Re: OT: atheism is pathetic



Louis Epstein wrote:
jesshc <jesshc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
: Louis Epstein wrote:
:> jesshc <jesshc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
:> : Louis Epstein wrote:
:> :> jesshc <jesshc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
:> :> : Louis Epstein wrote:
:> :> :> In alt.fan.harry-potter Trent Woodruff <afretired@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
:> :> :> :
:> :> :> : ...I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god
:> :> :> : than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible
:> :> :> : gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
:> :> :> : - Stephen Roberts
:> :> :>
:> :> :> I've seen this balderdash and regard it as terminally clueless.
:> :> :
:> :> : What quantitative or qualitative evidence lead you to determine only
:> :> : your deity is real and all the others are false?
:> :>
:> :> There's only one Infinitely First Cause for everyone to have ideas about.
:> :
:> : You failed to answer the question; you merely responded with an unsupported assertion.
:> :
:> :> Lots of people spread particular misconceptions about it...in the case
:> :> of atheists,the misconception is that anything could exist if the IFC didn't.
:> :
:> : Do you have any qualitative or quantitative evidence to support your
:> : assertion that a first cause is required?
:>
:> No system of logic worthy of the name can proceed in the absence of accepting
:> that there is no greater necessity than that of the Infinitely First Cause,
:> because if there is no IFC there is no such thing as a supportable assertion!
:
: So that's "no, all I have is my vigorously waving hands and proudly unsupported assertions."

Anything that exists, constitutes conclusive proof of an Infinitely First Cause.

Still unsupported assertion. Is there ANY way I can get you to
provide ANY evidence for ANY of your assertions? No, of course not;
what could I have been thinking.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/generalscience/5mysteries_universes_020205-1.html
Quantum mechanics says that matter and energy can appear spontaneously
out of the vacuum of space, thanks to something called a quantum
fluctuation, a sort of hiccup in the energy field thought to pervade
the cosmos.

Cosmologists say that a quantum fluctuation gave rise to the Big Bang.

http://universe-review.ca/R03-01-quantumflu.htm
Quantum fluctuation is the temporary appearance of energetic particles
out of nothing, as allowed by the Uncertainty Principle. It is
synonymous with vacuum fluctuation.

The Uncertainty Principle states that for a pair of conjugate
variables such as position/momentum and energy/time, it is impossible
to have a precisely determined value of each member of the pair at the
same time. For example, a particle pair can pop out of the vacuum
during a very short time interval.

Existence of anything without one is NOT POSSIBLE,
no matter how hard you try to pretend such an idea worth contemplating.

Another unsupported assertion. Although that's a pretty convincing
argument as to why your deity can't exist.

:> :> :> Disproving false claims about the Infinitely First Cause of Existence can not call
:> :> :> the necessity of there being an Infinitely First Cause of Existence into question.
:> :> :
:> :> : If "God" doesn't require a first cause, why does the Universe?
:> :>
:> :> There can't be a point within a sphere further from the surface than the
:> :> center...but the sphere can't exist except by reference to that center point.
:> :
:> : Non responsive. Non sequitur. Red herring.
:>
:> You're still ducking the definition.
:
: You mean your irrelevant non sequitur definition of a sphere that you
: used as a red herring?

I mean the highly relevant illustrative definition of a sphere
that shows how a single starting point is the overriding necessity
for all else.

Uh, no. All you did was argue that a sphere has a center point. The
"starting point" could have been from anywhere in or on the sphere;
there's no rule that it must start in the center and expand outward.

:> :> Being uniquely uncaused is a defining attribute of the Infinitely First Cause (God).
:> :
:> : You not surprisingly failed to answer this question, too. Let's try
:> : again: if "god" doesn't require a first cause, why does the Universe?
:>
:> If the Universe doesn't require the Infinitely First Cause, it would
:> necessarily BE the Infinitely First Cause (God).
:
: Non sequitur. It kind of looks like circular reasoning, but it's so
: wacky it's hard for me to tell.
:
:> So are you a pantheist?
:
: Nope.

If the Universe requires no first cause beyond itself, that proves Pantheism.

You'll just claim anything that pops into your head. You're saying
quantum fluctutation is pantheism, is that it?

So if you're not a pantheist you admit there has to be a God.

You're pulling my leg, aren't you? I'm big enough to admit it; you've
successfully trolled me.

:> The IFC,and ONLY the IFC,doesn't require a cause.
:
: Unsupported assertion. Special pleading. Probably other fallacies I'm not recognizing.

Undeniable fact.

I know this is an extremely difficult concept for you, but your
wishful thinking isn't "fact." Your unsupported assertions aren't
"fact." Claiming something is a fact doesn't actually make it a
fact. And since you haven't made even minimal effort to support any
of your assertions, there's no reason to accept any of them as fact
based on your thoroughly discredited word. Now, be a good troll and
repeat your assertions.

Regardless of your sophistic blithering.

It's called "logic." You should make an effort to understand it. If
you assert everything requires a first cause except god, that's an
assertion that god is a "special case." You haven't provided any
evidence, or even any vague argument, WHY god is a special case, so
too bad, you lose. Nor have you provided any evidence or argument WHY
the universe must have a first cause. Oops, you lose again.

You refuse to accept the most essential of all definitions,
you really can't talk of others' fallacies when you do that.

Because your definitions are absurd, I can't point out your errors in
logic? That's funny, it looks like that's exactly what I'm doing.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Its Gumby Damnit!
    ... I accept many many facets of the natural evolution "database". ... All the evidence suggests that it is, especially as we can trace the ... Only after the fall would extinctions take place. ... ....which is simply empty assertion unsullied by any taint of evidence. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Naturalism as the Religious Basis of Evolutionism
    ... which makes evolution possible. ... a provision for variations within limits during reproduction. ... Before looking at evidence supporting this theory, ... The rest is empty assertion. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Speculative Design Hypothesis (with predictions)
    ... intelligent design has produced these types of functions ... is just evidence that intelligence *can* produce such things. ... there's no proof that evolution did produce it, ... So how is the assertion that specific functions in biological systems ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Naturalism as the Religious Basis of Evolutionism
    ... a provision for variations within limits during reproduction. ... It would falsify evolutionary theory. ... The rest is empty assertion. ... I presented evidence of variability within limists in my original ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Your tests are untestable
    ... Your general assertion is falsified by the available evidence. ... Z: This is my scientific hypothesis: There are Martian cities on the Moon. ...
    (talk.origins)