Debunk Please
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-04-2015, 07:37 PM
RE: Debunk Please
Thanks everybody. He still hasn't replied to my last reply to him that I posted above but if he does I drop some more of the good stuff you guys have given me here.

If anyone is interested to follow the conversation ongoing I'll attach a link. It's nothing special except for the 'end of days' whacko who very well could rival any nut job or troll theist I've seen in nearly a year here. Some of the shit he posts will leave you speechless.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-04-2015, 07:51 PM (This post was last modified: 08-04-2015 08:01 PM by true scotsman.)
RE: Debunk Please
(08-04-2015 06:19 PM)Fodder_From_The_Truth Wrote:  In another message board I've been in an ongoing debate of general theism vs atheism. A recent poster jumped and said logic and science point to not just a deity but the God of the Bible. Below I will copy and paste his reply to my questions for him. He claimed he had a degree in some field of science but I cannot recall his specifics. I am 'bcsoonerfan' and the response is by a poster who calls himself 'F the Bruins'

Originally posted by bcsoonerfan:
F the Bruins, in all civility moving forward, please enlighten me as to what science I'm dismissing? I'm genuinely interested. If you're talking about causality, please lay out to me what specifically about causality points to a deity but specifically the God of the Bible.



Causality is not a science, but rather a tool used in science. Causality is one of the three laws of logic. Not a theory, but a law. Causality points to the fact that all effects necessitate a cause. Nothing is self-caused. For a being to cause itself, it must predate its own existence, rendering it's necessary characteristics for causing itself to not exist. If the characteristics necessary for causing itself to exist do not exist, it is impossible to self-cause.

Ok, so no being can cause its own existence. This necessitates that all beings are either eternal or caused by another pre-existing being.

Every being in our universe is in a state of change...energy level, motion etc. all beings in change are effected upon. Our universe is a huge collection of effects. Effects necessitate a cause. All beings in a state of change had another being potentiate that change.

Now, use a row of falling dominos as an anology for cause and effect. We see the dominos as they fall. One topples the next, which topples the next. Each domino is a cause of the next domino's fall, but its own fall is the effect caused by the preceding domino. Cause and effect cannot possibly go back for an eternity. If the falling dominos went back forever, there would never be the first domino tipped. If the first domino is not tipped, there could be no secondary effects of falling dominos. Also, events cannot cross an infinite time to reach today. But we are here today. The events of the falling dominos must have had a beginning. A tipper.

This logical law points to our universe having a beginning. Some will bring up many world theories, but cause and effect still require a primary cause of all effects. Some will bring up an eternal universe, but cause and effect still requires a beginning. All effects have a beginning.

lets just throw out a hypothetical. If a universe is eternal. The laws of thermodynamics would mandate that it would be a virtually dead universe. Energy would have been so spread thin that our universe would be at about absolute zero. There would be no order left. The thing is, there is still order. The universe still has usable energy. Everything heads towards a lower energy state and disorder. After and infinite amount of time,me should have been there long ago.

All of the above is what I maintain points to a primary cause of our universe. This is only a partial picture of God. A primary cause must be uncaused and eternal. This means that it cannot be in a state of change. These are three Divine characteristics of God. But, still not a complete picture.

If the primary cause of all our universe was a lone being, consider some other characteristics one can deduce. We have knowledge. All knowledge via causality, originated from the primary cause.

It takes power to cause something to be. All power originated from the primary cause.

I could go on with this line of thought, but you get the idea.

Now, is the original cause of our universe sentient? If an eternal being just happened to have the proper mechanics to cause a universe to exist, and had an eternity to do so, our universe would have been caused an eternity ago and already dead. But it is not dead. Our universe was not created an eternity ago, by an eternal primary cause. That points to a decision made from an infinite amount of choices. In turn, decisions point to the characteristic of a sentient being.

Now, the picture is starting to look very much like the God of the Bible.


Twice now I've typed a long response only to have the power cut out. I don't have time to retype everything but the primacy of existence principle totally destroys this argument and actually refutes the god concept. It is the doom shroom of arguments. It is a weapon of mass destruction against theism. The beauty of it is that it is completely irrefutable. It has a built in protection; its opponents must affirm its main premise in the act of trying to refute it.

I'm going to link you to some articles on a blog by a guy who has written extensively on the subject of metaphysical primacy. He spells it out so even a dummy like me can understand it. I highly recommend that you learn this principle and its implications for theism. They are devastating.

I'm not affiliated with this blog. The guy really knows his stuff and is an excellent writer. Once you understand the principle you will be able to easily validate it yourself. In the authors words "t's precisely what presuppositionalists *wish* they had in their apologetic arsenal, but don't."

http://bahnsenburner.blogspot.com/2010/0...cy-of.html

http://bahnsenburner.blogspot.com/2006/1...tence.html

http://bahnsenburner.blogspot.com/2006/1...tence.html

Enjoy.

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
08-04-2015, 07:59 PM
RE: Debunk Please
Thanks scotsman, I'll check it out.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-04-2015, 08:08 PM
RE: Debunk Please
Easy debunk: special pleading. Tell him to look it up.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-04-2015, 08:35 PM (This post was last modified: 08-04-2015 08:57 PM by Reltzik.)
RE: Debunk Please
Replying to the OP now, might reply to the rest of the thread in a bit.

(08-04-2015 06:19 PM)Fodder_From_The_Truth Wrote:  In another message board I've been in an ongoing debate of general theism vs atheism. A recent poster jumped and said logic and science point to not just a deity but the God of the Bible. Below I will copy and paste his reply to my questions for him. He claimed he had a degree in some field of science but I cannot recall his specifics. I am 'bcsoonerfan' and the response is by a poster who calls himself 'F the Bruins'

Originally posted by bcsoonerfan:
F the Bruins, in all civility moving forward, please enlighten me as to what science I'm dismissing? I'm genuinely interested. If you're talking about causality, please lay out to me what specifically about causality points to a deity but specifically the God of the Bible.
Causality is not a science, but rather a tool used in science. Causality is one of the three laws of logic. Not a theory, but a law.

DANGER, Will Robinson, DANGER! Evolution-is-just-a-theory nitwit likely in close proximity!!!

But seriously, this is the cosmological argument, aka prime-mover.

(08-04-2015 06:19 PM)Fodder_From_The_Truth Wrote:  Causality points to the fact that all effects necessitate a cause. Nothing is self-caused. For a being to cause itself, it must predate its own existence, rendering it's necessary characteristics for causing itself to not exist. If the characteristics necessary for causing itself to exist do not exist, it is impossible to self-cause.

Okay, I'm ready to go out on a limb and predict the rest of this argument now. It's definitely boiler-plate Cosmological, maybe with a dash of Kalam.

The normal game here is normally how does someone go from saying everything requires a cause, to something is uncaused. The typical tap-dance (Kalam) is to claim an exemption for eternal things. He hasn't gone this route. Instead, he explicitly stated that ALL things have a cause, without making such an exemption. I wonder how he'll get out of the "what caused god" question.

For myself, I think the normal game is bogus. Oh, the special pleading fallacy is there and calling it out is legitimate, but there's so much MORE to attack in the cosmological argument that we counter-apologists usually ignore!

For starters, if he follows the normal formula, he'll falsely conflate two concepts: The process by which matter is assembled into and broken down from what we think of as coherent things in the universe, versus how that matter comes to exist at all. The difference is one between a chair being crated by assembling its parts, and a chair being created by being pooffed into existence ex nihilo in complete violation of the law of conservation of matter and energy. Right now, all his examples are of existing things combining into new things or effecting other existant things. At some point he'll switch to saying that this is the same thing as ex nihilo, or somehow extrapolates to it, when the two are completely different.

And that's another failing of this argument. He's holding out causality as a law of the universe. Conservation of matter and energy is also a law of the universe, which ex nihilo creation would violate. At some point, I predict he's going to insist that the strength of THE LAW of causality, which is inviolable BECAUSE its a law, will demand ex nihilo creation... and completely ignore, to the point of never mentioning it, that doing so would require violating ANOTHER law. EDIT: And by ignore it, I mean he will never make a case for why the one law should be considered inviolate at the expense of the other, rather than vice versa.

We're also going to be treated to claims about infinity that are patently false under any modern mathematical understanding. These are artifices of the Greek model of mathematics which rejected infinity along with negative numbers, the infinitesimal, and zero... and which Zeno's paradoxes famously showed to be ultimately absurd in these rejections. However, because the cosmological argument was founded in ancient Greek philosophy, it brings with it the defunct fragments of the Greek mathematics which it used. True to form, theists have failed to ever critically re-examine this argument for flaws, even nearly two-and-a-half millenia after Zeno.

In any event, after failing to ever notice these flaws, or perhaps giving them some Kalam window dressing, he's going to argue for an unmoved mover. He's then going to make a whole bunch of casually- and poorly-justified assumptions about this prime mover, likely a speed run through the teleological argument to "prove" intelligence, perhaps tacking on some ill-defined words like "timeless", and then he'll declare victory, strut around, and crap on the chess board.

(08-04-2015 06:19 PM)Fodder_From_The_Truth Wrote:  Ok, so no being can cause its own existence. This necessitates that all beings are either eternal or caused by another pre-existing being.

Every being in our universe is in a state of change...energy level, motion etc. all beings in change are effected upon. Our universe is a huge collection of effects. Effects necessitate a cause. All beings in a state of change had another being potentiate that change.

Okay, so he seems to have remembered that he's supposed to be exempting eternal beings. Belatedly. That's fair enough. Apologists utilizing the cosmological argument were rather belated in realizing it too. Belated, by about a millenia and a half.

Also, he's doubling down on the interactions type of effect. This will make it clumsier when he tries to swap in an ex nihilo type of effect.

(08-04-2015 06:19 PM)Fodder_From_The_Truth Wrote:  Now, use a row of falling dominos as an anology for cause and effect. We see the dominos as they fall. One topples the next, which topples the next. Each domino is a cause of the next domino's fall, but its own fall is the effect caused by the preceding domino. Cause and effect cannot possibly go back for an eternity.

ZING! Arbitrary denial of the infinite! CALLED IT!

(08-04-2015 06:19 PM)Fodder_From_The_Truth Wrote:  If the falling dominos went back forever, there would never be the first domino tipped. If the first domino is not tipped, there could be no secondary effects of falling dominos. Also, events cannot cross an infinite time to reach today. But we are here today.

It's like an autographed collection of the greatest hits of the popular band I Don't Understand How Infinity Works. (Which is a terrible name for a band. Given how many accidentally awesome band names we come across on a daily basis, this is inexcusable. Also, Inexcusable would be a great band name.) Whatever field this guy supposedly has a science degree in, it's not a math-heavy one.

(08-04-2015 06:19 PM)Fodder_From_The_Truth Wrote:  The events of the falling dominos must have had a beginning. A tipper.

Which, in this analogy, would be a person or force which would itself have a cause for that tipping. And thus there would necessarily be another "domino" before any hypothetical "first" domino. Which, if you DO understand infinity, is the definition of infinity.

Also, here's what the tipper looks like:

[Image: tipper-gore.jpg]

(08-04-2015 06:19 PM)Fodder_From_The_Truth Wrote:  This logical law points to our universe having a beginning. Some will bring up many world theories, but cause and effect still require a primary cause of all effects. Some will bring up an eternal universe, but cause and effect still requires a beginning. All effects have a beginning.

Okay, now he's made another math fallacy that I DIDN'T call, but should have. He went from every event IN the unverse needing to have a cause, the universe AS A WHOLE must have had a cause (er, beginning... not exactly a seamless switcheroo). This is assuming that because some property holds for every element of a set, it must hold for the set itself. That's like saying that because all shoes in a closet are made of leather, the IDEA of all shoes in that closet must also be made of leather. Or less metaphorically, like saying that because every integer must have a number one less than it, the SET of integers must have a number one less than it (ignoring that the concept of "less than" is meaningless for sets).

(08-04-2015 06:19 PM)Fodder_From_The_Truth Wrote:  lets just throw out a hypothetical.

Oooooh, he failed to capitalize the "lets" at the beginning of his sentence. Or apostrophize it, but the failure to capitalize is what bugged me. I'd just broken up the quote to comment right before it, and I was looking at it thinking, dang, I must have accidentally cut out the first part of that sentence.

(08-04-2015 06:19 PM)Fodder_From_The_Truth Wrote:  If a universe is eternal. The laws of thermodynamics would mandate that it would be a virtually dead universe.

ANOTHER hit from I Don't Understand How Infinity Works!

(08-04-2015 06:19 PM)Fodder_From_The_Truth Wrote:  Energy would have been so spread thin that our universe would be at about absolute zero. There would be no order left.

Okay, in addition to not knowing math good, we see more proof that whatever science degree he might have, it's not in physics. The second law of thermodynamics is about usable forms versus unusable forms of energy, aka "heat". Not "order". What he's doing is conflating similar-but-different concepts of entropy from multiple disciplines in the manner of popular conception, but not at all related to the actual concepts of entropy that are proven. Everything he says about thermodynamics? Ignore it. He doesn't know what he's talking about.

(08-04-2015 06:19 PM)Fodder_From_The_Truth Wrote:  The thing is, there is still order. The universe still has usable energy. Everything heads towards a lower energy state and disorder. After and infinite amount of time,me should have been there long ago.

"Lower Energy State" indeed. He's ALREADY ignoring the law of conservation of energy! He means a higher state of heat, or a lower state of USABLE energy. Again, he's playing a track from I Do Not Understand How Infinity Works.

(08-04-2015 06:19 PM)Fodder_From_The_Truth Wrote:  All of the above is what I maintain points to a primary cause of our universe. This is only a partial picture of God. A primary cause must be uncaused and eternal. This means that it cannot be in a state of change. These are three Divine characteristics of God. But, still not a complete picture.

ZING! Called it! Magically slipped from "everything has a cause" to "something is uncaused"!

(08-04-2015 06:19 PM)Fodder_From_The_Truth Wrote:  If the primary cause of all our universe was a lone being, consider some other characteristics one can deduce. We have knowledge. All knowledge via causality, originated from the primary cause.

Wow, not even a teleological argument. This is an argument from... original knowledge? I don't think I've seen this one before. But it's further proof that this guy doesn't understand entropy in the disciplines he's conflated it from, or else he'd know how entropy applied to the decay of information from an original signal in information theory... and how knowledge of the universe would derive from STATIC in that signal, rather than the original signal itself.

Also, where's he getting "lone being" from? Did he just slide that in there with no justification at all?

(08-04-2015 06:19 PM)Fodder_From_The_Truth Wrote:  It takes power to cause something to be. All power originated from the primary cause.

... wait, power? As in, energy or work OVER TIME? Power isn't fixed! It's not conserved! DEFINITELY NOT A PHYSICIST! Or anything to do with electronics. Or engineering. Or.... dang, almost ANY hard science. ... which would require math, so I guess I knew that already.

(08-04-2015 06:19 PM)Fodder_From_The_Truth Wrote:  I could go on with this line of thought, but you get the idea.

"This guy doesn't know what he's talking about." Yup, I get the idea.

(08-04-2015 06:19 PM)Fodder_From_The_Truth Wrote:  Now, is the original cause of our universe sentient?

For the record, we have no functional definition of intelligence that does not include sentience.

(08-04-2015 06:19 PM)Fodder_From_The_Truth Wrote:  If an eternal being just happened to have the proper mechanics to cause a universe to exist, and had an eternity to do so, our universe would have been caused an eternity ago and already dead.

Okay, who put the Greatest Hits album on infinite loop? That's a little bit ironic, don't ya think? ... also, why would the "just happened" scenario have an eternal history? He just pulled that out of his ass. One of these days, I want to see an apologist take a moment to rule out Brahmanda. Just, you know, for the variety. It gets boring hearing the same album on loop.

(08-04-2015 06:19 PM)Fodder_From_The_Truth Wrote:  But it is not dead. Our universe was not created an eternity ago, by an eternal primary cause. That points to a decision made from an infinite amount of choices. In turn, decisions point to the characteristic of a sentient being.

Sentient: Adjective. Possessing the ability to feel, perceive, or otherwise experience one's surroundings. Examples of correct use: Not the preceding quote. (btw, if the uncaused cause's decisions are dependent on what it senses from its surroundings... that would be a CAUSE.)

Also, he pulled infinite choices out of his ass. (No, don't examine that phrase. Trust me. I did, and I regret it. Girly, go to town.)

(08-04-2015 06:19 PM)Fodder_From_The_Truth Wrote:  Now, the picture is starting to look very much like the God of the Bible.

A half-assed, poorly-described, undemonstrated and indemonstrable being with arbitrary whims that changes nature whenever the narrative of whoever is writing the current fanfic of him calls for it? ... actually, yes.

Ignoring that, and ALL THE OTHER fallacies up until now, the picture being painted is also starting to look like Ptah. And Anu. And Ahura Mazda. And probably dozens more I'm not familiar with. If I were grading this as a proof of the GOD OF THE BIBLE specifically, and even if I were with it entirely up to this point, which I'm not? D+. If I was feeling generous.

... screw it, I'm not feeling generous. F. Also, time to investigate the student for plagiarism.

To get a good idea of HOW ABSURD that last chain of assumptions were? Darkmatter2525 just posted an awesome video showing a whole bunch of ways they could go wrong.





EDIT: Geeez, what a waste of the atheist's time THAT was.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Reltzik's post
08-04-2015, 09:04 PM
RE: Debunk Please
Beautiful stuff Reltzik.

I almost tinkled my pants when I saw the picture of Tipper.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Fodder_From_The_Truth's post
08-04-2015, 10:02 PM
RE: Debunk Please
Just so yall know, I advised this guy I posted his response here and I told him I'd post a link if he wanted to see the replies. I praised the brilliance of many of you and let him know some of the responses were brutal.

He declined very quickly.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Fodder_From_The_Truth's post
08-04-2015, 11:54 PM
RE: Debunk Please
My brain hurts Scotsman. Good reads and I got the basics of it but I still feel like a lot of it went over my head.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-04-2015, 01:18 AM (This post was last modified: 09-04-2015 01:27 AM by Robvalue.)
RE: Debunk Please
Nice decimation of the pseudo science babble Smile

The problem with all this is that I don't even care if it is true. If there is some sort of God, it makes no difference to me until we know something about it or that it has any bearing on our lives whatsoever. If we somehow know that God is the character described in the bible, then I want as little to do with it as possible. I'm certainly not going to worship it, it's about as evil as can be.

Theists often make this mistake, the idea that if God exists, atheists would automatically worship it. The only motivation for worshipping something like Yahweh is fear of what he will do to you if you don't.

So all these arguments, from my point of view, are redundant. All they "explain" is that christians really are worshipping a monster, rather than worshipping nothing at all. Christians would further have to convince me that in fact Yahweh is nothing like the character in the bible.

And if the stupid twat of a god decides to mimic being non existent from my point of view, that's his problem. He clearly has lost his instant justice settings since I can call him a dicknob fascist crapometer all day long and nothing happens.

I have a website here which discusses the issues and terminology surrounding religion and atheism. It's hopefully user friendly to all.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-04-2015, 08:56 AM
RE: Debunk Please
It still seems to me, that no matter what fancy word-play the theist employs to prove their god, a god that disintegrated at or from the creation of the universe would always be a superior proposition to a god that currently exists.

God poofed it into existence with rules that let it run itself and then this deity was destroyed in the process. This would be no different from what we observe- a universe running by itself with no supernatural input.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: