To avoid this problem in the future... Know the history. Know the science. Don't make "factual statements" that are so glaringly wide open and generalized as to be very easily shredded. Learn these techniques (and more), and your arguments and debate points will become much harder to dispute. ;-)
And so, your statement "No study anywhere by any real scientist has ever supported anything but an ancient Earth."
Is categorically false.
"No study by any real scientist" = False and False. There were many studies and age estimate calculations over the past few hundred years, many of them by leading scientists in their day, even up through the early 1900s.
"EVER supported anything but an ancient earth" = False. Historically age estimates ranged from thousands of years up to infinity.
Before Radiometric Dating became the dominant method of dating the age of the earth, there were MANY different methods and age calulcations put forth by scientists and non-scientists alike. There's a good list of many old date estimates listed at TalkOrigins (which for anyone who does not know, is a pro-Neo-Darwinist and very-ancient-earth website). Of course you'll then argue "they're all OLD estimates". But here you go anyway.
In 1931 the National Research Council of the US National Academy of Sciences put together a study on the age of the earth and through that study announced that there was no reliable way to date the age of the planet earth other than by using Radiometric dating. You'll find that after this, attempts to date the earth by any other means (except by people who disagreed with radiometric dating's reliability) all but disappeared as the date of the earth had been "set in stone" (pun intended)...
The list of peer-reviewed Intelligent Design articles and publications continues to grow, despite being a fairly recent phenomenon (or a revitalization of old ideas with new evidences and scientific methods of study).
"How about a revised and updated list of pro-intelligent design peer-reviewed scientific papers, showing among other things that the 50th such paper was published in 2011?"
...countinued... So, even with inclusions of older rocks, this method of dating gets relatively MORE accurate the older it gets. Another dating that the 'creationists' sent to be tested only sampled the inclusions themselves, yet the YECs tried to say the entire rock was dated wrong.
No study anywhere by any real scientist has ever supported anything but an ancient Earth. Yes, some tests were anomalous, but further studies either showed why, or will show why. I bet AiG will not reprint those.
@Utmoon "No study anywhere by any real scientist has ever supported anything but an ancient Earth."
Ouch! That's a giant and inaccurate generalization if I've ever heard one! Here's some recommendations to help you clarify your statement, since if I just went on this statement "as is", I could produce MANY scientific studies, theories and writings that have suggested an age of the earth a LOT younger than 4.6 billion years...
1) Clarify the time-frame in question "no RECENT (as in the last few decades) scientific study...". If you check out Wikipedia's section on "Age of The Earth" you'll find a number of scientific age estimates for the planet that varied greatly over the last 200 years.
2) Clarify what you mean by "scientific study". Do you mean an official publication? Peer reviewed journals? Books? Text books? Quotes by scientists? etc.?
3) By "real scientist" do you mean a scientist with a PhD, a PhD directly linked to geology, biology, cosmology, and linked to dating the age of the earth? Do you mean a scientist that is a Neo-Darwinist? Does "real scientist" mean a scientist that agrees with an ancient earth? Because it would be quite difficult to find a scientist who agrees with the idea of a billions of years old earth AND a much younger earth at the same time...
How do you know the bible is the inspired word of god? Were you there when it was written?
As for the data you are talking about, dig deeper. Have you even read any of Dalrymple's papers on the lava rocks he sampled, or have you just read the AiG cherry picking? Only 1 of 26 samples gave a significantly wrong date because of inclusions.
Here is a quote for you. "If the identical rock had been formed 50 million years ago, the K-Ar would give a "false" age of a little over 51 million years."
Atheism is not at all unique in the underlying precepts and actions that fuel it. It holds true to very common psychological systems of emotion and mind that tend to dominate throughout mankind. The fact that it rejects such ideas entirely is almost worthy of being called an extreme case of psychological blindness. They appeal to the orders of intelligence, logic, science, and math, and yet are not actually driven or well supported by it anymore than anyone else is (possibly worse). Oh well.
Along with science, computer technology (programming), religion, and history, I also love studying politics and the mindsets of people involved in debate and political activism. The psychology of it all and how people think and interpret, rationalize for or against various information sets, understandings and ideas is incredible to behold. I've seen the same emotionally charged and idealized compartmentalizations of so many beliefs and belief systems all across the human spectrum.
Debating on here and other similar videos on YouTube has been an interesting and enlightening experience. The psychological underpinnings of atheism have been greatly shown in many aspects of these people's worldviews and beliefs. The political and personal biases, the constant baseless attacks on all things Christian, the constant appeal to peer review and mainstream science/media conformity, the regular angry insulting outbursts, and even their lack of sources and references. Fascinating.
I have been debating people off and on in at least 3 or 4 other video comment sections as well, so the number of unique source material references easily exceeds over 100 instances. What's funny in connection with this is that atheists throughout have constantly accused me of giving NONE at all, and accused me of lying when I point out that I have. They claim I warp definitions and science constantly, so I regularly provide the actual material and dictionary definitions to refute them.
Under the Comments sections of only 2 videos where I've been debating people, I have provided at least 80 separate references to source materials to back up my statements and standpoints. This have been a mixture from dictionary definitions, peer reviewed scientific articles, news articles, the Bible, published books, Wikipedia, science websites, major university websites and databases, and other topical websites.
MrMaster90, however, has supplied a grand total of 15 unique direct references.
"all of your's and Dave's arguments were asserted without evidence or sound logic."
As a fun test I decided to review the comments of this and one other video done by OFNF) and examine how many times I have provided source materials and quotations with sources for many of my arguments. MrMaster90 has constantly said that I have provided no evidence other than my own opinion and that I lie when I say I have....
answersingenesis(dot)org also has a lot of good information both about science and the Bible. It regularly covers the supposed contradictions in the Bible, including many other common atheistic attacks on Christianity.
"It’s only rank ignorance, both of the social world of early Christianity, and of the particulars of those other religions, that allows things like this to survive."
"In short, only someone who hasn’t done his homework would ever reject Christianity on the basis of pagan parallels. Christianity has been shown to be historically reliable, and to reflect events that actually happened."
- The original writings about Alexander The Great are lost, but we have people later on that reference those earlier lost works...
Compare this with the writers of gospels and the numerous letters in the New Testament, almost all written by men who walked, talked and lived with Jesus during his ministry. The earliest copies of these writings that we have are no more than 100 years after the events they describe. Alexander the Great's... Hundreds of years and not copies of the originals.
Note what Wikipedia says about the earliest ancient writings concerning Alexander The Great.
"Contemporaries who wrote accounts of his life included Alexander's campaign historian Callisthenes; Alexander's generals Ptolemy and Nearchus; Aristobulus, a junior officer on the campaigns; and Onesicritus, Alexander's chief helmsman. Their works are lost, but later works based on these original sources have survived."
There is tons less ancient (historical) writing about Alexander The Great than there is about Jesus and almost all of it (for Alexander The Great) comes from MUCH later time periods than his actual life, usually hundreds of years later. Yet I would doubt very much that MrMaster90 and other atheists would admit and believe that Alexander The Great was a completely mythical figure concocted by the over-active imaginations of ancient Greek shepherds or soldiers.
reading the comments, I would have been surprised if there weren't atheists here spouting their crap n proving that they do exactly what is described in the video they do to defend their belief, funny and sad at the same time.
Now that we've looked into the scientific understandings and fields surrounding the issues of Matter, Mass, The Big Bang, Particle Physics, etc., we can take another look at MrMaster90's assertion considering the nature and origins of matter and see if he was accurate in his representation of it...
"The Big Bang didn't create matter; nobody said it did except lying creationists."
Sorry MrMaster90, Matter did not exist until the particles cooled and combined to make matter after the big bang.
"After its initial expansion from a singularity, the Universe cooled sufficiently to allow energy to be converted into various subatomic particles. It would take thousands of years for some of these particles (protons, neutrons, and electrons) to combine and form atoms, the building blocks of matter."
"Matter is a general term for the substance of which all physical objects consist.[1][2] Typically, matter includes atoms and other particles which have mass. A common way of defining matter is as anything that has mass and occupies volume."
"If matter and antimatter had come out even in those first moments, they would have instantly destroyed each other, leaving nothing but energy behind."
Time Magazine, "Big News About Small Particles. And Why You Care", By Michael D. Lemonick Thursday, May 20, 2010
"Conventional particle theory says that equal amounts of matter and antimatter should have coalesced out of the intense heat and pressure of the Big Bang, when the universe was a fraction of a second old. That clearly didn't happen, though: when particles meet their antiparticles, they annihilate one another in a burst of energetic gamma rays..."
Other scientific areas of interest connected to The Big Bang and problems with it are in the areas of matter and antimatter which cancel each other out resulting in mere energy but no matter. The big bang should have created equal amounts of matter and antimatter, which then should have canceled each other out completely, yet the universe is full of matter but not antimatter (from what we can tell). Science can't explain this very well. It's a mystery. Note the Big Bang matter CREATION event...
I'm curious about how much you guys know about particle physics, quantum theory, relativity, the standard model of particle physics, hypothetical string theory, weak and strong forces, and scientific studies like that. I would expect you to know a fair bit seeing as how these things are all fundamental to the "origins of the universe and all matter in it" debates and issues. I have some doubts though, as a few recent comments here have indicated a lack of understanding about such things.
Jesus provided a perfect pardon for the guilty by dying on the cross and rising from the dead three days later. He did this out of love for us. No God would do such a thing if He did not deeply love His creation. An evil God would provide no way out of guilt and punishment. A good God would, and would make the salvation require admittance (repentance) of sin so that the sinner understood and realized his/her guilt and need for forgiveness. Only a loving good God would do any of that.
When a person points this fact out to atheists, they then argue that God is evil for providing an "escape hatch" for guilty sinners instead of punishing them. So to the atheist mindset, God is evil no matter what he does. If he punishes people for sin, he's evil. If He DOESN'T punish people for sin, then He's still evil. Jesus died and rose again to provide all sinners a simple final solution for our guilt...
Another example of atheist "double-think" is with regards to Jesus Christ. To atheists, God is evil for punishing sinners for breaking His laws. In the Bible, God first provides Israel with a method to pay for their sins by sacrificing a spotless sheep once a year. Then in the New Testament, Jesus is killed on the cross the same day the sheep are being sacrificed at the Jewish Temple. From then on, Jesus is the ultimate sacrifice and payment of sin...
It is amazing there are still young earth creationists. So many of them and not one has found any evidence or they'd have presented something by now. Some say the Sun orbits the Earth too. It's the angriest ones we get on youtube, but I imagine most wouldn't use the internet if they hate science that much.
@Ozzyman200 There are many signs and evidences that indicate the world (and the universe) isn't nearly as old as mainstream science says it is. Do you know the methods that exist for calculating the ages and timescales of things? The major crux of the very ancient earth argument is based on Uniformitarianism and Radiometric Dating. Outside of that, there's very little that comes anywhere close to remotely matching 4.6 billion years for our planet and 13 billion for the universe.
@Ozzyman200 "It's the angriest ones we get on youtube"
This seems to be the case with the atheists on here as well, as I've pointed out the last few days. I'm not angry. I consider it a good and fun challenge to share and debate points for and against things like Abiogenesis and Neo-Darwinism. Some people react quite hostile to alternate ideas and can get quite ticked off and angry, but I don't. I've studied this stuff a lot and continue to study it every day. It's fascinating on many levels.
@onceforgivennowfree Wow you're dumb. Sorry man, I'm sure you're a sweet guy but you're going on a public forum and broadcasting to the world how uneducated you are. It's like going on an engineering forum and giving your opinions about structural foundations without ever taking an engineering class. Grow up!
@cvanunen "Wow you're dumb. Sorry man, I'm sure you're a sweet guy but you're going on a public forum and broadcasting to the world how uneducated you are."
I guess university degrees don't count for much these days. I think the more specific accusation of being "dumb with regards to Evolution and the age of the earth, Geology, Radiometric dating" or something like that is a better argument then simply "generally stupid", because you're assuming an awful lot from a few minute video.
Also, it is beneficial to everyone involved (who watches the video, comments here, or even the maker of the video himself), if the people that call him and others like him stupid, to point out the evidence as to how he's completely wrong in the points he makes. THEN you might start getting somewhere. "You're stupid" doesn't amount to much in the way of constructive criticism.
MrMaster90 has also provided a great deal of personal opinion on how he'd make a better god than the God of the Bible and that the God of the Bible is, to use MrMaster90's words, "stupid or evil". Along with the "atheist anger against God" issue I've presented and that has been made very evident by atheist comments on here, this also shows again the atheistic arrogance for considering themselves better than God (or any god). They are their own god and consider all others to be inferior to them.
So in many ways, a lot of the "problems with God" are due to limited human understanding. We are extremely finite, extremely limited. The Bible says we are made in the image of God. In other words, God created us with some similarities to Himself. Atheism, however, complains because it wants to make God in ITS ideal image of God. Let us make God in OUR image, and then rip Him down for not being human and locked in to human limitations. If God were human... But God is NOT human. God is God.
I kept thinking, "Why would God have done this or done it this way?" In the end I found that a lot of my "problems" with regards to God came about by trying to put myself in God's shoes. I realized that God, according to the Bible, knows EVERYTHING, and thus knows exactly how every action and decision will turn out. He is capable of seeing the much bigger picture and ramifications. We humans, however, are extremely limited in our understanding and life times. We are not and cannot be God.
