Debate exposes atheism as bankrupt - read an actual debate here

Below is a copy of an actual debate between myself (as Truth in science) and some militant atheists.
Is atheism exposed as bankrupt? Read the debate below, and judge for yourself .....

This debate took place in response to an image ridiculing Christians posted by militant atheist (Silly Deity) on his photostream. Anyone looking at his photostream can see it wholly consists of images insulting and ridiculing religion and religious people.

It commenced with a comment by another militant atheist (Badpenny) supporting the image posted by Silly Deity ...

The image posted by Silly Deity with the original debate can be seen here:
www.flickr.com/photos/131599163@N05/18212093014
I have copied it all in this post to give it more public exposure, and also in case the original is deleted.

THE DEBATE FOLLOWS:
__________________________________________
Bad penny begins the debate by commenting on an image ridiculing Christians. It insinuates that Christians have no sensible argument, and that the only argument they have is to threaten people with Hell.
____________________________________________
~~badBADpenny~~ (read profile !!) (deleted) 2y
I reckon that neatly sums it up :)
___________________________________________
Truth in science 2y
Wrong! Theists do have a VERY reasonable argument based on logic, natural law and fundamental scientific principles. Unlike atheists, who have no such logical argument,
Atheism revealed as false - why God MUST exist.
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/18927764022
__________________________________________
~~badBADpenny~~ (read profile !!) (deleted) 2y
Sorru #TruthinScience but you've pedalling that same old bollocks for ages now in the hope that the gullible or those with no understanding will buy your sciencey sounding shite as truth
___________________________________________
Truth in science 2y
~~badBADpenny~~ (read profile !!)

You obviously have no understanding.

Apparently, you have swallowed the ludicrous fable that the universe created itself from nothing, without any cause and for no reason - and you think that is 'science'.

If you disagree with my logical argument (based on natural law and scientific principles) let's see your point by point logical and scientific argument for your non-contingent, autonomous, self-creating, adequate, natural, first cause?

Or is it just the usual bluff, bluster and hot air that I get all the time from atheists? Who are very good at dishing out ridicule and abuse to anyone who refuses to swallow their naturalist ideology, but very poor at logically or scientifically justifying it.
__________________________________________
~~badBADpenny~~ (read profile !!) (deleted) 2y
So basically there has to be a beginning,a prime mover,an initial cause for,well,everything so therefore it follows from the point of view of logic that this first cause is god.

Is that a fair summation of your proof and scientific evidene ???

How do you know this initial cause was god.

Perhaps there was a some event outside of our universe that set our universe into existence.Something non intelligent or sentient that pushed the plunger that ignited the big bang.

I am unable to determine in any realistic way what it was that started the ball rolling in exactly the same way you are unable to.

All you have done here is taken a logical argument and applied it to something that you know fine no one can verify or refute.

Your logical and scientific evidence is mere speculation in the same way all theories of what occured before the big bang are specualtion.Without being able to look back before the beginning to see if there is a cause or anything at all it's all just interesting notions.

If you are touting logic as the proof of your viewpoint then the same logic dictates that something came before god so what was that then ????

Presently cause and effect are deemed to be a universal rule,you're own explanation as I've understood it so far demands this particular order and progression of events but back beyond the big bang,the singularity the laws of physics appear to breakdown so can you definitively show that the time and the law of cause and effect alone remains in tact.

Of course,unless you're privvy to some special knowledge that no one else has ever know or knows today then in all truth you are stumbling around in the dark like everyone else .No ????

Also,you are doing the usual if not this then that juggle that people use all the time.

If there has to be an initial cause then that cause has to be god.

As I've said,yes cause and effect are the fundamental to our universe but until we can say that there is nothing outside or before our universe OR that there is then all bets are off.The laws that dictate here may hold no sway outside our universe and maybe they do but at this point in time we have no way of saying either way.

Obviously you are convinced you can so I'd love to hear how you think you are able beyond applying logic puzzles to that which we can neither see,measure or even state with confidence exists,existed or even possible
__________________________________________
~~badBADpenny~~ (read profile !!) (deleted) 2y
Of course,you do realise logic is just a tool help you think objectively.It's not truth itself just like mathematics is just a language to describe reality not reality itself.
Putting something into a logical argument is just away to apply logic to something,it doesn't make that thing true or suddenly real....you do understand that don't you ???

I could make a logical argument to say that I could become the president of the US but that doesn't mean I will be.
Applying logic to anything at all you can imagine has no effect whatsoever on the real,physical world.
___________________________________________
Truth in science 2y
~~badBADpenny~~ (read profile !!)
You wrote:
"So basically there has to be a beginning,a prime mover,an initial cause for,well,everything so therefore it follows from the point of view of logic that this first cause is god.
Is that a fair summation of your proof and scientific evidene ???
How do you know this initial cause was god.
Perhaps there was a some event outside of our universe that set our universe into existence.Something non intelligent or sentient that pushed the plunger that ignited the big bang."

The first cause cannot be a natural first cause, that is obvious because all natural events are contingent. There is no such thing as a non-contingent natural entity or event. Science is about looking for causes for every natural thing or occurrence. Every natural effect has to have a cause, and the effect cannot be greater than its cause/s. That is the fundamental principle behind ALL scientific enquiry. If you don't accept that principle you cannot practice science. A first cause has to be uncaused, or it wouldn't be first. If it is the very first cause in a chain of causes and effects it not only has to be uncaused it also has to be adequate to produce everything that follows it. Nothing that follows the first cause can be superior to that which ultimately caused it. So, the first cause has to be capable of creating every property and quality that exists in the universe. Which, of course, includes life, intelligence, information, consciousness etc.
If you think there can be such a thing as an uncaused, natural, first cause which is capable of creating all those attributes, please tell us what it is?

