The function of hydrogen in life forms means the entire universe made of hydrogen and derivatives was made with function.
You no of no origin of any of the hundreds of original layers of sediments in the earth's strata containing fossils that can only be explained by the flood.
You need to answer the first questions first rather than assuming everything you believe..
Go and talk creatard nonsense somewhere else! In the meantime, thank you for demonstrating the the Dunning-Kruger effect, and the accuracy of the video's statements.
@TheWillwillwill your statement that the universe is beyond our comprehension is merely a cover up for not wanting to pursue the real comprehension of the universe. What at all supports your statement that we cannot comprehend the universe? Not knowing is a virtue. Pretending to know doesn't help.
Excellent video. Thank you. This is the best simplification of this aspect of creationist tactics I have seen and I will come back to watch this again and again. Looking forward to watching more of your uploads. Good stuff.
I loved the croaky voice too and think you should keep it.
Thanks. This fallacy is so prevalent that I thought it warranted a video. Creationists deny that they are using it ... perhaps they don't even realize that it underlies their assumptions.
@musekiteer we all have a world view and were all traped by them and obviously in ur world view there is no god
which is fine. but were no polar opposite in world views, im guessing we both have a world view of wood not being able to bend. but if i stick a wooden pole down a river u would see the wood is slightly bending, u know its not true because our world view is that object like wood does not bend. but by stating that a group of individuals is Ignorant is a world view.
It's less trouble than votebots. I don't trust creationists.
I can't explain why I thought that it might be necessary, and you probably can't imagine creationists cheating over an honest analysis of their illogic.
Pokemon, I don't remember your full user name. I apologize for accidentally removing your comment. I hit the wrong "R". I responded to what you said, below.
Yes, the negation of a true statement is false, and vice versa; P or not- P. My point was that many more falsehoods (premises) are proposed than true statements.
You tossed implication into the mix, but not-not-p is equivalent to p. It adds nothing. My point was about statements made, not implied negatives.
watch?v=5wV_REEdvxo
The undistributed middle applies to syllogisms arguments, not premises.
The ether is an example of a falsified hypothesis. Because its qualities were explicitly stated, it was open to experimental falsification.
Presumably you have noticed that apologists keep shifting the definition of the purported creator-deity out of reach of falsification. Of course, in order to do so they have violated all known laws of physics. In effect, they have falsified their own precious invention. Not, of course, that they will ever stem the flow of donations by admitting this.
The point that I was making is that creationists insist that somewhere inside, or *recently* outside the universe, their mythical creator exists. The supernatural is a fudge category, but to *demonstrate* that a postulated existence does not exist somewhere inside or out of the universe, the entire universe and beyond would have to be scoured (I did not add, *simultaneously*).
Well, i'd like to discuss my concerns a bit more, But I can't PM you. Friend lock on? I understand. As far as fractal, since he's so "challenged" on so many levels, I think it fits.
You are subscribed. I often miss new videos because they don't show up in the latest 8 on my index page. I use the "Subscriptions" link a lot.
Creatards are slow, but they have been accused of these fallacies so often, that they have "created" come-backs. They whine that they did not *explicitly* state ignorantiam and that the burden of proof is on us.
Their creaquotes do not equip them to respond to questions, so they try to weasel out of answering so as to save face.
He is supposedly omnipresent, yes. However, that was the logical case against disproving the nonexistent.
I never thought to look through a microscope -- I kinda expected that He'd have to be huge -- to match His enormous ego.
But now that I think about it, His actual impact on the world is so negligible that it makes sense that He would be sub-microscopic. Perhaps much smaller than a Planck length.
I have said many times - ToE could be completely overturned and I'd be not one step closer to god belief (let alone specific god belief) than I am as I sit here.
It is a fact we evolved. The only thing that could upset ToE is a better *theory* for how it happened.
But just to give the creationists something to chew on, even if this were not the case and it was proved to be a massive hoax engaged in by every biological scientist - there would still be no reason for me to to believe in god.
// The only thing that could upset ToE is a better *theory* for how it happened //
So true. Scientists admit this. However, religionists apparently do not understand the difference between fact and theory. They don't even seem to understand what science *is*. They merely purloin any scientific facts that suit their pre-conceived notions. I should probably say post-conceived because the notions are received non-wisdom.
The 'cognitive phenomenon' under discussion always makes me sympathetic to the curiosity that motivated Jean Piaget. He was interested less in what children understood than in what they failed to understand. Unfortunately, he stopped investigating cognitive development once kids achieved formal operations (basic abstract thinking). Egocentric magical-thinking is supposed to finish around age 7.
We are supposed to stop relying upon egocentric magical-thinking when we are about 7. It is extraordinary how many fail to progress to the next stages (concrete operational -- concrete logical; formal operational -- abstract logical).
Believing in invented categories, which have been conveniently defined to spackle explanatory gaps between emotional-investment and zero-evidence, is gussied-up egocentric magical-thinking.
5 stars and subbed. Well done, and beautifully summarized.
Also, I'm entertained by the fact the first Creationist response clearly demonstrates their inability to understand the first few minutes of your vid!
// this thesis certainly isn't going to write itself //
That's a bummer! Could you not have chosen to do one of those self-writing theses that come in Cornflakes boxes? You know, the ones that lead to a sheepskin from a Christian Fundie college.
Thats pretty funny.... Christian believe science proves creation. The principle of causality states every effect needs a cause. Therefore the big bang needs a cause beyond space time and matter, to cause it.
Also we see intellegent design in creation. It is a mere absurbdity to believe that there was not an intellegent designer. It is like looking at the inner workings of a clock and saying " nothing created this"
Space time and matter are the natural. Something beyond space time and matter caused the natural... Does that imply super natural ? Of course unless you hold that the natural caused itself. Which is absurbed also.
To your second point...
Look at yourself in the mirror. You dna strand is so complex to deny so is rediculous. It's like saying an explosion happend in a print shop and produced websters dictionary
"Of course unless you hold that the natural caused itself. Which is absurbed (sic) also."
I'm just wondering... would it be any more absurd than holding that a god "caused itself"?
And does this question have anything to do with the fact that you not only suggest, without evidence, "a" god, but that you have extremely specific god claims in mind?
You see, you don't just hold an unsupportable premise (god did it) you claim to know what god *is* and *wants*.
God is not a self caused being. He would by very definition be an uncaused being since he is a necessary being. I can break down the argument further if you dont understand what I mean.
God is beyond time. Which would make him an infinite being. How many infinite being can there be ? If there were multiple how could you tell them apart.. I am posting a video real soon proving that the God I just proved is the God of the bible
Really. You think you just "proved" god. You think a flawed logical argument - or, for that matter - *any* logical argument can ever "prove" god? Do you even know what a "proof" is?
There lies one of the problems -- you cannot legitimately define anything other than a concept into existence.
Do you even understand what "existence" entails?
For any agent to act upon, or within, the physical, that agent is necessarily (since you like that word) a part of the natural. The supernatural is an invention of magic-thinkers.
Equally, anything that operates upon energy (all matter is energy) cannnot be timeless.
Bold claim, can we see some evidence to back it up please?
You then state " ..... proving that the God I just proved ...... " clearly you dont have a clue of what proving somthing means. All you have proved is that you dont know the difference between fact and faith , and you think that your faith must be fact on the grounds that you think it is.
To prove somthing you must provide Testable evidence, , can you do that?
No one can say what lies beyond the boundrys of this space time. but you claim to know for sure. but why could you not have a Natural force, just one we dont know anything about, you could have universes in this notime nospace place,that were formed just as a result of the " natural " laws of NTNS space. that are as plentyfull as galaxys in our own TimeSpace
oh dear another muppet with an invisible friend !! atheists dont have invisible friends thats the definition I like best :) A-Z of religious :- Retarded Eviangelists totally Lacking Intelligence guilty of Goat raping & shit eating that are Ill-informed Obedient Uneducated Slaves you are away with the Bullshit Fairies me thinks !
