Atheism destroyed with a question
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-02-2014, 05:18 AM
Atheism destroyed with a question




The video is sourced too.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-02-2014, 01:05 PM
RE: Atheism destroyed with a question
[Image: aaab8_ORIG-obvious_troll.jpg]

Dreams/Hallucinations/delusions are not evidence
Wishful thinking is not evidence
Disproved statements&Illogical conclusions are not evidence
Logical fallacies&Unsubstantiated claims are not evidence
Vague prophecies is not evidence
Data that requires a certain belief is not evidence
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes IndianAtheist's post
01-02-2014, 01:25 PM
RE: Atheism destroyed with a question
I an not sure what the question is because the contrast in the video was so bad I could only read a few words and apparently there is no sound. It seems to be the usual we exist so we demand a creator, fancied up with references to scientific journals.

Odd that a drive by did not even check the quality of the video before posting it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes JAH's post
01-02-2014, 01:30 PM
RE: Atheism destroyed with a question
(01-02-2014 01:25 PM)JAH Wrote:  ...
Odd that a drive by did not even check the quality of the video before posting it.

Nope. That's the only thing that was credible about this.

Oh! And the egg came first.

Yes

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like DLJ's post
01-02-2014, 01:40 PM
RE: Atheism destroyed with a question
Just say "shoo fly" and be done with it.


God is a concept by which we measure our pain -- John Lennon

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Momsurroundedbyboys's post
01-02-2014, 01:45 PM
RE: Atheism destroyed with a question
Can we get a clear, readable list of sources ?

Anyway tacking on a list of sources to a few pages of rambling about chickens and eggs and atheism doesn't suddenly make your assertions true.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like morondog's post
01-02-2014, 01:52 PM
RE: Atheism destroyed with a question
Textwall 1: Lofty promises, we'll see if he makes good on them. Also, this is not a video. It is a slide show.

Textwall 2: Ah, the cosmological argument. No matter how often we kill it, it comes back to haunt us. Let's see here...

First, atheists do not so much deny as reject a sentient creator of the universe. The distinction is that one is that denial is a state of insisting that it is false, and rejection is a state of not believing it is true... at least, not until convincing evidence is presented. Some atheists go further to the point of denying it, but not all.

Second, the cited theorems are insufficeint to make the claim. For example, the Big Bang theory only points to a moment in the past where the matter of the universe approached infinite density, and space was very highly contracted. It does not say that the universe BEGAN at that point in time. One hypothesis (utterly unproven) suggests that the Big Bang is the result of the collapse of a higher-dimensional object into three or four spacial dimensions... suggesting that the universe did exist before the Big Bang, albeit in a form we did not recognize. Moving on, the Holographic principle has absolutely nothing to do with universal origins. The second law of thermodynamics states only that the effects of time are not reversible... that we cannot return to a previous state... but says nothing about there being a state of "minimum" entropy and therefore says nothing about there having to be an original point in time. And finally, Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin have been disputed by no less than Stephan Hawking, and the conclusion of a lone scientific paper does not amount to a consensus of the scientific community. Most scientists in relevant fields consider the universe to have an origin a finite time ago, but the slide show's author seems incapable of establishing this, or even making the appropriate scientific citations. This does not bode well for the rest of the presentation.

Third, even if these examples were taken to prove the claim, as asserted, there are two points to be addressed. First, the characterization of a universe proceeding suggests the existence of time... for how could we proceed without time? This is not a statement that can be made about the origin of time itself. Second, it ignores the possiblity of a topologically open, bounded time dimension, one where there is no "first moment", but one in which we can approach that projected first moment to arbitrary, infintesimal proximity.

And fourth, this is not a deductive argument as claimed. Science is based on inference, not deduction, and this argument is based on that inference.

Also, points deducted for not even being able to get Textwall 2 onto a single slide.

Textwall 3: "Nothing by definition does nothing".... what exactly is the definition of nothing, again? Author has missed a step. I'll agree that things arising from nothing are counterintuitive and not apparent in the everyday world, but I am not prepared to reject the possibility on the basis of incredulity in favor of something else that is even less credible.

Textwall 4: SOME atheists assert virtual particles, but this isn't integral to atheism in the slightest. Also, between the isolated molecules in the vacuum of space, there is vacuum. Of course, it still isn't nothing. There's the three (or four, or... what is it in string theory, 14?) spacial dimensions, as well as time. In any event, I'm still waiting for evidence of a god.

Textwall 5: Science DOES say that nothing can cause something... look at Dark Energy, for example. And Occam's razor is only applicable when COMPARING two possibilities, which the slide show is not yet doing. Atheism is a conclusion (or, rather, rejection of a conclusion) rather than the pressuposition the author paints it as. And finally, Lawrence Krauss's cosmological model, for example, is based on centuries of scientific research and the best scientific understanding of the universe presently available, making the assertion that it is founded on considerably more than speculations and an "atheistic world view".

... also, none of this actually relates to the "grounding" of atheism.

... also, the author needs a proof editor. Terrible grammar.

Textwall 6: Just because something is a science fiction concept doesn't make it impossible. The internet and spaceships were once science fiction. Of note, chained and multiple universes might not demonstrate the empirical properties that the author asserts are proof of a finite past, making the next statement that there had to be a beginning point for everything inapplicable. ... and then the author promptly goes on to contradict him(?)self with the very next sentence, using the demand that everything must have a beginning point to assert a god that need not have a beginning point. Fine tuning is thoroughly debunked, and speaking as a mathematician the author has no grasp of mathematics. (In particular, no statistical claim can be asserted with a sample size of only 1.)

... also, "atheist's belief" is a contradiction in terms, unless we're talking about a belief unconnected to atheism, eg, "the sky is blue".

Textwall 6: ... an author might want to ask an atheist, before pretending to know what inspires atheism. That's what an honest person would do. Also, where the hell has one single bit of the chicken versus egg argument been proven?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 9 users Like Reltzik's post
01-02-2014, 01:57 PM
RE: Atheism destroyed with a question
Did I miss the question that destroyed atheism?


God is a concept by which we measure our pain -- John Lennon

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 9 users Like Momsurroundedbyboys's post
01-02-2014, 02:10 PM (This post was last modified: 01-02-2014 02:24 PM by true scotsman.)
RE: Atheism destroyed with a question
This is so intellectually dishonest. If someone is going to go to all the trouble to make a video, why would they make an argument that has been refuted over and over again for centuries. This is the first cause argument and lets just put aside the fact that it requires special pleading and begging the question for a minute and let's look at the claim that the big bang theory says that the universe came from nothing. It does not claim that. That is a lie. It says that the universe was once a lot denser and way, way hotter. It says nothing about what came before because our understanding of physics isn't complete yet. We can't go there yet. So who is saying it came from nothing? An error in thinking like this cannot be made innocently when the information is so readily available.

The entire argument is an argument from ignorance and this has been pointed out for hundreds of years and yet people keep using it.

There is another reason why it doesn't work. It is true that you can look for causes within the universe but when you are talking about the universe as a whole you can't ask for a cause. The law of causality presupposes existence. If the universe is everything that exists then there is nowhere to look and if you go outside of time and space and existence for a cause then you haven't solved any problems because what caused the creator? Enter special pleading. No search for origins can take you, logically, to the Supernatural because by definition it is outside of the reach of reason and logic.

No, the only honest answer is WE DON't KNOW, there are a lot of brilliant minds working on it, but even if we never know there is still no justification for saying a supernatural being did it. That puts an end to any rational inquiry. You just have to have faith that such a being exists and that's not evidence, that's not science and it certainly doesn't prove anything.

For anyone to use an argument so full of fallacies it says to me that they don't really care whether what they believe is true or not.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes true scotsman's post
01-02-2014, 02:16 PM
RE: Atheism destroyed with a question
Christians talk about the whole complex universe springing from nothing. All you need is a dense amount of energy in a void with some minute fluctuations. Science has either a general or in-depth understanding of everything that has developed since the big bang.

Just because we don't (yet) know why energy exists in the first place does not mean to say that everything since the Big Bang needs to be explained in terms of God or that the concept of a God has any relevance to life which arose several billion years after the big bang.


(Incidentally the video sucks in terms of actually communicating an idea. If it was text then it would allow the audience to think it through and to fully understand the message at the necessary speed. Cramming it into a small screen with black text on a dark background too fast to read without any sound suggests that the intention is not to communicate an idea but to reinforce the existing beliefs of a creationist audience who wouldn't understand it anyway. And tacking 'sources' onto the end does not make it a scientifically valid argument in the same way that tacking a sprig of parsley onto a fresh dog turd does not make it a souffle)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Mathilda's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: