RE: 1 question that every intelligent Atheist must answer

[elwillydelagente]

what can i say? i just love it when ordinary people think that creating a youtube account makes them some sort of experts in... well, pretty much everything. truth to be told, i cannot stop picturing gaylord focker pretending to be charles darwin here.

[NemoUtopian]

@elwillydelagente What can I say?I just love it when some morn comes along and throws out Ad Hominems rather then deal with the points in the video.

And if I recall correctly,I am rather upfront and to the point on my lack of expertize.I think I rather expressly make my point as a layman.Though I am happy to say that I do so clearly and correctly I think.

And seven thumbs up?how insecure do you have to be to self validate yourself that much?

[elwillydelagente]

@NemoUtopian How insecure do I have to be? that is so cute. It really is, I mean... now, as the expert you are, you talk about psychology too. Take it easy, Gaylord!

[NemoUtopian]

@elwillydelagente One hardly needs to be Freud to recognize a sock-puppeting troll doing an inept job.

[elwillydelagente]

@NemoUtopian C'mon, Focker, you wouldn't recognize a sock-puppeting troll or whatsoever; now do what you're good at and hand me a band-aid ;)

[NemoUtopian]

@elwillydelagente Please do not embarase yourself any further then you already have.

7 thumbs up minutes after posting a comment on a video that hardly gets any views anymore?painfuly inept.

At least you went and hid your one subscriber from veiw after I pointed out what you were,though you should have done so sooner.

Trolls are pathetic enough,but such an incompetent one is most disappointing

[elwillydelagente]

@NemoUtopian you actually like to think that, don't you? you enjoy thinking of yourself as a mentally gifted person, and you find satiscation in the idea of me "embarasing myself". well, go ahead, wank off.

yes, i got 7 thumbs up in minutes, cause i showed this video to some friends so they could see what i mean with "pseudo-intellectual freaks", and yes, i removed lots of unnecessary info in my profile yesterday, so...?

now, incompetent? that's funny coming from a guy with no academic degree.

[Visda58]

Very concise. Nice.

[jaywolfe82]

Can you link the video you replied to?

[jaywolfe82]

Nevermind, I found it.

[HisTruthbeUNKOWN]

As a fomer decades long Christian now atheist, I'm always impressed by the cool, calm logical approach from non-beleivers. I only wish I could be as articulate. Thank you for your very well stated thoughts.

[NemoUtopian]

thank you so much for your kind words,and for your subscription also.

[DefenderOfReason]

Alex, I don't give a rat's ass if you have a "college degree" - you're one of the brightest minds I know. This vid had clear reasoning, and you held the idiot's feet to the verbal fire! :-)

[irendelle]

wassup, nemo? been awhile. received ur msg, thanks.

[bluesbrother1979]

you need to clean your fish tank

[NemoUtopian]

my roommate can clean his own damn turtle tank.

but thanks for adding nothing to the conversation.

[jazzyhap]

I see my post was removed.

[NemoUtopian]

i have removed no posts from this or any other threads

[turtle2hug]

Great response Nemo. Glad to see a couple new videos by you too! =)

[Atheistblindchick]

Very good response! Wonder what his will be, I saw that he was going to make one...

But these questions should be addressed to scientists, not atheists, since not all atheists are into science. And a lot of them do not lack a belief in a deity because of science...

[NemoUtopian]

for detailed information regarding the universe and it's formation this is true.however for asking how a logically minded person can find atheism logically consistent,i think this is a fair question.he ask what sounds in truth(silly equations to the contrary)a layman question,and i give a layman's answer.he makes flawed logical assumptions,and i point them out.though you are quiet right that he is also presenting something of a false dichotomy.

[jazzyhap]

You addressed biological and chemical source, but I did not catch an answer for infinite regression.

Can we both agree we need an eternal starting point?

[NemoUtopian]

chemistry has it's source in atomic fusion in stars,that has it's source in the subatomic particles that formed from the big bang.(continued)

[NemoUtopian]

at the big bang we run into the wall of our ignorance as a species.i am inclined to believe that the universe always existed in some form,but undergoes transformative events,perhaps as part of an even larger multiversal or omni-dimensional structure.but this is pure speculation on my part.the simple answer is we do not know(continued)

[NemoUtopian]

the simple truth is that whatever came before the big bang is simply speculation.whether the universe came from from something else that is ultimately eternal(just eternally changing),or (as counter intuitive as it is for me) if we in some sort of real sense came from nothing at all,the universe owes me no favor that it will make intuitive sense(continued)

[NemoUtopian]

the claim that the universe existing necessitates an eternal god is purely speculative in nature,the difference with it is that it is a multiplication of entities,and one without any solid ground to posit.i do not say that it is impossible,just that there is no reason as yet to give it any creditably,and some reason not to as it does run counter to what we observe in the universe,that being natural proci forming greater complexity.

[jazzyhap]

Well I got 4 replies for one question.

Regarding the question I got:

"whether the universe [1]came from from something else that is ultimately eternal(just eternally changing),or (as counter intuitive as it is for me) if we in some sort of real sense [2]came from nothing at all"

Now of these 2 options, which is more logical?

We have never observed an eternal form, however you interpret it.

But we have observed nothing, and we have never observed something come from nothing.

I go with 1, you?

[jsmxwll]

I know the question wasn't for me, but I was curious... How does one correctly answer a loaded question? The first statement is correct, we haven't observed an eternal form. We are not eternal and cannot observe anything eternal as a consequence. There's more to say there, but I'll move on. The second statement, "But we have observed nothing" makes no sense. I have looked intently but I cannot find a single valid reference to the observation of "nothing". (to be continued 1)

[jsmxwll]

(Continued 1) There is no known location, from what I can find, where nothing exists. There is always something there. Even when vacuum is created, and as perfectly as they try to make it, there is always something there. Man made vacuums are much closer to perfect than any known in space. So from what basis do you draw the conclusion that we have observed nothing? You give one sound option and another fatally flawed (to be continued 2)

[jsmxwll]

(Continued 2) Then you ask which he would choose while choosing the sound option yourself. You create a choice where in he must either agree with you, or choose an option that is flawed to begin with. Oh and logic has nothing to do with either question so asking which is more logical doesn't account for anything. Both are just inductive reasoning, one is just starting with a false premise. But someone correct me if I'm wrong. Constructive criticism is a wonderful teacher. -Max

[jazzyhap]

So you can not answer the question, ok.

[jsmxwll]

(edit) "We are not eternal and cannot observe anything eternal as a consequence." Should be "We are not eternal and cannot *knowingly* observe something eternal as a consequence."

[jazzyhap]

""But we have observed nothing" makes no sense."

I watched your video. Very little does for you.

[NemoUtopian]

as i already said i believe 1 to be the case,and this is based on the first law of thermodynamics which states that matter can neither be created or destroyed,it just changes form.however laws like that are observational in nature,they are true within the context of the universe as far as has been observed.just because something has never been observed to happen however does not mean that it does not happen,it just means that it has not been observed to happen(continued)

[NemoUtopian]

the reason i even mention something coming from nothing is that i have seen stephen hawking say just that,though i suspect that due to his condition he was using it as conversational shorthand.i have seen other physicist use the term quantum foam.if you want to quiz a physicist about what the big bang originated from,i would recommend you go and find one to ask,as i am not one myself.ultimately as even they are not sure(but at least are possessed of a higher quality of ignorance)(continued)

[NemoUtopian]

the answer remains"we do not know".

[jazzyhap]

Before I start, I want to say thank you for responding to my video. I want to let you know up front that I respect that you are perceiving your environment with logic, even if I do not agree, and for that I give my respect.

[JasperAvi]

Great response, I will be uploading my own momentarily.

[saxmanchiro]

Correct sir. Abiogenesis is just that, life from non-life. The requirement for being alive is biological in nature and keeping to that definition, one sees quite logically that certain things had to happen over a long period of time for all the requirements to come about. All life is made of cells, cells started simply with complexity continuously increasing from that simplicity to where we are now.

[NemoUtopian]

to often people seem to associate what is counter intuitive with what is illogical,and the simplest sounding solution with what what is logical.much of human success in understanding the world seems to come from tracking the evidence down even to places that are counter intuitive,and grappling with complex answers to what sound like simple questions.

[NemoUtopian]

in creationist i often see the egocentric demand for answers that make intuitive sense to them.we have to go to reality,not the other way around.

[saxmanchiro]

The process is quite simple and elegant. The time frame is huge as well. Our minds have a hard time with a billion yrs. I would venture to guess that life probably got several starts and stops because of the difficult environs on early earth. Once life grabs hold, then the difficulty starts with having that life form able to sustain itself long enough to reproduce itself.

[NemoUtopian]

Keep um comming! Pappy =)

[NemoUtopian]

heh,the above comment comes from my dad accidentally signing in on my account.