Black female atheists...do you exist?

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

"theological noncognitivism" allows you the ability to shift definitions when pressed for any legitimate reinforcement of any assertion you make.

I don't make ANY assertions I can't back up with evidence.......unlike YOU.

You're trapped in an untenable stance and don't know how to get out.

​

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Then you'd have to disprove the Big Bang Theory,​

which doesn't say anything about your deity or proves everything has a cause.

the 1st Law of Thermodynamics,

which doesn't say anything about your deity or proves everything has a cause.

Red Shift,

the percieved expansion of the universe is irrelevant, which doesn't say anything about your deity or proves everything has a cause.

Cosmic Background Radiation,

which doesn't say anything about your deity or proves everything has a cause.

and a few hundred other pieces of hard evidence along with proving an effect can precede a cause.

which doesn't say anything about your deity or proves everything has a cause.

This is evidence of an event, not that everything has a cause.

Listing effects after a perceived cause does not mean said thing had a cause.

All of which does support my claim that the Universe began to exist.

Good luck with that.

It actually doesn't, since we don't know what was there before the "big bang"

Not even close. You'd have to disprove the first and second premises. The conclusion (3) naturally follows.


​

Part of theology works so well because it forces you to accept the argument without considering the alternatives.

You've already committed to accepting that theism is true, so instead of addressing the flaws in your repeated assertions, you steam roll through them and proceed to bolster ignorance in illogical "theology (a bullshyt methodology if I EVER saw one)"

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

In science like physics and chemistry, we learn about entropy, or the level of disorder in a system. The universe prefers a high level of entropy because it takes an input of energy to keep things precise. If you have to put energy into something, then it's not spontaneous, which means it won't just naturally happen.

Since I'm microbiology/biochemistry, I learn a lot about about different systems that go on in nature, many of which require energy and are super specific, which goes against entropy and shyt.

So I'm like, well if the universe prefers everything to be in a disordered state, then why is stuff like photosynthesis and cell metabolism so specific? Why is life basically controlled by ordered systems? It doesn't really make sense that one day everything just magically started going. If you gotta input energy to get it going...then who/what initially inputted the energy?

This is a flawed assertion.

Tendency towards disorder doesn't mean subsystems can't exhibit order.

on top of that, you don't make a distinction between open and closed systems.

This is what people get confused about the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

which doesn't say anything about your deity or proves everything has a cause.which doesn't say anything about your deity or proves everything has a cause.​

What's a 'diety'?

The rest of your post is nonsense.

Disprove this argument:

P1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
P2. The Universe began to exist.
Conclusion: The Universe had a cause.​

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

I believe in a creator (me being a STEM major actually promoted this) but idk if I believe in a Moral Detective person in the sky

I actually lean more toward agnostic

No offense, but this is a classic god of the gaps argument.

Basically, you know enough to assert that god clearly doesn't exist in as much as you know about the natural world, but in the margin of misunderstood or unknown concepts, you assert thats where god resides.

Its intellectually disingenuous.

 

[Linz]

and it blatantly promotes slavery but you aint hear it from me

Slavery is Not the slavery like the slavery of the african americans. Slavery back then you get paid you got clothes food and everything just like a worker. it was just job for poor people that can not feed them

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

I don't make ANY assertions I can't back up with evidence.......unlike YOU.

You're trapped in an untenable stance and don't know how to get out.

​

Again:

Just because you have shown results of an event, does not mean all events have a cause.

Otherwise, you're left to face the question that your god must have had a cause.

But if you answer: "well my god always existed"

Then the question becomes: "Why can't the universe have always existed?"

You want to attribute to "god" what is ultimately unsubstantiated. i.e. God of the gaps.

Its not that you're wrong, but rather you haven't substantiated your argument.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Again:
Just because you have shown results of an event, does not mean all events have a cause.

Prove it. Show an event that hasn't been caused.

I'll wait.

Also, you go to great lengths to say that you are not gay, yet stand ready to defend them at any opportunity, yet, when I do the same for religious people, you become a hypocrite.

Your stance is not built on a firm foundation.
​

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

What's a 'diety'?​

whatever you keep moving the goalposts to mean when questioned

You keep defending the concept, so define it.

If we're not talking about "something," then we're talking about "nothing."

The rest of your post is nonsense.

The irony...

Disprove this argument:

P1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

This is not proven.

P2. The Universe began to exist.

This APPEARS to be true, but we have no way of knowing if the universe existed in its previous form before it did in this present form

Conclusion: The Universe had a cause.

That we know of...but this is not inherently proven.

Theres evidence of this, but its not proven.

You're relying on ambiguity and the margins of syntax within philosophically inferior arguments in lieu of established scientific observation to push a theological concept thats the last refuge of charlatans and the scientifically illiterate.


Do better.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

whatever you keep moving the goalposts to mean when questioned ​

I'm questioning YOU. Not the other way around. Now, can you prove an event can occur before it's cause or without one or not?

​

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Prove it. Show an event that hasn't been caused.​

This doesn't make any sense.

I can't prove a negative.

I'll wait.

And wait, you shall.

Also, you go to great lengths to say that you are not gay, yet stand ready to defend them at any opportunity, yet, when I do the same for religious people, you become a hypocrite.

Sure. Call it what you want, but supporting the autonomy of otherwise normal citizens says nothing about my views on religion.

Defending one concept neither means you're a member of that group, nor that you should defend all other concepts.

What sort of specious logic is that?

Your stance is not built on a firm foundation.

I see why you're an engineer and not a researcher ​

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

I'm questioning YOU. Not the other way around. Now, can you prove an event can occur before it's cause or without one or not?
​

No. I can't prove that because i'm not asserting that.

If YOU assert that ALL things have a cause, you must demonstrate that.

if you fail to demonstrate that, IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT YOU ARE WRONG...BUT MERELY THAT YOU HAVE NOT SUPPORTED YOUR IDEA.

Epistemology would do you well.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Slavery is Not the slavery like the slavery of the african americans. Slavery back then you get paid you got clothes food and everything just like a worker. it was just job for poor people that can not feed them

So you're defending a form of slavery huh?

Because the fact that 2000 years ago, NO ONE was actually enslaved in any other system was possible, right?

 

[Poitier]

This doesn't make any sense.

I can't prove a negative.

And​

He is saying demonstrate an event that has happened but had no antecedent.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

This doesn't make any sense.

I can't prove a negative.
​

Bullshyt. You need a logic course. Absence of proof is not proof of absence.

Here's the argument again:

P1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
P2: The Universe began to exist.
C: The Universe has a cause.
​