You wrote:
"The laws that dictate here may hold no sway outside our universe and maybe they do but at this point in time we have no way of saying either way"

Laws of nature are based on the properties of natural things, they describe those properties. contingency is a basic property of all natural things. That law is fundamental, it cannot be different elsewhere. If matter/energy was once some sort of non-contingent, autonomous being, why would it change its nature to an inferior one where it is subject to the limitations of causality? To claim that matter/energy is, or once was, an autonomous, non-contingent entity is to imbue it with the attributes of God. It is simply replacing the supernatural, first cause - God, with a natural deity.
__________________________________________
~~badBADpenny~~ (read profile !!) (deleted) 2y
Again you are making sweeping assumptions about the conditions previous to our universe and stating as fact that what's a natural law within the universe is both fundamental and natural outwith it or before it.
___________________________________________
~~badBADpenny~~ (read profile !!) (deleted) 2y
Until you can categorically state what was before the big bang,that the universe is all there is where nothing exist beyond it.Until you can state what conditions prevailed before our universe began you cannot with certaintity make definitive claims what the first cause consist of because you cannot difinitively state what was natural and fundamental before the start of our universe.You cannot even do more than claim that the big bang was a result of a first cause.How do you know the there aren't entirely different laws that prevail in the time and/or space before/beyond our present universe.

There could be an infinite number of universe that all have different laws prevailing within them.

Until you fully know the nature of our universe,whether it's all there is,the first and only one to exist you cannot say with certainty that laws the govern how ours work our the same laws outwith and therefore all statements pertaining to the conditons before our universe are equally uncertain.

How exactly does the quantum world relate to your ever regressing complexity of causes as much of what is observed there does necessarily conform strictly to your natural laws of cause and effect.
__________________________________________
~~badBADpenny~~ (read profile !!) (deleted) 2y
Fundamentally what you are doing is the ultimate example of the god of the gaps.Everything that has happened since the big bang is natural therefore what came before cannot be natural or contingent because that is the natural law ever since.You cannot and don't know what came before so it has to be god because the big bang was the first event.The first event that created the conditions we exist in so.........

Yes it was the beginning of our universe but perhaps there's a continous cycle where the universe begins,has it's life cycle before collapsing in on itself down to an infinite point where it begins all over again so on and so on.

Until it is possible to observe back beyond/before the big bang which it seems likely is impossible you cannot apply the laws that govern here.

You would have to know for sure these fundamental laws were created in the event that created the universe or that they existed before,beyond and outwith the universe all together .Again you cannot make such categorical statements while knowing nothing of what was before it.How can you even be sure time existed before the big bang.

Without time,without entropy and the conservation of energy there may be no order the governs cause and effect.There may even be a god or there may not be,with no knowledge what came before the beginning of our universe you cannot be certain what laws are a product of the universe and what are laws outwith it.
___________________________________________
Truth in science 2y
~~badBADpenny~~ (read profile !!)
So you want to indulge in fantasy and still claim it is science.

If you want to evade the Law of Causality, and other natural laws that destroy your naturalist argument, you step outside of science.
Nevertheless, you still pretend to be working within a scientific framework by proposing causes which are actually non-causes.
You seem to think you can glibly dismiss natural laws as irrelevant to the argument, when they are absolutely crucial to any ‘scientific’ argument.

There is NO god of the gaps.
The so-called gaps are created by your own, unscientific fantasies.
The universe was CAUSED - there are no gaps, there is only the question – was the CAUSE natural or supernatural?
If you claim it was ‘natural’ but at the same time you want to claim that natural laws did not apply, you are simply contradicting yourself. You are effectively claiming supernatural abilities for a natural cause, which cannot possibly have supernatural abilities. In other words, you are endowing nature with godlike abilities and attributes, which science tells us nature certainly does not possess.

The god of the gaps argument is stupid. We can only deal in known facts, not a never ending, stream of what if’s or maybes, conjured up by fertile imaginations working overtime.

And all your - ‘what if’s?’ can be easily debunked.
For example - a cyclical universe, is similar to applying the scientifically, discredited idea of perpetual motion on a grand scale to the universe. Firstly, matter/energy is contingent, it always is, and always has been, contingent. It is not, and cannot be, autonomously, self-existent.
Secondly, the universe is running down from a peak of initial, energy potential at its creation. It cannot rewind itself any more than a clock can – there is no such thing as a free lunch, to suggest otherwise is fantastical nonsense, not credible science or logic.

‘What if’s’ or maybes are not logical arguments, they are just a way of evading definitive conclusions which are uncomfortable.
That is the whole basis of the god of the gaps argument, they are just fantasy gaps which can never be filled by anything, because as one gap is filled another can be immediately invented.
Anyone can attempt to destroy any logical conclusions by creating their own ‘gaps’ with endless, bizarre - what if’s and maybes?
Well how about this - What if I don’t actually exist? ‘What if’ you think you are having this discussion with a person, but really, I am just a clever, robotic, word generator in cyberspace? It would mean you are wasting your time, because I can just generate answers and ‘what if’s’ until the cows come home – and ‘what if’ the cows don’t ever come home? – It means all your arguments are just gaps in my – endless stream of - what if’s? And if you manage to fill one gap and answer one of my - what if’s?, I can just keep creating more and more, so your argument is, and always will be, useless. It is just an argument of never-ending gaps.

As for time – time is a physical thing, which theists knew long before Einstein confirmed it.

Theists have always known that where physical things exist, time MUST exist. Put simply, time is the chronology of physical events.
Matter/energy cannot exist in a timeless state. Only non-physical entities can be timeless.
2 + 2 = 4 is both statistical information and a true fact. Information and truth are both non-physical entities which (unlike physical entities) can exist independently of time. They are, in effect, eternal. Time does not in any way affect them. Only the tangible expression of information and truth in physical media can be eroded by time, but not the essence of their existence.
Truth and information exist whether they are made tangible in physical form or not.
If any physical thing or cause existed before the alleged Big Bang, it had to be subject to time.
Which, means - that which existed in a timeless state before the creation event of a physical universe (the first cause) had to be a non-physical entity. There is no other option.

Your claim that we can have no knowledge of anything before the material universe or the alleged Big Bang is completely spurious. Logic and science are tools that help us to make predictions and sensible and reasonable assessments and conclusions. They help us to know what is possible and likely - and especially, in this instance, to know what is IMPOSSIBLE. We do KNOW that a self-created, autonomous, NATURAL, first cause is IMPOSSIBLE. There are no ifs and buts about it, that is what science, logic, reason and common sense tells us.
And that is enough to debunk the atheist belief in an all-powerful, self-creative, non-contingent, Mother Nature.
To dispute that is not only irrational, it is the hallmark of a dogmatic, illogical and unscientific ideology.

As for quantum effects, they may appear random and uncaused, but they are most definitely not. Even if their direct cause is difficult to determine, they are part of a CAUSED physical universe.
So, the idea that anything within a CAUSED universe can be causeless is ridiculous.
As for a direct cause of quantum effects, it can be compared to the randomness of a particular number coming up from throwing a dice. It may appear random and without a direct cause, but it isn’t. Because if we knew all the complicated and variable factors involved – such as the exact orientation of the dice as it leaves the hand, the velocity of the throw and the amount of spin etc. we could predict the number in advance. So just because, in some instances, causes are too incredibly complex to accurately predict the end result, doesn’t mean there are ever no causes.

You wrote:
"There could be an infinite number of universe that all have different laws prevailing within them."

No there couldn't.
The 'Multiverse' idea is as nonsensical as it sounds, and has been soundly debunked.
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/15897203833
____________________________________________
Silly Deity 2y
Since the bizarrely named "Truth in science" is so fond of repeating the fallacy that his drivel is based on "the principles of science" let's look at the principles of science shall we?

There are five basic components to the scientific method:

1) From observations of the natural world, determine the nature of the phenomenon that is interesting to you (i.e. ask a question or identify a problem).

2) Develop one or more hypotheses, or educated guesses, to explain this phenomenon. The hypotheses should be predictive - given a set of circumstances, the hypothesis should predict an outcome.

3) Devise experiments to test the hypotheses. ( All valid scientific hypotheses must be testable.)

4) Analyze the experimental results and determine to what degree do the results fit the predictions of the hypothesis.

5) Further modify and repeat the experiments.

"Truth in science" fails to get beyond step 2.
He is also repeatedly pedalling the notions so succinctly described earlier as "bollocks" otherwise termed logical fallacies.

This is the use of poor, or invalid, reasoning for the construction of an argument. Some fallacies are committed intentionally to manipulate or persuade by deception, while others are committed unintentionally due to carelessness or ignorance.

So.........."Truth in science" fails the Principles of Science test and also uses logical fallacies as a means to deceive.

Yep!! Bollocks just about sums it up!
____________________________________________
~~badBADpenny~~ (read profile !!) (deleted) 2y
Ah no way my latest reply written last night has gone astray.

It was very much along the lines of your response Silly Diety although I'd hasten to admit not as eloquently put.

Basically,if you live by the sword then you will die by the sword.Or more aptly if TruthinScience is going to continously invoke science to frame his argument in a manner that appears both authoritative and beyond argument then he has to remain within the bounds of science.

As I think I said in an earlier reply science,much like critical thinking,logic and reason,is not a particular set of complex or technological subjects but a tool and a framework for the study and advancement of knowledge that is based on observation,analysis,hypothesis,prediction,experimentation to tthe predictions,divising similarly or more liable explanations...i.e falsification and then ongoing refining ofyour hypothesis even if it is fully accepted and becomes a scientific theory.....as Newton's work on gravity gave way to Einstein centuries later.There are NO sacred cows in science as Newton would attest if he were alive today and the day may come when Einstein is proven to have got relativity completely upside down if the evidence is stong enough to prove it.

Now why doesn't TruthinScience's claims bear any resemblence to science ???

Quite simply he is making definitive statements that he knows and can prove what happened before our universe began.
His arguments about causality and contingent and natural causes sound very compelling at first glance,science certainly does seem to confirm cause and effect and certainly seems at first to support time as a river that only flows one way but the point is that these natural laws as he puts it,these fundamental laws that govern our universe have as he suggests been observed to apply across the entire universe from the moment of the big bang forwards until this second.

But we CANNOT look further back in time than the big bang,our science and laws of physics can alliw us to model and imply what happened millionths of a second after the big band but note AFTER not before.

We have no way of observing back before the big bang and can only see as far as light has travelled since then giving us a horizon beyond which we can not see and therefore cannot make observations of,about,from either.

Therefore the science cannot say anything at all about either what occured,what was there,the potential cause,whethee time and space existwd in any sense we could understand or even if such fundamental laws like causality applied.If everything started with the big bang i.e time and space,then seeing as causality (cause and effect) are contingent on time then is there any reason at all to imagine causality meant anything pre big bang ???

