Oh awesome posts. I especially like these bits: "As an Atheist, I believe that matter has always existed, and that the universe simply always was. You tell me "something had to create the universe," to which I reply without hesitance that "If something had to create the universe, didn't something have to create God? " Double standards, my friend, double standards." "A woman can marry a man (assuming they are both citizens). Denying another man to marry that same man is applying a different standard to them. A woman can marry said man, but a man can't?"

your blog sucks and is made of fail, AIDS, and bull****.

 

[quote]As an Atheist, I believe that matter has always existed, and that the universe simply always was. You tell me "something had to create the universe," to which I reply without hesitance that "If something had to create the universe, didn't something have to create God? " Double standards, my friend, double standards[/quote]

This is simply retarded. allow us to meticulously deconstruct this statement.

"Matter has always existed, and the universe always was" this of course creates a vicious infinite regress. Allow me to explain. In order for temporal existence to arrive at this moment, it had to traverse the previous moment. In order for that moment to arrive, temporal existence has to traverse the moment before it, and so on ad infinitum. So before ANY moment could ever arrive, there will ALWAYS be another moment to traverse. Secondly this creates an actual infinite which cannot exist. allow me to explain. Imagine you have a library with an infinite amount of books. 1/2 of those are red and 1/2 of those are green. According to set theory, there are just as many green books as there are total books. This is of course self-contradictory. Actual infinites cannot exist and as David Hilbert demonstrated with his immortal "Hilbert's Hotel" analogy, infinites only exist in the mind and do not exist in reality.

"You tell me "something had to create the universe,""

Indeed, the universe requires a cause because it cannot have existed eternally into the past as this creates a vicious infinite regress. Secondly the universe needs an external explanation for it cannot be explained by the necessity of its own nature.

"If something had to create the universe, iddn't something have to create God?"

This is retarded as well. The universe cannot be explained by the necessity of its own nature. Secondly God did not begin to exist, and does not exist temporally. Therefore God CAN be explained by the necessity of his own nature. Lastly nothing could have created God because to imply a timeless cause with a timeless effect creates a vicious infinite regress of causes.

"Double standards my friend" apparently you have never encountered someone with knowledge of the Kalam and Leibnizian cosmological arguments for the existence of God.

Good day to you sirs and madams.

[quote=mig_killer2]

your blog sucks and is made of fail, AIDS, and bull****.[/quote] Name-calling and ad hominem. Like butterbattle said, you got any more jewels for us? [quote]Indeed, the universe requires a cause because it cannot have existed eternally into the past as this creates a vicious infinite regress. Secondly the universe needs an external explanation for it cannot be explained by the necessity of its own nature.[/quote] Where do you get the idea that the universe's nature needs some external divine explanation? [quote]This is retarded as well. The universe cannot be explained by the necessity of its own nature. Secondly God did not begin to exist, and does not exist temporally. Therefore God CAN be explained by the necessity of his own nature.[/quote] Defining some nature of a creature does not make that nature true. I could just as easily argue that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe, not your God, because the FSM's nature means that he did not begin to exist either. [quote]apparently you have never encountered someone with knowledge of the Kalam and Leibnizian cosmological arguments for the existence of God.

Good day to you sirs and madams.

[/quote] The Kalam argument is usually presented in this form: 1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence. 2. The universe began to exist [because infinite time is impossible]. 3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence. Normally theologians and apologists treat premise 1 as intuitively true, but what evidence do we have for that proposition that whatever begins to exist must have a cause? It's true that we do observe events having a cause around us, but just because this rule of causality applies to events within the universe, does not necessarily mean that it must apply to the universe itself. To claim so is a fallacy of composition, that just because a rule applies within the universe, must apply to the universe as a whole. So premise 1 is left unsupported. Perhaps you could always take a break from trolling and read a good article on this topic?

[quote=noor]Name-calling and ad hominem.[/quote]

Name-calling is an attack directed at a PERSON. Secondly it is not an ad hominem because it does not have a conclusion. If I said "You're a fucking moron" it is not an ad hominem. If however I said "You're a fucking moron, therefore your argument is invalid", that would be an ad hominem.

[quote=noor]Like butterbattle said, you got any more jewels for us? [/quote]

I really thought that the fact that his blog is made out of fail, AIDS, and BS was enough because (LOL) You guys seem completely oblivious to that fact.

