Atheists are Dullards Which is Why They are Atheists

[Peter]

Re: chickfangen @ Youtube

If your god does not need a cause and is timeless, we can apply this to a multiverse

A multiverse exists as time and space. God exists outside of time and space. Since the cause is timeless, spaceless and uncaused your multiverse theory falls on its head.

We never have seen evidence and we never have seen the real face and there is really no reason to believe it.

It's illogical you demand to see that which you can't see which is timeless and spaceless. But by the evidence which you don't challenge we know God exists. We even have God's Son enter His creation and prove He is God by the resurrection proof which can't occur naturally.

It could be everything and does not need a personality (don't invoke the bible its written by hallucinating people)

The proof I have given you makes no mention of the Bible, but simply observing nature we know God exists. The Bible states this as the proof also in Rom. 1.20. But God is so gracious He even goes beyond that and gives us the resurrection proof of God the Son.

The DM-4 psychology manual says there is no such thing as group hallucinations, so you're trying to invoke them is delusional on your part.

You are not God so God is not everything. Again, your arrogance and self-exaltation is showing its true colors.

Alright lets discuss the synthetic bacterias now.

Your desire to make synthetic bacteria real bacteria has not been accepted by the scientific community. At best it is just putting machinery into a cell to make it look real like adding an mechanical heart. Moreover, in order to form a real bacteria you would need to do so unintelligently by mixing and mashing of atoms to randomly produce a replicating organism.

There has not been enough interatomic interactions in the history of the universe to even make that possible. I realize you disagree with theoretic physicists who state these facts, but I will concede to their intelligence and not yours since you just don't have the credentials and what they say makes sense.

[Chickfangen]

Are you parture from youtube?

If i would say that the multiverse causes time and space in no time (just like you claim your god does), would you still say it needs a cause?
Your theory states that "god" whatever that is, creates something out of nothing.

But what if the multiverse was always there and never came from nothing? This is just my theory but it makes more sense than god.
I don't know where this theory came from but i heard it from peter atkins: The universe is a separation of opposites and the total combined mass of this universe equals zero.

No, you are invoking the bible by speaking about jesus, etc etc. I heard this argument about mass hallucinations do not happen (except if everyone takes drugs of course). I don't care about the bible, 100% of it is written by humans and the historical "evidence" for jesus is no scientific evidence for god. Maybe there was a man called jesus christus, maybe there was not. Today people see dead people in the streets. Would you say they are jesus?

Bacterias that were made in the lab are real bacterias. They are made out of the same organic matter as every other bacteria. They are no nanobots.

This calculation states that there have not been enough "interatomic interactions" (could you tell me what that word means please?) to create proteins and cells and humans etc. If this would be true, we would not be there.

A self replicating molecule depends always on its environment. Obviously there have been enough "interatomic interactions" to form amino acids and there have been enough "interatomic interactions" to form bigger and bigger molecules, namely macromolcules through mutation. Nature probably didn't just put thousand amino acids together and created proteins but those formed over time.

A few other, not really relevant things that are wrong in this calculation. 10^80 atoms are estimated to be in the OBSERVABLE universe. It is assuming how many interatomic interactions there are in one second. It is also assuming that according to evolution nature just puts thousands of amino acids together and forms a protein. Nobody said this happened. Again it happened slowly over time.

I do not know the source of this calculation but it appears to me that it came from a christian mathematician, not a theoretical physicist. This person is smashing facts and unknown variables together and claims there haven't been enough "interatomic interactions" in the universe.

The problem with this calculation is that it is using cosmology, math and chemistry to disprove evolution.

Parture, your arguments are not very intelligent as well. You called smallness a unit and couldn't explain the logic of free will.

[Parture]

Thanks Peter for your opening comments.

If i would say that the multiverse causes time and space in no time (just like you claim your god does), would you still say it needs a cause? Your theory states that "god" whatever that is, creates something out of nothing.

The problem is your timeless multiverse occupies space, but we have already determined that space needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated. And you are confused about creation. God creates not out of nothing but from out of Himself He creates this wonderful universe with its four dimensions of space and time, or 10 dimensions, or is it 11 now, using M theory.

But what if the multiverse was always there and never came from nothing? This is just my theory but it makes more sense than god. I don't know where this theory came from but i heard it from peter atkins: The universe is a separation of opposites and the total combined mass of this universe equals zero.

A mind is needed to create a mind, but your mindless and pointless always existing universe has no mind. Mindlessness makes no sense at all. You probably heard it from Lawrence Krauss. He has been universally rejected as a crackpot going off the deep end. He garners no respect from the scientific community in his something from nothing videos. If the universe is zero then it should never have existed, since something can't come from nothing.

No, you are invoking the bible by speaking about jesus, etc etc. I heard this argument about mass hallucinations do not happen (except if everyone takes drugs of course). I don't care about the bible, 100% of it is written by humans and the historical "evidence" for jesus is no scientific evidence for god. Maybe there was a man called jesus christus, maybe there was not. Today people see dead people in the streets. Would you say they are jesus?

The proof for God doesn't invoke Jesus. No mention of Jesus is given. Romans 1.20 gives the same proof I have given you. However, the Bible does confirm who this God is, for it is Jesus by the resurrection proof. When people take drugs they hallucinate different things, so again your group hallucination theory is false. The evidence for Jesus is very scientific and meets all necessary historical criteria to be true. Since you can't find a naturalistic explanation to account for the eyewitness testimony of the Apostles in various group settings, you concede Jesus is God even if you don't want to admit it. The burden remains on you. Jesus is the most documented person in antiquity more than any ten figures combined, so if you are going to throw out Jesus from the historical record, you will have to throw out Caesar, Aristotle, Plato, etc. There are no accounts of groups seeing dead people alive in the streets. Group hallucinations are impossible.

Bacterias that were made in the lab are real bacterias. They are made out of the same organic matter as every other bacteria. They are no nanobots.

No bacteria has been created from just the elements of the elemental table mixed together. You're delusional. Abiogenesis has not been proven. It would be all over the news. Do you see how you are willing to believe a lie? All man has been able to do is take a bacteria body and replace some of its motor functions or implant RNA or DNA into it to cause it to function. But nobody has been able to produce these DNA strands from the elemental table.

This calculation states that there have not been enough "interatomic interactions" (could you tell me what that word means please?) to create proteins and cells and humans etc. If this would be true, we would not be there.

When you take all the atoms that ever existed multiplied the number of generously assumed interatomic interactions per atom this is still not enough to produce the first replicating organism. Therefore, the Divine presence is needed to enact it to form our body from dust (Gen. 2.7) over billions of years (1.1).

A self replicating molecule depends always on its environment. Obviously there have been enough "interatomic interactions" to form amino acids and there have been enough "interatomic interactions" to form bigger and bigger molecules, namely macromolcules through mutation. Nature probably didn't just put thousand amino acids together and created proteins but those formed over time.

There have not been enough interatomic interactions in the history of the universe to produce the simplest living organism. Since man can't reproduce this alleged abiogenesis then to claim it is true is wild speculation contrary to the existing evidence we have thusfar.

A few other, not really relevant things that are wrong in this calculation. 10⁸⁰ atoms are estimated to be in the OBSERVABLE universe. It is assuming how many interatomic interactions there are in one second. It is also assuming that according to evolution nature just puts thousands of amino acids together and forms a protein. Nobody said this happened. Again it happened slowly over time.

It is not assuming the number of interatomic interactions per second, but scientists are universally agreed this is the maximum number of interatomic interactions per second of 10¹². 10⁸⁰ is the number of atoms not in the observable but the known universe. This is pretty accurate stuff. Nature would have to put 200 amino acids together as a protein, not in a second, but within 13.7 billion years. It can't do this let alone 1000 proteins for the simplest life form.

I do not know the source of this calculation but it appears to me that it came from a christian mathematician, not a theoretical physicist. This person is smashing facts and unknown variables together and claims there haven't been enough "interatomic interactions" in the universe.

I don't know if he is a Christian, but this is the agreed scientific conclusion by most theoretical scientists such as by John R. Baumgardener, Theoretical Division of Los Alamos National Laboratory. See In Six Days, pp. 224-25. The numbers of 10⁸⁰ is widely accepted.

The problem with this calculation is that it is using cosmology, math and chemistry to disprove evolution.

You're so confused. I believe in evolution. We are not disproving evolution. We are proving evolution can't even begin because you can't produce the first replicating organism. You're not too bright are you?

Parture, your arguments are not very intelligent as well. You called smallness a unit and couldn't explain the logic of free will.

You don't need to explain how God gave us self-consciousness and God-consciousness to know it is exist for it is self-evident, I think, therefore I am. I believe God exists so I have this faith. And you don't need to be God to know free will exists. Our free choices are exhibited daily. How arrogant of you. You will accept nothing less than you being God to know if God exists? How obnoxious!

I don't recall saying anything about smallness of a unit. Perhaps elaborate in what you are talking about.

[Chickfangen]

I quote from a message you send me on youtube, among other not very intelligent arguments.

They say the smallness of things below goes to at least 10 ^120 which is far smaller than just neural connections. We can only see with the strongest telescope as far as 10 ^20. How humbling this is!

This is by far the most dumb thing i have ever read. You confuse a telescope with a microscope and 10 ^ 120 of what? And tell me how is this even relevant?

Lets continue the argument.

Before we discuss the multiverse i will have some things to clear up.

We do not know how big the universe is. 10 ^ 80 are there in the known universe.
Even though it might be true, could you tell me where you get the 10^12 number from?

And there is one thing that you didn't consider. A self replicating molecule forms by the forces of its environment. Even if this calculation is correct, it does not have to mean that self replicating molecules can not form.
One question. Why is it impossible for a simple self replicating molecule IF the environment is right. This calculation does not involve the environment. With this dumb calculation you could disprove that the earth exist, but obviously it exists.

Its all about the molecules environment, can you come up with a calculation for this? There are more variables to be considered than variables that fit in the brain.


About the synthetic bacteria, you realize that you can change the rna to make the bacteria form different structures and cells? We can produce everything a bacteria is made of as far as i know. And you have not considered the following, science can not produce everything that nature can produce, but will be more and more advance. There is nothing supernatural about bacteria or human cells. In future they will be created and they already can be tampered. No need for god here. Biologists already know how they form. Nothing supernatural.

About the multiverse. Whether it occupies space and time or not, it contains everything. If your claims are right about the uncreated whatever then it could be a multiverse, containing space and time, just like you claim your "god" does. Space and time is within the Multiverse.

Lets conclude that
Macromolecules form over time according to their environment.
Cells of bacterias can be tampered.
If you claim that a multiverse has to occupy space and time (although i said that it could be space(s) and time(s) itself) then what makes you think the uncreated occult thing that you are falsely describing as god does not? We conclude the multiverse can exist.
About the mass hallucination, that was a joke. But the point is that people still see dead people walking on a street and the book is 100% written by humans. Because humans make faults we should not trust the bible.

[Parture]

I quote from a message you send me on youtube, among other not very intelligent arguments. This is by far the most dumb thing i have ever read. You confuse a telescope with a microscope and 10 ^ 120 of what? And tell me how is this even relevant?

That doesn't originate from me but from various scientific literature that say the smallness of things goes down to a factor of 10¹²⁰. Actually, I believe it is now 10¹²⁵ according to scientific calculations. We can only visibly see down to the 10²⁰ using existing telescopes. The largest telescope can see down to the minute smaller than microscopes.

There is nothing supernatural about bacteria or human cells. In future they will be created and they already can be tampered. No need for god here. Biologists already know how they form. Nothing supernatural.

Nobody has ever been able to produce abiogenesis. To continue to think man has already done so is delusional. It would be all over the news and the case would finally be settled. Such is not the case.

About the multiverse. Whether it occupies space and time or not, it contains everything. If your claims are right about the uncreated whatever then it could be a multiverse, containing space and time, just like you claim your "god" does. Space and time is within the Multiverse.

If your silly little multiverse always existed you would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so. And you would have never existed, because a past eternity would still be going on, never to reach this point. Thus, nature needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space being uncreated. God does not exist in space time unlike your silly multiverse. You admit "space and time is within the [silly] multiverse." Remember, the uncreated being proven is outside of space and time, unlike your silly unwarranted multiverse.

But the point is that people still see dead people walking on a street and the book is 100% written by humans. Because humans make faults we should not trust the bible.

The Bible was written by humans, but is God's word because it was inspired by the Holy Spirit for posterity. This is proven because you can't find a naturalistic explanation to account for the Apostles' eyewitness testimony in various group settings. The Bible is as God intended for it to be past down. There is something wonderful about God Himself not writing it down with His own hands, but enjoys the participation of humans and relaying those visions and intuitive messages in our conscience in passing down His word in 66 books.

Since God is personal and relational this would make sense.

[Chickfangen]

Convincing.. How many meters is one smallness? Maybe you should invent other units like bigness. Write me a PM so i know the conversions. But that's irrelevant.
And you usually see small things with microscopes not telescopes, just so you know.

If you say "god" created time and space within itself, a multiverse can cause time(s) and space(s) within itself. The problem is that you have double standards there. Again no need for a god here.

Cells of bacteria and we are made out of atoms, just like everything else that breathes (as far as we know). The cells themselves are nothing special. We know what are in those cells. Proteins, water and other non living stuff. Everything living is made out of non living matter.

And you are again wrong, The smallest protein consists out of 20 amino acids. You can combine those molecules in many different ways. According to its environment, protein cells are just the most efficient way of staying alive. Can you imagine how much energy that would cost for human equipment to create cells? But it is possible. Don't you think so?

Again those self replicating molecules have formed more complex and complex. This proves that in the right environment can result in bigger and bigger molecules from where it all started.

You think the infinite regress problem applies to the multiple universe. Wrong. A multiple universe is the description of the existence of everything. It does not change so it does not have an infinite regress problem. All the universes are already there, if you could take a look at them from the multiverse.

Because from this perspective it is being static, it is more logical than a god, because you say your god can make decisions and what not. Before you can provide a scientific proof for god you need to explain free will and how god operates. Else no scientist will take you serious. You will also have to proof that we are in its image and it cares about us.

About the bible its like saying ufos exist because so many people have witnessed them and you can not find a naturalistic explanation for them.
The bible is not to be taken authentic. Its written by humans and they make faults and there is no proof that they were communicating with a real god or something like that.

Do you believe in the big dragons the chinese witnessed? You can not find a naturalistic explanation for this.

[Parture]

Convincing.. How many meters is one smallness? Maybe you should invent other units like bigness. Write me a PM so i know the conversions. But that's irrelevant. And you usually see small things with microscopes not telescopes, just so you know.

Stars don't look small to you? We are discussing factors from the normal viewing eye. This doesn't come from me, but already accepted scientific findings.

If you say "god" created time and space within itself, a multiverse can cause time(s) and space(s) within itself. The problem is that you have double standards there. Again no need for a god here.

You have a doublestandard, because you change your mind from a universe with space time to one without. You keep invoking these new rules you have no evidence for. A universe has time and space. Your fantasy universe is a mindless one, but a mind is needed to create a mind. The lesser can't create the greater.

Cells of bacteria and we are made out of atoms, just like everything else that breathes (as far as we know). The cells themselves are nothing special. We know what are in those cells. Proteins, water and other non living stuff. Everything living is made out of non living matter.

We know we are not just physical beings but also soulical and spiritual. We know that matter alone can't produce self-consciousness and God-consciousness. They are just bouncing atoms.

And you are again wrong, The smallest protein consists out of 20 amino acids. You can combine those molecules in many different ways. According to its environment, protein cells are just the most efficient way of staying alive. Can you imagine how much energy that would cost for human equipment to create cells? But it is possible. Don't you think so?

200 amino acids is the minimum average possible for a protein, and 1000 proteins for the very simplest life possible. Since nobody has ever been able to create a cell from the elements, the evidence suggests you are wrong.

Again those self replicating molecules have formed more complex and complex. This proves that in the right environment can result in bigger and bigger molecules from where it all started.

Yet none can combine to produce replicating life without God's intervention and without a mind.

You think the infinite regress problem applies to the multiple universe. Wrong. A multiple universe is the description of the existence of everything. It does not change so it does not have an infinite regress problem. All the universes are already there, if you could take a look at them from the multiverse.

Everything in a universe is subject to the law of cause and effect, so you would have happened already having had an eternity to do so, and you should never have existed, because a past eternity would still be going on, never to reach this point.

Because from this perspective it is being static, it is more logical than a god, because you say your god can make decisions and what not. Before you can provide a scientific proof for god you need to explain free will and how god operates. Else no scientist will take you serious. You will also have to proof that we are in its image and it cares about us.

The scientific evidence for God was already given by showing nature can't always have existed, so nature needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated. You do not need to know how free will works or anything else about God to know He is uncreated. That sole fact remains. You don't even have to worry about if we are made in His image. We can figure that out later. First acknowledge the uncreated Creator.

About the bible its like saying ufos exist because so many people have witnessed them and you can not find a naturalistic explanation for them. The bible is not to be taken authentic. Its written by humans and they make faults and there is no proof that they were communicating with a real god or something like that. Do you believe in the big dragons the chinese witnessed? You can not find a naturalistic explanation for this.

While people witness many things they can be explained away. And they are not up close and personal as Jesus was with His Apostles He spent 3 years with after which they testified to seeing Jesus alive from dead in various group settings, personally interacting with Him, even touching His side. They never changed their minds and were martyred for this testimony.

The Bible is taken as authentic. The burden remains on you to show otherwise.

"Every document apparently ancient coming from the proper repository or custody and bearing on its face no evident marks of forgery, the law presumes to be genuine and devolves on the opposing party the burden of proving it to be otherwise."

"This ancient document, the Scripture, has come from the proper repository, that is, it is has been in the hands of the persons of the Church for 2000 years almost and it bears on its face no evident marks of forgery, and therefore the law presumes it to be genuine, and those who would presume otherwise upon them devolves the responsibility of proving it to be false. We don't have to prove it to be true. They have to prove it to be false. That's what the law says."

(Simon Greenleaf, The Testimony of the Evangelists: The Gospels Examined for the Rules of Evidence)

The word of God has no faults. That's why you can't show any. You know this is God's word because you can't find a naturalistic explanation for the original of the disciples' eyewitness testimony in various group settings.

I find no group attestation of a big dragon documented like we have the for the testimony of the Apostles in multiple group settings. Silly boy.

[chf2]

This will probably be the last word i am posting in this forum, but its worth it.

You are comparing the size of stars with the size of atoms.

For a choice you need cause and effect. If cause and effect are time and god is timeless it has no choice.
At the end everything is predestined or atleast static.

If you say that god has an infinite past and an infinite future and it is timeless and contains us we can use the same description for a multiverse.

Whatever there is at the end of the existence it most likely is static. It maybe has no past and no future and no time and contains time and space.

The multiverse theory seems pretty plausible because a multiverse is all the universes viewed from outside. It has no cause and no effect and is the source of all existence if you want to describe it like this. So its basically uncreated. Just the whole bunch of universes and all there is together.

And by the way mass hysteria was observed a few times. And i can come up with a naturalistic explanation for what happened with jesus. People back then were not as smart as we are today, so they explained everything with god, like you do.

And there are group witnesses and myths about dragons and ufos. Many people claim to have seen them. Lets not forget the snake god from the mayas. Or the gods from the mahabharata. Those books are all equally false. All are impressive and have a lot of eye witnesses. I don't see any reason to believe what ancient books say. They have no worth except for historians and religious people.

Long story short cause and effect means time, if god is timeless he can not make decisions since decisions would involve cause and effect.
A mind is not required to create a mind, logic is required to create a mind. Perfect examples are computers. They are more stupid than humans are.

[Parture]

You are comparing the size of stars with the size of atoms.

Not at all. What is in view is magnification.

For a choice you need cause and effect. If cause and effect are time and god is timeless it has no choice.
At the end everything is predestined or atleast static.

A choice naturally occurs in time. God has afforded us all our free choices. God outside of time and space created all possible choices for us in any given scenario. Since God transcends time and space He can do this, and He is not limited by His creation.

If you say that god has an infinite past and an infinite future and it is timeless and contains us we can use the same description for a multiverse.

Timeless space that is mindless fails to compare to God's mind outside of space since a mind is needed to create a mind.

Whatever there is at the end of the existence it most likely is static. It maybe has no past and no future and no time and contains time and space.

Since you admit nature has an end in the past then it needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated. Indeed, God is unchanging. He is perfect outside of time and space. Since you want to invoke infinite regress by saying "contains space and time," obviously this can't be because you would have happened already having had an eternity to do so, and you would never have existed because a past eternity would still be going on never to reach this point. The concept of eternity is contradictory because infinity - 2 = infinity and infinity + 2 = infinity. Addition and subtraction break down. Infinite regress, therefore, is just an idea in man's imagination, but has nothing to do with reality.

The multiverse theory seems pretty plausible because a multiverse is all the universes viewed from outside. It has no cause and no effect and is the source of all existence if you want to describe it like this. So its basically uncreated. Just the whole bunch of universes and all there is together.

Everything in nature is seen to have a cause. So is true for any multiverse you want to imagine.

And by the way mass hysteria was observed a few times. And i can come up with a naturalistic explanation for what happened with jesus. People back then were not as smart as we are today, so they explained everything with god, like you do.

Mass hysteria is based on beliefs so it is not the same thing as eyewitness testimony in various group settings. This is why the proof of Scripture is so powerful. In fact, the lawyer in the Guinness Book of Records who won 245 cases in a row said the case for the life, death, burial, resurrection, ascension and deity of Jesus is the best proven case he has ever seen.

We explain everything today with God as well, since nature can't just start up all by itself nor always have existed so God is the source. You didn't actually provide a naturalistic explanation just by saying they believed in God to account for their eyewitness testimony in various group settings. Whether they believed in God or not, the fact remains they maintained their eyewitness testimony to the day they died, and people don't willingly die for something they know is a lie. They were all martyred except John. And in fact John was almost killed several times as well without changing his eyewitness testimony of being with Jesus in person on many different occasions with the other Apostles.

And there are group witnesses and myths about dragons and ufos. Many people claim to have seen them. Lets not forget the snake god from the mayas. Or the gods from the mahabharata. Those books are all equally false. All are impressive and have a lot of eye witnesses. I don't see any reason to believe what ancient books say. They have no worth except for historians and religious people.

Certainly individuals can hallucinate individually, but there is no such thing as group hallucinations cited in history with multiple corroborating evidence of testimony like we have for the Apostles. Unless you can produce your alleged eyewitnesses like we have for the Bible you're just blowing smoke. If you can't find a naturalistic explanation to account for the eyewitnesses then you are effectively conceding Jesus is God. Praise the Lord!

Long story short cause and effect means time, if god is timeless he can not make decisions since decisions would involve cause and effect. A mind is not required to create a mind, logic is required to create a mind. Perfect examples are computers. They are more stupid than humans are.

God is the creator of cause and effect. He is not restricted by your petty rules. Since the lesser can never produce the greater, a mind is required to create a mind. God is perfectly logical, the most logical being there has ever been. Computers could never produce a human being.

[Churchwork]

The advantage we theists have over atheists without knowing anything else is they still can't after all this time produce replicating life from mixing the elements together as the universe would (abiogenesis). Their continued failure year after year with a seemingly exponential increase in knowledge is evidence not for atheism but against atheism and for theism all else being equal. They should be getting closer to their goal of abiogenesis, not further away.