If Dna had poped into existance fully formed then yes your right, but as it goes on that your way off the mark, Remember evolution is not random it builds in tiny tiny steps,
Now lets look at you concept of a god, outside of our spaceTime, where did that come from? by all your arguments it must have had a cause( if it existed) and then it's russian doll time, you cant have it both ways,
Im not saying at any point that , I believe that our univeres is just one of millions of billions of universes that all exist in this place outside our own,, You see even if I dont have the math to describe this NTNS place, I can imagine it, wich is all anyone can do when it come to dealing with somthing that can not be observed measured or tested .just like your imagined divine being and even if i did claim that this is how it is you could not disprove it could you?
// Something beyond space time and matter caused the natural //
That is a bald assertion fallacy ... and you follow it up with irrelevance and ad ridiculum.
You are merely parroting what you have been instructed to believe.
If you wish to prove your point, then come up with experimental evidence for the "supernatural". Until you do -- and you cannot -- the "supernatural" is a category invented to explain the lack of the evidence that ought to be obvious.
In a couple of words, your claims are "mere absurbdity".
Where are the experiments to test the predictions of creationism? What are the predictions, btw?
I predict that creationists will continue to usurp the findings of science in misbegotten attempts to "prove" their goddidit beliefs correct.
As to "uncaused, timeless creators", that is yet another desperate invention. The claim that "everything has a cause" creates a problem that you cannot *define* away.
When creationists flee to standard excuses, it is a sure sign of defeat. Let's put it this way: we know that you are defeated, but few creationists are honest enough to admit it. Those who are, deconvert. Lots of intelligent, deconverted fundies around YT.
Want to "prove" that your "God" exists? Provide evidence that cannot be explained any other way.
// your statement was a non sequitur. You do know what that is right? //
Nah, I only know about all the other fallacies of logic ... ad hoc pseudoexplanations for example. And let's not forget that apologetic favorite, the red herring.
Edify me: how is my question a non sequitur?
Next: in order to demonstrate your bravado, kindly answer the questions.
What are the predictions of creationism, and how are they to be experimentally tested?
Theists using false dichotomies in my debates with them makes me rage. I wish I could just play this video on my phone or something.
Good work Muse :)
emikochan13 5 months ago in playlist More videos from musekiteer
There is no evidence of any evolution.
Provide evidence of evolution in your own words.
The function of hydrogen in life forms means the entire universe made of hydrogen and derivatives was made with function.
You no of no origin of any of the hundreds of original layers of sediments in the earth's strata containing fossils that can only be explained by the flood.
You need to answer the first questions first rather than assuming everything you believe..
JungleJargon 8 months ago
@JungleJargon
Go and talk creatard nonsense somewhere else! In the meantime, thank you for demonstrating the the Dunning-Kruger effect, and the accuracy of the video's statements.
musekiteer 8 months ago
Comment removed
TheWillwillwill 1 year ago
@TheWillwillwill
// If consciousness has an effect on whether a particle is a wave or particle ... //
What unutterable twaddle!
"Evolution happens" is the only acceptable remark in your entire comment. I grow very tired of ridiculous "thinking". Bye.
musekiteer 1 year ago
@TheWillwillwill your statement that the universe is beyond our comprehension is merely a cover up for not wanting to pursue the real comprehension of the universe. What at all supports your statement that we cannot comprehend the universe? Not knowing is a virtue. Pretending to know doesn't help.
iliveon 1 year ago
Excellent video. Thank you. This is the best simplification of this aspect of creationist tactics I have seen and I will come back to watch this again and again. Looking forward to watching more of your uploads. Good stuff.
I loved the croaky voice too and think you should keep it.
SeaTacAtheist 2 years ago
Thanks. This fallacy is so prevalent that I thought it warranted a video. Creationists deny that they are using it ... perhaps they don't even realize that it underlies their assumptions.
I lost the croaky voice the next morning.
musekiteer 2 years ago
@musekiteer we all have a world view and were all traped by them and obviously in ur world view there is no god
which is fine. but were no polar opposite in world views, im guessing we both have a world view of wood not being able to bend. but if i stick a wooden pole down a river u would see the wood is slightly bending, u know its not true because our world view is that object like wood does not bend. but by stating that a group of individuals is Ignorant is a world view.
kissntellen 1 year ago
Ratings disabled?
TheReasonWhyGuy 2 years ago
It's less trouble than votebots. I don't trust creationists.
I can't explain why I thought that it might be necessary, and you probably can't imagine creationists cheating over an honest analysis of their illogic.
musekiteer 2 years ago
@musekiteer so this statement of creationist being ignorant makes u as ignorant as u say they r.
kissntellen 1 year ago
@kissntellen
Thanks for proving the point.
musekiteer 1 year ago
The ratings are disabled, but please know that I mentally rated your video ten stars. :)
333holly333 2 years ago
Pokemon, I don't remember your full user name. I apologize for accidentally removing your comment. I hit the wrong "R". I responded to what you said, below.
musekiteer 2 years ago
Yes, the negation of a true statement is false, and vice versa; P or not- P. My point was that many more falsehoods (premises) are proposed than true statements.
You tossed implication into the mix, but not-not-p is equivalent to p. It adds nothing. My point was about statements made, not implied negatives.
watch?v=5wV_REEdvxo
The undistributed middle applies to syllogisms arguments, not premises.
All A are B
C is B
Therefore, D is A
Where does that C fit? It doesn't.
musekiteer 2 years ago
The ether is an example of a falsified hypothesis. Because its qualities were explicitly stated, it was open to experimental falsification.
Presumably you have noticed that apologists keep shifting the definition of the purported creator-deity out of reach of falsification. Of course, in order to do so they have violated all known laws of physics. In effect, they have falsified their own precious invention. Not, of course, that they will ever stem the flow of donations by admitting this.
musekiteer 2 years ago
The point that I was making is that creationists insist that somewhere inside, or *recently* outside the universe, their mythical creator exists. The supernatural is a fudge category, but to *demonstrate* that a postulated existence does not exist somewhere inside or out of the universe, the entire universe and beyond would have to be scoured (I did not add, *simultaneously*).
musekiteer 2 years ago
excellent!
NotTooObvious 2 years ago
VyckR0, I have a word that describes your output, but we are in polite company, so I will not say it.
You will never again use any of my videos as a platform for your disturbed world-view. Don't slam the door on your way out.
End of discussion.
musekiteer 2 years ago
How about fractal stupidity? I think that is a good fit for his commentary. That is, if I could find it. Explain please.
magick205 2 years ago
VR comments only in hope of promoting his horrendously ignorant and prejudiced views. I removed his attempt at self-aggrandizement.
He claims to have pwned Thunderf00t. In an intellectual sense, he would not even be capable of untying Thunderf00t's shoelaces.
Fractal stupidity ... good one! But do you really think that VyckR0 is sufficiently organized to be regarded as a fractal?
musekiteer 2 years ago
Well, i'd like to discuss my concerns a bit more, But I can't PM you. Friend lock on? I understand. As far as fractal, since he's so "challenged" on so many levels, I think it fits.
magick205 2 years ago
Yes, I put friend-lock on because I was getting tons of advertising in my inbox. Do you get the impression that I don't like self-advertisers? ;^/
He really and truly is "challenged".
musekiteer 2 years ago
oops, sorry, i did the friend invite thing b4 i read your channel profile completely.
NotTooObvious 2 years ago
No problem ... and thanks.
Yeah, I enjoy being an atheist ;D
musekiteer 2 years ago
VyckR0 is scum
neoarcadezr 2 years ago
That sums him up succinctly. I banned him because he is a malevolent menace. To prove me correct, he started one-starring the video.
musekiteer 2 years ago
(Why do I always miss your videos, I am subscribed? Oh, well.)
We should more or less memorize the definition of these two falacies, because that's the potent way to call creationints out on using them.
I'm favouriting this. :)
dewonthegrass 2 years ago
You are subscribed. I often miss new videos because they don't show up in the latest 8 on my index page. I use the "Subscriptions" link a lot.