[quote=noor]Where do you get the idea that the universe's nature needs some external divine explanation? [/quote]

very simple: The cause of the universe must be non-spatial and atemporal. Therefore it cannot be made out of anything material. That alone should give us some hints that the cause is rather obviously supernatural. But it gets even better. There are 3 main reasons why it has to be God

1: There are only 2 types of timeless and non-material objects and they are minds and abstract objects. Since abstract objects do not cause anything, it therefore follows through induction that the cause of the universe is a mind
2: The necessary and sufficient conditions for the cause of the universe are timeless. It should therefore follow that the effect is likewise timeless. But we know that whatever caused the universe did so a finite amount of time ago. Postulating a conscious free-agent deciding to create the universe is the only way to escape this dilemma
3: There are only 2 types of causal explanations, personal explanations (I put my keys in the ignition so I could go to work would be an example), and scientific explanations (The heat generated by the flame heats the water in the pot which in turns softens the pasta). Since the cause of the universe is outside the bounds of science (it being non-material, atemporal, and non-spatial), it therefore follows via induction that the causal explanation is a personal explanation.

[quote=noor] Defining some nature of a creature does not make that nature true. [/quote]

It doesn't try to.

[quote=noor]I could just as easily argue that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe, [/quote]

Not really. The FSM is, unlike a transcendent conscious mind, a mere abstraction of the natural world.

[quote=noor]not your God, because the FSM's nature means that he did not begin to exist either. [/quote]

*insert above statement*

[quote=noor] The Kalam argument is usually presented in this form: 1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence. 2. The universe began to exist [because infinite time is impossible]. 3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence. Normally theologians and apologists treat premise 1 as intuitively true, but what evidence do we have for that proposition that whatever begins to exist must have a cause? [/quote]

well for one its the first principle of serious metaphysics. If you want to deny premise 1 we can learn that you are not interested in truth or objectivity and are only interested in preserving your own Atheism and the delusion that it is rational. Secondly, to deny premise 1 is worse than magic. When the magician pulls the bunny rabbit out of the hat, there is still the hat and there's still the magician. But Jonathan Edwards proposed another argument for this premise and that is, if things can pop into existence, then why doesn't anything and everything just pop into existence?

[quote=noor]It's true that we do observe events having a cause around us, but just because this rule of causality applies to events within the universe, does not necessarily mean that it must apply to the universe itself. [/quote]

why not? Remember, the first premise is a metaphysical statement which is true in all reality. Being simply does not come from nonbeing. Secondly, to say that the universe must be an exception is simply begging the question.

[quote=noor]To claim so is a fallacy of composition, that just because a rule applies within the universe, must apply to the universe as a whole. [/quote]

again, its a metaphysical truth true in all reality.

[quote=noor]So premise 1 is left unsupported. [/quote]

perhaps you should consult jonathan edwards then.

[quote=noor]Perhaps you could always take a break from trolling and read a good article on this topic?[/quote] well we can know that niether you nor the authors of that article are interested in truth or objectivity.

[quote]Not really. The FSM is, unlike a transcendent conscious mind, a mere abstraction of the natural world.[/quote]

Oh, so what part of this Heavenly "Father" with a "body just like ours," except "perfect," with a "transcendent conscious mind," who, in the Bible, "a book," "walks around" in the "Garden" of Eden, "kills people," "loves us," and "sends" his "son" to "die" for our "evil actions," cannot be derived from the natural world?

Furthermore, FSM also has a transcendent conscious mind anyways; the only different is that one entity possesses the body of a man, the other, of pasta! (I really wish he had been Alfredo. Oops, blasphemy). FSM, like Yahweh, is a compilation of known natural entities, but the final result, like Yahweh, is unique.

 I see we're making friends, Mig. :)

Something I've learned over time is that being condescending and arrogant might push people away at first, but they'll gradually be attracted by your confidence and begin listening closely to you, and pretty soon they can't help but agree with you. You're off to a great start, keep it up and remember that perseverance wins the day! Even I'm impressed, your arguments are concise, compelling, and original, you've already got me doubting the religion of atheism!

