FINAL REBUTTAL - Atheist Head Explodes (Full Version)

[StandardPerson1]

This video contains so many errors that it's absurd. Take the 'discussion' about the big bang (BB). All sides seem to think that the BB occurred inside pre-existing space-time, whereas space and time (space-time) had their origins in the BB.

Thus, there was no space or time until *after* the BB.

In the absence of time, it makes no sense to talk about *causation*, so the question "what caused the big bang?" is meaningless & requires no answer.

If you cannot understand this, get a degree.

[sweetmikser]

@StandardPerson1 you're too cute. But look at the comments right below that deal a bit with your argument and contention.

[StandardPerson1]

@sweetmikser: While I confess that I only checked the comments that were written in the last month or so, I only saw this point addressed once. The reply (by you?) was of the form "an uncaused cause throws doubt on the principle of cause and effect 'hence' (?) we must avoid discussing uncaused causes."

Since this rebuttal has no merit, I thought the point ought to be repeated.

The big bang is an effect without a temporal cause, so it is incoherent to ask what "caused" it.

[StandardPerson1]

@sweetmikser:

P.S.The way you abuse people who post dissenting opinions is not civilised

and your practice of blocking further comments by these same people is almost nauseating.

If you are only willing to tolerate comments that agree with your point of view then you should state this somewhere.

[sweetmikser]

@StandardPerson1 did I block you?

[StandardPerson1]

@sweetmikser: No, but looking back over the comments here, I'd say I've been lucky.

[StandardPerson1]

P.S. I apologise for any slight caused by comment "If you don't understand [why the big bang] requires no 'cause'] then get a degree." I should have offered the following well-known analogy.

If someone were to ask you "If you walk to the North Pole and then go North, what comes next?" you might give the answer "Nothing." If you thought about it a little more, you might say that the question is flawed.

Questions about the cause of the big bang are flawed (or meaningless?) in a similar way.

[ytbconcord]

Even if you were to selectively choose this one part of law of Cause and Effect (transferring states of matter from one form from another), as the atheist did, it STILL doesn’t work. Because, by definition, there would have to be a state of being outside of time and space (“before” Big Bang), which contained all consciousness, order, and energy in the universe “after” Big Bang). In other words, all knowing and all powerful, and from a dimension outside of time and space

[rkyeun]

@ytbconcord

> outside of time and space

> which contained

Contained is a space. Putting it in the past tense with -ed makes it a time as well.

By definition, there can't be a state OUTSIDE of time and space, because OUTSIDE is a space, and "would have to be" requires a time.

In other words, your god outside of time and space never exists anywhere at any time.

[ytbconcord]

@rkyeun More correctly, He exists in ALL places at ALL times, from our limited time space perspective. From POV of dot on a single line, if 3-D ball intersected it, it would appear to be everywhere. Forward and backward on the line (time), and in multiple dot locations along the line. We partially experience this in dreams. Thank you for clarifying the limited thinking most atheists make. You still didn’t answer the colossal violation of 1st Law Thermodynamics. w/ Big Bang.

[rkyeun]

@ytbconcord

You're just making this up as you go along now.

[cmottes]

God made the universe and life. Billions know this from experience. Jesus testified to this and God raised Him as is historically proven. Science shows this as top shelf physicist Roger Penrose proved the universe began highly ordered. Richard Dawkins offered $50k to explain abiogenesis last year lol. Mutations/new info aren't luck. God guided the whole thing.

[MithranArkanere]

Oh, gods. What a bunch of nonsense. Please stop talking about things you can't understand. It's not those atheists not understanding god. It's you not understanding the universe, and puting "god" as a wildcard for anything that you don't understand.

[sweetmikser]

@MithranArkanere did you see and hear the whole thing? The whole video all the way through? Also, you seem like a polytheist pagan Darwinist drone-tard. Just sayin. Circular reasoning on all sides, IF THAT'S THE CASE. Because the Biblical God can't be tested in a lab, and "understood" in that sense, therefore the argument from ignorance and incredulity (while ignoring implications for intelligent direction all around us like dishonest fools) are Atheist pastimes and pathologies.

[MithranArkanere]

@sweetmikser No. Really, you don't understand a thing. No matter how many words you are using, they are always void of meaning because of your lack of understanding of what you are talking about.

Oh, and "Gods" is just an expression. Like "god" it in singular. It doesn't matter if you say it in singular or plural because it's always just than: an expression, people say it even when don't believe in any particular god. I use the plural because it sounds more RPGS-ish. moire fun.

[sweetmikser]

@MithranArkanere No. Really, YOU don't understand a thing. But I at least point out how. You, on the other hand, just make jerky and rude assertions, with no specifics. The problem with idiots like you is that you can't understand that the "we can explain how things operate naturally" argument is a STRAW-MAN, and a category error. Because Theists don't argue that how the natural world functions cannot be explained by natural processes. But what of their ORIGINS??

[MithranArkanere]

@sweetmikser If you really knew what a strawman is, and really though about what you are saying, you'll see that the one using strawmans is you.

[sweetmikser]

@MithranArkanere moot

[MithranArkanere]

@sweetmikser Oh. So you are finally getting it? Exactly. All you've said was moot. Nice too see you are starting to get it.

[sweetmikser]

@MithranArkanere you're more stupid than I thought. YOU are "moot", kid...and at this point, since I'm kinda tired of your bubble-head infantile dopiness, you're also blocked. Ciao...

[gregrutz]

''Evolutionists'' don't believe in ape-men. Humans are still apes.

[sweetmikser]

@gregrutz uh, kid, you're about to get blocked...cuz I don't have time for your drone-ish Darwinist bone-head inconsistent dishonest confusing and typical and insufferable CRAP. Darwinists believe in "common APE-MAN ancestors". And "ape-men". It's not my fault that Darwinist losers can't keep their confusing BS straight, and individual Darwinists have hang-ups against terms used by their own group. And no humans are not "apes", despite the laughable propaganda to push that.

[gregrutz]

Most Biologists accept God, they all accept evolution. Stop lying.

[MrLJblood]

Even fundies like me like it! LOL

[sweetmikser]

@MrLJblood well of course. The universe itself had to be "caused". Somehow. So that is a "cause and effect" situation...regardless of what this Atheist dork-turd idiotically barfs up. And the "cause" had to be logically or at least by strong implication DELIBERATE DIRECTION...by some Intelligence. Period. Anything non-deliberate or accidental is a BIG leap of faith. (Blind credulity actually.) Atheists DON'T WANT there to be an Eternal God and Judge. So they just assume there isn't. Childish.

[infinity730]

@sweetmikser So reply to my comments in another video then close the comment section so I cant respond?

Ok I see how it is.

[sweetmikser]

@infinity730 no, it was not just you... In that A/T debate video, I recently got a barrage of comments and moronic snipes, that I wrote to, one by one today, and I don't need the aggravation right now, as I'm very busy and YouTube gets too be too distracting and time-consuming at times. Your comment from about a week ago, I never responded to until today. And I was saying that "ape-men" and "fish ancestry" ARE what Darwinists actually believe and claim. Whatever the wording.

[infinity730]

@sweetmikser "I was saying that "ape-men" and "fish ancestry" ARE what Darwinists actually believe and claim"

According to biologists, humans are only related to fish by way of common ancestry, they aren't directly related to each other. Also, according to biologists, humans are in the family hominidae, which mean that our closes relatives, and we ourselves, are apes.

I'm still not sure why you equate "Darwinism" with modern biological understanding, maybe I'm mistaken.

[gregrutz]

@sweetmikser There is no proof of God. ''Atheist don't want there to be a God'', How stupid can you get. they don't assume there is not one, YOU ASSUME THERE IS ONE [OR 3].

@2:07 'Rocks without direction'' How come a rock knows which direction to fall? The same way atoms know how to combine.

[sweetmikser]

@gregrutz your comment shows that you didn't really see the whole video, or listen to the end part carefully.(Also, you of all people need to see my other video "Atheist-Theist Debate - Who Won?" because the very old thing that you and other Atheists keep mentioning about "natural laws" and "atoms know how to combine" is thoroughly addressed there too, that it's a straw-men, and does NOT speak to their ORIGINS. Who set it UP that way?) Cuz "nature done it" is a form of PANTHEISM.

[gregrutz]

@sweetmikser God made everything 13.7 billion years ago and it has been evolving since then.  What was your point about Atheists???

[MrLJblood]

Love the video mikser dude! Are you happy now? ;-)

Keep up the good work but never stop learning... "of learning there is no end" according to Ecclesiastes. Bless you.

[mowmowmowful]

But I concede, if I encounter atheists that sound like the dude in the red in the video, I would bash them as badly. I mean, I already found arrogant/ignorant people of any kind annoying.

[mowmowmowful]

Me again. Your video is too long (I don't know why, but you are talking very slowly), so I got to the point where you referred to my point from the other comments (i.e. what bother me about theists). I did mention some when I said that theists force their values on society and target sciences they don't agree with. Problem, these theists have enough influence in the world (mostly politics really) to pose an issue.

[sweetmikser]

@mowmowmowful well I talked a bit slowly (in certain spots more slowly than other times though) to make sure that everything was loud and clear and unmistakable. No mumbling of words. Etc. Also, you really should see the whole video some time when you can. If you don't want to right now, then you might then want to go to the abbreviated version of it (that's only 10 minutes long...I have a few versions). It's called "Atheist's head explode 'cause and effect' (final)". It's a lot shorter.

[sweetmikser]

@mowmowmowful what's up...you didn't respond yet. Did you see it? Let me know...I'm curious what your take is on each point made here. Try to listen to all of it, not just 2 minutes of it. For real....it's worth it.

[mowmowmowful]

@sweetmikser Sorry, really busy lately. Grad school applications. Over winter break, I will watch it and give your points a thoughtful answer. But yeah, because you were talking somewhat slowly in the beginning, I was initially put off with watching the whole video.

[sweetmikser]

manunderyourbed said:

@sweetmikser:

Ouch!



[sweetmikser]

theirishfrog said:

I hear a lot of complaining about straw-man fallacies and then unfounded claims that science supports the theory of an "intelligent director"... Can you substantiate your claims, please?

[sweetmikser]

givingmantoo said:

Oh man, you are so full of shit.

[sweetmikser]

robtbo said:

The problem with proposing a first cause is that it undermines what we know about cause and effect. Every cause is known to be the effect of an earlier cause. The existence of a cause that is not an effect means that knowledge of cause and effect is unreliable.

If cause and effect is unreliable, it can't be used to come to a reliable conclusion.

[sweetmikser]

grenangle said:

You do not get to decide what is science and what is not.

[sweetmikser]

@grenangle uh, yeah, sure...kid. Did you see the WHOLE video, by the way? If not, you probably should. The point is that true science (not my wish but just a fact) is a body of knowledge that is DEMONSTRATED...testable, observable, provable, and empirical. Speculation is NOT "science". It's not hard or true observable "science". And Atheist drones with biases and agendas do not get to decide what "science" is either. Anyway, again, did you see the whole video through?

[sweetmikser]

grenangle said:

@sweetmikser So why is the percentage of scientists who reject natural selection less than 1%? And are any of those not theists? Actually as atheists are such a minority I would bet most scientists studying evolution are theists.

[sweetmikser]

@grenangle you're raising a bit of a straw man. "Natural selection" is not argued against. There IS such a thing as "natural selection". The issue is what "natural selection" can actually accomplish. Got neurotic Darwinist LEAPS, ASSUMPTIONS, AND HALLUCINATIONS. And as far as your pathetic argument from authority, and argument from majority...uhh, look that up, and see how that's NOT a valid argument.The majority of "scientists" are atheistic or naturalistic BENT. And majority usually wrong.

[sweetmikser]

grenangle said:

@sweetmikser Darwin's theory is called natural selection. It is the mechanism that steers evolution. LOVING THE CAPS LOCK BTW!!!!

[sweetmikser]

@grenangle oh you sound so drone-ish...and silly. I don't have time for your pathetic ignorance and gibberish, except to just leave you with some "quote mines", that you'll arrogantly dismiss...

Hugo de Vries:

"Natural selection may explain the survival of the fittest, but it cannot explain the arrival of the fittest."

Professor Lock:

"The most fundamental objection to the theory of natural selection is that it cannot originate characters; it only selects among characters already existing."

[sweetmikser]

thegeniushasreturned said:

@sweetmikser Remind them that natural selection doesn't do what Darwinist need it to do.

in humans there are over 4500 genetic defects which should not exist if evolution by natural selection were true.