Creatards are slow, but they have been accused of these fallacies so often, that they have "created" come-backs. They whine that they did not *explicitly* state ignorantiam and that the burden of proof is on us.
Their creaquotes do not equip them to respond to questions, so they try to weasel out of answering so as to save face.
musekiteer 2 years ago
You would not have to scour the universe to find God. He is supposedly omnipresent, no?
Show that he is not on the glass slide under youR microscope and you have shown him to be nowhere.
I looked earlier, case closed, he is nowhere. XD
TipoftheSlung 2 years ago
// He is supposedly omnipresent, no? //
He is supposedly omnipresent, yes. However, that was the logical case against disproving the nonexistent.
I never thought to look through a microscope -- I kinda expected that He'd have to be huge -- to match His enormous ego.
But now that I think about it, His actual impact on the world is so negligible that it makes sense that He would be sub-microscopic. Perhaps much smaller than a Planck length.
musekiteer 2 years ago
lol.
God as a virus, i have heard that somewhere before.....
TipoftheSlung 2 years ago
// God as a virus //
Yes, a vicious virus that set about ensuring a 100% mortality rate, followed by either a high fever or dementia.
musekiteer 2 years ago
I have said many times - ToE could be completely overturned and I'd be not one step closer to god belief (let alone specific god belief) than I am as I sit here.
It is a fact we evolved. The only thing that could upset ToE is a better *theory* for how it happened.
But just to give the creationists something to chew on, even if this were not the case and it was proved to be a massive hoax engaged in by every biological scientist - there would still be no reason for me to to believe in god.
AncientAtheist 2 years ago
// The only thing that could upset ToE is a better *theory* for how it happened //
So true. Scientists admit this. However, religionists apparently do not understand the difference between fact and theory. They don't even seem to understand what science *is*. They merely purloin any scientific facts that suit their pre-conceived notions. I should probably say post-conceived because the notions are received non-wisdom.
They never cease to boggle the mind.
musekiteer 2 years ago
Who needs the Audubon Society? The real fascination "human watching". Although not as beautiful as ornithology... more like homicide forensics.
AncientAtheist 2 years ago
// homicide forensics //
As in making the dead talk?
The 'cognitive phenomenon' under discussion always makes me sympathetic to the curiosity that motivated Jean Piaget. He was interested less in what children understood than in what they failed to understand. Unfortunately, he stopped investigating cognitive development once kids achieved formal operations (basic abstract thinking). Egocentric magical-thinking is supposed to finish around age 7.
Yeah, right!
musekiteer 2 years ago
"Egocentric magical-thinking is supposed to finish around age 7."
Actually that makes perfect sense. As long as you toss in the word "developing" right after "finish". :D
AncientAtheist 2 years ago
Chortle -- I *am* tired.
We are supposed to stop relying upon egocentric magical-thinking when we are about 7. It is extraordinary how many fail to progress to the next stages (concrete operational -- concrete logical; formal operational -- abstract logical).
Believing in invented categories, which have been conveniently defined to spackle explanatory gaps between emotional-investment and zero-evidence, is gussied-up egocentric magical-thinking.
But you knew that! ;)
musekiteer 2 years ago
Well said/done ★★★★★
Katalyzt
Katalyzt 2 years ago
Awesome video :) YAY!
Vogter2100 2 years ago
5 stars and subbed. Well done, and beautifully summarized.
Also, I'm entertained by the fact the first Creationist response clearly demonstrates their inability to understand the first few minutes of your vid!
QuadError 2 years ago
// the first Creationist response clearly demonstrates their inability to understand the first few minutes of your vid //
I doubt that "absurded" actually comprehends any of it. He believes, a posteriori, that there is a "God", so that clinches it in his eyes.
It must be frightening to live in his delusion-driven universe. If not frightening, then definitely boring.
musekiteer 2 years ago
I couldn't agree more!
Also, major kudos for handing FORCHRST their arse with such aplomb! I'd join in, but this thesis certainly isn't going to write itself... :(
QuadError 2 years ago
// this thesis certainly isn't going to write itself //
That's a bummer! Could you not have chosen to do one of those self-writing theses that come in Cornflakes boxes? You know, the ones that lead to a sheepskin from a Christian Fundie college.
musekiteer 2 years ago
Brilliant! I can get a doctorate in Truthology from Christian Tech, then people will have to call me Dr. Hovi... I mean Dr. QuadError.
I'll get to open factually-vacuous amusement parks and go to gaol and everything!
QuadError 2 years ago
Thats pretty funny.... Christian believe science proves creation. The principle of causality states every effect needs a cause. Therefore the big bang needs a cause beyond space time and matter, to cause it.
Also we see intellegent design in creation. It is a mere absurbdity to believe that there was not an intellegent designer. It is like looking at the inner workings of a clock and saying " nothing created this"
FORCHRST 2 years ago
cause. yes
gravity can cause a small rock to tumble down a mountain and start an Avalanche
just because we dont know, what caused the singularity, does not mean it must be a supernatural being,
as for the second part of you post
"" Also we see intellegent design in creation "
Realy? where? all i can see is physicis at work, no more , no less
next you'll be saying snowflakes are individualy designed
TheEnglishAthiest 2 years ago
"Also we see intellegent design in creation."
No 'we' do not!
You may, but I do not!
Try to investigate the cord leading from the left testicle to the penis and see how much sense that makes for a intelligent design theory.
That alone proves evolution.
Vogter2100 2 years ago
Reminds me of an old gag, the punchline to which was:
"God must be a Civic Engineer, because no-one else would run a major sewerage line through a leisure complex."
QuadError 2 years ago 2
LOL so true :)
Vogter2100 2 years ago
@Vogter2100
Just b/c you refuse to acknowledge it does not make it anyless of truth.
FORCHRST 2 years ago
Forchrst: well my little human moron, I am not the one believing in imgainary friends in the skies. You are.
ROTLFMAO
Vogter2100 2 years ago
Intresting response...
Space time and matter are the natural. Something beyond space time and matter caused the natural... Does that imply super natural ? Of course unless you hold that the natural caused itself. Which is absurbed also.
To your second point...
Look at yourself in the mirror. You dna strand is so complex to deny so is rediculous. It's like saying an explosion happend in a print shop and produced websters dictionary
FORCHRST 2 years ago
"Of course unless you hold that the natural caused itself. Which is absurbed (sic) also."
I'm just wondering... would it be any more absurd than holding that a god "caused itself"?
And does this question have anything to do with the fact that you not only suggest, without evidence, "a" god, but that you have extremely specific god claims in mind?
You see, you don't just hold an unsupportable premise (god did it) you claim to know what god *is* and *wants*.
AncientAtheist 2 years ago
God is not a self caused being. He would by very definition be an uncaused being since he is a necessary being. I can break down the argument further if you dont understand what I mean.
God is beyond time. Which would make him an infinite being. How many infinite being can there be ? If there were multiple how could you tell them apart.. I am posting a video real soon proving that the God I just proved is the God of the bible
FORCHRST 2 years ago
Really. You think you just "proved" god. You think a flawed logical argument - or, for that matter - *any* logical argument can ever "prove" god? Do you even know what a "proof" is?
AncientAtheist 2 years ago
// Do you even know what a "proof" is? //
Something to do with alcohol? @}
Completely off topic -- did you notice that you got honorable mention in ProfMTH's latest video. I am impressed ;)
musekiteer 2 years ago
// by very definition //
There lies one of the problems -- you cannot legitimately define anything other than a concept into existence.
Do you even understand what "existence" entails?
For any agent to act upon, or within, the physical, that agent is necessarily (since you like that word) a part of the natural. The supernatural is an invention of magic-thinkers.
Equally, anything that operates upon energy (all matter is energy) cannnot be timeless.
musekiteer 2 years ago
""God is beyond time ""
Bold claim, can we see some evidence to back it up please?
You then state " ..... proving that the God I just proved ...... " clearly you dont have a clue of what proving somthing means. All you have proved is that you dont know the difference between fact and faith , and you think that your faith must be fact on the grounds that you think it is.
To prove somthing you must provide Testable evidence, , can you do that?
TheEnglishAthiest 2 years ago
No one can say what lies beyond the boundrys of this space time. but you claim to know for sure. but why could you not have a Natural force, just one we dont know anything about, you could have universes in this notime nospace place,that were formed just as a result of the " natural " laws of NTNS space. that are as plentyfull as galaxys in our own TimeSpace
TheEnglishAthiest 2 years ago
@TheEnglishAthiest
The principle of causality tells us there there is a creator beyond space time and matter.
FORCHRST 2 years ago
freezatron 2 years ago
If Dna had poped into existance fully formed then yes your right, but as it goes on that your way off the mark, Remember evolution is not random it builds in tiny tiny steps,
TheEnglishAthiest 2 years ago
@ TheEnglishAthiest
Micro evolution has been proven in fact the bible teaches it. The evolution you hold to has no scientific basis. You are missing the link... lol
FORCHRST 2 years ago
// in fact the bible teaches it //
Chapter and verse please.
The god of your indoctrination has no empirical basis. As I said, this is why most scientists are atheistic.
You try to subvert science to your deluded purposes in one sentence and deny science in the next.
This is not in the least impressive. Keep it up ... this is fun ;)
Speaking of the Bible, who wrote the Gospels? Who wrote the Pentateuch?
musekiteer 2 years ago
and what is the difference betwen micro and marco evolution? TIME thats all. lots and lots of time Shit for brains
TheEnglishAthiest 2 years ago
Now lets look at you concept of a god, outside of our spaceTime, where did that come from? by all your arguments it must have had a cause( if it existed) and then it's russian doll time, you cant have it both ways,
TheEnglishAthiest 2 years ago
Im not saying at any point that , I believe that our univeres is just one of millions of billions of universes that all exist in this place outside our own,, You see even if I dont have the math to describe this NTNS place, I can imagine it, wich is all anyone can do when it come to dealing with somthing that can not be observed measured or tested .just like your imagined divine being and even if i did claim that this is how it is you could not disprove it could you?
TheEnglishAthiest 2 years ago
// Something beyond space time and matter caused the natural //
That is a bald assertion fallacy ... and you follow it up with irrelevance and ad ridiculum.
You are merely parroting what you have been instructed to believe.
If you wish to prove your point, then come up with experimental evidence for the "supernatural". Until you do -- and you cannot -- the "supernatural" is a category invented to explain the lack of the evidence that ought to be obvious.
musekiteer 2 years ago
In a couple of words, your claims are "mere absurbdity".
Where are the experiments to test the predictions of creationism? What are the predictions, btw?
I predict that creationists will continue to usurp the findings of science in misbegotten attempts to "prove" their goddidit beliefs correct.
As to "uncaused, timeless creators", that is yet another desperate invention. The claim that "everything has a cause" creates a problem that you cannot *define* away.
musekiteer 2 years ago
@musekiteer
Your rebuttal is a mere non sequitur.. Not deserving a response
FORCHRST 2 years ago
// Not deserving a response //
Aha! Gotcha!
When creationists flee to standard excuses, it is a sure sign of defeat. Let's put it this way: we know that you are defeated, but few creationists are honest enough to admit it. Those who are, deconvert. Lots of intelligent, deconverted fundies around YT.
Want to "prove" that your "God" exists? Provide evidence that cannot be explained any other way.
musekiteer 2 years ago
There is nothing to respond to because your statement was a non sequitur. You do know what that is right?
FORCHRST 2 years ago
How were the two questions in any way a non sequitur? Just answer them, if you can.
AncientAtheist 2 years ago
// your statement was a non sequitur. You do know what that is right? //
Nah, I only know about all the other fallacies of logic ... ad hoc pseudoexplanations for example. And let's not forget that apologetic favorite, the red herring.
Edify me: how is my question a non sequitur?
Next: in order to demonstrate your bravado, kindly answer the questions.
What are the predictions of creationism, and how are they to be experimentally tested?
musekiteer 2 years ago