[quote=butterbattle]

[quote=mig_killer2]*facepalm* I cannot believe I'm about to dignify this drivel with a response. If a cause exists OUTSIDE THE UNIVERSE (repeat after me slowly oouuuutsiiiidee the uuuuuniiiivvvvverrrrsssssee) then it exists atemporally and non-spatially. Hence it escapes the problem of an infinite regress[/quote]

Oh, woe is me; pardon my stupidity. After all, you're an excruciatingly wise 16 year old with Youtube videos that receive excruciatingly high ratings. Also, *gasp*, you have over 200 subscribers, such a remarkable achievement, surpassed by only a few thousand porno channels. I mean, how could I be such an idiot? - not realizing that simply making endless naked assertions about your God to avoid internal contradictions, making him completely unknowable by all known means and an abomination of probability, makes him more worthy of logical acceptance than any natural explanation suggested by virtually all the Ph.D. scientists living today. Since you're acting all high and mighty, I guess that means that you must be right! How dare I question your authority? I should just have faith and repent of an epistemologically absurd supernatural concept to avoid grinding my teeth together in eternal torture from unquenchable fire and 10 foot tall demons with razor sharp claws in a physically impossible infinite pit of lava in the middle of the Earth, ruled over by a evil guy with a pitchfork, and then, the whole system is created by an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent invisible sky daddy that believes happiness = smashing babies against rocks, who sent himself to die for his own creation to change a rule he made himself, based on a thousands of years old series of myths passed down by word of mouth through ancient superstitious barbarians and finally compiled by a bunch of greedy, dishonest rulers who wanted to control their masses.

So, obviously, instead of assuming that the world is as I perceive it and searching for a natural explanation for the origin of the universe, I should just believe you. After all, it looks like logic is on your side. How could I possibly argue against that? I would have to be a complete lunatic. 

[/quote] wow. I sure wish I could use the same argumentative tactics with atheists. Completely 100% ignore their points, go on to pretend that I've refuted their points, and then berate them for being rated so poorly by a group of retards who have no interest in facts, truth, or logic and instead are only interested in reinforcing their own delusions of grandeur.

and once again the retarded atheist gives me a counter-argument to blow over

[quote=butterbattle]

Wow, a cop-out. Okay, I'll make my refutation clearer so you can understand it.

P1 - God existed before this universe, before space/time, before anything. (theist assertion)[/quote]

that's not what I'm actually saying. I'm saying that whatever caused the universe existed *outside* spacetime and all matter. It could not exist before the universe since before/after relationships require time.

[quote=butterbattle]P2 - This "God" must be an intelligent being. (theist assertion)

P3 - Why? Because I said so! [/quote]

In case you missed it, I gave 3 arguments in favor of the cause being an intelligent conscious being in my response to noor.

[quote=butterbattle]P4 - If an entity existed before everything else, then it is not bound by the laws of physics or reason. (warrant based on naked assertions)[/quote]

What are the "laws of reason" anyway? second the laws of physics only apply to physical entities, hence why they're called "laws of *physics*"

[quote=butterbattle]P5 - Therefore, God can do anything. (conclusion based on flawed premises)[/quote]

Usually these sort of argumentative tactics are successful, but unfortunately you're dealing with a theist who knows what a strawman is.

[quote=butterbattle]P6 - Even though this line of inquiry possesses at least hundreds of scientific flaws[/quote]

I'd like to see even a single scientific flaw in my argument

[quote=butterbattle], it is much more plausible than any possible natural explanation for the origin of the universe.[/quote]

Once again in case you missed it, I gave 3 arguments in favor of the cause being a mind. A natural origin for temporal existence is, quite frankly, metaphysically impossible.

[quote=butterbattle]P7 - Why? Because I said so!

Conclusion - Therefore, God exists.[/quote]

I love it when my opponents try to set up strawman arguments.

[quote=butterbattle]Sorry, but even if this syllogism was valid, it would still be bullshit because that's where philosophy without science usually ends up, as bullshit. 

[/quote] Holy SHIT you're stupid. Science is a slave to philosophy you moron.

Just when I thought butterbattle coulden't get any dumber, he gives us THIS.

[quote=butterbattle]

[quote=mig_killer2]

and once again the retarded atheist gives me a counter-argument to blow over[/quote]

*yawn*

[quote]that's not what I'm actually saying. I'm saying that whatever caused the universe existed *outside* spacetime and all matter. It could not exist before the universe since before/after relationships require time.[/quote]

As a side note, most theists claim that their God existed "before" space/time.[/quote]

Not temporally prior.

[quote=butterbattle]I guess you have a different opinion. But, the problem is still the same. [/quote]

Really? so truth is a democracy after all? are we to start teaching that the world has a 45% chance of being 6,000 years old then in American schools?

[quote=butterbattle]This rids your God of logical contradictions, but makes him nearly infinitely improbable. [/quote]

I doubt that you would be able to give me a shred of evidence that such a God would be improbable.

[quote=butterbattle][quote]In case you missed it, I gave 3 arguments in favor of the cause being an intelligent conscious being in my response to noor.[/quote]

Oh, I did miss it. Let's see.

[quote]1: There are only 2 types of timeless and non-material objects and they are minds and abstract objects.[/quote]

Minds are neither timeless nor non-material. It's simply a vague, subjective term that relates to a product of biology, the brain. How are abstract objects non-material? [/quote]

that however was a presupposition of monism. Secondly, it is hard to argue that a mind *could not possible* exist timelessly and immaterially. until you can do that the argument still stands

[quote=butterbattle]Okay,

Define: timeless, [/quote]

existing without time.

[quote=butterbattle]non-material, [/quote]

existing without material

[quote=butterbattle]mind, [/quote]

any conscious, self-aware, free agent

[quote=butterbattle]and abstract object.[/quote]

numbers are abstract objects.

[quote=butterbattle][quote]2: The necessary and sufficient conditions for the cause of the universe are timeless. It should therefore follow that the effect is likewise timeless. But we know that whatever caused the universe did so a finite amount of time ago. Postulating a conscious free-agent deciding to create the universe is the only way to escape this dilemma[/quote]

Why?[/quote]

I suppose you can figure out a better way to escape this dilemma then?

[quote=butterbattle][quote]3: There are only 2 types of causal explanations, personal explanations (I put my keys in the ignition so I could go to work would be an example), and scientific explanations (The heat generated by the flame heats the water in the pot which in turns softens the pasta). Since the cause of the universe is outside the bounds of science (it being non-material, atemporal, and non-spatial), it therefore follows via induction that the causal explanation is a personal explanation.[/quote]

Wow.............no comment.[/quote]

I see butterbattle is unable to answer the argument.

[quote=butterbattle][quote]What are the "laws of reason" anyway?[/quote]

Oh, I should have just typed "reason" instead of "laws of reason."

[quote]second the laws of physics only apply to physical entities, hence why they're called "laws of *physics*"[/quote]

Psh, I probably already touched upon this earlier. After all, claiming that God existed outside of everything AND is immaterial makes the case even more convenient for the proponent. Now, there are no more logical flaws; it only lacks evidence and contradicts science.[/quote]

Pray tell, how does it contradict science?

and BTW, the kalam cosmological argument IS evidence.

[quote=butterbattle][quote]Usually these sort of argumentative tactics are successful, but unfortunately you're dealing with a theist who knows what a strawman is.[/quote]

Can't God do everything? [/quote]

not anything which violates the laws of logic

[quote=butterbattle][quote]I'd like to see even a single scientific flaw in my argument[/quote]

Aw, come on, mig_killer2. Is this really necessary? You do realize you're arguing for an immaterial, conscious, omnipotent being that exists *outside* of everything, right?[/quote]

Yes it is absolutely necessary. If you make claims, expect to be required to back them up.

[quote=butterbattle][quote]A natural origin for temporal existence is, quite frankly, metaphysically impossible.[/quote]

Oh, and I suppose Yahweh is so much more "possible." [/quote]

Well yes actually. THe cause cannot be natural because natural=material and temporal.

[quote=butterbattle][quote]Holy SHIT you're stupid. Science is a slave to philosophy you moron.[/quote]

Wow, I didn't know that. In fact, I don't even know what that means. Does science work on philosophy's farm? Oh my god, is chemistry the slave of theology too?     

[/quote] That's interesting, I didn't know that RRS T-shirts came with selective reading glasses too. Did you mistake "philosophy" for "theology"? Regardless, science IS a slave to philosophy because in order to make the assumptions needed to conduct science, one needs to use philosophy. With philosophy you can prove metaphysical truths like "There are other minds" or "There is an external world" or "The world wasn't created 5 seconds ago". These cannot be established by science, but in order for you to know ANYTHING with science, you need to assume metaphysical truths.

[quote=Aaron1212]

[quote=mig_killer2]

your blog sucks and is made of fail, AIDS, and bull****.[/quote]

wow everyone look at the obviously mentally retarded kid that uses old internet meme's to make a point. your really mature arn't you? i bet mommy gave you a cheeseburger today didn't she?

[/quote] I can haz cheezburger?

 

but regardless, the author of that blog has displayed grave philosophical illteracy.

 *Dashes through the crossfire*

 

[quote]

but regardless, the author of that blog has displayed grave philosophical illteracy.

[/quote]

Agreed!  It's quite ironic that one of the contributors refers to himself as one, when he clearly knows little regarding it.