The real answer is,the scientific answer absolutely,is there is simply no way of knowing,there may never be a way of see back before the big bang so the probability is we may never know though every time such statements have been made,that some knowledge is beyond science it's eventually been discovered and understood by science but.......

TruthinScience is clearly taking laws of physics that are well established and seemingly understood amd applying them to an area that isn't.That is a sound logical and reasoned approach but to apply them to something that is so far beyond our knowledge we don't even know if it can ever be observed or how that could happen is completely unscientific......it's what's known as psuedoscience.If it had any true grounding in logic or reason it may be a form of philosophy but it's too ad hock and cobbled together to be that.

At the very best and most generous his claims could be said to amount to an hypothosis but when they are based on a fog of reason like they are that's being too kind.

I know what it is he objects too so strongly and that's other hypothoses by real scientist about possible causes or ways that the universe could have come about without the necessity for a FIRST SUPERNATURAL INTENTION CONTINGENT CAUSE i.e god.Personally,the only one I've really read and have an understanding of is Laurence Kraus and his 'A Universe from Nothing' which I highly recommend anyone to read.

The one thing to note though is as he takes great pains to stress throughout the book it's a hypothosis that COULD explain how a universe can be created from seemingly nothing (although it would appear nothing is the operative word as empty space devoid of matter of any kind still has mass and energy).What TrurhinScience and many,many other theists fail to grasp os he's offering an expanation that remains within the bounds of science yet he freely admits that doesn't mean it's what happened,that there is no way of knowing what happened for all the reasons I've stated.

Shit,who knows there may be something extremely bizarre behind it all like some big,old bearded man who waved his hand and 7 days later
.......lol
__________________________________________
Silly Deity 2y
~~badBADpenny~~ (read profile !!)

As Bertrand Russell so eloquently stated:

“If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.”

The reliance on logic alone to "prove" something fails because logic is not empiricism (which is fundamental to science). It fails to provide EVIDENCE..........something sorely lacking in "Truth in science's" rants. His presumption that a real or perceived relationship between things means that one is the cause of the other is simply an example of false cause. To make such presumptions with no evidence means that his argument falls flat on its face.

So he fails on the scientific principles (miserably) and he fails on logic too.
___________________________________________
Truth in science 2y
Silly Deity
Nice try, but I am afraid it is another gigantic fail. You have simply hoisted yourself on your own petard.

None of the proposed, fantasy, natural, origin scenarios invented by atheists in order to get around natural laws and scientific principles are testable - none are observable - none are subject to experiment and - none are repeatable.
So NONE of them have got anything whatsoever to do with genuine science.

For example, tell us how a ‘singularity’ or a ‘multiverse’ can be tested, observed, or demonstrated by repeated experiment?

The Law of Cause and Effect and other natural laws which atheists glibly dismiss, and which definitively rule out a natural, first cause - ARE testable - ARE observable and - ARE subject to repeatable experiment.
We can only deal in FACTS, not atheist myths and fantasy.
The existence and veracity of the law of cause and effect and other natural laws IS A FACT.
The idea that natural laws and the basic principle of the scientific method didn’t apply to the origin of the universe or of matter/energy is NOT a fact, it is no better and no more credible than a fairy story or Bertrand Russell’s, flying teapot.

I don’t claim that a supernatural first cause can be proven by science, it can’t, because it is outside the remit of science, which can only deal with natural events and entities.
But the atheist idea of a natural, first cause can also never be proven by science.
However, science CAN DISPROVE a natural, first cause of the universe - and that is exactly what it does.
Science tells us that a natural first cause is impossible. Science can only look for adequate causes, that is the fundamental principle and raison d’etre of the scientific method.
Science cannot look for non-causes – or for inadequate causes – or for non-contingency – or for natural things self-creating themselves from nothing.
Therefore, the claim that atheist naturalism has anything to do with science is completely bogus.
In fact, atheism is anti-science - because it seeks to contradict the verdict of the scientific method and natural law.

If we apply the scientific method to the origin of the universe/matter - science tells us that it had to have an adequate cause, but atheists say no! We can't accept that, science must be wrong, we propose that the universe was causeless.
If that is what atheists want to believe, then fair enough, but they should stop calling it 'science', it is anti-science.

As for Mr Krauss and - his universe from the ‘nothing’ that isn’t really nothing, but ‘something’ - space/time, you would need to be extremely gullible to fall for that load of nonsense.
It is just another desperate, atheist attempt to get around the Law of Cause and Effect.
Presumably he thinks that if he can fool people into believing that something, which is an integral part of the material realm is – no different from nothing (i.e. no thing). Then he can avoid having to explain what caused it?
Nothing (that which doesn’t exist) obviously doesn’t need a cause. However, Mr Krauss’ nothing is a bogus ‘nothing’ … so, unfortunately for him, it certainly does require an adequate cause, just like everything else in the material realm. So the whole exercise is spurious and devious nonsense. One thing is certain, it is not science, it is just fantasy.
__________________________________________
Silly Deity 2y
Truth in science
Getting a bit desparate eh?

Can't refute the issue that you don't understand the science or scientific principles?

Can't deny that you use logical fallacies?

So you pepper your response with a few more of the latter, ignoring the self-same scientific principles you claim to espouse, while introducing the odd red-herring and conflating theories of the origin of the universe with atheism.

A bit of a messy really.

Desparate too.
_______________________________________
~~badBADpenny~~ (read profile !!) (deleted) 2y
Truth in PsuedoScience I honestly cannot be bothered trying to refute your nonsense anymore I'm losing interest and the will to continue by going over and over it ad infinitum .....of course you,like all theists will claim it as your victory but you don't get it,you refuse to contemplate anyrhing that doesn't fit you particular beliefs and you won't be remotely swayed from your abslotue certainty despite the fact you're making a fool.of your self by firmly clinging to the label scientific....even a high school kid just starting out in basic science could see the gaping fallacy at the heart of your bullshit but you blythely ignore it making you dishonest or you just don't see it making you not exactly the sharpest tool.

Either way m8 I have to respect the law of free speech (the most important and fundamental of laws lol) which afterall allows you to talk whatever pigs swill you like and be judged by it.

Can I just add with science observations,results,evidence are what determines the theory the outcome if you like.You DON'T start with a confirmed conviction and shape the evidence to fit it.
____________________________________________
Truth in science 2y
~~badBADpenny~~ (read profile !!)

Is that the best either of you can do?
In other words, like every other atheist I have encountered, you don't have a credible answer or response.

Of course, you bluff it out and pretend that you have refuted my argument.
But I have shown that it is science and logic that you are trying to refute, not me. And that is why you are doomed to failure.

Atheists masquerade as the champions of science but, all the while, they hate the verdict that science has for their cherished ideology.
The only arguments they ever present to justify belief in their religion of naturalism are based on fantasies which seek to undermine natural laws and basic scientific principles. Such as; a universe self-creating from some sort of bogus 'nothing' or a magical, so-called singularity where no laws apply. They are clearly nothing to do with genuine science, they are just devices to fool people into thinking atheist naturalism is credible.
Atheist naturalism is a completely blind faith, one that has no support from natural law, logic or science.

You obviously can't answer the question I posed: tell us how a ‘singularity’ or a ‘multiverse’ can be tested, observed, or demonstrated by repeated experiment?
I will leave people reading through my arguments and your responses to judge who has won the argument - but they can be sure of one thing that I have demonstrated, that the point presented in the image is completely erroneous. It is not theists, who don't have a reasonable rebuttal of any arguments, but atheists.
____________________________________________
Silly Deity 2y
~~badBADpenny~~ (read profile !!)
Bob

He's the one making the claims here...........no one else. He can't provide evidence to support those claims so resorts to flim-flam.

As I said earlier................just a bit desparate.
__________________________________________
~~badBADpenny~~ (read profile !!) (deleted) 2y
Come on PsuedoScience now you are throwing out scientific method as if you were applying it all along.

A multiverse ???

Have you not read my main arguement over umpteen replys now I have stated that we are unable to observe back before thw big bang and the 'birth' of our universe.That means no observations of god with a match,a multiverse,a continueing cycle of big bangs or any other hypothesis rational or batshit crazy you can possibly suggest.

Do you not get this fundamental basic fact,i cannot prove,observe or test or take a fucking stroll in a multiverse.I thought that point was self evident any more than you can prove,observe or state what came before either.The point is neither of us can say anymore than the other but science which you claim is your master can at best just hypothosise it cannot state fact,prove,observe,test anything pre big bang either so your claims being proven by science are as disingenuos as any claim I decided to state as fact.

Do you not understand that yet.No obsevations,no way to test or experiment,predict etc,etc means science has nothing definitive to say about it as yet nor can it prove what happened.......do you not get this genuinely straight forward premise.

As for singularitys.......observe the centre of almost any galaxy you wish to study.You'll find a super massive black hole or all the predicted effects of one.Isn't a black hole a singularity then ????
__________________________________________
~~badBADpenny~~ (read profile !!) (deleted) 2y
I know Silly Deity that he's the one making spurious claims but seriously beginning to piss me off.....not because of his pure unshackelled belief that he's cracked it and won't listen but because people may actually believe he's based his claims in sound science
___________________________________________
~~badBADpenny~~ (read profile !!) (deleted) 2y
Oh yes and Psuedo you do realise that simply 'defeating' the multiverse or singularity idea in your own mind doesn't mean your claims are true.

I cannot prove of make statements of fact about the origin of the universe but that doesn't mean that you in that case must be right.It's not either or.

Your whole premise of calling something bogus or demanding that everyone else's suggestions must withstand scientific rigour you don't apply to your claim is basically a straw man.As if the best argument against your beliefs is the multiverse hypothesis so if you can show it cannot be proven therefore you win.No it doesn't work that way.

How have you made observations of your first cause god then,how did you measure,quantify his existence and that he was responsible for putting it all into action.Experiments and test ???

Come on,just banging on about natural laws and causality does nothing whatsoever to observe,analyse,test,experiment on god.

Come on,you're the real,true scientist here......explain how first before you can expect anyone to take you seriously
___________________________________________
Truth in science 2y
~~badBADpenny~~ (read profile !!)
You wrote:
"Do you not get this fundamental basic fact,i cannot prove,observe or test or take a fucking stroll in a multiverse.I thought that point was self evident any more than you can prove,observe or state what came before either.The point is neither of us can say anymore than the other but science which you claim is your master can at best just hypothosise it cannot state fact,prove,observe,test anything pre big bang either so your claims being proven by science are as disingenuos as any claim I decided to state as fact."

So why do atheists continuously present such unscientific nonsense as a 'multiverse', or the universe from nothing without a cause, as 'science'? It doesn't even make logical or common sense, let alone scientific sense.
It is all sheer, magical fantasy.
If you are going to frame a scientific hypothesis, then you should do so according to the facts we know - and within the framework of natural laws and the principle of causality which lies behind the scientific method.
You should not just dream up any old, imaginative nonsense, which tramples on natural laws and the basic principle of science, and then present it as the latest, greatest, scientific explanation of how the universe originated and/or a so-called 'Theory of Everything' which effectively makes a supernatural, first cause redundant. When, in fact, it is a Theory of absolutely Nothing,
it doesn't even deserve to be called a theory.
And then why have the barefaced cheek to accuse anyone who challenges atheist, naturalist fantasies or questions the scientific credibility of abandoning natural laws and scientific principles with such airy fairy, mythological fables, as indulging in pseudoscience and advocating a "god of the gaps?"

The ONLY motivation atheists have for dismissing and opposing natural laws and scientific principles, concerning origins, is an ideological one. It is nothing whatsoever to do with science or logic. It is ONLY to do with trying to preserve their religious devotion to naturalism. So, stop pretending it is science.
Atheism has nothing to do with science. The fact that atheists deliberately abandon natural laws and scientific principles in ALL of their proposed origin scenarios, just because they are inconvenient to their naturalist ideology, actually makes atheism - anti-science.

Put simply - I respect natural laws and the fundamental principle of the scientific method. And I present a logical argument for the origin of everything, simply on that basis.

Whereas - you reject and hate natural laws and the fundamental principle of the scientific method as far as they relate to origins.
And you live in the vain and contradictory hope that somehow, someday, someone will present a 'scientific' argument for the origin of everything which can ignore or refute natural laws and basic scientific principles. In the meantime, you are quite willing to consider any hair-brained unscientific idea or fantasy that supports your naturalistic beliefs, regardless of whether they violate natural laws, in preference to any logical argument that respects them.
And you refer to my logical argument based on natural laws and scientific principles as the 'god of the gaps'. The 'gaps' are only created by your fantastical belief and wishful thinking that natural laws will someday be shown not to apply.
So who is indulging in pseudoscience? I think the answer to that is obvious.
____________________________________________
Silly Deity 2y
Truth in science

So......................................back to familiar territory yet again with strawman arguments and ad hominem atttacks.
__________________________________________
~~badBADpenny~~ (read profile !!) did NOT present the multiverse as a cause. If you actually bothered to read his response you would have realised that he was saying nothing of the sort.

You plainly DON'T respect the scientific method otherwise you would present evidence to support your claims. You consistently fail to do that.

Your rant simply confirms the caricature in my image. Talk about life imitating art!
___________________________________________
Aimless Alliterations PRO 2y
"Life imitating art!" He, he. Love it!!!!
___________________________________________
Truth in science 2y
Silly Deity

If you had actually bothered to read my comment properly you would know that I didn't accuse him of presenting the multiverse as a ‘cause'.
I asked: "So why do atheists continuously present such unscientific nonsense as a 'multiverse', or the universe from nothing without a cause, as 'science'?"

In fact, the only reason that atheists invent such bizarre, origin scenarios as; a multiverse - or a universe from nothing, is to avoid having to explain a cause.
They think they can hoodwink the public into believing they are credible explanations of how everything could come into existence from nothing, without needing an adequate cause.

The scientific fact that every natural occurrence and entity requires an adequate cause is absolutely fatal to atheist, naturalist beliefs. So, atheists are compelled to waste their lives trying to devise origin scenarios which they think can fool people into believing that everything CAN come from nothing without a cause. Unfortunately for them, every sensible person, who is not indoctrinated with atheist pseudoscience, knows it CAN'T.
The amazing thing is, that you and the other 2 stooges, on here actually fall for such nonsense and think it is credible science.

Atheists even have the cheek to rip off theist arguments to try to silence any opposition. Such as the theist argument that ("to ask what caused God? is an invalid question, because the first cause - by virtue of being first - could have no preceding cause"). Atheists cynically apply a similar concept (in disguise) to their naturalistic fantasies - i.e. "to ask what caused the universe to arise from nothing? is an invalid question. It is like asking what is north of the North Pole?" Which of course anyone with any sense knows it isn't. To ask - what caused any and every natural occurrence or entity? Is not only a valid question, it is also an essential question. A question which true science demands we ask.

The only way atheist, naturalist beliefs can be true, is if natural laws and the basic principle behind the scientific method are not true and valid.
So, there is a straight choice between supporting atheism - OR supporting science and natural law. You can't do both...
Which do you choose?
________________________________________
Silly Deity 2y
Truth in science

Let me translate what you've just stated:

I've repeatedly dodged providing evidence to support the initial claim that I made.

Instead I've quoted one of the individuals who questioned the validity of my claim and then turned that into a straw man argument by distorting his question to give the impression I was refuting his argument, while actually refuting an argument which was not advanced by him in the first place.

I know that this was pointed out to me but I flatly deny that I've done this and will now repeat that self-same straw man (incorporating sweeping generalisations).

Now having tried to wriggle out of that I'll make some bizarre and inaccurate statements about science and throw in some ad hominem attacks for good measure as that's something I like to do.

I'll round it off with a false dichotomy which results in me once more dodging the fact that I've no evidence to support my original claim and tries to hide that I'm talking absolute bullshit.

Yes. Life imitating art it most certainly is. I posted that image little realising how accurate it was but true to form "Truth in pseudoscience" you have repeatedly confirmed its accuracy.
__________________________________________
Truth in science 2y
~~badBADpenny~~ (read profile !!)
You have produced no logical or scientific justification for atheism. Whereas I have presented a logical argument based on natural law and scientific principles for theism which should satisfy any reasonable person. Furthermore, I have presented a logical argument as to why atheist naturalism is unscientific nonsense. I don’t expect you, or any other died-in-the-wool atheist to accept it, because atheism is an insidious and deceptive cult, which attempts to indoctrinate the public through relentless hype and propaganda.

Here is some good news for any theists reading this. All atheist arguments are easily demolished. Not because I, or any other theist, is exceptionally clever, but because atheism is based on lies and deceit. Once people realise that, it becomes obvious that there will be major flaws in EVERY atheist argument. It is then a simple matter, for anyone interested in truth, to expose them.

Atheism is claimed to be the scientific viewpoint and supporter of science. That is the great deception of the modern age.
What is the truth?
Science is based on looking for adequate causes of EVERY natural happening or entity AND on making predictions and assessments about the natural world, based on the validity of natural laws.
Atheism is based on ignoring the fact that EVERY natural happening or entity requires an adequate cause, not just ignoring it, but even actively opposing it. Atheism is about looking for, and hoping to find, non-causes and inadequate causes.
Atheism is also against the scientific method, of making assessments and predictions based on the validity of natural laws, and in favour of rejecting and challenging the validity of natural laws.

Your argument that we just don’t know whether causality or any other natural laws existed before the start of the universe, is not a valid argument for atheism. Even if it was a sensible argument, the very best that could be said of it, is that it is an argument for agnosticism. Not knowing (agnosticism) is a neutral position, it is not an argument for or against theism or for or against atheism. If you claim to be in the ‘don’t know’ camp and are a genuine agnostic, you have to sit firmly on the fence - you have no right to ridicule and lambast theists who believe that causality and natural laws are universally valid and by the same token you cannot ridicule atheism. You are clearly not a genuine agnostic, because you come down firmly on the side of atheism made evident by the fact that you support ‘silly deities’ posts and photostream which attacks theism. That is not a ‘don’t know’ (agnostic) position.

The argument for atheism cannot be simply based on ‘not knowing’ whether the law of cause and effect and other natural laws existed prior to the universe. Atheism depends on a definite rejection of causality and natural laws at the beginning of the material realm.
And that argument also reveals atheists as gross hypocrites.
When Stephen Hawking declared to the world: “Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing” atheists applauded and crowed about ‘science’ making God redundant. How come they didn’t criticise him for claiming he knew the law of gravity pre-existed the universe? Apparently, Hawking KNEW the law of gravity existed, but decided that the law of cause and effect and other natural laws didn’t exist. What happened to the: “we just don’t know what laws existed before the universe or Big Bang” argument on that occasion? Unbelievable hypocrisy! Which effectively demolishes the bogus atheist argument that “we don’t know what laws existed”. What atheists actually mean to say is that: “we know that laws which support our argument did exist, but we don’t know that laws which destroy our argument existed”.

As I said before:
The only way atheist, naturalist beliefs can be true, is if natural laws and the basic principle behind the scientific method are not true and valid.
So there is a straight choice between supporting atheism - OR supporting the universal validity of science and natural law. You can't do both...
__________________________________________
Silly Deity 2y
Truth in science

I'll make this very simple "Truth in pseudoscience"

You made a claim.

The scientific method requires that you provide evidence for your claim. That is a fundamental scientific principle.

Logical argument is not evidence. Particularly when such arguments are logical fallacies. For example I could state the following:

1. Some men are doctors.
2. Some doctors are women.
3. Therefore, some men are women.

Logically that is correct, however it is patently wrong. In order to prove it true I would have to provide evidence. That is the problem with your arguments. Arguments are not evidence. You may think they are logical but they fail because they are logical fallacies and because you provide no EVIDENCE to support your claim.

Everything else you've stated (the straw man arguments, the reversal of burden of proof, the ad hominem attacks, the quoting the phrase "natural laws" ad nauseum) is merely you dodging for the umpteenth time the fact that you have no evidence to support your claim.

I'll repeat, the scientific method requires that you provide evidence for your claim. That is a fundamental scientific principle.

EVIDENCE

EVIDENCE

SHOW US THE EVIDENCE

Your failure to grasp this and the nature of your responses simply reinforces the satire contained in the original image.
________________________________________
Truth in science 2y
Silly Deity
Your comments are as pathetic as your original image.
Your ridiculous image, which you seem to be so proud of, is a straw man portrayal of a Christian, which bears no relationship whatsoever to any Christian I know, or know of. It is nothing more than a crude and offensive stereotype which exists only in the imagination of atheist ideologues and zealots. I have shown it to be entirely false. I have shown that theism is based on eminently reasonable arguments and that it is atheism that is unreasonable nonsense with NO credible, logical or scientific argument Furthermore I have not mentioned, nor have I needed to mention, anyone being condemned to hell.

As for your stupid example of a logical argument, it bears no comparison to my logical argument.
Science uses natural laws to predict and assess the answers to questions, that is all science can do. It cannot make predictions or assessments based on the idea that natural laws are not valid. My logical argument is the ONLY possible assessment based on the validity of natural laws and the basic principle of the scientific method. if you think that is wrong, once again, I challenge you to give a logical or scientific argument against it?
My evidence is that natural laws can be observed, and tested by repeated experiment and have been shown to be valid in all known circumstances - AND that scientific research cannot even be carried out without an acknowledgement that we can expect every natural occurrence to have an adequate cause. I cite the known and tested universality of natural laws and scientific principles as my evidence.
My evidence is the fact that science and natural law supports my logical argument for a supernatural, first cause and definitively rejects the notion of a natural, first cause. It couldn't be clearer than that.
My argument is based on things we know, ALL atheist arguments are based on fantasy - what ifs, maybes, what we don't know and are never likely to know.
_________________________________________
Aimless Alliterations PRO 2y
So your evidence is...........just a repeat of you saying you're right and everyone else is wrong? You don't seem to get what the scientific method requires of those who make claims.

A central theme of science and scientific method is that all evidence must be empirical, or at least empirically based, that is, it should depend on evidence or results that can be observed by our senses. Scientific statements are subject to and derived from our experience or observations and empirical data is based on both observations and experiment results.

Not one of your statements refers to empirical evidence of a supernatural being.
____________________________________________
Silly Deity 2y
Aimless Alliterations

Thanks for that. It saves me the trouble of having to explain the concept of evidence yet again to our scientifically-challenged "friend".

"Truth in pseudoscience" The example of flawed logic I provided you with was just that - an example. You appear to have some difficulty understanding that trying to prove an argument through the use of logic is always going to fail if you use flawed logic. Your repeated use logical fallacies simply illustrates this.

Your constant ad hominem attacks when you are accused of such behavour are further examples of logical fallacies. So my comments are far from pathetic......they are an uncannily accurate reflection of the satire contained in the original image.

If you can't see that, then that's your problem and I think we can safely say this debate is at an end.
___________________________________________
Aimless Alliterations PRO 2y
Yes. For someone who claims to use science to supposedly support his claims there appears to be some pretty fundamental gaps in "Truth in pseudoscience's" knowledge of science and scientific principles.

Something that's reflected in all of his bizarre claims.
__________________________________________
Mark 2y
@"Truth in science" and pretty much everyone too..
1. Your wish thinking does not work as advertised. (unlikely headline: prayer meeting ends world hunger)
2. Your convoluted blathering is only a neon sign to the above.
3. As a person raised on the secular ideals of the U.S. I can not support any leader who is not answerable to the rest of us, so "worship" is totally out of the question.
(even the "inalienable rights" line proves the plastic nature of a simple deist assumption of a god's nature, let alone one who takes more license)
4. I'm disappointed that anyone gives you the time of day, as your kind need not be eliminated but simply left to wither away.
____________________________________________
The debate ended with the comment by atheist 'Mark' above.
I didn't think there was any point in continuing, as the arguments were already becoming repetitive.
I think I am justified in concluding that this debate (as many others) demonstrated that the atheist belief in naturalism - and the belief that there was no adequate, infinite, first cause of everything temporal - is bankrupt. It is bankrupt because it relies completely on natural laws not being universally valid. Atheist HAVE TO dismiss natural laws, because they are fatal to their ideology of naturalism. To dismiss natural laws is not scientific, we depend on the reliability of natural laws to make scientific predictions. We cannot practice science without trusting in natural laws. So, atheism, in seeking to debunk natural laws, is exposed as ANTI-SCIENCE.
The image posted by Silly Deity with the original debate can be seen here:
www.flickr.com/photos/131599163@N05/18212093014

Taken on: July 3, 2017

Tags:

atheism

debate

Atheist Foundation of Australia

British Humanist Association

camp quest

Lawrence Krauss

the science guy

Richard Dawkins

march for science

science camp

Bill Nye

bill nye the science guy

Stephen Fry

professor Stephen Hawking

QED con

London School of Economics

secular humanism

creation science

creationist

free thinkers

skeptic magazine

SitP

professor Brian Cox

FFRF

freedom from religion foundation

Bertrand Russell

Russell Brand

Stephen Hawking

Sir David Attenborough

American Humanist Association

global atheist convention

atheist alliance international

freethought

Freethought Hall

Carl Sagan

Isaac Asimov

freethinker

truthseeker

Christopher Hitchens

Eddie Izzard

LGBT

Oxford Humanists

Sam Harris

Peter Tatchell

Naomi Phillips

philip pullman

atheist woodstock

reason rally

James Randi

glastonbury

Glastonbury festival

Annie Laurie Gaylor

science versus atheism

science not silence

solidarity in science

science matters

science march

darwin college

andrew copson

University college London

Oxford Union

Cambridge Union

Royal Society

Voltaire Lecture

Question Explore Discover

QED

Atheistcon

HumanistsUK

National Secular Society « less

Sets appears in: • Christianity • Atheism - the religion of naturalism.

Groups appears in: • Atheism • !FlickrSoup for Soul more » • #flickr • !Social Issues • *Really Unlimited* • ANYTHING & EVERYTHING PHOTOGRAPHIC / NO SL/AI • ! ART & PHOTOGRAPHY ! All artistic works welcome • "I AM TELLING YOU A STORY HERE. CAN YOU SEE IT?" • "Smörgåsbord" (Unlimited Posting - Award 3) • "Unlimited Photos: No Rules" (NO AI, CGI or SL images) • "THE WORLD IN FLICKR" (NEW RULES) • ! ♡ Flickrian ♡ No Rules:) Feel Free to invite your Friends! • ! Flickr Cafe ! • ! F l i c k r | S t y l e ! • ! Flickr Lover ! • ! The Flickr ! • ***Flickr Global • "NO RULES" Group...All kind of Great Shots are invited... • !Excellent Photos • * Everybodys Photo Group *(All Welcome) • !*ALL ARE WELCOME*! • !*Flickr All Stars*! • * just photos * no rules please use comment code appreciated « less

Stats: 35,276 views / 4 comments

go back

Link to this photo view:
Link to this photo large view: