View allAll Photos Tagged Debates
Charla en el rototom. Todos los días se organizan debates sobre diferentes temas, en su mayoría, tratan sobre asuntos de injusticia social. La solución; PEACE, LOVE AND UNITY.
THE DEBATE:
Truth in science (THEIST).
Atheism revealed as false - why God MUST exist
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/24321857975/in/dat...
________________________________________________
langleyo (ATHEIST).
God created/caused the universe - your argument is proved false.
The First Cause Argument, or Cosmological Argument, is internally contradictory and raises the following questions: Who or what created god?, Why should a hypothetical ‘cause’ have any of the common attributes of a god?, Why is the ‘cause’ a specific god?, Why can’t the universe be causeless too? and, most importantly, Why rule out all other possible explanations?
It is fundamentally a ‘god of the gaps’ approach. Our current lack of understanding concerning the Universe’s origins does not automatically mean ‘god’ holds any explanatory value. Metaphysical and theistic speculation are not immediately justified or correct simply because we lack a comprehensive scientific model. Uncertainty is the most valid position and one can honestly say “We just don’t know yet”.
The argument ignores the fact that our everyday understanding of causality has been arrived at via a posteriori inductive reasoning – which means it might not apply to everything. Time, for instance, appears to have begun with the Big Bang, so there might not have been any ’cause’ for the Universe to be an ‘effect’ of since there was probably no time for a ’cause’ to exist in. Applying concepts like time and causality to the Big Bang might be comparable to asking “What is north of the North Pole?” – ultimately nonsensical and incoherent. Furthermore, even if causality could be established it would not immediately imply the existence of a god, much less any particular one, as the properties and nature of the ’cause’ could forever remain a mystery or be naturalistic.
In fact, something can come from nothing and we are able to OBSERVE it in the form of virtual particles and quantum vacuum fluctuations. They explain why the early universe lacked uniformity and provided the seeds for the emergence of structure. These quantum phenomena are also causeless in the sense that they are objectively and irreducibly random, a fact confirmed by tests of non-local realism and Bell’s Theorem.
Theists often state “God is outside of time”. This claim does not actually make their speculation correct. Instead, it brings with it a whole host of problems and may be immediately dismissed as being without basis and a type fallacy known as special pleading.
And thanks for driving the extra traffic to my website :)
______________________________________________
Truth in science (THEIST).
You obviously don't understand simple logic. That old atheist standby "Who or what created god?" argument was debunked as the ridiculous argument it is, centuries ago, yet atheists still insist on using it.
To ask: what caused or came before the first cause (God)? is obviously not a valid question. If something is a FIRST cause, it is obvious that no other cause preceded it. Which means it is uncaused and must have always existed.
You asked:
"Why can’t the universe be causeless too?"
Because the universe is a natural entity and ALL natural entities are contingent. To deny that is to deny the fundamental principle of the scientific method. Natural things are limited by their reliance on adequate causes. That is and has always been the inherent nature all material things. It cannot be changed. Natural entities are not and never have been autonomous. To claim they were at some time in the past, means explaining how and why they would change their nature and properties to inferior ones?
You wrote:
"In fact, something can come from nothing and we are able to observe it in the form of virtual particles and quantum vacuum fluctuations. They explain why the early universe lacked uniformity and provided the seeds for the emergence of structure. These quantum phenomena are also causeless in the sense that they are objectively and irreducibly random, a fact confirmed by tests of non-local realism and Bell’s Theorem."
Smoke and mirrors - particles don't come from nothing, they are part of the material realm, as are vacuums. There is no such thing as a true vacuum, in the sense of a vacuum meaning complete emptiness or 'nothing'. A vacuum is simply the absence of air or gases. A vacuum still contains other tangible things such as radio waves, gamma rays etc.
You wrote:
"These quantum phenomena are also causeless in the sense that they are objectively and irreducibly random"
Sorry, but they are not causeless. Randomness does not equal causeless. As part of the caused material realm, they are caused to exist by that which caused matter/energy to exist. There is not even such a thing as pure randomness, because natural laws, based on the properties of all material things, dictate how things should behave based on those properties. You won't get particles becoming something other than that which their properties permit.
You wrote:
"Applying concepts like time and causality to the Big Bang might be comparable to asking “What is north of the North Pole?” – ultimately nonsensical and incoherent."
"What is north of the North Pole?" Yes, asking that would be nonsensical and incoherent, just like asking what caused the first cause is nonsensical. Nevertheless atheists keep on asking it. The difference is that the first cause is non-contingent, by virtue of being first, it cannot have a cause, so it must be non-contingent, and therefore cannot be a natural entity.
The so-called Big Bang is a natural event and therefore, according to science, it has to be contingent, it has to have had a cause. So the idea that asking what caused it is like asking - what is north of the North Pole? Is not plausible.
That 'north of the North Pole' argument - is simply an atheist rip off, in a different guise, of the theist argument formulated centuries ago. That asking 'what caused the first cause' is an invalid question. But applying that theist argument to a natural event, in order to evade answering the question what caused the Big Bang or the so-called 'Singularity', doesn't work. Using a theist argument in disguise, for a naturalistic origins scenario, is a clever bit of sleight of hand, perhaps. But luckily we are not all taken in by it.
_______________________________________________
langleyo (ATHEIST).
Yet you still avoid explaining why it has to be your god above all other possible explanations. The revelation is complete, you do not understand your OWN logic when it comes to belief.
"You obviously don't understand simple logic. That old atheist standby "Who or what created god?" argument was debunked as the ridiculous argument it is, centuries ago, yet atheists still insist on using it."
That's because religiots haven't addressed it with evidence satisfactorily in CENTURIES! The fail is with the religiots. And the question is still valid after all that time. It is difficult to turn imagination into reality. That's why we stick with, and insist on, evidence. It is why you will never succeed in convincing sane rational, free thinking people of your delusion.
"Smoke and mirrors" Explain how you know better than people who made this their lifelong work to study. You cannot and do not. All you have is a charlatan's handbook full of "revealed truth". Stories, not evidence.
I have addressed all your "questions" in full, yet you still choose not to accept the evidence, in favour of your own silly beliefs. You, sir, are the proverbial pigeon, worthy of the Ken Ham award for lack of sensory input.
You still haven't addressed my fundamental question: How can you possibly know god created everything when there were no witnesses? You weren't there! See my original picture. No evidence, no discussion. Sir, you are deluded!
And now you resort to spamming across MANY posts to get your silly point across. Sir, you are deluded and incapable of participating in rational discussion. That is borderline mental illness. Any more blatant spamming from you will be terminated. Keep it "logical" and relevant, though it is deluded. I won't tolerate you crapping everywhere like the proverbial chess playing pigeon!
________________________________________________
Truth in science (THEIST).
I wrote in my last post:
"That old atheist standby "Who or what created god?" argument was debunked as the ridiculous argument it is, centuries ago, yet atheists still insist on using it."
You answered:
"That's because religiots haven't addressed it with evidence satisfactorily in CENTURIES! The fail is with the religiots. And the question is still valid after all that time. It is difficult to turn imagination into reality. That's why we stick with, and insist on, evidence."
So you think that asking - what caused the FIRST cause (God)? - is a sensible question?
Enough said about that then, I think it speaks for itself.
You wrote:
""Smoke and mirrors" Explain how you know better than people who made this their lifelong work to study. You cannot and do not. All you have is a charlatan's handbook full of "revealed truth". Stories, not evidence."
It is very sad that some people have wasted a lifetime studying how to justify a natural origin scenario, regardless of the obvious fact that such a naturalist scenario would violate natural laws and fundamental scientific principles. But if you start with a false premise, you will inevitably end with a false conclusion. It is not my problem that their life's work can be so easily refuted. If they had not started with ideological preconceptions which they were trying to justify, they would not have fallen into the trap of spending a lifetime chasing a phantom.
For example:
From your copied and pasted, previous post, which I should have addressed in my last comment:
"The argument ignores the fact that our everyday understanding of causality has been arrived at via a posteriori inductive reasoning – which means it might not apply to everything. Time, for instance, appears to have begun with the Big Bang, so there might not have been any ’cause’ for the Universe to be an ‘effect’ of since there was probably no time for a ’cause’ to exist in"
That is just a ridiculous assertion that hasn’t been thought through properly.
Time is a chronology of natural (physical) events.
Of course time, as we know it, began with the creation of the material realm. Theists knew that time is a physical thing, long before Einstein confirmed it in the 20th century.
Time, being physical, only applies to physical things. It doesn't apply to non-physical, non-tangible or abstract things. For example time doesn't affect information or truth ...
2 + 2 = 4 is both statistical information and truth. It is eternally existent and eternally true. It is not reliant on time. Information may require physical media to make it tangible to humans, but its failure to be stored or recorded in tangible form, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist anymore.
King Henry VIII had six wives - that is a piece of historical information, it can be written down and stored on paper, or stored in other media such as a computer disc, micro chip, or human memory.
However, if it is not stored in any tangible media, it doesn’t cease to be an historical fact. It will always be true, now, in a million years time, and for all eternity.
Time just doesn’t affect it, because it is not a physical thing - it is outside of time. It cannot be changed by the passage of time, or even diminished by whether we know about it or not. Therefore, the idea that - "there might not have been any ’cause’ for the Universe to be an ‘effect’ of since there was probably no time for a ’cause’ to exist in" - is just erroneous twaddle.
Information is a non-physical entity that exists outside of time, truth also exists outside of time - and thus the original source of information, the non-physical, eternally-existent, first cause (or the Word - ‘Logos’ as the Bible describes it) MUST exist outside of time.
You wrote :
"I have addressed all your "questions" in full, yet you still choose not to accept the evidence, in favour of your own silly beliefs."
No you haven’t, you just posted a tract, copied and pasted from some atheist website. It is not evidence. As I have demonstrated - it is erroneous nonsense. If you disagree, then tell me where my refutation of it is wrong ?
You wrote :
"And now you resort to spamming across MANY posts to get your silly point across. Sir, you are deluded and incapable of participating in rational discussion. That is borderline mental illness. Any more blatant spamming from you will be terminated. Keep it "logical" and relevant, though it is deluded. I won't tolerate you crapping everywhere like the proverbial chess playing pigeon!"
Yes, pot and kettle immediately comes to mind.
Please abide by your own rules regarding your posts on my images.
BTW. I am keeping a copy of this debate, in case you delete it.
And also for me to use elsewhere as an example of a typical theist versus atheist debate.
I hope you don't mind.
_______________________________________________
langleyo (ATHEIST).
I don't mind at all so long as it is published virgo intacta and not pruned or doctored in any way to suit your argument. There is a precedence for this already. :)
_______________________________________________
Truth in science (THEIST).
Your posts have never been pruned or tampered with by me.
I suggest you keep a copy of them, so that I don't get falsely accused, like I have been previously.
_______________________________________________
langleyo (ATHEIST).
Truth in science Maybe it was God or Jesus correcting us :)
_______________________________________________
<a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/16588758365
Hadija Chalupe, Pedro Curi e Giu Jorge, realizadores de "Retângulos Brancos" em debate com mediação de Ananda Guimarães
Hadija Chalupe, Pedro Curi e Giu Jorge, realizadores de "Retângulos Brancos" em debate com mediação de Ananda Guimarães
The array of literature tables set up at the back of the room during the debate, held at Wilfred Laurier University in Kitchener, Ontario
Wednesday September 14
The Role of Nuclear Power in Ontario's Clean Energy Future: A Debate
Hosted by: Canadians Advocating Political Participation and Fair Vote Canada Waterloo
The province of Ontario is at a turning point in deciding how to meet future energy needs, and each of the provincial parties have a different energy plan for Ontario's future. Are the purchase of the new nuclear reactor's the best plan to meet Ontario's future energy needs? What role should nuclear play in Ontario's energy future? The purpose of this debate is to provide us, as voters, with a better understanding of the issue, beyond the rhetoric, that we can take with us as we go to the polls.
The debate was between Derek Satnik (http://www.mi-group.ca/keystaff.html), professional engineer and renewable energy policy expert, and Ron Oberth, nuclear expert and President of the Board of the Organization of CANDU Industries
(https://oci-aic.org/committees/oci-board-of-directors/)
The audience was asked to vote before and after the debate on the resolution: "That nuclear energy is a necessary component to meet Ontario's energy needs", in order to determine if the debaters were able to influence any opinions.
Thanks to Obama & Biden, the debates resembled the cast from Toy Story.
Thanks to FOX for covering the REAL STORY.
Mitt Romney - as the Commander, "Buzz Lightyear."
Barack Obama - as the "Big Baby."
Joe Biden - as "Chuckles the Clown."
Paul Ryan - as the Cowboy, "Woody." - - -
Fox Characters:
Sean Hannity, (The Soldier), Kimberly Guilfoyle (Dolly), Andrea Tantaros (Dolly), Dana Perino (Jesse the Cowgirl), Eric Bolling (Lots O' Huggin Bear), Bob Beckel (Chunk), Steve Doocy (Ken Doll), Gretchen Carlson (Barbie Doll), Geraldo (Mr. Potatohead), Bill O'Reilly (the Alien), Megyn Kelly (Bo Peep), Brian Kilmeade (Bookworm), Greg Gutfeld (Mr. Pricklepants), Neil Cavuto (jack-in-the-box), Britt Hume, Brett Baier and Chris Wallace (3 peas in a pod)
South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg speaks with media in the spin room after taking part in the Democratic Presidential Debate at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles, California, on Dec. 19, 2019. The debate was held at Gersten Pavilion with the adjoining Burns Recreation Center serving as the spin room. The primary election debate took place a day after the U.S. House of Representatives voted to impeach President Donald Trump.
Debate na Câmara de Diadema sobre reforma política pelo Deputado Federal José de Filippi. 30_05_2011
Did you plant your IDEA in the Debate Tree Gallery at African Studie Centre and NABC’s Africa Works conference the 16th or 17th of October? Check here your and the other participant's Statement Selfies (Stelfies). Why were they pro or con the statement Africa Works? The fruit of your thoughts will be used as starting point for IDEA’s 'grow in debate workshop' at Africa Day (Afrikadag) the 1st of November. IDEA’s young African participants from the
African Inclusion project made a live stream report, which can be viewed at the Africa Works website.
Don’t forget to share your Debate Tree IDEA: @idebateNL @AfricaWorks2014 #Debatetree
Did you plant your IDEA in the Debate Tree Gallery at African Studie Centre and NABC’s Africa Works conference the 16th or 17th of October? Check here your and the other participant's Statement Selfies (Stelfies). Why were they pro or con the statement Africa Works? The fruit of your thoughts will be used as starting point for IDEA’s 'grow in debate workshop' at Africa Day (Afrikadag) the 1st of November. IDEA’s young African participants from the
African Inclusion project made a live stream report, which can be viewed at the Africa Works website.
Don’t forget to share your Debate Tree IDEA: @idebateNL @AfricaWorks2014 #Debatetree
Did you plant your IDEA in the Debate Tree Gallery at African Studie Centre and NABC’s Africa Works conference the 16th or 17th of October? Check here your and the other participant's Statement Selfies (Stelfies). Why were they pro or con the statement Africa Works? The fruit of your thoughts will be used as starting point for IDEA’s 'grow in debate workshop' at Africa Day (Afrikadag) the 1st of November. IDEA’s young African participants from the
African Inclusion project made a live stream report, which can be viewed at the Africa Works website.
Don’t forget to share your Debate Tree IDEA: @idebateNL @AfricaWorks2014 #Debatetree
Did you plant your IDEA in the Debate Tree Gallery at African Studie Centre and NABC’s Africa Works conference the 16th or 17th of October? Check here your and the other participant's Statement Selfies (Stelfies). Why were they pro or con the statement Africa Works? The fruit of your thoughts will be used as starting point for IDEA’s 'grow in debate workshop' at Africa Day (Afrikadag) the 1st of November. IDEA’s young African participants from the
African Inclusion project made a live stream report, which can be viewed at the Africa Works website.
Don’t forget to share your Debate Tree IDEA: @idebateNL @AfricaWorks2014 #Debatetree