


Note the silly conviction of intellectual superiority on Simpleton's face as he
confounds the fine-tuned argument of the strong anthropic principle with the
teleological argument from Design.


While the entirety of GMS' video is a train wreck of factual and logical errors, the arguably most mangled debris among the wreckage is his treatment of the scientific principle on which the theological inference of the fine-tuned argument for God's existence is predicated, namely, the strong anthropic principle, which has absolutely nothing to do with the occurrence or adaptation of life to the conditions of the extant universe.

GMS stupidly invokes the philosophically obtuse and scientifically naive reasoning of Douglas Adams' Puddle Analogy Yellow Puddle of Soiled Panties Analogy (YPSPA), which Adams initially presented in a live forum from his unpublished musings. A few years later it was published in a posthumous collection of his previously published and unpublished material in The Salmon of Doubt: Hitchhiking the Galaxy One Last Time (2002):

Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact, it fits me so staggeringly well, it must have been made to have me in it!' —Douglas Adams​

The analogy has been panned for years by both theist and atheist philosophers of science alike who grasp the prevailing scientific data and the ramifications thereof. While Adams' Analogy is arguably applicable to Paley's teleological argument from design/complexity, it's an embarrassingly stupid counter to the fine-tuned argument of the strong anthropic principle. Only philosophically incompetent and/or scientifically illiterate atheists invoke Adams' analogy against the alternate cosmological models of the weak or the strong anthropic principle.

Listen carefully to this portion of GMS' video: (1:27 — 4:31).

GMS unwittingly conflates the fine-tuned argument of the strong anthropic principle and the teleological argument from design/complexity. He thinks they're the same thing in terms of logic, and refers to his delusion as the fine-tuned argument or the teleological argument interchangeably relative to the YPSPA.

Douglas Adams, who was not a trained scientist, by the way, made the same mistake two decades ago, and, blindly following his lead, new atheist laymen have been foolishly repeating this error over and over again ever since. GMS stupidly avers that the fine-tuned argument "is no problem for the [Yellow Puddle of Soiled Panties Analogy]" because "[t]he analogy just shifts perspectives, presenting the possibility that the universe existed first and that we in our evolution came to exist as a creature that fits its preexisting environment. . . . It entertains the thought that we are the result of adaptation to our environment, rather than our environment was built to specifically accommodate the capabilities and limitations of humans."

But contrary to what GMS claims, the theological inference of the strong anthropic principle isn't drawn from the observation that "the nature of the cosmos is such that it allows for life as we know it to exist." Straw man! GMS thinks his observation is profoundly obvious, when it's only mundanely obvious and irrelevant.

The prevailing scientific data evinces that the range of habitable cosmologies is very narrow (finely tuned), such that the statistical odds of our universe coming up heads for any form of life at all (whether it be terrestrial life or not, intelligent life or not) from a single, unguided roll of the dice, as it were, are staggeringly unlikely! In other words, Adams and his lemmings have never understood what finely tuned means in this instance relative to the prevailing scientific data. The theological inference of the strong anthropic principle is not drawn from our extant perspective after the fact of an apparently wonderous complexity of life that must necessarily be a product of design at all! It is not drawn from the notion that "the nature of the cosmos is such that it allows for life as we know it to exist", as GMS claims. Turek, who understands the matter just fine, doesn't say anything about "life as we know it" relative to the finely tuned range of habitable cosmologies.

Why?

Because the finely tuned argument does not go to the occurrence or evolution of life in any given habitable environment after the fact; it goes to the apparent fact that the astronomical structures and systems, and the elemental diversity that are necessary for any kind of life at all to occur or evolve wouldn't exist in the first place if any one of the physical constants or initial conditions were significantly different in this universe or in any other. Indeed, according to the standard model, if the strength of the cosmic inflation of the Big Bang had varied by 1 part in 10^60 the universe would have never reached the expansion phase at all, but would have collapsed back onto itself faster than you can say lickety-split!

Give up. If this is a God versus no God thing, neither side can prove their case. Some things should just be left alone.

 

[ding]

Prove it.

I should spend my time and money on an education, then spoofeed it to you? No.

You are all fur coat and no knickers too.

And you don't understand a basic concept of logic.

How many more posts are you going to make where you don’t back up your claim that you can prove using valid logic that rainbow unicorns make ice cream in the 6th dimension?

Because arguing that I don’t understand logic as the reason you can’t back up your claim rings hollow.

If you understood logic then you would understand how illogical you are being. Put up or shut up. Because I don’t believe for one second that you can make a logical argument that rainbow unicorns make ice cream in the 6th dimension.

Then you still dont understand what Valid means.

He never said prove.

He said Valid...you misapprehended and now youre being a cock about your own misapprehension.

Here is a valid logical argument that rainbow unicorns make ice cream in the 6th dimension, dummy:

p1. If the 6th dimension exists, then there are rainbow unicorns in it making ice cream.

p2. The 6th dimension exists.

c. There are rainbow unicorns making ice cream in the 6th dimension.


^ Thats valid, but not sound. Its valid because the conclusion follows from the premises...its not sound because the premises are not true.

Look it up, as opposed to sniveling at someone who understood the difference in the 1st place, and then you decided to get twatty at him based on YOUR misapprehension of terms.

I used a direct quote from him, GT.

I don’t see him even attempting to prove what he claimed which is that he could make a logical argument for rainbow unicorns making ice cream in the 6th dimension.

 

[ding]

See it how you want, GT. It doesn’t change the fact that it’s a failed behavior.

I don't consider reward and punishment to be a "failed behavior," in fact...its been the most fundamental way to teach in humanity since the dawn of civilization.

That’s hilarious. Who do you believe you are?

The one who decides how I behave, much to your chagrin

You have free will to exercise your choices. You don’t have free will in not experiencing the consequences of your choices.

I have no idea why you believe I have any chagrin at all. I’m not the one criticizing your character. You are the one with chagrin, GT.

The only difference between you and Hobelim is that every post he makes to me attacks my religious beliefs and my character. Whereas every post you make to me only attacks my character. I’m pretty sure you made your point the 1,000 time you told me. So the only possible reason you keep doing it is that you don’t believe you have punished me enough.

You are the one with the issue. I’m fine.

You are a twat, and I treat you like a twat. News at 11 tard.

You are literally proving my point, GT.

What is it I have done to be labeled a twat. I bet you can’t even make that argument.

 

[G.T.]

I don't consider reward and punishment to be a "failed behavior," in fact...its been the most fundamental way to teach in humanity since the dawn of civilization.

That’s hilarious. Who do you believe you are?

The one who decides how I behave, much to your chagrin

You have free will to exercise your choices. You don’t have free will in not experiencing the consequences of your choices.

I have no idea why you believe I have any chagrin at all. I’m not the one criticizing your character. You are the one with chagrin, GT.

The only difference between you and Hobelim is that every post he makes to me attacks my religious beliefs and my character. Whereas every post you make to me only attacks my character. I’m pretty sure you made your point the 1,000 time you told me. So the only possible reason you keep doing it is that you don’t believe you have punished me enough.

You are the one with the issue. I’m fine.

You are a twat, and I treat you like a twat. News at 11 tard.

You are literally proving my point, GT.

What is it I have done to be labeled a twat. I bet you can’t even make that argument.

Acted like a twat. Thats what. And newsflash...its not an argument, its an opinion.

 

[Ringtone]

Give up. If this is a God versus no God thing, neither side can prove their case. Some things should just be left alone.

1. Something does exist rather than nothing.
2. Existence from nonexistence is impossible.
3. Hence, something has always existed.
4. Hence, not all things that exist began to exist.
5. Hence, not all things that exist were created.
6. The material world is a divisible, mutable and contingent entity of causality.
7. An actual infinite is impossible.
8. An infinite regress of causality is impossible.
9. Hence, the material world began to exist.
10. The material world is not the eternal ground of existence.
11. The universally objective idea of God is that of the transcendent, eternally self-subsistence being of unparallelled greatness who created everything else that exists.
12. God necessarily exists.

Next. . . .

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

How many more posts are you going to make where you don’t back up your claim that you can prove using valid logic that rainbow unicorns make ice cream in the 6th dimension?

I said i could argue it by valid logic, not prove it. You should know by now that your dimestore parlor tricks won't work on me.

And here you go:

Rainbow unicorns make ice cream.

Rainbow unicorns reside in the 6th dimension.

Therefore, rainbow unicorns make ice cream in the 6th dimension.

Now, demonstrate to all of us that you still don't know what is meant by "valid logic".

 

[DOTR]

" A few years later it was published in a posthumous collection..."

Adams knows more about God than any of us now.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Adams knows more about God than any of us now.

Hahahahaha

Oh really? And how is that? He talks to clouds? He had a magic 8-ball? Give me a break....

 

[Third Party]

Give up. If this is a God versus no God thing, neither side can prove their case. Some things should just be left alone.

1. Something does exist rather than nothing.
2. Existence from nonexistence is impossible.
3. Hence, something has always existed.
4. Hence, not all things that exist began to exist.
5. Hence, not all things that exist were created.
6. The material world is a divisible, mutable and contingent entity of causality.
7. An actual infinite is impossible.
8. An infinite regress of causality is impossible.
9. Hence, the material world began to exist.
10. The material world is not the eternal ground of existence.
11. The universally objective idea of God is that of the transcendent, eternally self-subsistence being of unparallelled greatness who created everything else that exists.
12. God necessarily exists.

Next. . . .

Next is-your argument is not compelling-some atheist is lining up to shoot it down. Take a day of rest.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Next is-your argument is not compelling

It was taken down on page one. It is not compelling, because he asserts premises he could not possibly know the truth of.

 

[BreezeWood]

Give up. If this is a God versus no God thing, neither side can prove their case. Some things should just be left alone.

1. Something does exist rather than nothing.
2. Existence from nonexistence is impossible.
3. Hence, something has always existed.
4. Hence, not all things that exist began to exist.
5. Hence, not all things that exist were created.
6. The material world is a divisible, mutable and contingent entity of causality.
7. An actual infinite is impossible.
8. An infinite regress of causality is impossible.
9. Hence, the material world began to exist.
10. The material world is not the eternal ground of existence.
11. The universally objective idea of God is that of the transcendent, eternally self-subsistence being of unparallelled greatness who created everything else that exists.
12. God necessarily exists.

Next. . . .

Next is-your argument is not compelling-some atheist is lining up to shoot it down. Take a day of rest.

.

Next is-your argument is not compelling-some atheist is lining up to shoot it down. Take a day of rest.

pity the child -

it doesn't take an atheist to refute their shallow presumption a deity is responsible by a single stroke for the existence of the universe.

 

[Hollie]

Give up. If this is a God versus no God thing, neither side can prove their case. Some things should just be left alone.

1. Something does exist rather than nothing.
2. Existence from nonexistence is impossible.
3. Hence, something has always existed.
4. Hence, not all things that exist began to exist.
5. Hence, not all things that exist were created.
6. The material world is a divisible, mutable and contingent entity of causality.
7. An actual infinite is impossible.
8. An infinite regress of causality is impossible.
9. Hence, the material world began to exist.
10. The material world is not the eternal ground of existence.
11. The universally objective idea of God is that of the transcendent, eternally self-subsistence being of unparallelled greatness who created everything else that exists.
12. God necessarily exists.

Next. . . .

“.... because I say so”.

There you go, thumpy. All better now.