http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBkOYQ02chs

(November 8, 2012 at 9:06 pm)Annik Wrote: Lol, God.


We are not satisfied with that. We actually want to observe and discover the truth.


Also, the laws of physics as we know them didn't exist until after the "Big Bang" (does anyone else thing that "Rapid Expansion" might be a better descriptive term?), so your reasoning isn't valid.


I'm sick of people claiming God did something when there is no reason to suspect as such. This tired rhetoric wasn't correct before and it isn't now.

I don't care if you are 'satisfied'. You can't tell me where I'm wrong.
The absolute physical beginning is one of the powerful evidences for God.

Where is your evidence that I am wrong?
Where is your evidence and arguments that No God exists? Why do you believe it?

where is the counterargument to my argument cock?

(November 8, 2012 at 9:12 pm)Truth Matters Wrote: I don't care if you are 'satisfied'. You can't tell me where I'm wrong.
The absolute physical beginning is one of the powerful evidences for God.

Where is your evidence that I am wrong?
Where is your evidence and arguments that No God exists? Why do you believe it?

Did you miss the class on burden of proof, sweetie? You have to provide evidence to support your claim, not demand that I disprove your baseless statement.


I have a wonderful example involving watermelons if you need extra help.

(November 8, 2012 at 9:08 pm)The_Germans_are_coming Wrote:

(November 8, 2012 at 9:05 pm)Truth Matters Wrote: Where is this response that I have ignored?

Where is your argument?

your question:

(November 8, 2012 at 9:05 pm)Truth Matters Wrote: Why is embracing a Materialist belief (a belief that cannot possibly explain the absolute physical beginning) better than a fully sufficient and rationally plausible explanation?

my answere:

(November 8, 2012 at 9:03 pm)The_Germans_are_coming Wrote: Because it is better than saying: "Fire on Vulcano! Big fire on vulcano! Must whorship fire vulcano god!"

It is better to state when one doesnt know something than insisting theres magic behind it.
At least I can still through rational inquiry and observations determain the things I dont know, which is an option religion doesnt offer.

Truth doesnt seem to matter to Truth Matters.

lol being called "boy" by someone who has a cock as avatar

I don't claim magic. I provide a fully sufficient and rationally plausible casual agency.
You have a physical Universe that began with no causal agency - and no possibility of any sufficient explanation in materialism.

Better get busy.

(November 8, 2012 at 9:01 pm)Truth Matters Wrote: Big Bang explains nothing about the causally antecedent conditions prior to Big Bang. Science stops cold at the singularity boundary, but reason does not.

This is gibberish. The Big Bang says nothing about conditions prior to the Big Bang - and you're surprised at that? Are you aware that a calendar for, say, 2012 says nothing about the year 1911? Or that a map of Tokyo doesn't even mention the London Underground? Yet we don't throw away calendars and maps.

(November 8, 2012 at 9:01 pm)Truth Matters Wrote: Material, time and space began to exist

With you so far.

(November 8, 2012 at 9:01 pm)Truth Matters Wrote: Material, time and space cannot be it's own cause.

Bzzzzt! Why not? "Cannot" is a very strong word. Care to back it up with something other than opinion?

(November 8, 2012 at 9:01 pm)Truth Matters Wrote: The fact that it BEGAN means it cannot self-exist (self-existence is rationally necessary)

Yes, we all know the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Or the Kalam Total Horseshit, to give it its proper name. Again, why not?

(November 8, 2012 at 9:01 pm)Truth Matters Wrote: Where is that causal agency?

Let me guess: it's God, isn't it? I just bet you're gonna say God...

(November 8, 2012 at 9:01 pm)Truth Matters Wrote: Any sufficient causal agency must have the necessary attributes of being Timeless, spaceless and immaterial - and capacity to create a contingent Universe. God fits the criteria perfectly. Materialism precludes that which is necessary for any sufficient causal agency.

The prophet strikes again! Ok, what do those buzzwords - timeless, spaceless, immaterial (actually I know that one) - even mean? If an entity is timeless, in the strictest definition of the word, there is no time within which it can operate. Hence, it is as powerless as any god; so you might actually be onto something.

Spaceless? Lacking in space, or outside space? If the former, it cannot exist in a Universe like ours. If the latter, it can have no influence in a Universe like ours. Either way, even if it does exist in reality, we can discard it simply because it can have no power. Especially if it's immaterial as well. It must really suck balls to be a god.

Capacity to create a contingent Universe? We got ourselves a tautology! The only entity capable of building a contingent Universe is one with the capacity to build contingent Universes. Congratulations, you might just have made William Lane "Two Citations" Craig look rational - and that takes some doing.

I acknowlege that I dont know what started the Universe and that I cant know it currently. But! I have the option of aquireing that knowlege through scientific inquiry.

Must I paint the boy a colorfull picture to understand?

(November 8, 2012 at 9:15 pm)Annik Wrote:

(November 8, 2012 at 9:12 pm)Truth Matters Wrote: I don't care if you are 'satisfied'. You can't tell me where I'm wrong.
The absolute physical beginning is one of the powerful evidences for God.

Where is your evidence that I am wrong?
Where is your evidence and arguments that No God exists? Why do you believe it?

Did you miss the class on burden of proof, sweetie? You have to provide evidence to support your claim, not demand that I disprove your baseless statement.


I have a wonderful example involving watermelons if you need extra help.

No, I had a couple years of law in my background. I don't get fooled by Atheist rubbish on the burden of proof.
Both Theism and Atheism are proper belief positions. Both should justify on the basis of arguments and evidence. The burden is shared.

I just justified my belief. This only increases your burden.

I'de suggest you stop making excuses and start engaging the potent evidence of an absolute physical beginning. You need to justify your Atheist belief in light of the evidence - not despite it.

For someone self-identifying as Truth Matters, you sure seem desperate to shift attention away from it.

(November 8, 2012 at 9:23 pm)Truth Matters Wrote: No, I had a couple years of law in my background. I don't get fooled by Atheist rubbish on the burden of proof.
Both Theism and Atheism are proper belief positions. Both should justify on the basis of arguments and evidence. The burden is shared.

I just justified my belief. This only increases your burden.

I'de suggest you stop making excuses and start engaging the potent evidence of an absolute physical beginning. You need to justify your Atheist belief in light of the evidence - not despite it.

You poor, inept creature. I fire watermelons from my tits. God gave me their power. Prove me wrong.