An Open Letter to Atheists

[AN2]

Fuck off, Laz


You angry little twat

 

[clarke-connolly]

DARLING of the theists Alex O'Connor just published an interview with John Lennox

You can watch the full (almost two-hour) snoozefest with the philosophy student and the creationist carnie here -


View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3gKCwldMZS8

Maybe John Lennox is God and just messing with your head ? !

If he is God then, He would know that there is God ? !

 

[AN2]

Maybe John Lennox is God

He's certainly a smug git

 

[clarke-connolly]

He's certainly a smug git

If he is God, you might have to spend a while in Purgatory !

 

[Eclair Clearly]

He's certainly a smug git

The irony.

Tell us more about how you're an atheist.

It was really interesting the first hundred times.

 

[AN2]

 

[AN2]

View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5m7LnLgvMnM&t=50m3s

Sorry for the uncouth interruptions by @Eclair Clearly folks and getting this thread back on track..

You'll notice from the above clip that Morgan repeats the lie that the Big Bang theory implies something from nothing. As previously revealed, before the Big Bang (t=0) the Universe is in a very hot, dense state and then it explodes expands (we dont know why)

Although Carroll doesn't specifically address the something from nothing repeated falsehood by Morgan as well as being visibly dumbfounded by Morgan's stupidity, he does answer the question as a human being would, Weinstein's answer being unintelligible "science" (Weinstein is basically a crank who's bitter about being rejected by the scientific community)

 

[Hermit]

Space just "popped into existence":

https://www.sciencefocus.com/space/what-was-before-the-big-bang-everything-you-need-to-know

In the Big Bang, there was no centre and no pre-existing void, so it didn’t happen at any ‘location’. Space itself popped into existence and began expanding everywhere at once.

Singularity? Not anymore:

Surprise: the Big Bang isn't the beginning of the universe anymore

We used to think the Big Bang meant the universe began from a singularity. Nearly 100 years later, we're not so sure.

bigthink.com

Wait, multiple singularities!

Challenging the Big Bang: A Multi-Singularity Origin for the Universe

In a study published in the journal Classical and Quantum Gravity, Dr. Richard Lieu, a physics professor at The University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH), which is a part of The University of Alabama System, suggests that the universe was formed on the steps of multiple singularities rather than...

www.azoquantum.com

Big Bang? No longer sure:

Scientists are no longer sure the Universe began with a bang | Aeon Essays

It was thought that science could tell us about the origins of the Universe. Today that great endeavour is in serious doubt

aeon.co

The universe is flat apparently:

Origin of the Universe: How Did It Begin and How Will It End? | American Public University

Origin of the universe: This article explores various theories about how the universe got started and how it will end.

www.apu.apus.edu

But the universe that we observe with our scientific instruments today is flat.

 

[Haven]

Space just "popped into existence":

https://www.sciencefocus.com/space/what-was-before-the-big-bang-everything-you-need-to-know

Singularity? Not anymore:

Surprise: the Big Bang isn't the beginning of the universe anymore

We used to think the Big Bang meant the universe began from a singularity. Nearly 100 years later, we're not so sure.

bigthink.com

Wait, multiple singularities!

Challenging the Big Bang: A Multi-Singularity Origin for the Universe

In a study published in the journal Classical and Quantum Gravity, Dr. Richard Lieu, a physics professor at The University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH), which is a part of The University of Alabama System, suggests that the universe was formed on the steps of multiple singularities rather than...

www.azoquantum.com

Big Bang? No longer sure:

Scientists are no longer sure the Universe began with a bang | Aeon Essays

It was thought that science could tell us about the origins of the Universe. Today that great endeavour is in serious doubt

aeon.co

The universe is flat apparently:

Origin of the Universe: How Did It Begin and How Will It End? | American Public University

Origin of the universe: This article explores various theories about how the universe got started and how it will end.

www.apu.apus.edu

Thanks! Fascinating to read but nothing very new about these ideas.

 

[AN2]

Space just "popped into existence":

https://www.sciencefocus.com/space/what-was-before-the-big-bang-everything-you-need-to-know

Popped into existence is the equivalent of saying began expanding

There was not nothing before the Big Bang

Singularity? Not anymore:

Surprise: the Big Bang isn't the beginning of the universe anymore

We used to think the Big Bang meant the universe began from a singularity. Nearly 100 years later, we're not so sure.

bigthink.com

Wait, multiple singularities!

Challenging the Big Bang: A Multi-Singularity Origin for the Universe

In a study published in the journal Classical and Quantum Gravity, Dr. Richard Lieu, a physics professor at The University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH), which is a part of The University of Alabama System, suggests that the universe was formed on the steps of multiple singularities rather than...

www.azoquantum.com

Big Bang? No longer sure:

Scientists are no longer sure the Universe began with a bang | Aeon Essays

It was thought that science could tell us about the origins of the Universe. Today that great endeavour is in serious doubt

aeon.co

The universe is flat apparently:

Origin of the Universe: How Did It Begin and How Will It End? | American Public University

Origin of the universe: This article explores various theories about how the universe got started and how it will end.

www.apu.apus.edu

lol I'm not sure why you posted this (although I do know that you're a flat-earther)

Yes, the universe, the part we can see that is, appears flat. But we don't actually know the size or shape of the universe. If it is spherical, like the Earth is, then that would indicate that it's very much bigger indeed. Think of the Earth, only a small distance (relative to its overall size) is flat

 

[Haven]

View: https://youtu.be/ew_cNONhhKI?si=0CNUVm8NNeHbHGLQ

 

[Myles O'Reilly]

God is not a good theory

Fuckin idiot

 

[Hermit]

There was not nothing before the Big Bang

So the singularity came from nothing?

 

[clarke-connolly]

So the singularity came from nothing?

But = = Maybe Nothing is Something ! ! !

It used to be said by some, that Space was Empty Space with Nothing in it = = As I understand it, that is Not said now !

The thing is = = We know " " Nothing " about " Nothing "

Turns out = = " Nothing " is far more interesting than some might think !

 

[AN2]

So the singularity came from nothing?

You can call it a singularity, I might call it (as I think I did) t=0

The Big Bang theory has nothing to say about that

The point I'm making here is, is that if someone says - I don't believe the Big Bang theory because I don't believe that something came from nothing, that isn't a reason

 

[clarke-connolly]

You can call it a singularity, I might call it (as I think I did) t=0

The Big Bang theory has nothing to say about that

The point I'm making here is, is that if someone says - I don't believe the Big Bang theory because I don't believe that something came from nothing, that isn't a reason

Maybe the Universe is just a Fart from an Enormous Being ? !

 

[Haven]

Maybe the Universe is just a Fart from an Enormous Being ? !

It does seem to contain a lot of dark matter, for sure.

 

[Tiger]

You can call it a singularity, I might call it (as I think I did) t=0

The Big Bang theory has nothing to say about that

The point I'm making here is, is that if someone says - I don't believe the Big Bang theory because I don't believe that something came from nothing, that isn't a reason

You’ve made a common error in suggesting that the Big Bang theory “has nothing to say” about t = 0, and in doing so, you inadvertently confirm the deeper problem: you’re left with no mechanism to explain why the universe exists at all. The singularity theorems of Hawking and Penrose don’t merely label a moment as t = 0—they demonstrate, under general relativity, that time, space, matter, and energy all came into being at that point. There is no “before” in physical terms, because time itself begins there.

The crucial issue is not semantics but causality. Once time begins, you cannot appeal to physical causes, because causality in physics is temporal. You therefore need a cause that is outside of time and space, which means non-physical, immaterial, timeless, and enormously powerful—i.e., a metaphysical cause. This strengthens, not weakens, the classical argument for a Creator.

Now to your claim that there was some “hot dense state” before the Big Bang: this is speculative at best and incoherent at worst. A “hot dense state” requires energy, and energy presupposes spacetime structure and physical laws in which it can exist and interact. But those laws and that structure didn’t exist before the Big Bang. You’re smuggling in physical realities without accounting for their origin. You cannot have temperature or density without time, space, and matter—and those came into being with the Big Bang. You’re effectively suggesting that physics existed before the framework of physics existed. That’s not science—it’s science fiction.

Finally, when someone says, “I don’t believe the Big Bang because I don’t believe something came from nothing,” that is a valid philosophical objection—not to the Big Bang as a model of cosmic evolution, but to the materialist interpretations of its origin. If your version of the theory assumes a self-caused universe emerging from literal nothingness or an unexplained pre-physical quantum foam, it’s entirely rational to reject that as metaphysically absurd.

The Big Bang is a what, not a why. And once we ask “why is there something rather than nothing?”, materialism has no answer—because only minds create reasons.

 

[AN2]

You’ve made a common error in suggesting that the Big Bang theory “has nothing to say” about t = 0

No, I haven't

The Big Bang theory has nothing to say about t=0

Evolution has nothing to say about the origin of life

Yet you insist.. they must

You're a complete fucken fraud. Regurgitating claptrap from other frauds

, and in doing so, you inadvertently confirm the deeper problem: you’re left with no mechanism to explain why the universe exists at all. The singularity theorems of Hawking and Penrose don’t merely label a moment as t = 0—they demonstrate, under general relativity, that time, space, matter, and energy all came into being at that point. There is no “before” in physical terms, because time itself begins there.

The crucial issue is not semantics but causality. Once time begins, you cannot appeal to physical causes, because causality in physics is temporal. You therefore need a cause that is outside of time and space, which means non-physical, immaterial, timeless, and enormously powerful—i.e., a metaphysical cause. This strengthens, not weakens, the classical argument for a Creator.

Now to your claim that there was some “hot dense state” before the Big Bang: this is speculative at best and incoherent at worst. A “hot dense state” requires energy, and energy presupposes spacetime structure and physical laws in which it can exist and interact. But those laws and that structure didn’t exist before the Big Bang. You’re smuggling in physical realities without accounting for their origin. You cannot have temperature or density without time, space, and matter—and those came into being with the Big Bang. You’re effectively suggesting that physics existed before the framework of physics existed. That’s not science—it’s science fiction.

Finally, when someone says, “I don’t believe the Big Bang because I don’t believe something came from nothing,” that is a valid philosophical objection—not to the Big Bang as a model of cosmic evolution, but to the materialist interpretations of its origin. If your version of the theory assumes a self-caused universe emerging from literal nothingness or an unexplained pre-physical quantum foam, it’s entirely rational to reject that as metaphysically absurd.

The Big Bang is a what, not a why. And once we ask “why is there something rather than nothing?”, materialism has no answer—because only minds create reasons.

 

[Haven]

The crucial issue is not semantics but causality. Once time begins, you cannot appeal to physical causes, because causality in physics is temporal. You therefore need a cause that is outside of time and space, which means non-physical, immaterial, timeless, and enormously powerful—i.e., a metaphysical cause. This strengthens, not weakens, the classical argument for a Creator.

Lots of problems with your post but lets get to the crux: even if we grant the need for a metaphysical cause, for arguments sake, this still does not imply a personal Creator.

It could be:

• An impersonal force
• A timeless law or structure (e.g., Platonic realism)
• A spontaneous event from a quantum vacuum

Then claiming it is the Christian God adds layers of theological assumptions not warranted by cosmology alone.

Again I must ask: why must we constantly jump to extraordinary explainations like gods just to bridge a current gap in knowledge? Why continue to trot out the "god of the gaps" fallacy?

 

[AN2]

Lots of problems with your post but lets get to the crux: even if we grant the need for a metaphysical cause, for arguments sake, this still does not imply a personal Creator.

It could be:

• An impersonal force
• A timeless law or structure (e.g., Platonic realism)
• A spontaneous event from a quantum vacuum

Then claiming it is the Christian God adds layers of theological assumptions not warranted by cosmology alone.

Baha!

We really do let them away with this too much..

I asked Tiger in the Origins thread if he would concede that his ID claptrap doesn't point to his God -

Post in thread 'Origins Thread' https://www.sarsfieldsvirtualpub.com/threads/origins-thread.639/post-132553

Of course, he didn't answer

Again I must ask: why must we constantly jump to extraordinary explainations like gods just to bridge a current gap in knowledge? Why continue to trot out the "god of the gaps" fallacy?

 

[Hermit]

You can call it a singularity, I might call it (as I think I did) t=0

The Big Bang theory has nothing to say about that

Huh? The central idea of the Big Bang theory is that is began with a singularity at t=0. Did you mean to say the theory has nothing to say about before the singularity, before t=0? Or that there was no "before" t=0 because time itself did not exist until the bang happened?

Again I must ask: why must we constantly jump to extraordinary explainations like gods just to bridge a current gap in knowledge? Why continue to trot out the "god of the gaps" fallacy?

Explanations about bendy spacetime, time and space being created in a cosmic explosion, all the matter of the universe condensed into an infinitesimal point, quantum fluctuations etc...are extraordinary. A supernatural creator is a simple explanation in comparison.

 

[Haven]

Explanations about bendy spacetime,

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/total-solar-eclipse-100-years-ago-proved-einsteins-general-relativity-180972278/

A result you can see with your own eyes, and repeated many times since.

time and space being created in a cosmic explosion

The universe is expanding.

all the matter of the universe condensed into an infinitesimal point

"Infinitesimal point" is a common way to describe the beginning of the universe, but it's a simplification, and current physics suggests the reality is more complex and not yet fully understood.

quantum fluctuations

Famously demonstated by the Casimir Effect.

But yes, ignore all this and believe its all god if you must. Its a free world.

 

[AN2]

Huh? The central idea of the Big Bang theory is that is began with a singularity at t=0. Did you mean to say the theory has nothing to say about before the singularity, before t=0? Or that there was no "before" t=0 because time itself did not exist until the bang happened?

It is?

No, the Big Bang theory describes the, dare I say it, evolution of the universe the moment after t=0 i.e. t>0. Don't let carnies like @Tiger fool you

Explanations about bendy spacetime, time and space being created in a cosmic explosion, all the matter of the universe condensed into an infinitesimal point, quantum fluctuations etc...are extraordinary. A supernatural creator is a simple explanation in comparison.

 

[Tiger]

No, I haven't

The Big Bang theory has nothing to say about t=0

Evolution has nothing to say about the origin of life

Yet you insist.. they must

You're a complete fucken fraud. Regurgitating claptrap from other frauds

Naturally your reply is revealing more frustration than clarity from your position.

You’ve unintentionally reinforced the exact point I’ve been making. If you admit that the Big Bang theory “has nothing to say about t = 0,” and that evolution “has nothing to say about the origin of life,” then you are acknowledging that the two dominant scientific frameworks used by materialists to explain the universe and life stop precisely where the deepest questions begin.

That’s not a flaw in those sciences—they weren’t designed to answer metaphysical questions. But it is a serious problem for the worldview that tries to use them as total explanations of reality.

As for your accusation, I have no need to trade insults. What I’ve presented are not fabrications, but the very admissions of leading physicists and biologists themselves: Hawking, Vilenkin, Davies, Krauss, and others all acknowledge the metaphysical implications and limits of their models.

You’re Godless, so of course you disagree, that’s fine. But dismissing questions about beginnings and causality with anger doesn’t make those questions disappear. It simply makes the refusal to engage with them more obvious.

 

[AN2]

Naturally your reply is revealing more frustration than clarity from your position.

You’ve unintentionally reinforced the exact point I’ve been making. If you admit that the Big Bang theory “has nothing to say about t = 0,” and that evolution “has nothing to say about the origin of life,” then you are acknowledging that the two dominant scientific frameworks used by materialists to explain the universe and life stop precisely where the deepest questions begin.

That’s not a flaw in those sciences—they weren’t designed to answer metaphysical questions. But it is a serious problem for the worldview that tries to use them as total explanations of reality.

As for your accusation, I have no need to trade insults. What I’ve presented are not fabrications, but the very admissions of leading physicists and biologists themselves: Hawking, Vilenkin, Davies, Krauss, and others all acknowledge the metaphysical implications and limits of their models.

You’re Godless, so of course you disagree, that’s fine. But dismissing questions about beginnings and causality with anger doesn’t make those questions disappear. It simply makes the refusal to engage with them more obvious.

Different day, same shit

Here's what I insist, when you talk about something relating to science, you talk about it

 

[Tiger]

Lots of problems with your post but lets get to the crux: even if we grant the need for a metaphysical cause, for arguments sake, this still does not imply a personal Creator.

It could be:

• An impersonal force
• A timeless law or structure (e.g., Platonic realism)
• A spontaneous event from a quantum vacuum

Then claiming it is the Christian God adds layers of theological assumptions not warranted by cosmology alone.

Again I must ask: why must we constantly jump to extraordinary explainations like gods just to bridge a current gap in knowledge? Why continue to trot out the "god of the gaps" fallacy?

Unfortunately Tank, I'm going to have to destroy your paltry attempts at debate. It’s a shame that you and James have never read a book between you.

“Even if we grant a metaphysical cause, this still does not imply a personal Creator.”

At first glance, this seems reasonable. But it’s incomplete and philosophically evasive. The moment you grant that the universe had a metaphysical cause — that is, something outside of space, time, matter, and energy — you're forced to reckon with the necessary attributes such a cause must possess. It must be:

• Timeless (because time itself began with the Big Bang),
• Spaceless (because space also began then),
• Immaterial (since it exists outside physical matter),
• Uncaused and necessary (since infinite regress is logically incoherent),
• Immensely powerful (it brought the universe into being from non-being),
• And, most crucially, intelligent (because the universe is not random chaos, but rationally ordered and fine-tuned for life and consciousness).

An impersonal force or Platonic structure cannot cause anything. Platonic realism posits that abstract objects exist timelessly, but they do not do anything. The number 7 exists conceptually, but it cannot bake a cake or ignite a star.

As for a quantum vacuum, that objection is dead on arrival. The quantum vacuum is not “nothing.” It is a seething field of energy governed by physical laws. The very existence of a quantum vacuum presupposes a framework of law, structure, space, time, and potentiality — precisely the things that do not exist “before” the Big Bang. So this is not “something from nothing,” but something from a highly structured something. That’s theological sleight-of-hand dressed in lab coats.

“Claiming it is the Christian God adds layers of theological assumptions not warranted by cosmology alone.”

This is a category error. Natural theology, cosmology, and metaphysics bring us to a cause consistent with the nature of classical theism — not just “any god,” but one whose attributes are consistent with the God of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.

But you are correct: cosmology alone cannot exclusively identify the Christian God. That’s where history, revelation, and philosophical coherence (e.g., the contingency of creation, moral realism, the existence of consciousness, and human longing for meaning) come in. The cosmological argument gets you to the door of classical theism. The full portrait of the Christian God emerges from converging lines: the historical resurrection, the philosophical coherence of the Logos, the unparalleled moral vision of Christ, and evidences such as the Shroud of Turin or near-death experiences that defy materialist categories.

But to dismiss the metaphysical argument because it doesn't deliver the full creed of Nicaea in one stroke is like dismissing Einstein's General Relativity because it doesn’t explain quantum gravity.

“Why jump to extraordinary explanations like gods to bridge gaps in knowledge?”

This misrepresents the argument. The appeal to God is not a “gap filler” but an inference to the best explanation based on what we do know, not what we don’t. The universe had a beginning. It is law-governed. It is fine-tuned. It contains moral agents. It is intelligible. These are not mysteries we’re papering over — these are clues that point to an intelligent Mind as the most plausible source.

The “God of the gaps” accusation fails here because theistic philosophers and scientists do not appeal to God where science has no answers — they appeal to God where science cannot in principle go: why there is something rather than nothing, why there are rational laws instead of chaos, why consciousness and objective morality exist, and why the universe is ordered and mathematically describable.

These are philosophical questions, not empirical gaps. And the most intellectually honest minds — from Gödel and Penrose to Lennox and Plantinga — have consistently acknowledged this.

 

[AN2]

NEW! Morgan Uncensored is a discussion with Sean Carroll and Eric Weinstein('s chip on his shoulder). What is it with theists thinking "We don't know" is some sort of gotcha?


View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5m7LnLgvMnM&t=50m3s

Morgan is of course a science illiterate and an imbecile.. but it becomes more egregious when it's people claiming scientific literacy..

We've already seen Stephen C. Meyer in action, now let's have a look at what the great mathematician-scientist-Christian apologist*, John Lennox has to say on the Big Bang -


View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-qVlFoVUkis&t=14m54s

*I don't even know why they're called "apologists" but they should apologise for being despicable liars #godhatesliars

 

[Tiger]

Morgan is of course a science illiterate and an imbecile.. but it becomes more egregious when it's people claiming scientific literacy..

We've already seen Stephen C. Meyer in action, now let's have a look at what the great mathematician-scientist-Christian apologist*, John Lennox has to say on the Big Bang -


View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-qVlFoVUkis&t=14m54s

*I don't even know why they're called "apologists" but they should apologise for being despicable liars #godhatesliars

Nothing says ‘defeat’ more than James pathetically replying to his own inane posts with weak, cheaply put together - biased YouTube videos.

He never responds to arguments directly. An unfortunate bi-product of not knowing what the fuck is going on.

 

[AN2]

Unfortunately Tank, I'm going to have to destroy your paltry attempts at debate. It’s a shame that you and James have never read a book between you.

“Even if we grant a metaphysical cause, this still does not imply a personal Creator.”

At first glance, this seems reasonable. But it’s incomplete and philosophically evasive. The moment you grant that the universe had a metaphysical cause — that is, something outside of space, time, matter, and energy — you're forced to reckon with the necessary attributes such a cause must possess. It must be:

• Timeless (because time itself began with the Big Bang),
• Spaceless (because space also began then),
• Immaterial (since it exists outside physical matter),
• Uncaused and necessary (since infinite regress is logically incoherent),
• Immensely powerful (it brought the universe into being from non-being),
• And, most crucially, intelligent (because the universe is not random chaos, but rationally ordered and fine-tuned for life and consciousness).

An impersonal force or Platonic structure cannot cause anything. Platonic realism posits that abstract objects exist timelessly, but they do not do anything. The number 7 exists conceptually, but it cannot bake a cake or ignite a star.

As for a quantum vacuum, that objection is dead on arrival. The quantum vacuum is not “nothing.” It is a seething field of energy governed by physical laws. The very existence of a quantum vacuum presupposes a framework of law, structure, space, time, and potentiality — precisely the things that do not exist “before” the Big Bang. So this is not “something from nothing,” but something from a highly structured something. That’s theological sleight-of-hand dressed in lab coats.

“Claiming it is the Christian God adds layers of theological assumptions not warranted by cosmology alone.”

This is a category error. Natural theology, cosmology, and metaphysics bring us to a cause consistent with the nature of classical theism — not just “any god,” but one whose attributes are consistent with the God of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.

But you are correct: cosmology alone cannot exclusively identify the Christian God. That’s where history, revelation, and philosophical coherence (e.g., the contingency of creation, moral realism, the existence of consciousness, and human longing for meaning) come in. The cosmological argument gets you to the door of classical theism. The full portrait of the Christian God emerges from converging lines: the historical resurrection, the philosophical coherence of the Logos, the unparalleled moral vision of Christ, and evidences such as the Shroud of Turin or near-death experiences that defy materialist categories.

LMFAO

So, first we have to believe his bullshit for the existence of God.. then we have to believe his bullshit for the existence of his God

This guy brings creationist carnieism to a whole new level

But to dismiss the metaphysical argument because it doesn't deliver the full creed of Nicaea in one stroke is like dismissing Einstein's General Relativity because it doesn’t explain quantum gravity.

“Why jump to extraordinary explanations like gods to bridge gaps in knowledge?”

This misrepresents the argument. The appeal to God is not a “gap filler” but an inference to the best explanation based on what we do know, not what we don’t. The universe had a beginning. It is law-governed. It is fine-tuned. It contains moral agents. It is intelligible. These are not mysteries we’re papering over — these are clues that point to an intelligent Mind as the most plausible source.

The “God of the gaps” accusation fails here because theistic philosophers and scientists do not appeal to God where science has no answers — they appeal to God where science cannot in principle go: why there is something rather than nothing, why there are rational laws instead of chaos, why consciousness and objective morality exist, and why the universe is ordered and mathematically describable.

These are philosophical questions, not empirical gaps. And the most intellectually honest minds — from Gödel and Penrose to Lennox and Plantinga — have consistently acknowledged this.

 

[Tiger]

LMFAO

So, first we have to believe his bullshit for the existence of God.. then we have to believe his bullshit for the existence of his God

This guy brings creationist carnieism to a whole new level

Another hopeless reply.

"When mockery replaces argument, it's usually because there are no arguments left."

Your response contains no refutation, no engagement with the logic presented, no counter-evidence — only ridicule. You’re laughing like an uneducated mong, but you're not reasoning. If my argument is “bullshit,” then you should have no trouble identifying where the reasoning fails. Was it the logic of causality? The explanation of why impersonal abstractions can't cause anything? The rebuttal of the quantum vacuum theory? The differentiation between natural theology and revealed theology?

Instead, your reply reads like a retreat into mockery precisely because you are unwilling or unable to engage at the intellectual level the argument demands. That’s not a rebuttal — it’s a concession.

Philosophers like Edward Feser, and even atheists like Thomas Nagel have understood the seriousness of these arguments. So before dismissing them as “creationist carnieism,” you might want to ask why some of the most distinguished minds on the planet take these issues seriously. It's not faith against science — it's reason following evidence to its natural conclusion.

In short: if you have an argument, make it. If not, the laughter only reveals where the thinking stopped.

Go read a book. stop wasting my time.

 

[AN2]

Another hopeless reply.

"When mockery replaces argument, it's usually because there are no arguments left."

Your response contains no refutation, no engagement with the logic presented, no counter-evidence — only ridicule. You’re laughing like an uneducated mong, but you're not reasoning. If my argument is “bullshit,” then you should have no trouble identifying where the reasoning fails. Was it the logic of causality? The explanation of why impersonal abstractions can't cause anything? The rebuttal of the quantum vacuum theory? The differentiation between natural theology and revealed theology?

Instead, your reply reads like a retreat into mockery precisely because you are unwilling or unable to engage at the intellectual level the argument demands. That’s not a rebuttal — it’s a concession.

Philosophers like Edward Feser, and even atheists like Thomas Nagel have understood the seriousness of these arguments. So before dismissing them as “creationist carnieism,” you might want to ask why some of the most distinguished minds on the planet take these issues seriously. It's not faith against science — it's reason following evidence to its natural conclusion.

In short: if you have an argument, make it. If not, the laughter only reveals where the thinking stopped.

Go read a book. stop wasting my time.

You keep on telling me (and others) that I've never read a book, that I haven't an education worth talking about

I don't value education much (not least because I've been through it) but why would you call someone educated to degree level (B.Sc) not formally educated. What's the point of these silly ad homs?

 

[Tiger]

You keep on telling me (and others) that I've never read a book, that I haven't an education worth talking about

I don't value education much (not least because I've been through it) but why would you call someone educated to degree level (B.Sc) not formally educated. What's the point of these silly ad homs?

It’s curious that you’re far more offended by questions about your intellectual posture than you are concerned with actually answering the questions themselves.

You accuse me of ad hominem, yet you routinely sidestep the central arguments, never engage the hard metaphysical or philosophical issues raised, and instead default to vague dismissals or tone policing. That’s not a mark of serious engagement — that’s evasion.

A B.Sc. is barely respectable these days — and it’s a training in method, not in metaphysics.

The irony here is that by invoking your undergraduate science degree as a kind of intellectual authority, you’re inadvertently illustrating the very problem: a confidence in credentials as a substitute for engagement with the actual arguments. The questions being asked are not lab problems — they’re philosophical in nature, dealing with causality, contingency, and the intelligibility of the universe itself. A B.Sc. doesn’t equip one to answer these questions; at best, it might leave one dimly aware they exist, and at worst, blind to their depth.

So rather than making this about hurt feelings or perceived slights, why not do what any honest intellectual would do — engage with the argument. Show that you can offer a cogent alternative to the metaphysical challenge being posed, instead of retreating into defensiveness. Because so far, the only “weak ad hominems” have been coming from the direction of those who refuse to face the very questions they claim to have outgrown.

 

[AN2]

Another hopeless reply.

"When mockery replaces argument, it's usually because there are no arguments left."

Your response contains no refutation, no engagement with the logic presented

Because there isn't any

Unlike you, I continuously engage your argument, with brevity

Your idea is that your pseudoscientific bullshit - Intelligent Design, is proof of the existence of God

Then, without skipping a beat, you say that the God is your God with an argument like this -

The full portrait of the Christian God emerges from converging lines: the historical resurrection, the philosophical coherence of the Logos, the unparalleled moral vision of Christ, and evidences such as the Shroud of Turin or near-death experiences that defy materialist categories.

If I laugh at you from a scientific perspective, it's because you're laughable

, no counter-evidence — only ridicule. You’re laughing like an uneducated mong, but you're not reasoning. If my argument is “bullshit,” then you should have no trouble identifying where the reasoning fails. Was it the logic of causality? The explanation of why impersonal abstractions can't cause anything? The rebuttal of the quantum vacuum theory? The differentiation between natural theology and revealed theology?

Instead, your reply reads like a retreat into mockery precisely because you are unwilling or unable to engage at the intellectual level the argument demands. That’s not a rebuttal — it’s a concession.

Philosophers like Edward Feser, and even atheists like Thomas Nagel have understood the seriousness of these arguments. So before dismissing them as “creationist carnieism,” you might want to ask why some of the most distinguished minds on the planet take these issues seriously. It's not faith against science — it's reason following evidence to its natural conclusion.

In short: if you have an argument, make it. If not, the laughter only reveals where the thinking stopped.

Go read a book. stop wasting my time.

 

[Tiger]

Because there isn't any

Unlike you, I continuously engage your argument, with brevity

Your idea is that your pseudoscientific bullshit - Intelligent Design, is proof of the existence of God

Then, without skipping a beat, you say that the God is your God with an argument like this -

The full portrait of the Christian God emerges from converging lines: the historical resurrection, the philosophical coherence of the Logos, the unparalleled moral vision of Christ, and evidences such as the Shroud of Turin or near-death experiences that defy materialist categories.

If I laugh at you from a scientific perspective, it's because you're laughable

Ah, the sneer — the last refuge of the man who has nothing left to argue.

You cloak yourself in the modern orthodoxy of scientism — not science, mind you, but the Church of Scientific Materialism, whose sacraments are mockery and whose creed is reductionism. You brand any dissent as “pseudoscience,” not because you’ve understood it, but because your indoctrination requires an automatic excommunication of thought that dares look beyond the petri dish.

You dismiss the convergence of evidence — historical, philosophical, moral, and yes, even empirical — not with counter-evidence, but with a meme-worthy laugh and juvenile taunts. This is not debate. This is auto-pilot deflection masquerading as intellect.

When I point to the Logos — the rational order discernible in creation, which even pagan philosophers acknowledged — you call it “bullshit.” When I point to the Resurrection, the unparalleled moral revolution of Christ, the Shroud of Turin whose properties your beloved “science” cannot replicate or explain, you say, “LMFAO.”

What you’ve demonstrated is not brevity, but bankruptcy.

Your “education,” if that’s what trained you to confuse volume with validity, has failed you. You parade your ignorance as a badge of honour, like a medieval flagellant whipping yourself with the lash of contempt for metaphysics, while pretending it’s sophistication.

The modern atheist is not a man without a god — he is a man whose god is himself. He cannot tolerate a Creator, because it would imply judgment, hierarchy, and an order greater than his whims. That is the true terror you’re avoiding — not the supposed “gaps” in our knowledge, but the gaping hole in your accountability.

So here’s a challenge: Instead of sneering, argue. Instead of hurling terms like “pseudoscience,” engage the evidence. But if all you have left is adolescent sarcasm, then you’re not here to reason — you’re here to perform.

And I’m not here for a circus.

 

[AN2]

It’s curious that you’re far more offended by questions about your intellectual posture than you are concerned with actually answering the questions themselves.

You accuse me of ad hominem, yet you routinely sidestep the central arguments, never engage the hard metaphysical or philosophical issues raised, and instead default to vague dismissals or tone policing. That’s not a mark of serious engagement — that’s evasion.

A B.Sc. is barely respectable these days — and it’s a training in method, not in metaphysics.

The irony here is that by invoking your undergraduate science degree as a kind of intellectual authority

Gosh, can you not lie for 5 minutes?

Not only did I express skepticism about formal education, I said that to say that someone educated to degree level is not formally educated is silly

Why can't you stop lying?

, you’re inadvertently illustrating the very problem: a confidence in credentials as a substitute for engagement with the actual arguments. The questions being asked are not lab problems — they’re philosophical in nature, dealing with causality, contingency, and the intelligibility of the universe itself. A B.Sc. doesn’t equip one to answer these questions; at best, it might leave one dimly aware they exist, and at worst, blind to their depth.

So rather than making this about hurt feelings or perceived slights, why not do what any honest intellectual would do — engage with the argument. Show that you can offer a cogent alternative to the metaphysical challenge being posed, instead of retreating into defensiveness. Because so far, the only “weak ad hominems” have been coming from the direction of those who refuse to face the very questions they claim to have outgrown.

 

[AN2]

Ah, the sneer — the last refuge of the man who has nothing left to argue.

You cloak yourself in the modern orthodoxy of scientism — not science, mind you, but the Church of Scientific Materialism, whose sacraments are mockery and whose creed is reductionism. You brand any dissent as “pseudoscience,” not because you’ve understood it, but because your indoctrination requires an automatic excommunication of thought that dares look beyond the petri dish.

You dismiss the convergence of evidence — historical, philosophical, moral, and yes, even empirical — not with counter-evidence, but with a meme-worthy laugh and juvenile taunts. This is not debate. This is auto-pilot deflection masquerading as intellect.

When I point to the Logos — the rational order discernible in creation, which even pagan philosophers acknowledged — you call it “bullshit.” When I point to the Resurrection, the unparalleled moral revolution of Christ, the Shroud of Turin whose properties your beloved “science” cannot replicate or explain, you say, “LMFAO.”

What you’ve demonstrated is not brevity, but bankruptcy.

Your “education,” if that’s what trained you to confuse volume with validity, has failed you. You parade your ignorance as a badge of honour, like a medieval flagellant whipping yourself with the lash of contempt for metaphysics, while pretending it’s sophistication.

The modern atheist is not a man without a god — he is a man whose god is himself. He cannot tolerate a Creator, because it would imply judgment, hierarchy, and an order greater than his whims. That is the true terror you’re avoiding — not the supposed “gaps” in our knowledge, but the gaping hole in your accountability.

So here’s a challenge: Instead of sneering, argue. Instead of hurling terms like “pseudoscience,” engage the evidence. But if all you have left is adolescent sarcasm, then you’re not here to reason — you’re here to perform.

And I’m not here for a circus.

There really is no doubt that Intelligent Design is pseudoscience, not because Wiki says so, because it is

 

[Tiger]

Gosh, can you not lie for 5 minutes?

Not only did I express skepticism about formal education, I said that to say that someone educated to degree level is not formally educated is silly

Why can't you stop lying?

There it is again — the reflexive sneer, the performance of intellect without its substance.

You’ve now had multiple opportunities to rise to the level of discourse demanded by the very reality you inhabit. Instead, you retreat into derision — a sure sign that you lack not information, but formation.

You are not engaged in reasoned debate. You are reciting fragments of a collapsing epistemology — the religion of scientism, whose priests have long ceased to ask why, preferring instead the trivia of how, so long as it never threatens the sacred illusion that man is autonomous, uncreated, and unaccountable.
I asked you:

• What is the source of rational order in a contingent universe?
• How do impersonal laws birth personal minds?
• How do you ground objective truth in a system where nothing ultimately ought to be?

You answered none. Not because you can’t — but because to even try would be to stand on metaphysical ground your worldview cannot account for.

This isn’t debate. It’s revelation. You are revealing that behind the posturing lies a profound fear — the terror of accountability to a Mind greater than yours.

The ancients called it philosophia — the love of wisdom. You’ve replaced it with the love of noise.

When you’re ready to think rather than parrot, to wrestle with truth rather than flee it — I’ll be here. But until then, I leave you with the words of Chesterton:

“The madman is not the man who has lost his reason. The madman is the man who has lost everything except his reason.”

And your reason, sir, is now at war with itself.

 

[AN2]

There it is again — the reflexive sneer, the performance of intellect without its substance.

You’ve now had multiple opportunities to rise to the level of discourse demanded by the very reality you inhabit. Instead, you retreat into derision — a sure sign that you lack not information, but formation.

Yet another opening paragraphs that says absolutely nothing in response to what I said

Perhaps stop using ChatGPT?

You are not engaged in reasoned debate. You are reciting fragments of a collapsing epistemology — the religion of scientism, whose priests have long ceased to ask why, preferring instead the trivia of how, so long as it never threatens the sacred illusion that man is autonomous, uncreated, and unaccountable.
I asked you:

• What is the source of rational order in a contingent universe?
• How do impersonal laws birth personal minds?
• How do you ground objective truth in a system where nothing ultimately ought to be?

You answered none. Not because you can’t — but because to even try would be to stand on metaphysical ground your worldview cannot account for.

This isn’t debate. It’s revelation. You are revealing that behind the posturing lies a profound fear — the terror of accountability to a Mind greater than yours.

The ancients called it philosophia — the love of wisdom. You’ve replaced it with the love of noise.

When you’re ready to think rather than parrot, to wrestle with truth rather than flee it — I’ll be here. But until then, I leave you with the words of Chesterton:

And your reason, sir, is now at war with itself.

 

[AN2]

There it is again — the reflexive sneer, the performance of intellect without its substance.

You’ve now had multiple opportunities to rise to the level of discourse demanded by the very reality you inhabit. Instead, you retreat into derision — a sure sign that you lack not information, but formation.

You are not engaged in reasoned debate. You are reciting fragments of a collapsing epistemology — the religion of scientism

'Scientism' is just another one of your dumb theist slurs

I have repeatedly and consistently presented (actual) science on this site, unlike you

PS. I always find it amusing that you use religion as mockery

, whose priests have long ceased to ask why, preferring instead the trivia of how, so long as it never threatens the sacred illusion that man is autonomous, uncreated, and unaccountable.
I asked you:

• What is the source of rational order in a contingent universe?
• How do impersonal laws birth personal minds?
• How do you ground objective truth in a system where nothing ultimately ought to be?

You answered none. Not because you can’t — but because to even try would be to stand on metaphysical ground your worldview cannot account for.

This isn’t debate. It’s revelation. You are revealing that behind the posturing lies a profound fear — the terror of accountability to a Mind greater than yours.

The ancients called it philosophia — the love of wisdom. You’ve replaced it with the love of noise.

When you’re ready to think rather than parrot, to wrestle with truth rather than flee it — I’ll be here. But until then, I leave you with the words of Chesterton:

And your reason, sir, is now at war with itself.