@TavrenElkair "In the end I found that a lot of my "problems" with regards to God came about by trying to put myself in God's shoes."
I worded that wrong. The problem was me trying to put God in MY shoes. Or me trying to imagine myself as God and how I would and could respond. But that's no way to ultimately understand God or God's position. The Bible is invaluable for showing God's position on so many things. So when you analyze the world from God's standpoint instead of our own, it fits.
I used to think a lot of the same questions and ideas that MrMaster90 has posted back before I became a Christian. I wasn't atheist because I believed that SOME sort of god existed, but I had major doubts about the God of the Bible being God. After a lot of studying and thought I eventually realized that a lot of my "problems with God" were myself envisioning God from a limited human perspective...
An example of the censorship issue on a far smaller scale can even be witnessed on the comments sections of OFNF's videos. As I was going through copying and pasting atheist comments as examples of "angry atheists" I saw MANY Creationist comments marked as spam and virtually no atheist comments marked that way. To assume "peer review" is above such political motivation, which is a big component of human nature, is quite amusing when even on here atheists are trying to silence opposition. :-)
"... They seem willing to do virtually anything to silence their critics--from denying them tenure, to preventing them from being hired, to engaging in cyber attacks, to censoring peer-reviewed articles by scholars with whom they disagree."
John G West at EvolutionNews(dot)org in June 2011 says about this topic...
"If there is a "war on science" today, it's not being waged by the critics of Darwinism or supporters of intelligent design. It's being waged by Darwinian fundamentalists who are attempting to prevent any voices except their own from being heard in the scientific community...
That's an example of the peer review process being run over by Neo-Darwin apologists when they found out an article by an Intelligent Design believer was about to be published in a peer reviewed journal. That is only one very recent example. Other examples of "forcibly shutting up" Intelligent Design can be found all over the place. The movie "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" has a few more examples as well. The concerted effort to silence and reject ID is quite politically intense.
William Dembski Interview at TheBestSchools(dot)Org
"The case of Granville Sewell is one of the more recent. Briefly, 'Applied Mathematics Letters' agreed to publish an article of his critical of neo-Darwinism, only to revoke it under pressure from Darwinists. The publisher ended up paying $10,000 for Sewell’s legal fees and issued a public apology. Nice of them. But they still didn’t publish his piece—after it had been peer-reviewed and accepted for publication."
But the point isn't really to say, "You're a meany." It's just to show that there is indeed a great deal of evidence just on here alone that shows that atheists are generally very hostile and angry towards Christianity, the Bible, God, and anything connected with it. The point of that is not that "atheists are meanies". The point is that an emotional reaction happens here because they are emotionally invested in scientific naturalism and Evolutionism. It is their lens for all life.
As I said, the majority of the comments I quoted are from MrMaster90, though not all of them are. For instance, the ones with the F words or NOT MrMaster90. MrMaster90, from the looks of things, is much more civil than that, for which I commend (praise) his decency. However hostility against Creationism, God, the Bible and Christians does still flow through many of his statements as was shown...
Note that though many of the quoted statements are from MrMaster90, not all of them are. Many, however, are from other people disputing ID and Creationism, and arguing from the atheistic standpoint.
As can be seen, there is a great deal of hostility and anger behind a great many of these statements and accusations against Christians, Creationists, or those who accept Intelligent Design. The "angry atheists" point stands quite clearly.
@TavrenElkair Those aren't "angry" statements, nor are they hostile. On a superficial level, they seem like they are, but really, they're accurate statements about religion and it's followers. But since your ego can't handle an attack on your indefensible beliefs, you have to rationalize them away, and going from the superficial "angry" position helps. But on some level, you know you're not being honest with others or yourself. If religion was true, you wouldn't have to lie to yourself.
@MrMaster90 "On a superficial level, they seem like they are, but really, they're accurate statements about religion and it's followers."
So you agree with those statements. That's surprising since you did make many of them. Also, the statement "seem like they are, but really" takes me back to a previous discussion... Are these statements then metaphor or hyperbole and not to be taken literally or seriously?
@MrMaster90 conti: the rule? I can prove negative things such as there's no such thing as a married bachlor that's a negative, or a circle squared that's a negative, again all you have to do is just prove on the contrary is true. What you are doing is nothing more than special pleading. No proof+ no Evidence= no atheism for me.
@FamousDave2186 So basically you're saying that as long as I can't prove there is no God, you're going to believe in him. Why not do the same for Zeus or Odin or Ra? What about fairies or unicorns? Can you prove that they don't exist? If not, then by your logic, you should believe in them. You can see why we start with the null hypothesis before belief. You must first prove that God exists, otherwise the null hypothesis (atheism; non-belief in gods) remains intact.
@MrMaster90 well if you actually read what I post I said that I believe due to the proof and evidence of it. Where are the historal accounts for Zeus, odin and Ra huh? so no I don't believe in those. Nice strawman right there by the way.
Next comment: "But if you want proof that your god doesn't exist, that's doable. To start with, your god is spaceless and timeless, which is nonexistence in and of itself." (please allow me to finish before you comment I'll tell you when I'm done) First look
@MrMaster90 conti: up the word spaceless it says having no limits or boundaries how does that not describe God? second timeless: means the quality of being eternal, ageless, immortal, or not affected by time. How does this not apply to God then? You're only assuming facts look up the words before making comments, God supposedly created and interacts with the universe, but if he's immaterial, that would be impossible, since only physical bodies can affect other physical bodies" Wait what? define
@FamousDave2186 Distorting definitions, are we? You and I both know that "spaceless and timeless" means "without space and time." If you mean "unaffected by time and space" then say so. But that's another contradiction. Everything that exists is by definition affected by the laws of time and space (existence). To say that something exists that isn't subject to the laws of existence is a paradox.
@MrMaster90 "Distorting definitions, are we? You and I both know that "spaceless and timeless" means "without space and time."" No I got this from a website maybe if you actually did a search you would know this. "Everything that exists is by definition affected by the laws of time and space (existence). To say that something exists that isn't subject to the laws of existence is a paradox." That's only in the universe you only assume that naturalism is all there is, can you prove that to be
@MrMaster90 conti: true? Truth is you can't. You can't prove how the universe came to be so naturalism can't be proven to be right for it takes a natural explaintion for things and we don't have the answers for everything now do we? Next I was talking about the universe explain to me how nothing than became something? Where did that preexisting organic matter come from then? It makes sense that God can create because of the defintions I gave you about spaceless and timeless,
@FamousDave2186 How the universe (or life) came to be is irrelevant to whether God exists. Convolving them is a red herring. But as I've proven, immaterial entities cannot create a material universe. That's the main problem, and it's one you've failed to rebut. Plus, the universe is defined as all of existence. To say that God exists outside of existence is to say he doesn't exist. You've created yet another paradox, and red herrings won't save you.
@MrMaster90 Actually it does. If you can't provide how life orginated than how can you say how your theory is the more plauasble one? You said I was lying about how you think nothing created the universe well how did that stuff come to be then to create the universe? It would have to be from nothing. How do you know that definition (wikipedia is not a good source) is even correct that only assumes atheism is correct which you have not shown at all. So I'll answer your rebutals and then I want...
@FamousDave2186 You're strawmanning again. I never even presented a theory, nor did I assert anything about the origin of life or the universe. You're the only one trying to prove anything (God did it), and since God's very existence is demonstrably false, your assertions are unacceptable.
@MrMaster90 So why are you arguing with me then if you're not making a claim. You claim that I'm wrong but don't give me something better you sir are wrong. Next: "immaterial entities can't create matter (proven)." How? "Second, it assumes the "first cause" must be immaterial, which has not been demonstrated." Have you read the kalam cosmological argument? I can't give the website on here but look at Dr. Willaim Lane Craig's defense of Kalam this clearly disproves that.
@MrMaster90 conti: you to answer my questions for a change instead of changing and avoiding my points. Second you haven't argue the Cosmological argument. I've explain to you how in your counter argument that the laws of thermodynamics disprove your point. All you told me was I was wrong does nothing. So there's proof right there. I don't know how God created the universe but the evidence based on the arguments show this. You're arguments are only based off of human reasoning. God isn't human,
@FamousDave2186 I did debunk Kalam, as did many before me. First of all, immaterial entities can't create matter (proven). Second, it assumes the "first cause" must be immaterial, which has not been demonstrated. Third, creating matter contradicts the law of conservation of mass. Fourth, even if it did work, it wouldn't prove God, just that some magical entity created the universe. God doesn't exist, so the entity must be something else (fairies, genies, Brahma, Ahura Mazda, etc.).
@MrMaster90 conti: "Third, creating matter contradicts the law of conservation of mass."
So would the big bang than creating matter uh oh looks like someone just disprove the big bang and didn't even realize it. Do you know something that scientist don't know?
"Fourth, even if it did work, it wouldn't prove God, just that some magical entity created the universe." That is God. A fairy is never said to have created a universe neither Genies. I don't know what Braham ahura Mazda is but I would
@FamousDave2186 The Big Bang didn't create matter; nobody said it did except lying creationists. The Big Bang describes universal expansion from a singularity. The singularity was all matter, energy, time, space and the forces of nature compressed into one unit. No matter or energy was created; it was all preexisting.
Brahma and Ahura Mazda are the creator gods of Hinduism and Zoroastrianism. There's hundreds of creator gods that qualify for Kalam. Can you prove that only one (Yahweh) is real?
@MrMaster90 "The Big Bang didn't create matter; nobody said it did except lying creationists."
Do you know about the research in the "God Particle" and the attempts by scientists to discover exactly what it is that gives matter its mass? Why is this an issue? Because scientists can't explain the origins of mass by way of energy and matter. Everything has mass, but how? They're looking for the particles that must explain it but they haven't found yet...
@MrMaster90 Wikipedia on the Higgs Boson Particle:
"The existence of the Higgs boson is predicted by the Standard Model to explain how spontaneous breaking of electroweak symmetry (the Higgs mechanism) takes place in nature, which in turn explains why other elementary particles have mass."
@MrMaster90 "The Big Bang didn't create matter; nobody said it did except lying creationists."
What gives particles (everything in existence) their mass? That's the question at the heart of the "God Particle" (Higgs bosson particle) studies. The particle has not been discovered, but the standard model of particle physics requires it to exist. The Higgs field is supposed to have appeared shortly after The Big Bang to account for the development (or arising) of mass, and matter.
@MrMaster90 "The singularity was all matter, energy, time, space and the forces of nature compressed into one unit. No matter or energy was created; it was all preexisting."
This is also inaccurate. According to science, the consistent laws and standard models of physics we use and understand today did not and could not apply before a certain point in the early expansion of the universe ("Big Bang")...
Wikipedia, on the "timeline" of The Big Bang itself
"The Universe continued to grow in size and fall in temperature, hence the typical energy of each particle was decreasing. Symmetry breaking phase transitions put the fundamental forces of physics and the parameters of elementary particles into their present form."
Note that the forces and laws of physics as we know them did not apply until a certain point after the beginning of The Big Bang.
@MrMaster90 At Universe Today, "Before the Big Bang", by Fraser Cain on May 17, 2006:
"According to Einstein’s general theory of relativity, the Big Bang represents The Beginning, the grand event at which not only matter but space-time itself was born."
Again this says that the Big Bang was the beginning event that generated matter and physics, even space-time itself. So your statements about the Big Bang not being the cause or starting point of any of that stuff are quite wrong.
@MrMaster90 How do you know that it was enternal? can you prove this? No you cannot, If the universe didn't exist it would be nothingness. Not an empty room for it still has walls around it, absoultly nothing. So where did this stuff that caused the big bang come from? Matter is not enternal for if it was then entrophy would be infinite and that's not the case. The kalam yes does qualify for other gods it supports Theism, since Christianity falls under Theism that's why I use it. To prove...
@FamousDave2186 I just said it was likely eternal, given that creating matter is impossible, especially for immaterial entities. You've also misrepresented the 2nd law of thermodynamics, which is that over time entropy increases in isolated systems. While the source material for the singularity was eternal, time had a beginning (the Big Bang), and thus, the 2nd law only applies after expansion. The singularity, or at least it's source material, can be eternal without violating physics.
@MrMaster90 conti: Yahweh I use the historal accounts of Jesus. I'm pretty sure we've already discuss this. Next comment Just saying my arguments are wrong does nothing to disprove my arguments. How did I lie? Do you know for a fact that I know you're right but just say you're wrong? Can you prove this? Stop with the ad honemims. Like you ever trusted me in the first place. Because he doesn't exist. That it explains it then you sure got me (rolls eyes) as a great thinker of our time said...
@FamousDave2186 "Just saying my arguments are wrong does nothing to disprove my arguments."
Yup. That's a theme that is repeated over and over again in the comments sections of these and other similar videos. "You're stupid. You're liar. etc." That seems to be their best arguments, though they're not even making any debate points.
@FamousDave2186 Try not to get too worked up over it all FamousDave. Think about the reasons behind the mentality and reactions instead of just the insults themselves. The reason they respond the way they do is because our very existence angers them and brings up their issues of pride and superiority (which is also part of their problems with God and the core message of the Bible).
@FamousDave2186 The "historical accounts" written by unknown authors decades after Jesus' supposed death and plagiarized from earlier mythical heroes like Horus, Krishna, Mithra and Dionysus? Nice try. You'd be better off using Zoroaster to prove Ahura Mazda's existence; he was a real person. You also failed to disprove all the other creator deities that qualify, as well as fairies, genies, or anything else. Where's your proof and evidence that your disbelief in them is accurate and correct?
@MrMaster90 Even secular (non-Christian) scholars admit that the writings of the New Testament (the gospels, etc.) were all written at the very most within 100 years of the events that took place. That entire early Christian church considered these writings to be authentic and reliable. If they were not, they would have been easily refuted and rejected. There wasn't enough time for mythical status and warp to degenerate the events and writing.
@MrMaster90 "plagiarized from earlier mythical heroes like Horus, Krishna, Mithra and Dionysus"
I already showed you some of how ridiculous this assessment is. The accusations of copy cat mythology comes almost entirely from people dedicated to attacking and discrediting Christianity (such as atheists ;-) ). The myths and terms you're associating against the Bible are VERY clearly myth and not comparable to scripture. This is a common atheist attack, but not at all credible.
@MrMaster90 conti: "Child Please." That doesn't disprove He doesn't exist. I can rule out fairies because one there's no historal documents for them and two in there stories they never had the power to create a universe. So no it doesn't meet the Kalam at all and for you to call something evil is really admitting that objective moral values do exist and they are not subjective so thank you for proving the Moral argument yet again. No proof +No evidence = no Atheism.
@FamousDave2186 "and for you to call something evil is really admitting that objective moral values do exist and they are not subjective so thank you for proving the Moral argument yet again."
They accuse us and our God of lies and being immoral and evil, and then reject the concept of absolute morals only when it applies to themselves. It's like a bait and switch. Steal Christian ideals and morals when it suits them, then reject them when it doesn't.
@FamousDave2186 I keep explaining why your arguments are wrong: they're fallacious and paradoxical. You can see this if you go back. Lying like that isn't an argument. You misrepresented me by deliberately ignoring parts of my argument and putting words in my mouth. That's lying. I should point out that you've violated your "objective moral code." Since you're okay with lying, your morality is in direct conflict with the objective code you claim to have, proving that your morality is subjective.
@MrMaster90 "I should point out that you've violated your "objective moral code.""
I'm starting to think MrMaster90 is incapable of saying much else. If morality is truly relative, then lying is not a sin, because there would be no such thing as sin. Your attempted attack on the basis of morality is entirely fallacious. And yet you KEEP repeating it over and over again. You are a very confused individual creating countless internal philosophical paradoxes. You have no foundation.
@FamousDave2186 A lack of historical evidence doesn't prove they don't exist, just that nobody wrote about them or their universe-creating powers. Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, as you said earlier. Plus there are historical documents featuring the creator deities of other religions, and are far more credible than the Bible. So we're back to infinite possible creators, none of which have can be proven to exist, and all of which are better options than your paradoxical Yahweh.
@MrMaster90 "Plus there are historical documents featuring the creator deities of other religions, and are far more credible than the Bible."
Could potentially be an interesting argument, IF you have proof to back it up. Let's see some of these mythological deities and creation stories that are far more credible and realistic than that described within the Bible. You cannot, however, make such a claim and then NOT back it up, otherwise the claim is void and baseless.
@TavrenElkair Well for one, there's the Avesta; the Zoroastrian holy book, which predates the Bible and isn't riddled with paradoxes and contradictions. The same goes for many other religious texts; Wikipedia has a good list of them.
It's funny that you say I can't make a claim and not back it up when all of your's and Dave's arguments were asserted without evidence or sound logic. You said yourself Jesus hates hypocrites; you're a pretty bad Christian. Thanks for refuting your entire argument.
@MrMaster90 "It's funny that you say I can't make a claim and not back it up when all of your's and Dave's arguments were asserted without evidence or sound logic. You said yourself Jesus hates hypocrites; you're a pretty bad Christian. Thanks for refuting your entire argument."
Again with the insults. Our statements and arguments have all used evidences and "sound logic". The comments here show that very well. I'm constantly referencing articles and source material. You rarely do.
@MrMaster90 "the Bible and isn't riddled with paradoxes and contradictions."
The Bible is not riddled with paradoxes and contradictions. It is actually remarkably consistent throughout, despite having had many different authors across a thousand plus years of writing. The so called paradoxes and contradictions are usually easily refuted as clear misunderstanding of the text, as I have demonstrated. These "problems" are atheistic inventions and nothing more.
And you're a pretty typical atheist. Insult and attack. Reject the arguments and evidences presented to you. Accuse the opposition of constantly lying. It's all quite baseless.
For instance, "all of your's and Dave's arguments were asserted without evidence or sound logic."
I have personally referenced source materials and articles dozens and dozens of times, probably over a hundred separate instances. Your accusation is entirely false.
@TavrenElkair The problem is that those sources are biased apologist sources demonstrating either complete ignorance of science or blatant misrepresentations of science, it's proponents, and even the Bible, not to mention are rife with logical fallacies. None of your sources are credible and many are demonstrably wrong. That's the same as lies and baseless assertions. You said yourself; I can reject any claim made without evidence. Next time, give me a trustworthy source.
@MrMaster90 Actually, the vast majority of my sources are NOT from apologetics websites. Nice try though. And OF COURSE you're going to use the "None of your sources are credible and many are demonstrably wrong." argument. You wouldn't be a good biased Neo-Darwinist and Atheistic believer if you didn't ;-). It just shows that no matter what anyone says or presents to you, no matter their sources or logical arguments, you are dead set on rejecting it all. Such faithful dedication! :-p
@TavrenElkair Lying gets you nowhere. I checked your sources; they're no good. I asked you for a trustworthy source and you failed to provide one. I have plenty of reason to reject your ramblings. You're just projecting your own bias, close-mindedness and faith onto me. At least this proves that, on some level, you know that your beliefs are indefensible and that the way you view evidence and logic is faulty. Thanks for admitting that you're unable to argue properly.
You are REALLY stuck on the "lying" accusation. While checking over the number of times I've referenced source materials I saw you repeat it as many times or more than I gave source references. And yet you have been unable to clearly demonstrate that I have in fact been lying anywhere here. Your opinion is certainly available for all to see, but little else. You, however, have stated a number of things as fact that are actually clearly false.
@MrMaster90 "You said yourself; I can reject any claim made without evidence. Next time, give me a trustworthy source."
It is impossible to present a "credible source" to you because you reject anything that does not match your worldview and bias. I've presented dictionary definitions of words in order to alleviate confusion. I've presented scientist quotes, peer reviewed journals and science news articles, and you reject it all as quote mining and truth warping. You are quite hopeless.
@TavrenElkair It's also funny that the dictionary definitions you've given refute your own arguments. You kept calling atheism and "Darwinism" worldviews when every dictionary defines atheism as non-belief in gods and evolution as a scientific theory. None of the peer-reviewed articles you presented advocate "God did it" or refute/create problems for evolution, which you said was because of the global conspiracy. Actually, I shouldn't say global. Your mythology says Earth is flat.
@MrMaster90 "None of the peer-reviewed articles you presented advocate "God did it""
This is another example of your inability to decipher information and data from opinion and speculation. It isn't surprising considering how you treat particular Biblical passages as well. You seem to be incapable of separating and analyzing information from even a semi-neutral standpoint...
@MrMaster90 Though you accuse us of information warping, you're unable to dinstinguish between context, data, actual fact, opinion, speculation or assumption. It's all very muddled in your responses. You take one stance for yourself, and an entirely opposite stance with regards to anything else. Seeing you constantly jump through hoops and between standpoints is rather exhausting. It's relative philosophy and argument to the extreme. Your "logic" is all over the place running wild.
@FamousDave2186 And finally, I'm calling God evil from an admittedly subjective viewpoint. However, any decent, reasonable person would agree that God is evil. And as I explained several times earlier, God is evil even by his own standards, which you say are objective. So even if we accept objective morality, God is still evil, and therefore, his morals mustn't be followed. We don't need an objective code; even monkeys get along without one. You just need reason and empathy; we all have that.
@MrMaster90 "We don't need an objective code; even monkeys get along without one."
Yes, because monkey society is equally as complex as human society, with all its many variant and competing cultural, religious, artistic, scientific and philosophical viewpoints... If we're basing human society on monkeys, or the animal kingdom in general, I would expect you to start eating your babies next, murdering your one night stands, and other such actions nature commits.
@MrMaster90 "However, any decent, reasonable person would agree that God is evil."
Take note everyone. MrMaster90 has announced to the world that he and he alone (and probably other atheists, despite being a miniscule minority on the planet) is reasonable and that anyone who worships God or believes in the existence of a good God is unreasonable and by connection evil or at worst stupid... That's the crux of atheism in a nut shell. It always comes down to that.
@MrMaster90 conti: ask to give me some arguments for whatever it is. next: But your parents knew you would did they not? So it does prove my point. Your parents created you knowing full well you'd do bad things, but they wanted to have a child anyways. We don't know the future at all. Just because God knows what we're going to do doesn't mean He controls what we do. Next it doesn't mean He can't it means he doesn't do it. If you're all powerful can't you create a rock so big that even you can't
@MrMaster90 conti: pick up. No because its a falliace there is no rock that God can't pick up. That's basically what you're telling me and if He controlled freewill then we wouldn't be free at all then. Think what the word means before you post. Next the Bible also talks about HISTORY Jewish laws. What they did you do know what that means don't you. Working on the sabbath only meant not having a day of rest to worship and thank God for what He has done in our lives. Pigs were dirty and they...
@MrMaster90 conti: know how to properly clean them. Once are knowledge of this happen God allowed the eatting of pork. I don't keep slaves because one no one owns me a debt so they don't have to do something for me to pay it off and second, I've already explained this to you and won't repeat myself.
@MrMaster90 conti: if He was then you might have had a point there but He's not spaceless and timesless meaning beyond power, so your logic doesn't apply to Him. Next: God got angry to teach us something. Did your parents not yell at you when you disobey? Even if they didn't know or did know you were going to do something wrong? For example your parents left you by yourself at home, you decided against their wishes to throw a party, they had a feeling you would do it and they find out you did
@MrMaster90 conti: I guess according to your logic they shouldn't have gotten mad since they knew in there gut you would do it. It was to discpline them for disobeing God that's why He got angry just because you know something is going to happen doesn't make it less fustringing when someone disobeys. Your analogy fails because the author is writing a fictional character and He or she controls the outcome God doesn't control our outcomes because of FREE WILL.
@FamousDave2186 Your analogy fails because my parents didn't create me knowing ahead of time that I would throw a party. God created Adam and Eve knowing they would sin. He could've done things differently, but went ahead with creation, doing nothing to stop them. It's his fault Original Sin happened. Besides, free will contradicts omniscience, as well as "God's plan." If it's possible to know the future, then the future is fixed, meaning you aren't free to choose; it's all predetermined.
@MrMaster90 "If it's possible to know the future, then the future is fixed, meaning you aren't free to choose; it's all predetermined."
Ah, this brings up a VERY interesting topic. What is your belief considering the nature of time and predestination? Are all actions automatically predetermined or set in stone or do the choices we make have the ability to change outcomes and "destinies"? Think of it as a time paradox thought experiment. Does free will actually exist or is it an illusion?
@MrMaster90 "It's his fault Original Sin happened."
A driver runs a red light and crashes his car, killing or seriously injuring people in the crash. Blame the people who built the car... Blame the person who installed the traffic lights (even though they worked just fine)... Blame the people who paved the street... Blame the weather... Blame the time of day... But according to you, you can't blame the driver who broke the law, because he could CHOOSE to break the law in the first place...
@MrMaster90 conti: because material is limited to physical properties. the abstract does not have limits. material cannot create material because material cannot perceive material. our bodies do not perceive what they touch, taste, see, hear, smell. our minds perceive what our bodies sense. so the abstract has the power to create. Next comment WHAT!? Even though I know full well what's going to happen on a problem I'll still get upset over it. Was that really the best you got on that one?
@FamousDave2186 And if you're going to invoke the "abstract" (supernatural, magical or whatever), you must first prove that such a thing even exists, otherwise your rebuttal fails. And since you admit that such things are immaterial and undetectable, you admit that you can't back it up, meaning your rebuttal fails. Plus, the mind is material as well; it's the function of our brains. A mind can't exist without a brain, and if God is immaterial, he has no brain and no mind.
@MrMaster90 conti: physical bodies? Do you mean just us? well wouldn't that go against what you think orginated life? That somehow nothing created everything? How did the first cell come to be I might ask? Again you only assume facts. The common conception of physical objects includes that they have extension in the physical world, although there do exist theories of quantum physics and cosmology which may challenge this. Are you really going against quantum physics and cosmology?
@FamousDave2186 Nobody's saying nothing created everything; quit lying. And the first life arose from preexisting organic matter, not "nothing." And what theories are you talking about? What I'm talking about is a fact. Physical bodies (anything with mass or energy) can only be affected by physical matter and energy. If God is immaterial (without matter or energy), then affecting material objects is impossible for him. So no turning dirt into men or controlling weather to make a flood.
@FamousDave2186 But if you want proof that your god doesn't exist, that's doable. To start with, your god is spaceless and timeless, which is nonexistence in and of itself. God supposedly created and interacts with the universe, but if he's immaterial, that would be impossible, since only physical bodies can affect other physical bodies. He's also supposedly conscious and intelligent, but if he's spaceless, he has no brain, which you would need for those things.
@FamousDave2186 There's also the problem of him being omniscient, which contradicts several Bible stories. For starters, an omniscient God would've known that Adam and Eve would eat the apple, yet God was surprised that it happened. Or when he tested Abraham by telling him to sacrifice Isaac. If he was omniscient, God wouldn't have needed to test him. It also contradicts God having free will, since, if you know the future, you're doomed to follow it, making you unable to decide freely.
@MrMaster90 "There's also the problem of him being omniscient, which contradicts several Bible stories. For starters, an omniscient God would've known that Adam and Eve would eat the apple, yet God was surprised that it happened." No God wasn't surprised that they did it He knew full well no where does it say He was surprised? Where you got this idea is beyond me. "Or when he tested Abraham by telling him to sacrifice Isaac. If he was omniscient, God wouldn't have needed to test him." You do..
@FamousDave2186 He got angry in response to them eating the apple. You get angry when something happens that you didn't want to happen. If God is all-knowing, he shouldn't have been angry. Plus, he had to ask where Adam and Eve were in that story. An omniscient god wouldn't have to. As for Abraham, we have the quote "Now I know thou art a God-fearing man" after Abraham's test. This shows that God was assessing Abraham's loyalty. An omniscient god would've known before.
@MrMaster90 conti: God knew full well He wanted the truth out of Adam and Eve. I'll give you an example say a mother makes cookies for desert and tells the child its only for desert do not eat them. The mother leaves the room and child knowing full well not to eat the cookies eats them anyways leaving a mess on himself and the table. The mother starts to come back in the room, the child tries to hide it. The mother looks at the child with the mess all over him knowing full well he ate the cookie
@MrMaster90 conti: the mother asks what that mess on your face. the child replies I don't know. The mother looks at where the cookies are and sees them eaten. The mother gets upset did you eat those cookies she at first asks. The child blames it on you left it there I was hungry. She yells at the child for disobeying and punishes the child. She knew that there was a possiblitly that the child would eat the cookies but she wanted the child to do the right thing. The child didn't and so she got...
@MrMaster90 conti: upset what was so hard to understand that? You're just arguing for arguing sake, and I told you testing builds perservance. Its how WE learn how to do things. Yeah God knows full well what we're going to do, but there's still a lesson to be taught so that we may not make the same mistakes again.
@FamousDave2186 Your analogy fails. The big problem here is that God not only knew they would eat the apple, but planned for it, since he created the universe in such a way that it would happen. Having things go according to plan and getting angry when they do is a paradox. It'd be like J.K. Rowling getting angry at Snape for killing Dumbledore. You also seem to have deliberately missed the "Now I know" quote from God. God should've know all along, but admitted he didn't. Another paradox.
@MrMaster90 conti: relaize that testing builds perservance do you not? When you work a job yeah you have someone at first telling you exactly what to do but until you do it on your own you never truely learn how to do something. "Experince the most brutal of teachers but you learn my God do you learn." C.S. Lewis. So no contradiction on that one.
"It also contradicts God having free will, since, if you know the future, you're doomed to follow it, making you unable to decide freely." Where
@MrMaster90 conti: in that describtion does it say that God controls it? Just because you know that something is going to happen doesn't mean you made it happen. Do you really believe what you are saying or are you just arguing for arguing sake? I find this very hard to believe you actually thought that was contradiction.
@FamousDave2186 We then have the problem of evil, which contradicts an omnipotent, omnibenevolent god. If he's able and willing to prevent all evil, then evil shouldn't exist. The fact that evil and suffering exist contradicts God's existence. Of course, omnibenevolence is contradicted by Hell (infinite torture for finite crime), which is by definition infintely sadistic and evil. So I guess if God is evil, that solves these paradoxes.
@MrMaster90 "We then have the problem of evil, which contradicts an omnipotent, omnibenevolent god. If he's able and willing to prevent all evil, then evil shouldn't exist. The fact that evil and suffering exist contradicts God's existence. Of course, omnibenevolence is contradicted by Hell (infinite torture for finite crime), which is by definition infintely sadistic and evil. So I guess if God is evil, that solves these paradoxes." for starters are you agreeing than that objective moral..
@MrMaster90 conti: values exist then? If morals are subjective as you claim then evil can't exist. Richard Dawkins would then be right to say that in his God delusion that The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.” So are you disagreeing with your hero that evil does exist? Looks like you've just proven the moral argument without even realizing it.
@FamousDave2186 Straw-manning my position again, are we? To say that evil exists doesn't necessarily mean objective morals exist. But if they do exist, then let's go by what God considers evil (working on Friday, eating pork, making metal idols, etc.). If those things exist (which they do) then God doesn't exist, or is evil. However, a good God should also be against suffering, which is objective. If there's any suffering in the world, then it negates God's existence, unless he's evil.
@MrMaster90 "Straw-manning my position again, are we? To say that evil exists doesn't necessarily mean objective morals exist." Do you even know what objective moral values mean? You've given me no reason to think that under atheism why anything is evil. Richard Dawkins said it himself those weren't my words those were his. So if Morals were subjective how can you say anything is evil? You have to explain this for starters than tell me why my viewpoints are wrong. To call something evil is...
@FamousDave2186 True, morals are subjective, both yours and mine, but that doesn't mean we can't call something evil. It just means that evil is subjective. But if we accept objective morality, in the form of God's commands, then it creates a paradox between sin and an omnipotent, omnibenevolent God. If God hates sin and has the power to prevent sin, then sin shouldn't exist. If we have people sinning (eating pork, working on Friday, etc.), it proves God doesn't exist, or is evil.
@MrMaster90 onti: If evil is subjective than all things are premitted. Are you a psycopath? What if someone were to say that since evil is subjective I'm going to kill you. What's to stop him from doing so. Its subjective its his opinion? He's man isn't he? So then he must have a right to do so according to your logic. Do you see how crazy that sounds? God can't control FREE WILL if He could that wouldn't be FREE WILL. watch part one and two of this video watch?v=dEc4nLzdlc0 should answer that.
@FamousDave2186 So then God isn't omnipotent if he can't control free will. You've created another paradox.
No part of subjective morality says all things are permitted. Societies develop their own morals, and most work just fine. Our culture doesn't permit killing; the law will stop him. Funny that your God is powerless to stop evil despite this whole "objective morality" crap. Plus, if your morality is objective, why aren't you keeping slaves? Why do you eat pork and work on the Sabbath?
@MrMaster90 "So then God isn't omnipotent if he can't control free will. You've created another paradox."
No, YOU'VE created a paradox that doesn't exist. An all powerful God CAN disrupt free will, but choose not to. There's NO paradox there. Just because a person CAN do something, doesn't mean he HAS to or DOES do it. I'm capable of jumping off an apartment building. Doesn't mean I will, or even should, despite it being fully within my power to do so.
@MrMaster90 conti: making an objective moral claim. Your premises don't follow your argument on that one. "Have you even read the Bible?" Yes I have what kind of question to ask me was that.
"If free will exists, God clearly doesn't care about it. He kills people all the time for "disobeying him" and orders his followers around like slaves." Those people you talk about disobeying were killing not only there own people but also the Isrealie people as well? I guess according to your logic we...
@MrMaster90 conti: we shouldn't have capital punishment for murders such as those should we? Next followers like slaves? You're father or mother ever tell you to do something? I guess they treated you like a slave then according to your logic. You have the choice to not do what they told you to do but since all actions have consquesnces towards them you weighed in the choices and did (at least I hope) what your parents told you, maybe not all the time, but you still obeyed. Now with mind control
@FamousDave2186 Allowing free will but punishing people for disobedience is a paradox. You're basically saying that people are free to be slaves or be chew toys. That's not free will, it's coercion. By the way, the millions of people God murdered were mostly innocent. Their "crimes" were living in a city that happened to be in the Hebrews' way. Plus, if your assertion is true, God should be killing everyone who sins even today. Why doesn't he? Because he doesn't exist.
@MrMaster90 conti: no where does it say God controlled his mind. The events that will fall the will harden his heart. Meaning although all these disaters that took place just made him more mad and more deterimine to disobey God. Sounds familar doesn't it? As I argue the points you seem to be hardening your heart as well by even calling people names and swearing.
@FamousDave2186 It says that God hardened Pharaoh's heart, which made him choose not to free the Hebrews. That's mind control, a direct violation of free will, proving that God doesn't care about it. Using the free will defense is inconsistent with your god's behavior. You've failed to defend God from this paradox, which only adds to the proof of his nonexistence.
@MrMaster90 conti: "It says that God hardened Pharaoh's heart," No it doesn't I've already explained it to you. Repeating yourself doesn't disprove my argument. When are you going to learn that? "Allowing free will but punishing people for disobedience is a paradox" I don't think you really now what paradox means. Just because someone chooses to do something good or bad doesn't mean it doesn't have consquences for ones actions. If I FREELY choose to disobey my parents I still get punished for.
@MrMaster90 conti: it. The more you try to argue with me the more it looks like you weren't really raised right. I hate to think that's true so you could just be arguing for the sake of arguing which shows you don't care about the truth at all. Next: and what was your reason for the Kalam? I've already explain why your counter was wrong and all you told me was no I'm wrong but NEVER EXPLAIN WHY. So explain why when I told you about Thermodynamics. Thoese cities you stated did horrible things to
@MrMaster90 conti: not only their people (human sacrfice killing each other list goes on) but also to the Isrealie people. How about actually studying history before making comments such as that. Really shows your ignorance. Be very thankful that God doesn't kill you off when we sin. You really need to think about what you're saying since you can't disprove He exists. You think He's evil but given me no proof to that claim. I've already explain this to you and you ignore it you about your...
@FamousDave2186 No historical evidence (not even the Bible) supports your assertion. Plus, God's people were also killing each other and performing human sacrifice (Judges 11:29-40), so why didn't he kill all of them? The answer: he's evil. If we accept that morality is objective, and that defying God's commandments are evil, then God himself has killed, stolen, lied, and broken many more of his own rules. God is evil by his own standards. Accepting objective morality proves God is evil.
To avoid this problem in the future... Know the history. Know the science. Don't make "factual statements" that are so glaringly wide open and generalized as to be very easily shredded. Learn these techniques (and more), and your arguments and debate points will become much harder to dispute. ;-)
TavrenElkair 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
And so, your statement "No study anywhere by any real scientist has ever supported anything but an ancient Earth."
Is categorically false.
"No study by any real scientist" = False and False. There were many studies and age estimate calculations over the past few hundred years, many of them by leading scientists in their day, even up through the early 1900s.
"EVER supported anything but an ancient earth" = False. Historically age estimates ranged from thousands of years up to infinity.
TavrenElkair 3 weeks ago
Before Radiometric Dating became the dominant method of dating the age of the earth, there were MANY different methods and age calulcations put forth by scientists and non-scientists alike. There's a good list of many old date estimates listed at TalkOrigins (which for anyone who does not know, is a pro-Neo-Darwinist and very-ancient-earth website). Of course you'll then argue "they're all OLD estimates". But here you go anyway.
talkorigins(dot)org/faqs/geohist(dot)html
TavrenElkair 3 weeks ago
In 1931 the National Research Council of the US National Academy of Sciences put together a study on the age of the earth and through that study announced that there was no reliable way to date the age of the planet earth other than by using Radiometric dating. You'll find that after this, attempts to date the earth by any other means (except by people who disagreed with radiometric dating's reliability) all but disappeared as the date of the earth had been "set in stone" (pun intended)...
TavrenElkair 3 weeks ago
The list of peer-reviewed Intelligent Design articles and publications continues to grow, despite being a fairly recent phenomenon (or a revitalization of old ideas with new evidences and scientific methods of study).
evolutionnews(dot)org/2012/02/in_time_for_dar055851(dot)html
"How about a revised and updated list of pro-intelligent design peer-reviewed scientific papers, showing among other things that the 50th such paper was published in 2011?"
TavrenElkair 3 weeks ago
To back up what I wrote, here is a link to start with. answersincreationDOTorg/blindDOThtm
Utmoon 3 weeks ago
...countinued... So, even with inclusions of older rocks, this method of dating gets relatively MORE accurate the older it gets. Another dating that the 'creationists' sent to be tested only sampled the inclusions themselves, yet the YECs tried to say the entire rock was dated wrong.
No study anywhere by any real scientist has ever supported anything but an ancient Earth. Yes, some tests were anomalous, but further studies either showed why, or will show why. I bet AiG will not reprint those.
Utmoon 3 weeks ago
@Utmoon "No study anywhere by any real scientist has ever supported anything but an ancient Earth."
Ouch! That's a giant and inaccurate generalization if I've ever heard one! Here's some recommendations to help you clarify your statement, since if I just went on this statement "as is", I could produce MANY scientific studies, theories and writings that have suggested an age of the earth a LOT younger than 4.6 billion years...
TavrenElkair 3 weeks ago
@Utmoon
1) Clarify the time-frame in question "no RECENT (as in the last few decades) scientific study...". If you check out Wikipedia's section on "Age of The Earth" you'll find a number of scientific age estimates for the planet that varied greatly over the last 200 years.
2) Clarify what you mean by "scientific study". Do you mean an official publication? Peer reviewed journals? Books? Text books? Quotes by scientists? etc.?
TavrenElkair 3 weeks ago
@Utmoon
3) By "real scientist" do you mean a scientist with a PhD, a PhD directly linked to geology, biology, cosmology, and linked to dating the age of the earth? Do you mean a scientist that is a Neo-Darwinist? Does "real scientist" mean a scientist that agrees with an ancient earth? Because it would be quite difficult to find a scientist who agrees with the idea of a billions of years old earth AND a much younger earth at the same time...
TavrenElkair 3 weeks ago
How do you know the bible is the inspired word of god? Were you there when it was written?
As for the data you are talking about, dig deeper. Have you even read any of Dalrymple's papers on the lava rocks he sampled, or have you just read the AiG cherry picking? Only 1 of 26 samples gave a significantly wrong date because of inclusions.
Here is a quote for you. "If the identical rock had been formed 50 million years ago, the K-Ar would give a "false" age of a little over 51 million years."
Utmoon 3 weeks ago
Atheism is not at all unique in the underlying precepts and actions that fuel it. It holds true to very common psychological systems of emotion and mind that tend to dominate throughout mankind. The fact that it rejects such ideas entirely is almost worthy of being called an extreme case of psychological blindness. They appeal to the orders of intelligence, logic, science, and math, and yet are not actually driven or well supported by it anymore than anyone else is (possibly worse). Oh well.
TavrenElkair 1 month ago
Along with science, computer technology (programming), religion, and history, I also love studying politics and the mindsets of people involved in debate and political activism. The psychology of it all and how people think and interpret, rationalize for or against various information sets, understandings and ideas is incredible to behold. I've seen the same emotionally charged and idealized compartmentalizations of so many beliefs and belief systems all across the human spectrum.
TavrenElkair 1 month ago
Debating on here and other similar videos on YouTube has been an interesting and enlightening experience. The psychological underpinnings of atheism have been greatly shown in many aspects of these people's worldviews and beliefs. The political and personal biases, the constant baseless attacks on all things Christian, the constant appeal to peer review and mainstream science/media conformity, the regular angry insulting outbursts, and even their lack of sources and references. Fascinating.
TavrenElkair 1 month ago
I have been debating people off and on in at least 3 or 4 other video comment sections as well, so the number of unique source material references easily exceeds over 100 instances. What's funny in connection with this is that atheists throughout have constantly accused me of giving NONE at all, and accused me of lying when I point out that I have. They claim I warp definitions and science constantly, so I regularly provide the actual material and dictionary definitions to refute them.
TavrenElkair 1 month ago
Under the Comments sections of only 2 videos where I've been debating people, I have provided at least 80 separate references to source materials to back up my statements and standpoints. This have been a mixture from dictionary definitions, peer reviewed scientific articles, news articles, the Bible, published books, Wikipedia, science websites, major university websites and databases, and other topical websites.
MrMaster90, however, has supplied a grand total of 15 unique direct references.
TavrenElkair 1 month ago
"all of your's and Dave's arguments were asserted without evidence or sound logic."
As a fun test I decided to review the comments of this and one other video done by OFNF) and examine how many times I have provided source materials and quotations with sources for many of my arguments. MrMaster90 has constantly said that I have provided no evidence other than my own opinion and that I lie when I say I have....
TavrenElkair 1 month ago
apologeticspress(dot)org also discusses science and Christian apologetics such as the supposed Bible contradictions.
TavrenElkair 1 month ago
answersingenesis(dot)org also has a lot of good information both about science and the Bible. It regularly covers the supposed contradictions in the Bible, including many other common atheistic attacks on Christianity.
TavrenElkair 1 month ago
Check out ProveTheBible(dot)net for a few evidences supporting the history, authenticity and reliability of the Bible.
TavrenElkair 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
creation(dot)com/pagan-copycat-thesis-refuted
"It’s only rank ignorance, both of the social world of early Christianity, and of the particulars of those other religions, that allows things like this to survive."
"In short, only someone who hasn’t done his homework would ever reject Christianity on the basis of pagan parallels. Christianity has been shown to be historically reliable, and to reflect events that actually happened."
TavrenElkair 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
- The original writings about Alexander The Great are lost, but we have people later on that reference those earlier lost works...
Compare this with the writers of gospels and the numerous letters in the New Testament, almost all written by men who walked, talked and lived with Jesus during his ministry. The earliest copies of these writings that we have are no more than 100 years after the events they describe. Alexander the Great's... Hundreds of years and not copies of the originals.
TavrenElkair 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Note what Wikipedia says about the earliest ancient writings concerning Alexander The Great.
"Contemporaries who wrote accounts of his life included Alexander's campaign historian Callisthenes; Alexander's generals Ptolemy and Nearchus; Aristobulus, a junior officer on the campaigns; and Onesicritus, Alexander's chief helmsman. Their works are lost, but later works based on these original sources have survived."
TavrenElkair 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
There is tons less ancient (historical) writing about Alexander The Great than there is about Jesus and almost all of it (for Alexander The Great) comes from MUCH later time periods than his actual life, usually hundreds of years later. Yet I would doubt very much that MrMaster90 and other atheists would admit and believe that Alexander The Great was a completely mythical figure concocted by the over-active imaginations of ancient Greek shepherds or soldiers.
TavrenElkair 1 month ago
AWSOME VIDEO DUDE!!!!
reading the comments, I would have been surprised if there weren't atheists here spouting their crap n proving that they do exactly what is described in the video they do to defend their belief, funny and sad at the same time.
peace and God bless.
ShaggyTheClown17 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
This has been flagged as spam show
Now that we've looked into the scientific understandings and fields surrounding the issues of Matter, Mass, The Big Bang, Particle Physics, etc., we can take another look at MrMaster90's assertion considering the nature and origins of matter and see if he was accurate in his representation of it...
"The Big Bang didn't create matter; nobody said it did except lying creationists."
Sorry MrMaster90, Matter did not exist until the particles cooled and combined to make matter after the big bang.
TavrenElkair 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Wikipedia on the Big Bang (and matter)
"After its initial expansion from a singularity, the Universe cooled sufficiently to allow energy to be converted into various subatomic particles. It would take thousands of years for some of these particles (protons, neutrons, and electrons) to combine and form atoms, the building blocks of matter."
TavrenElkair 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Wikipedia on Matter:
"Matter is a general term for the substance of which all physical objects consist.[1][2] Typically, matter includes atoms and other particles which have mass. A common way of defining matter is as anything that has mass and occupies volume."
TavrenElkair 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
... (cont.)
"If matter and antimatter had come out even in those first moments, they would have instantly destroyed each other, leaving nothing but energy behind."
TavrenElkair 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Time Magazine, "Big News About Small Particles. And Why You Care", By Michael D. Lemonick Thursday, May 20, 2010
"Conventional particle theory says that equal amounts of matter and antimatter should have coalesced out of the intense heat and pressure of the Big Bang, when the universe was a fraction of a second old. That clearly didn't happen, though: when particles meet their antiparticles, they annihilate one another in a burst of energetic gamma rays..."
TavrenElkair 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Other scientific areas of interest connected to The Big Bang and problems with it are in the areas of matter and antimatter which cancel each other out resulting in mere energy but no matter. The big bang should have created equal amounts of matter and antimatter, which then should have canceled each other out completely, yet the universe is full of matter but not antimatter (from what we can tell). Science can't explain this very well. It's a mystery. Note the Big Bang matter CREATION event...
TavrenElkair 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I'm curious about how much you guys know about particle physics, quantum theory, relativity, the standard model of particle physics, hypothetical string theory, weak and strong forces, and scientific studies like that. I would expect you to know a fair bit seeing as how these things are all fundamental to the "origins of the universe and all matter in it" debates and issues. I have some doubts though, as a few recent comments here have indicated a lack of understanding about such things.
TavrenElkair 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Jesus provided a perfect pardon for the guilty by dying on the cross and rising from the dead three days later. He did this out of love for us. No God would do such a thing if He did not deeply love His creation. An evil God would provide no way out of guilt and punishment. A good God would, and would make the salvation require admittance (repentance) of sin so that the sinner understood and realized his/her guilt and need for forgiveness. Only a loving good God would do any of that.
TavrenElkair 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
When a person points this fact out to atheists, they then argue that God is evil for providing an "escape hatch" for guilty sinners instead of punishing them. So to the atheist mindset, God is evil no matter what he does. If he punishes people for sin, he's evil. If He DOESN'T punish people for sin, then He's still evil. Jesus died and rose again to provide all sinners a simple final solution for our guilt...
TavrenElkair 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Another example of atheist "double-think" is with regards to Jesus Christ. To atheists, God is evil for punishing sinners for breaking His laws. In the Bible, God first provides Israel with a method to pay for their sins by sacrificing a spotless sheep once a year. Then in the New Testament, Jesus is killed on the cross the same day the sheep are being sacrificed at the Jewish Temple. From then on, Jesus is the ultimate sacrifice and payment of sin...
TavrenElkair 1 month ago
It is amazing there are still young earth creationists. So many of them and not one has found any evidence or they'd have presented something by now. Some say the Sun orbits the Earth too. It's the angriest ones we get on youtube, but I imagine most wouldn't use the internet if they hate science that much.
Ozzyman200 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Ozzyman200 There are many signs and evidences that indicate the world (and the universe) isn't nearly as old as mainstream science says it is. Do you know the methods that exist for calculating the ages and timescales of things? The major crux of the very ancient earth argument is based on Uniformitarianism and Radiometric Dating. Outside of that, there's very little that comes anywhere close to remotely matching 4.6 billion years for our planet and 13 billion for the universe.
TavrenElkair 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Ozzyman200 "It's the angriest ones we get on youtube"
This seems to be the case with the atheists on here as well, as I've pointed out the last few days. I'm not angry. I consider it a good and fun challenge to share and debate points for and against things like Abiogenesis and Neo-Darwinism. Some people react quite hostile to alternate ideas and can get quite ticked off and angry, but I don't. I've studied this stuff a lot and continue to study it every day. It's fascinating on many levels.
TavrenElkair 1 month ago
@onceforgivennowfree Wow you're dumb. Sorry man, I'm sure you're a sweet guy but you're going on a public forum and broadcasting to the world how uneducated you are. It's like going on an engineering forum and giving your opinions about structural foundations without ever taking an engineering class. Grow up!
cvanunen 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@cvanunen "It's like going on an engineering forum and giving your opinions about structural foundations without ever taking an engineering class."
Funny you should mention that. I know OFNF personally and he's a certified mechanical engineer. ;-)
TavrenElkair 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@cvanunen "Wow you're dumb. Sorry man, I'm sure you're a sweet guy but you're going on a public forum and broadcasting to the world how uneducated you are."
I guess university degrees don't count for much these days. I think the more specific accusation of being "dumb with regards to Evolution and the age of the earth, Geology, Radiometric dating" or something like that is a better argument then simply "generally stupid", because you're assuming an awful lot from a few minute video.
TavrenElkair 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@cvanunen "Wow you're dumb."
Also, it is beneficial to everyone involved (who watches the video, comments here, or even the maker of the video himself), if the people that call him and others like him stupid, to point out the evidence as to how he's completely wrong in the points he makes. THEN you might start getting somewhere. "You're stupid" doesn't amount to much in the way of constructive criticism.
TavrenElkair 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
MrMaster90 has also provided a great deal of personal opinion on how he'd make a better god than the God of the Bible and that the God of the Bible is, to use MrMaster90's words, "stupid or evil". Along with the "atheist anger against God" issue I've presented and that has been made very evident by atheist comments on here, this also shows again the atheistic arrogance for considering themselves better than God (or any god). They are their own god and consider all others to be inferior to them.
TavrenElkair 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
So in many ways, a lot of the "problems with God" are due to limited human understanding. We are extremely finite, extremely limited. The Bible says we are made in the image of God. In other words, God created us with some similarities to Himself. Atheism, however, complains because it wants to make God in ITS ideal image of God. Let us make God in OUR image, and then rip Him down for not being human and locked in to human limitations. If God were human... But God is NOT human. God is God.
TavrenElkair 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I kept thinking, "Why would God have done this or done it this way?" In the end I found that a lot of my "problems" with regards to God came about by trying to put myself in God's shoes. I realized that God, according to the Bible, knows EVERYTHING, and thus knows exactly how every action and decision will turn out. He is capable of seeing the much bigger picture and ramifications. We humans, however, are extremely limited in our understanding and life times. We are not and cannot be God.
TavrenElkair 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TavrenElkair "In the end I found that a lot of my "problems" with regards to God came about by trying to put myself in God's shoes."
I worded that wrong. The problem was me trying to put God in MY shoes. Or me trying to imagine myself as God and how I would and could respond. But that's no way to ultimately understand God or God's position. The Bible is invaluable for showing God's position on so many things. So when you analyze the world from God's standpoint instead of our own, it fits.
TavrenElkair 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I used to think a lot of the same questions and ideas that MrMaster90 has posted back before I became a Christian. I wasn't atheist because I believed that SOME sort of god existed, but I had major doubts about the God of the Bible being God. After a lot of studying and thought I eventually realized that a lot of my "problems with God" were myself envisioning God from a limited human perspective...
TavrenElkair 1 month ago
"noone was there" Go watch C.S.I
Yahweigh 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
Naturalism and uniformitarianism are reasonable starting-assumptions for science.
YaleBreaker 1 month ago
An example of the censorship issue on a far smaller scale can even be witnessed on the comments sections of OFNF's videos. As I was going through copying and pasting atheist comments as examples of "angry atheists" I saw MANY Creationist comments marked as spam and virtually no atheist comments marked that way. To assume "peer review" is above such political motivation, which is a big component of human nature, is quite amusing when even on here atheists are trying to silence opposition. :-)
TavrenElkair 1 month ago
"... They seem willing to do virtually anything to silence their critics--from denying them tenure, to preventing them from being hired, to engaging in cyber attacks, to censoring peer-reviewed articles by scholars with whom they disagree."
TavrenElkair 1 month ago
John G West at EvolutionNews(dot)org in June 2011 says about this topic...
"If there is a "war on science" today, it's not being waged by the critics of Darwinism or supporters of intelligent design. It's being waged by Darwinian fundamentalists who are attempting to prevent any voices except their own from being heard in the scientific community...
TavrenElkair 1 month ago
That's an example of the peer review process being run over by Neo-Darwin apologists when they found out an article by an Intelligent Design believer was about to be published in a peer reviewed journal. That is only one very recent example. Other examples of "forcibly shutting up" Intelligent Design can be found all over the place. The movie "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" has a few more examples as well. The concerted effort to silence and reject ID is quite politically intense.
TavrenElkair 1 month ago
William Dembski Interview at TheBestSchools(dot)Org
"The case of Granville Sewell is one of the more recent. Briefly, 'Applied Mathematics Letters' agreed to publish an article of his critical of neo-Darwinism, only to revoke it under pressure from Darwinists. The publisher ended up paying $10,000 for Sewell’s legal fees and issued a public apology. Nice of them. But they still didn’t publish his piece—after it had been peer-reviewed and accepted for publication."
TavrenElkair 1 month ago
But the point isn't really to say, "You're a meany." It's just to show that there is indeed a great deal of evidence just on here alone that shows that atheists are generally very hostile and angry towards Christianity, the Bible, God, and anything connected with it. The point of that is not that "atheists are meanies". The point is that an emotional reaction happens here because they are emotionally invested in scientific naturalism and Evolutionism. It is their lens for all life.
TavrenElkair 1 month ago
As I said, the majority of the comments I quoted are from MrMaster90, though not all of them are. For instance, the ones with the F words or NOT MrMaster90. MrMaster90, from the looks of things, is much more civil than that, for which I commend (praise) his decency. However hostility against Creationism, God, the Bible and Christians does still flow through many of his statements as was shown...
TavrenElkair 1 month ago
Note that though many of the quoted statements are from MrMaster90, not all of them are. Many, however, are from other people disputing ID and Creationism, and arguing from the atheistic standpoint.
As can be seen, there is a great deal of hostility and anger behind a great many of these statements and accusations against Christians, Creationists, or those who accept Intelligent Design. The "angry atheists" point stands quite clearly.
TavrenElkair 1 month ago
@TavrenElkair Those aren't "angry" statements, nor are they hostile. On a superficial level, they seem like they are, but really, they're accurate statements about religion and it's followers. But since your ego can't handle an attack on your indefensible beliefs, you have to rationalize them away, and going from the superficial "angry" position helps. But on some level, you know you're not being honest with others or yourself. If religion was true, you wouldn't have to lie to yourself.
MrMaster90 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrMaster90 "On a superficial level, they seem like they are, but really, they're accurate statements about religion and it's followers."
So you agree with those statements. That's surprising since you did make many of them. Also, the statement "seem like they are, but really" takes me back to a previous discussion... Are these statements then metaphor or hyperbole and not to be taken literally or seriously?
TavrenElkair 1 month ago
@MrMaster90 conti: the rule? I can prove negative things such as there's no such thing as a married bachlor that's a negative, or a circle squared that's a negative, again all you have to do is just prove on the contrary is true. What you are doing is nothing more than special pleading. No proof+ no Evidence= no atheism for me.
FamousDave2186 1 month ago
@FamousDave2186 So basically you're saying that as long as I can't prove there is no God, you're going to believe in him. Why not do the same for Zeus or Odin or Ra? What about fairies or unicorns? Can you prove that they don't exist? If not, then by your logic, you should believe in them. You can see why we start with the null hypothesis before belief. You must first prove that God exists, otherwise the null hypothesis (atheism; non-belief in gods) remains intact.
MrMaster90 1 month ago
@MrMaster90 well if you actually read what I post I said that I believe due to the proof and evidence of it. Where are the historal accounts for Zeus, odin and Ra huh? so no I don't believe in those. Nice strawman right there by the way.
Next comment: "But if you want proof that your god doesn't exist, that's doable. To start with, your god is spaceless and timeless, which is nonexistence in and of itself." (please allow me to finish before you comment I'll tell you when I'm done) First look
FamousDave2186 1 month ago
@MrMaster90 conti: up the word spaceless it says having no limits or boundaries how does that not describe God? second timeless: means the quality of being eternal, ageless, immortal, or not affected by time. How does this not apply to God then? You're only assuming facts look up the words before making comments, God supposedly created and interacts with the universe, but if he's immaterial, that would be impossible, since only physical bodies can affect other physical bodies" Wait what? define
FamousDave2186 1 month ago
@FamousDave2186 Distorting definitions, are we? You and I both know that "spaceless and timeless" means "without space and time." If you mean "unaffected by time and space" then say so. But that's another contradiction. Everything that exists is by definition affected by the laws of time and space (existence). To say that something exists that isn't subject to the laws of existence is a paradox.
MrMaster90 1 month ago
@MrMaster90 "Distorting definitions, are we? You and I both know that "spaceless and timeless" means "without space and time."" No I got this from a website maybe if you actually did a search you would know this. "Everything that exists is by definition affected by the laws of time and space (existence). To say that something exists that isn't subject to the laws of existence is a paradox." That's only in the universe you only assume that naturalism is all there is, can you prove that to be
FamousDave2186 1 month ago
@MrMaster90 conti: true? Truth is you can't. You can't prove how the universe came to be so naturalism can't be proven to be right for it takes a natural explaintion for things and we don't have the answers for everything now do we? Next I was talking about the universe explain to me how nothing than became something? Where did that preexisting organic matter come from then? It makes sense that God can create because of the defintions I gave you about spaceless and timeless,
FamousDave2186 1 month ago
@FamousDave2186 How the universe (or life) came to be is irrelevant to whether God exists. Convolving them is a red herring. But as I've proven, immaterial entities cannot create a material universe. That's the main problem, and it's one you've failed to rebut. Plus, the universe is defined as all of existence. To say that God exists outside of existence is to say he doesn't exist. You've created yet another paradox, and red herrings won't save you.
MrMaster90 1 month ago
@MrMaster90 Actually it does. If you can't provide how life orginated than how can you say how your theory is the more plauasble one? You said I was lying about how you think nothing created the universe well how did that stuff come to be then to create the universe? It would have to be from nothing. How do you know that definition (wikipedia is not a good source) is even correct that only assumes atheism is correct which you have not shown at all. So I'll answer your rebutals and then I want...
FamousDave2186 1 month ago
@FamousDave2186 You're strawmanning again. I never even presented a theory, nor did I assert anything about the origin of life or the universe. You're the only one trying to prove anything (God did it), and since God's very existence is demonstrably false, your assertions are unacceptable.
MrMaster90 1 month ago
@MrMaster90 So why are you arguing with me then if you're not making a claim. You claim that I'm wrong but don't give me something better you sir are wrong. Next: "immaterial entities can't create matter (proven)." How? "Second, it assumes the "first cause" must be immaterial, which has not been demonstrated." Have you read the kalam cosmological argument? I can't give the website on here but look at Dr. Willaim Lane Craig's defense of Kalam this clearly disproves that.
FamousDave2186 1 month ago
@MrMaster90 conti: you to answer my questions for a change instead of changing and avoiding my points. Second you haven't argue the Cosmological argument. I've explain to you how in your counter argument that the laws of thermodynamics disprove your point. All you told me was I was wrong does nothing. So there's proof right there. I don't know how God created the universe but the evidence based on the arguments show this. You're arguments are only based off of human reasoning. God isn't human,
FamousDave2186 1 month ago
@FamousDave2186 I did debunk Kalam, as did many before me. First of all, immaterial entities can't create matter (proven). Second, it assumes the "first cause" must be immaterial, which has not been demonstrated. Third, creating matter contradicts the law of conservation of mass. Fourth, even if it did work, it wouldn't prove God, just that some magical entity created the universe. God doesn't exist, so the entity must be something else (fairies, genies, Brahma, Ahura Mazda, etc.).
MrMaster90 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrMaster90 conti: "Third, creating matter contradicts the law of conservation of mass."
So would the big bang than creating matter uh oh looks like someone just disprove the big bang and didn't even realize it. Do you know something that scientist don't know?
"Fourth, even if it did work, it wouldn't prove God, just that some magical entity created the universe." That is God. A fairy is never said to have created a universe neither Genies. I don't know what Braham ahura Mazda is but I would
FamousDave2186 1 month ago
@FamousDave2186 The Big Bang didn't create matter; nobody said it did except lying creationists. The Big Bang describes universal expansion from a singularity. The singularity was all matter, energy, time, space and the forces of nature compressed into one unit. No matter or energy was created; it was all preexisting.
Brahma and Ahura Mazda are the creator gods of Hinduism and Zoroastrianism. There's hundreds of creator gods that qualify for Kalam. Can you prove that only one (Yahweh) is real?
MrMaster90 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrMaster90 "The Big Bang didn't create matter; nobody said it did except lying creationists."
Do you know about the research in the "God Particle" and the attempts by scientists to discover exactly what it is that gives matter its mass? Why is this an issue? Because scientists can't explain the origins of mass by way of energy and matter. Everything has mass, but how? They're looking for the particles that must explain it but they haven't found yet...
TavrenElkair 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrMaster90 Wikipedia on the Higgs Boson Particle:
"The existence of the Higgs boson is predicted by the Standard Model to explain how spontaneous breaking of electroweak symmetry (the Higgs mechanism) takes place in nature, which in turn explains why other elementary particles have mass."
TavrenElkair 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrMaster90 "The Big Bang didn't create matter; nobody said it did except lying creationists."
What gives particles (everything in existence) their mass? That's the question at the heart of the "God Particle" (Higgs bosson particle) studies. The particle has not been discovered, but the standard model of particle physics requires it to exist. The Higgs field is supposed to have appeared shortly after The Big Bang to account for the development (or arising) of mass, and matter.
TavrenElkair 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrMaster90 "The singularity was all matter, energy, time, space and the forces of nature compressed into one unit. No matter or energy was created; it was all preexisting."
This is also inaccurate. According to science, the consistent laws and standard models of physics we use and understand today did not and could not apply before a certain point in the early expansion of the universe ("Big Bang")...
TavrenElkair 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrMaster90 (cont.)
Wikipedia, on the "timeline" of The Big Bang itself
"The Universe continued to grow in size and fall in temperature, hence the typical energy of each particle was decreasing. Symmetry breaking phase transitions put the fundamental forces of physics and the parameters of elementary particles into their present form."
Note that the forces and laws of physics as we know them did not apply until a certain point after the beginning of The Big Bang.
TavrenElkair 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrMaster90 At Universe Today, "Before the Big Bang", by Fraser Cain on May 17, 2006:
"According to Einstein’s general theory of relativity, the Big Bang represents The Beginning, the grand event at which not only matter but space-time itself was born."
Again this says that the Big Bang was the beginning event that generated matter and physics, even space-time itself. So your statements about the Big Bang not being the cause or starting point of any of that stuff are quite wrong.
TavrenElkair 1 month ago
@MrMaster90 How do you know that it was enternal? can you prove this? No you cannot, If the universe didn't exist it would be nothingness. Not an empty room for it still has walls around it, absoultly nothing. So where did this stuff that caused the big bang come from? Matter is not enternal for if it was then entrophy would be infinite and that's not the case. The kalam yes does qualify for other gods it supports Theism, since Christianity falls under Theism that's why I use it. To prove...
FamousDave2186 1 month ago
@FamousDave2186 I just said it was likely eternal, given that creating matter is impossible, especially for immaterial entities. You've also misrepresented the 2nd law of thermodynamics, which is that over time entropy increases in isolated systems. While the source material for the singularity was eternal, time had a beginning (the Big Bang), and thus, the 2nd law only applies after expansion. The singularity, or at least it's source material, can be eternal without violating physics.
MrMaster90 1 month ago
@MrMaster90 conti: Yahweh I use the historal accounts of Jesus. I'm pretty sure we've already discuss this. Next comment Just saying my arguments are wrong does nothing to disprove my arguments. How did I lie? Do you know for a fact that I know you're right but just say you're wrong? Can you prove this? Stop with the ad honemims. Like you ever trusted me in the first place. Because he doesn't exist. That it explains it then you sure got me (rolls eyes) as a great thinker of our time said...
FamousDave2186 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@FamousDave2186 "Just saying my arguments are wrong does nothing to disprove my arguments."
Yup. That's a theme that is repeated over and over again in the comments sections of these and other similar videos. "You're stupid. You're liar. etc." That seems to be their best arguments, though they're not even making any debate points.
TavrenElkair 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@FamousDave2186 Try not to get too worked up over it all FamousDave. Think about the reasons behind the mentality and reactions instead of just the insults themselves. The reason they respond the way they do is because our very existence angers them and brings up their issues of pride and superiority (which is also part of their problems with God and the core message of the Bible).
TavrenElkair 1 month ago
@FamousDave2186 The "historical accounts" written by unknown authors decades after Jesus' supposed death and plagiarized from earlier mythical heroes like Horus, Krishna, Mithra and Dionysus? Nice try. You'd be better off using Zoroaster to prove Ahura Mazda's existence; he was a real person. You also failed to disprove all the other creator deities that qualify, as well as fairies, genies, or anything else. Where's your proof and evidence that your disbelief in them is accurate and correct?
MrMaster90 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrMaster90 Even secular (non-Christian) scholars admit that the writings of the New Testament (the gospels, etc.) were all written at the very most within 100 years of the events that took place. That entire early Christian church considered these writings to be authentic and reliable. If they were not, they would have been easily refuted and rejected. There wasn't enough time for mythical status and warp to degenerate the events and writing.
TavrenElkair 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrMaster90 "plagiarized from earlier mythical heroes like Horus, Krishna, Mithra and Dionysus"
I already showed you some of how ridiculous this assessment is. The accusations of copy cat mythology comes almost entirely from people dedicated to attacking and discrediting Christianity (such as atheists ;-) ). The myths and terms you're associating against the Bible are VERY clearly myth and not comparable to scripture. This is a common atheist attack, but not at all credible.
TavrenElkair 1 month ago
@MrMaster90 conti: "Child Please." That doesn't disprove He doesn't exist. I can rule out fairies because one there's no historal documents for them and two in there stories they never had the power to create a universe. So no it doesn't meet the Kalam at all and for you to call something evil is really admitting that objective moral values do exist and they are not subjective so thank you for proving the Moral argument yet again. No proof +No evidence = no Atheism.
FamousDave2186 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@FamousDave2186 "and for you to call something evil is really admitting that objective moral values do exist and they are not subjective so thank you for proving the Moral argument yet again."
They accuse us and our God of lies and being immoral and evil, and then reject the concept of absolute morals only when it applies to themselves. It's like a bait and switch. Steal Christian ideals and morals when it suits them, then reject them when it doesn't.
TavrenElkair 1 month ago
@FamousDave2186 I keep explaining why your arguments are wrong: they're fallacious and paradoxical. You can see this if you go back. Lying like that isn't an argument. You misrepresented me by deliberately ignoring parts of my argument and putting words in my mouth. That's lying. I should point out that you've violated your "objective moral code." Since you're okay with lying, your morality is in direct conflict with the objective code you claim to have, proving that your morality is subjective.
MrMaster90 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrMaster90 "I should point out that you've violated your "objective moral code.""
I'm starting to think MrMaster90 is incapable of saying much else. If morality is truly relative, then lying is not a sin, because there would be no such thing as sin. Your attempted attack on the basis of morality is entirely fallacious. And yet you KEEP repeating it over and over again. You are a very confused individual creating countless internal philosophical paradoxes. You have no foundation.
TavrenElkair 1 month ago
@FamousDave2186 A lack of historical evidence doesn't prove they don't exist, just that nobody wrote about them or their universe-creating powers. Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, as you said earlier. Plus there are historical documents featuring the creator deities of other religions, and are far more credible than the Bible. So we're back to infinite possible creators, none of which have can be proven to exist, and all of which are better options than your paradoxical Yahweh.
MrMaster90 1 month ago
@MrMaster90 "Plus there are historical documents featuring the creator deities of other religions, and are far more credible than the Bible."
Could potentially be an interesting argument, IF you have proof to back it up. Let's see some of these mythological deities and creation stories that are far more credible and realistic than that described within the Bible. You cannot, however, make such a claim and then NOT back it up, otherwise the claim is void and baseless.
TavrenElkair 1 month ago
@TavrenElkair Well for one, there's the Avesta; the Zoroastrian holy book, which predates the Bible and isn't riddled with paradoxes and contradictions. The same goes for many other religious texts; Wikipedia has a good list of them.
It's funny that you say I can't make a claim and not back it up when all of your's and Dave's arguments were asserted without evidence or sound logic. You said yourself Jesus hates hypocrites; you're a pretty bad Christian. Thanks for refuting your entire argument.
MrMaster90 1 month ago
@MrMaster90 "It's funny that you say I can't make a claim and not back it up when all of your's and Dave's arguments were asserted without evidence or sound logic. You said yourself Jesus hates hypocrites; you're a pretty bad Christian. Thanks for refuting your entire argument."
Again with the insults. Our statements and arguments have all used evidences and "sound logic". The comments here show that very well. I'm constantly referencing articles and source material. You rarely do.
TavrenElkair 1 month ago
@MrMaster90 "the Bible and isn't riddled with paradoxes and contradictions."
The Bible is not riddled with paradoxes and contradictions. It is actually remarkably consistent throughout, despite having had many different authors across a thousand plus years of writing. The so called paradoxes and contradictions are usually easily refuted as clear misunderstanding of the text, as I have demonstrated. These "problems" are atheistic inventions and nothing more.
TavrenElkair 1 month ago
@MrMaster90 "you're a pretty bad Christian."
And you're a pretty typical atheist. Insult and attack. Reject the arguments and evidences presented to you. Accuse the opposition of constantly lying. It's all quite baseless.
For instance, "all of your's and Dave's arguments were asserted without evidence or sound logic."
I have personally referenced source materials and articles dozens and dozens of times, probably over a hundred separate instances. Your accusation is entirely false.
TavrenElkair 1 month ago
@TavrenElkair The problem is that those sources are biased apologist sources demonstrating either complete ignorance of science or blatant misrepresentations of science, it's proponents, and even the Bible, not to mention are rife with logical fallacies. None of your sources are credible and many are demonstrably wrong. That's the same as lies and baseless assertions. You said yourself; I can reject any claim made without evidence. Next time, give me a trustworthy source.
MrMaster90 1 month ago
@MrMaster90 Actually, the vast majority of my sources are NOT from apologetics websites. Nice try though. And OF COURSE you're going to use the "None of your sources are credible and many are demonstrably wrong." argument. You wouldn't be a good biased Neo-Darwinist and Atheistic believer if you didn't ;-). It just shows that no matter what anyone says or presents to you, no matter their sources or logical arguments, you are dead set on rejecting it all. Such faithful dedication! :-p
TavrenElkair 1 month ago
@TavrenElkair Lying gets you nowhere. I checked your sources; they're no good. I asked you for a trustworthy source and you failed to provide one. I have plenty of reason to reject your ramblings. You're just projecting your own bias, close-mindedness and faith onto me. At least this proves that, on some level, you know that your beliefs are indefensible and that the way you view evidence and logic is faulty. Thanks for admitting that you're unable to argue properly.
MrMaster90 1 month ago
@MrMaster90 "Lying gets you nowhere. I checked your sources; they're no good. I asked you for a trustworthy source and you failed to provide one."
Dictionary... No good.
Peer reviewed scientific journals... No good.
Science news sites... No good.
University sites and databases... No good.
Wikipedia... No good (this one only really helps for general ideas anyway, so "no good" is certainly reasonable here)
Apologetics websites... No good (they're biased!...)
etc.
TavrenElkair 1 month ago
@MrMaster90 "Lying gets you nowhere."
You are REALLY stuck on the "lying" accusation. While checking over the number of times I've referenced source materials I saw you repeat it as many times or more than I gave source references. And yet you have been unable to clearly demonstrate that I have in fact been lying anywhere here. Your opinion is certainly available for all to see, but little else. You, however, have stated a number of things as fact that are actually clearly false.
TavrenElkair 1 month ago
@MrMaster90 "You said yourself; I can reject any claim made without evidence. Next time, give me a trustworthy source."
It is impossible to present a "credible source" to you because you reject anything that does not match your worldview and bias. I've presented dictionary definitions of words in order to alleviate confusion. I've presented scientist quotes, peer reviewed journals and science news articles, and you reject it all as quote mining and truth warping. You are quite hopeless.
TavrenElkair 1 month ago
@TavrenElkair It's also funny that the dictionary definitions you've given refute your own arguments. You kept calling atheism and "Darwinism" worldviews when every dictionary defines atheism as non-belief in gods and evolution as a scientific theory. None of the peer-reviewed articles you presented advocate "God did it" or refute/create problems for evolution, which you said was because of the global conspiracy. Actually, I shouldn't say global. Your mythology says Earth is flat.
MrMaster90 1 month ago
@MrMaster90 "None of the peer-reviewed articles you presented advocate "God did it""
This is another example of your inability to decipher information and data from opinion and speculation. It isn't surprising considering how you treat particular Biblical passages as well. You seem to be incapable of separating and analyzing information from even a semi-neutral standpoint...
TavrenElkair 1 month ago
@MrMaster90 Though you accuse us of information warping, you're unable to dinstinguish between context, data, actual fact, opinion, speculation or assumption. It's all very muddled in your responses. You take one stance for yourself, and an entirely opposite stance with regards to anything else. Seeing you constantly jump through hoops and between standpoints is rather exhausting. It's relative philosophy and argument to the extreme. Your "logic" is all over the place running wild.
TavrenElkair 1 month ago
@FamousDave2186 And finally, I'm calling God evil from an admittedly subjective viewpoint. However, any decent, reasonable person would agree that God is evil. And as I explained several times earlier, God is evil even by his own standards, which you say are objective. So even if we accept objective morality, God is still evil, and therefore, his morals mustn't be followed. We don't need an objective code; even monkeys get along without one. You just need reason and empathy; we all have that.
MrMaster90 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrMaster90 "We don't need an objective code; even monkeys get along without one."
Yes, because monkey society is equally as complex as human society, with all its many variant and competing cultural, religious, artistic, scientific and philosophical viewpoints... If we're basing human society on monkeys, or the animal kingdom in general, I would expect you to start eating your babies next, murdering your one night stands, and other such actions nature commits.
TavrenElkair 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrMaster90 "However, any decent, reasonable person would agree that God is evil."
Take note everyone. MrMaster90 has announced to the world that he and he alone (and probably other atheists, despite being a miniscule minority on the planet) is reasonable and that anyone who worships God or believes in the existence of a good God is unreasonable and by connection evil or at worst stupid... That's the crux of atheism in a nut shell. It always comes down to that.
TavrenElkair 1 month ago
@MrMaster90 conti: ask to give me some arguments for whatever it is. next: But your parents knew you would did they not? So it does prove my point. Your parents created you knowing full well you'd do bad things, but they wanted to have a child anyways. We don't know the future at all. Just because God knows what we're going to do doesn't mean He controls what we do. Next it doesn't mean He can't it means he doesn't do it. If you're all powerful can't you create a rock so big that even you can't
FamousDave2186 1 month ago
@MrMaster90 conti: pick up. No because its a falliace there is no rock that God can't pick up. That's basically what you're telling me and if He controlled freewill then we wouldn't be free at all then. Think what the word means before you post. Next the Bible also talks about HISTORY Jewish laws. What they did you do know what that means don't you. Working on the sabbath only meant not having a day of rest to worship and thank God for what He has done in our lives. Pigs were dirty and they...
FamousDave2186 1 month ago
@MrMaster90 conti: know how to properly clean them. Once are knowledge of this happen God allowed the eatting of pork. I don't keep slaves because one no one owns me a debt so they don't have to do something for me to pay it off and second, I've already explained this to you and won't repeat myself.
FamousDave2186 1 month ago
@MrMaster90 conti: if He was then you might have had a point there but He's not spaceless and timesless meaning beyond power, so your logic doesn't apply to Him. Next: God got angry to teach us something. Did your parents not yell at you when you disobey? Even if they didn't know or did know you were going to do something wrong? For example your parents left you by yourself at home, you decided against their wishes to throw a party, they had a feeling you would do it and they find out you did
FamousDave2186 1 month ago
@MrMaster90 conti: I guess according to your logic they shouldn't have gotten mad since they knew in there gut you would do it. It was to discpline them for disobeing God that's why He got angry just because you know something is going to happen doesn't make it less fustringing when someone disobeys. Your analogy fails because the author is writing a fictional character and He or she controls the outcome God doesn't control our outcomes because of FREE WILL.
FamousDave2186 1 month ago
@FamousDave2186 Your analogy fails because my parents didn't create me knowing ahead of time that I would throw a party. God created Adam and Eve knowing they would sin. He could've done things differently, but went ahead with creation, doing nothing to stop them. It's his fault Original Sin happened. Besides, free will contradicts omniscience, as well as "God's plan." If it's possible to know the future, then the future is fixed, meaning you aren't free to choose; it's all predetermined.
MrMaster90 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrMaster90 "If it's possible to know the future, then the future is fixed, meaning you aren't free to choose; it's all predetermined."
Ah, this brings up a VERY interesting topic. What is your belief considering the nature of time and predestination? Are all actions automatically predetermined or set in stone or do the choices we make have the ability to change outcomes and "destinies"? Think of it as a time paradox thought experiment. Does free will actually exist or is it an illusion?
TavrenElkair 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrMaster90 "It's his fault Original Sin happened."
A driver runs a red light and crashes his car, killing or seriously injuring people in the crash. Blame the people who built the car... Blame the person who installed the traffic lights (even though they worked just fine)... Blame the people who paved the street... Blame the weather... Blame the time of day... But according to you, you can't blame the driver who broke the law, because he could CHOOSE to break the law in the first place...
TavrenElkair 1 month ago
@MrMaster90 conti: because material is limited to physical properties. the abstract does not have limits. material cannot create material because material cannot perceive material. our bodies do not perceive what they touch, taste, see, hear, smell. our minds perceive what our bodies sense. so the abstract has the power to create. Next comment WHAT!? Even though I know full well what's going to happen on a problem I'll still get upset over it. Was that really the best you got on that one?
FamousDave2186 1 month ago
@FamousDave2186 And if you're going to invoke the "abstract" (supernatural, magical or whatever), you must first prove that such a thing even exists, otherwise your rebuttal fails. And since you admit that such things are immaterial and undetectable, you admit that you can't back it up, meaning your rebuttal fails. Plus, the mind is material as well; it's the function of our brains. A mind can't exist without a brain, and if God is immaterial, he has no brain and no mind.
MrMaster90 1 month ago
@MrMaster90 conti: physical bodies? Do you mean just us? well wouldn't that go against what you think orginated life? That somehow nothing created everything? How did the first cell come to be I might ask? Again you only assume facts. The common conception of physical objects includes that they have extension in the physical world, although there do exist theories of quantum physics and cosmology which may challenge this. Are you really going against quantum physics and cosmology?
FamousDave2186 1 month ago
@FamousDave2186 Nobody's saying nothing created everything; quit lying. And the first life arose from preexisting organic matter, not "nothing." And what theories are you talking about? What I'm talking about is a fact. Physical bodies (anything with mass or energy) can only be affected by physical matter and energy. If God is immaterial (without matter or energy), then affecting material objects is impossible for him. So no turning dirt into men or controlling weather to make a flood.
MrMaster90 1 month ago
@FamousDave2186 But if you want proof that your god doesn't exist, that's doable. To start with, your god is spaceless and timeless, which is nonexistence in and of itself. God supposedly created and interacts with the universe, but if he's immaterial, that would be impossible, since only physical bodies can affect other physical bodies. He's also supposedly conscious and intelligent, but if he's spaceless, he has no brain, which you would need for those things.
MrMaster90 1 month ago
@FamousDave2186 There's also the problem of him being omniscient, which contradicts several Bible stories. For starters, an omniscient God would've known that Adam and Eve would eat the apple, yet God was surprised that it happened. Or when he tested Abraham by telling him to sacrifice Isaac. If he was omniscient, God wouldn't have needed to test him. It also contradicts God having free will, since, if you know the future, you're doomed to follow it, making you unable to decide freely.
MrMaster90 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrMaster90 "There's also the problem of him being omniscient, which contradicts several Bible stories. For starters, an omniscient God would've known that Adam and Eve would eat the apple, yet God was surprised that it happened." No God wasn't surprised that they did it He knew full well no where does it say He was surprised? Where you got this idea is beyond me. "Or when he tested Abraham by telling him to sacrifice Isaac. If he was omniscient, God wouldn't have needed to test him." You do..
FamousDave2186 1 month ago
@FamousDave2186 He got angry in response to them eating the apple. You get angry when something happens that you didn't want to happen. If God is all-knowing, he shouldn't have been angry. Plus, he had to ask where Adam and Eve were in that story. An omniscient god wouldn't have to. As for Abraham, we have the quote "Now I know thou art a God-fearing man" after Abraham's test. This shows that God was assessing Abraham's loyalty. An omniscient god would've known before.
MrMaster90 1 month ago
@MrMaster90 conti: God knew full well He wanted the truth out of Adam and Eve. I'll give you an example say a mother makes cookies for desert and tells the child its only for desert do not eat them. The mother leaves the room and child knowing full well not to eat the cookies eats them anyways leaving a mess on himself and the table. The mother starts to come back in the room, the child tries to hide it. The mother looks at the child with the mess all over him knowing full well he ate the cookie
FamousDave2186 1 month ago
@MrMaster90 conti: the mother asks what that mess on your face. the child replies I don't know. The mother looks at where the cookies are and sees them eaten. The mother gets upset did you eat those cookies she at first asks. The child blames it on you left it there I was hungry. She yells at the child for disobeying and punishes the child. She knew that there was a possiblitly that the child would eat the cookies but she wanted the child to do the right thing. The child didn't and so she got...
FamousDave2186 1 month ago
@MrMaster90 conti: upset what was so hard to understand that? You're just arguing for arguing sake, and I told you testing builds perservance. Its how WE learn how to do things. Yeah God knows full well what we're going to do, but there's still a lesson to be taught so that we may not make the same mistakes again.
FamousDave2186 1 month ago
@FamousDave2186 Your analogy fails. The big problem here is that God not only knew they would eat the apple, but planned for it, since he created the universe in such a way that it would happen. Having things go according to plan and getting angry when they do is a paradox. It'd be like J.K. Rowling getting angry at Snape for killing Dumbledore. You also seem to have deliberately missed the "Now I know" quote from God. God should've know all along, but admitted he didn't. Another paradox.
MrMaster90 1 month ago
@MrMaster90 conti: relaize that testing builds perservance do you not? When you work a job yeah you have someone at first telling you exactly what to do but until you do it on your own you never truely learn how to do something. "Experince the most brutal of teachers but you learn my God do you learn." C.S. Lewis. So no contradiction on that one.
"It also contradicts God having free will, since, if you know the future, you're doomed to follow it, making you unable to decide freely." Where
FamousDave2186 1 month ago
@MrMaster90 conti: in that describtion does it say that God controls it? Just because you know that something is going to happen doesn't mean you made it happen. Do you really believe what you are saying or are you just arguing for arguing sake? I find this very hard to believe you actually thought that was contradiction.
FamousDave2186 1 month ago
@FamousDave2186 We then have the problem of evil, which contradicts an omnipotent, omnibenevolent god. If he's able and willing to prevent all evil, then evil shouldn't exist. The fact that evil and suffering exist contradicts God's existence. Of course, omnibenevolence is contradicted by Hell (infinite torture for finite crime), which is by definition infintely sadistic and evil. So I guess if God is evil, that solves these paradoxes.
MrMaster90 1 month ago
Comment removed
FamousDave2186 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrMaster90 "We then have the problem of evil, which contradicts an omnipotent, omnibenevolent god. If he's able and willing to prevent all evil, then evil shouldn't exist. The fact that evil and suffering exist contradicts God's existence. Of course, omnibenevolence is contradicted by Hell (infinite torture for finite crime), which is by definition infintely sadistic and evil. So I guess if God is evil, that solves these paradoxes." for starters are you agreeing than that objective moral..
FamousDave2186 1 month ago
@MrMaster90 conti: values exist then? If morals are subjective as you claim then evil can't exist. Richard Dawkins would then be right to say that in his God delusion that The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.” So are you disagreeing with your hero that evil does exist? Looks like you've just proven the moral argument without even realizing it.
FamousDave2186 1 month ago
@FamousDave2186 Straw-manning my position again, are we? To say that evil exists doesn't necessarily mean objective morals exist. But if they do exist, then let's go by what God considers evil (working on Friday, eating pork, making metal idols, etc.). If those things exist (which they do) then God doesn't exist, or is evil. However, a good God should also be against suffering, which is objective. If there's any suffering in the world, then it negates God's existence, unless he's evil.
MrMaster90 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrMaster90 "Straw-manning my position again, are we? To say that evil exists doesn't necessarily mean objective morals exist." Do you even know what objective moral values mean? You've given me no reason to think that under atheism why anything is evil. Richard Dawkins said it himself those weren't my words those were his. So if Morals were subjective how can you say anything is evil? You have to explain this for starters than tell me why my viewpoints are wrong. To call something evil is...
FamousDave2186 1 month ago
@FamousDave2186 True, morals are subjective, both yours and mine, but that doesn't mean we can't call something evil. It just means that evil is subjective. But if we accept objective morality, in the form of God's commands, then it creates a paradox between sin and an omnipotent, omnibenevolent God. If God hates sin and has the power to prevent sin, then sin shouldn't exist. If we have people sinning (eating pork, working on Friday, etc.), it proves God doesn't exist, or is evil.
MrMaster90 1 month ago
@MrMaster90 onti: If evil is subjective than all things are premitted. Are you a psycopath? What if someone were to say that since evil is subjective I'm going to kill you. What's to stop him from doing so. Its subjective its his opinion? He's man isn't he? So then he must have a right to do so according to your logic. Do you see how crazy that sounds? God can't control FREE WILL if He could that wouldn't be FREE WILL. watch part one and two of this video watch?v=dEc4nLzdlc0 should answer that.
FamousDave2186 1 month ago
@FamousDave2186 So then God isn't omnipotent if he can't control free will. You've created another paradox.
No part of subjective morality says all things are permitted. Societies develop their own morals, and most work just fine. Our culture doesn't permit killing; the law will stop him. Funny that your God is powerless to stop evil despite this whole "objective morality" crap. Plus, if your morality is objective, why aren't you keeping slaves? Why do you eat pork and work on the Sabbath?
MrMaster90 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrMaster90 "So then God isn't omnipotent if he can't control free will. You've created another paradox."
No, YOU'VE created a paradox that doesn't exist. An all powerful God CAN disrupt free will, but choose not to. There's NO paradox there. Just because a person CAN do something, doesn't mean he HAS to or DOES do it. I'm capable of jumping off an apartment building. Doesn't mean I will, or even should, despite it being fully within my power to do so.
TavrenElkair 1 month ago
@MrMaster90 conti: making an objective moral claim. Your premises don't follow your argument on that one. "Have you even read the Bible?" Yes I have what kind of question to ask me was that.
"If free will exists, God clearly doesn't care about it. He kills people all the time for "disobeying him" and orders his followers around like slaves." Those people you talk about disobeying were killing not only there own people but also the Isrealie people as well? I guess according to your logic we...
FamousDave2186 1 month ago
@MrMaster90 conti: we shouldn't have capital punishment for murders such as those should we? Next followers like slaves? You're father or mother ever tell you to do something? I guess they treated you like a slave then according to your logic. You have the choice to not do what they told you to do but since all actions have consquesnces towards them you weighed in the choices and did (at least I hope) what your parents told you, maybe not all the time, but you still obeyed. Now with mind control
FamousDave2186 1 month ago
@FamousDave2186 Allowing free will but punishing people for disobedience is a paradox. You're basically saying that people are free to be slaves or be chew toys. That's not free will, it's coercion. By the way, the millions of people God murdered were mostly innocent. Their "crimes" were living in a city that happened to be in the Hebrews' way. Plus, if your assertion is true, God should be killing everyone who sins even today. Why doesn't he? Because he doesn't exist.
MrMaster90 1 month ago
@MrMaster90 conti: no where does it say God controlled his mind. The events that will fall the will harden his heart. Meaning although all these disaters that took place just made him more mad and more deterimine to disobey God. Sounds familar doesn't it? As I argue the points you seem to be hardening your heart as well by even calling people names and swearing.
FamousDave2186 1 month ago
@FamousDave2186 It says that God hardened Pharaoh's heart, which made him choose not to free the Hebrews. That's mind control, a direct violation of free will, proving that God doesn't care about it. Using the free will defense is inconsistent with your god's behavior. You've failed to defend God from this paradox, which only adds to the proof of his nonexistence.
MrMaster90 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrMaster90 conti: "It says that God hardened Pharaoh's heart," No it doesn't I've already explained it to you. Repeating yourself doesn't disprove my argument. When are you going to learn that? "Allowing free will but punishing people for disobedience is a paradox" I don't think you really now what paradox means. Just because someone chooses to do something good or bad doesn't mean it doesn't have consquences for ones actions. If I FREELY choose to disobey my parents I still get punished for.
FamousDave2186 1 month ago
@MrMaster90 conti: it. The more you try to argue with me the more it looks like you weren't really raised right. I hate to think that's true so you could just be arguing for the sake of arguing which shows you don't care about the truth at all. Next: and what was your reason for the Kalam? I've already explain why your counter was wrong and all you told me was no I'm wrong but NEVER EXPLAIN WHY. So explain why when I told you about Thermodynamics. Thoese cities you stated did horrible things to
FamousDave2186 1 month ago
@MrMaster90 conti: not only their people (human sacrfice killing each other list goes on) but also to the Isrealie people. How about actually studying history before making comments such as that. Really shows your ignorance. Be very thankful that God doesn't kill you off when we sin. You really need to think about what you're saying since you can't disprove He exists. You think He's evil but given me no proof to that claim. I've already explain this to you and you ignore it you about your...
FamousDave2186 1 month ago
@FamousDave2186 No historical evidence (not even the Bible) supports your assertion. Plus, God's people were also killing each other and performing human sacrifice (Judges 11:29-40), so why didn't he kill all of them? The answer: he's evil. If we accept that morality is objective, and that defying God's commandments are evil, then God himself has killed, stolen, lied, and broken many more of his own rules. God is evil by his own standards. Accepting objective morality proves God is evil.
MrMaster90 1 month ago