Debunking another new atheist's baby talk on Youtube

[Hollie]

Reset button:

Ringtone

Hollie

Third Party

JimBowie1958

diver52

G.T.

hobelim

Is the following statement true, or is it false?

"If dolphins build skyscrapers, then a millimeter is equal to a cubic kilometer."

Yes.

Because I say so.

 

[ding]

If you created something and I didn't know you created it, could I use what I found as evidence?

Evidence of a creator? Absolutely! It would be manifestly self evident.

Not so fast. Just evidence for starters. I didn't say what it's evidence for just yet. We have to first treat it as evidence to see exactly what it can tell us. Which means we have to study it.

So what do you think this evidence shows?

 

[ding]

Reset button:

Ringtone

Hollie

Third Party

JimBowie1958

diver52

G.T.

hobelim

Is the following statement true, or is it false?

"If dolphins build skyscrapers, then a millimeter is equal to a cubic kilometer."

Yes.

Because I say so.

We can mark that down as you don't know.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Not so fast. Just evidence for starters. I didn't say what it's evidence for just yet. We have to first treat it as evidence to see exactly what it can tell us. Which means we have to study it.

So what do you think this evidence shows?

That depends on the evidence presented. If it's from the natural world and unaltered I would call such a thing evidence of God because that would be something only God is capable of creating.

 

[ding]

Not so fast. Just evidence for starters. I didn't say what it's evidence for just yet. We have to first treat it as evidence to see exactly what it can tell us. Which means we have to study it.

So what do you think this evidence shows?

That depends on the evidence presented. If it's from the natural world and unaltered I would call such a thing evidence of God because that would be something only God is capable of creating.

I agree but it's best to start at the beginning.

What do we know from science? That the universe was created from nothing and popped into existence ~14 billion years ago. Right?

Nothing there that would preclude God from creating existence, right? In fact, it actually makes sense and is consistent with Genesis.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Yes.

Because I say so.

And I say so only if discussing something only a supreme being could create.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

I agree but it's best to start at the beginning.

What do we know from science? That the universe was created from nothing and popped into existence ~14 billion years ago. Right?

That's what cosmologists tell us.

 

[ding]

I agree but it's best to start at the beginning.

What do we know from science? That the universe was created from nothing and popped into existence ~14 billion years ago. Right?

That's what cosmologists tell us.

Yes, and I have no reason to doubt it either. There is nothing there that would preclude God from creating existence, right? In fact, it actually makes sense and is consistent with Genesis.

Think about it. At the heart of this debate is whether or not the material world was created by spirit. If the material world were not created by spirit, then everything which has occurred since the beginning of space and time are products of the material world. Everything which is incorporeal proceeded from the corporeal. There is no middle ground. There is no other option. Either the material world was created by spirit or it wasn't. All other options will simplify to one of these two lowest common denominators which are mutually exclusive.

So if God did create existence it makes perfect sense that it was created out of nothing which is what science shows.

In case you were wondering FortFun ^^^^ that's called logic.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

I agree but it's best to start at the beginning.

What do we know from science? That the universe was created from nothing and popped into existence ~14 billion years ago. Right?

Nothing there that would preclude God from creating existence, right? In fact, it actually makes sense and is consistent with Genesis.

But that makes some scientists uncomfortable because of the G word.
So now they theorize all sorts of differing circumstances that would negate what seems to be an instant of creation of our universe.

 

[ding]

I agree but it's best to start at the beginning.

What do we know from science? That the universe was created from nothing and popped into existence ~14 billion years ago. Right?

Nothing there that would preclude God from creating existence, right? In fact, it actually makes sense and is consistent with Genesis.

But that makes some scientists uncomfortable because of the G word.
So now they theorize all sorts of differing circumstances that would negate what seems to be an instant of creation of our universe.

It does indeed, Eric. It does indeed.

Unfortunately for them the science is solid. Cyclical models are dead.

 

[Ringtone]

Ad hominem, ad hominem! This is about saying God exists-I believe that-so am I lying to myself? Or shifting goalposts-or guideposts? Theism is as mad as atheism because they are two sides of the same coin-belief in something that can't be proved. Just let people believe the way they want.

Nonsense! I just got through proving God's existence. Here, I'll do it again:

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.

What I can't do is stop folks from lying to themselves . . . folks like you.

 

[ding]

I agree but it's best to start at the beginning.

What do we know from science? That the universe was created from nothing and popped into existence ~14 billion years ago. Right?

That's what cosmologists tell us.

Another thing that cosmologists tell us is that the laws of nature were in place before the universe began because the formation of the universe followed the same laws that the evolution of the universe followed.

Also totally consistent with God creating existence.

 

[Hollie]

Ad hominem, ad hominem! This is about saying God exists-I believe that-so am I lying to myself? Or shifting goalposts-or guideposts? Theism is as mad as atheism because they are two sides of the same coin-belief in something that can't be proved. Just let people believe the way they want.

Nonsense! I just got through proving God's existence. Here, I'll do it again:

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.

What I can't do is stop folks from lying to themselves . . . folks like you.

What nonsense.

The supernaturalists are burdened by creating, to explain the natural realm, a whole supernatural realm as if by doing so it answers the fundamental questions of why are things the way they are-- as opposed to doing what it really does, which is now create a whole new set of questions about the supernatural realm that cannot be answered. It's very much like a child asking his father at a David Copperfield show, "How does he do that?" and being asked to accept without question the reply, "Magic." The reply answers nothing, and of course it has the same effect of obscuring what the truth truly is, and it opens up a larger question which is, "What the heck is 'magic'"? The only people who fight the overwhelming evolutionary evidences are those with a vested interest in the literal accuracy of the Genesis mythology -- a mythology that is no more or less sacrosanct than the creationist mythologies of any other religious belief system. By accepting the two chapters of Genesis as the answer, they not only accept no answer as the answer ("magic!"), they forever preclude themselves from embracing what the true answer is. Asserting "god did it" only puts off by one huge step answering the question itself.

 

[toobfreak]

Debunking another new atheist's baby talk on Youtube

Enough of this horseshit. I don't have time to figure out why you need to "debunk" someone else's opinions much less put them down as baby talk, as much as I don't care why they need to prove you "wrong" as well. Anyone ever consider that BOTH sides are right? Why is there no room for difference of opinion without the adversarial process -- -- -- God is not something you can dissect and rationally analyze much less measure with a slide rule.

Those that have eyes to see God see Him in God's own time and do not need convincing; those that do not should not and will not. Not unless things change. Learn that, live that and move on and stop worrying about what others think.

 

[diver52]

So the universe being created from nothing isn't empirical evidence?

Why wouldn't everything that has unfolded since the creation of the universe be considered as evidence?

Excellent point
How is all of creation not empirical evidence of a creating force? Are we to assume that all we see and know just showed up in the mail box one day? Isn't a bicycle proof of the bicycle maker?

How is it evidence? Have you compared it with other universes? So what are the properties of God that would lead you to consider the universe evidence?

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Another thing that cosmologists tell us is that the laws of nature were in place before the universe began because the formation of the universe followed the same laws that the evolution of the universe followed.

Also totally consistent with God creating existence.

All things atheists will never acknowledge.

 

[ding]

So the universe being created from nothing isn't empirical evidence?

Why wouldn't everything that has unfolded since the creation of the universe be considered as evidence?

Excellent point
How is all of creation not empirical evidence of a creating force? Are we to assume that all we see and know just showed up in the mail box one day? Isn't a bicycle proof of the bicycle maker?

How is it evidence? Have you compared it with other universes? So what are the properties of God that would lead you to consider the universe evidence?

It's evidence because it is tangible and can be studied and examined. I don't need to compare it to other universes. That's silly.

So what are the properties of God? Well, the evidence tells us that he is powerful, intelligent, loving, creative, aware and logical. The evidence tells us that what he created is complex and created in steps. The evidence tells us that the purpose of his creation was that it would become self aware and progress in consciousness.

 

[ding]

Another thing that cosmologists tell us is that the laws of nature were in place before the universe began because the formation of the universe followed the same laws that the evolution of the universe followed.

Also totally consistent with God creating existence.

All things atheists will never acknowledge.

That's because there is no proof that they will accept. They won't even consider the origin questions. Atheism is the ultimate intellectual dead end because it condemns any examination at all. It's not that they are so convinced that there is no God as much as it is they are convinced they can't be wrong.

 

[Hollie]

Yes.

Because I say so.

And I say so only if discussing something only a supreme being could create.

Identify one or more things only a supreme being could create.

Provide the data that supports your contention of a supreme being.

Provide the data that shows your version of a supreme being actually created anything.

This is always the failure of the supernaturalists.Nowhere in creationist literature will you find the sentence: "The explanation of the Creation Scenario is..." Nor will you find the phrase: "The Creator (or Intelligent Designer) used the following creative processes and methods in making living organisms..." Nor will you ever hear a creationist say the following: "We have just unearthed evidence that reveals clues as to the method by which the Creator put living organisms on this planet." They offer no explanations of how it was done. They have found no physical evidence which can shed any light on this problem. Very simply, creationism is not a part of science. Why doesn't creationism offer evidence in support of their notions? Why should they? They don't need proof-- their idea of creation is already fully supported in the Book of Genesis. They don't offer creationism to convince bible-believing Christians... those are people who don't need convincing.

 

[Ringtone]

If you say “I know there is a god” instead of “I believe there is a god”, yes I do have a problem with you. Because you’re clearly lying. Or delusional.

I know for a fact that God exists. The first principles of ontology per the imperatives of logic tell me he necessarily exists, but most importantly, God directly revealed himself to me as well . . . although I'm not sure that's the right way to put it, given that God's creation, including the endowment of his logic on us, is arguably a direct form of communication. The simplest way I can describe it is that he spoke to me with a voice that only the mind can hear.