Saturday, November 18, 2017

Refuted: Sacerdotus Is (Even More) Stupid (Than Previously Thought) Pt. 1





Once again, AtheismNtheCity restated his/her errors while attacking me personally. He/she claims that I did not refute his/her posts despite many atheists telling him/her otherwise.  He/she recently wrote this response which I easily refuted again.  I hope you enjoy it and see how stupid atheism and atheists can be.


My comments are in bold after "Sacerdotus:"


http://www.atheismandthecity.com/2017/11/sacerdotus-is-even-more-stupid-than.html#sthash.KkIPSKDv.uxfs
<<Author's note: I know I just wrote that I'd be spending more time writing about social issues and lay off atheism for a bit, but a recent attempt to rebut my blog post on why I'm an atheist got my attention and prompted me to make a response. I'll get back to social issues when this is done.


A supposed "philosopher" who challenged me on my post Why I'm An Atheist, wrote a follow up to my follow up, and in it he claims again, that's he's refuted me and that I'm ignorant of science and philosophy. The exact opposite is true and I can easily show why. His arguments are so bad, they are laughable. And I don't mean this to be facetious, I mean this with all seriousness. He makes so many common argumentative mistakes and factual errors that I cannot take him seriously that he has a degree in philosophy and science. If he does have a degree, he should get a refund, because he apparently learned no serious critical thinking skills because of it. His arguments are on the caliber of the same old tired internet apologist, like the many wannabe William Lane Craig clones out there. Only he's at the low end of the spectrum.

The supposed philosopher's pen name is Sacerdotus and he accuses me of nothing more than ad hominem attacks. This is false, and a common misunderstanding of what an ad hominem attack is. An ad hominemattack is when you attack your opponent instead of attacking their arguments. I attacked his arguments, quite successfully, in addition to attacking his character. So I made no ad hominem attacks because I addressed his sad excuses for an argument, quite successfully. The reason why I call him stupid in most post (aside from being accurate, is because he calls atheism stupid. I'm giving him a taste of his own medicine, and he calls it an ad hominem! The irony.

I'm going to refute his attempt at refuting my refutation to show how he still just doesn't get it, and is making the same mistakes over and over. His words will appear in block quotes. In the beginning of his post he writes,

As Socrates said, "When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser."  Well, we now see the loser show his/her face via ad hominem, so to speak.  He even calls me "gay," which shows he clearly is the losing party.

I called him gay because he is gay, not because it is a slander, and he's a Catholic who defends the church. I find that relevant. If you're going to defend a church that for centuries tried to destroy your existence, that is telling and relevant. If he's not actually gay, then I apologize.

Notice how his replies are just a restatement of his/her previous errors already refuted and how he/she avoids addressing my refutation directly.  I will once again re-refute his/her nonsense and show how they are false when vetted against science, philosophy, and theology just as I have before.  

The point is he didn't actually refute my original arguments. And so what I did was I just explained them further with more insight into why his responses didn't refute them. My arguments mostly went right over his head because they're too sophisticated for him, despite his supposed (and apparently useless) degree in philosophy. My arguments are the culmination of years and years debating theism and they are not entry-level arguments. They rely on a deep understanding of science and philosophy, like a deep understanding of special relativity, which Sacerdotus clearly doesn't have because he doesn't understand at all what special relativity implies for our understanding of time and causality.

So let me refute his attempt at a rebuttal one by one to show (very easily) how his arguments all completely fail. This will be done over several parts throughout this week. Starting with my first argument:>>


Sacerdotus:


As expected, the alleged atheist who goes by the moniker "Atheismnthecity" is continuing to play pigeon chess. The author just restates the previous errors I refuted claiming them not to have been refuted and then resorts to ad hominem. Notice how he/she continues to call me stupid despite not having a college degree. This author calling me stupid is like a kid playing with blocks stating that an engineer does not know what he/she is doing. You can see this clearly in this author's posts which are deprived of reason and facts. I will once again refute his/her nonsense as it is elementary and is not strong.

It seems to me that this author is engaging in this pigeon chess in order to gain hits. I am extremely popular among atheists on and offline. Any engagement with me will of course bring attention to his/her insignificant blog. We can see that this author is not serious about providing facts or strong arguments. He/she resorts to ad hominem by making attacks on my academic credentials and other petty jabs typical of a junior high school child. Note how he/she explains what an ad hominem means while committing an ad hominem. He/she writes:


"An ad hominemattack is when you attack your opponent instead of attacking their arguments."


Then he/she states:


"I attacked his arguments, quite successfully, in addition to attacking his character."


Do you see how he/she admits to committing ad hominem? He/she admits to attacking my character which is how he/she defined ad hominem in the previous sentence. Moreover, he/she claims to have successfully attack my arguments which he/she did not. Many atheists even called him/her out on this failure.















Even on the author's blog, there are criticisms of his/her poor replies against my refutation. I will leave the reader to decide this. So far, the consensus is that I refuted the nonsense posited by this writer.

He/she calls me stupid because I call atheism stupid. Atheism is a conception, a thing. It is not a person. By calling me stupid, he/she is attacking a person. A person who is responding to his/her nonsense. See the difference? All of his/her arguments comprise of ad hominem and is deprived of reason and facts. We can see how this author has no grasp of logic or philosophy. If he/she gets ad hominem wrong, imagine what else he/she gets wrong. We already have seem how his/her posts have failed the demands of logic and philosophy. First, he/she defines ad hominem and claims he/she did not enage int. Next, he/she admits that he/she engaged in ad hominem by resorting to personal attacks instead of attacking the arguments of said person. Can we say cognitive dissonance or perhaps someone who is uneducated?

Furthermore, note how he/she claims that I am gay. This is another personal attack and demonstrates his/her homophobia. Does he/she think gay people are bad and is using the word as an insult? It would appear so. Not only is this person uneducated, but he/she is also a homophobe. Perhaps this author may be a closeted gay and is projecting? We know via studies that homophobes tend to be repressed homosexuals (see: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/homophobes-might-be-hidden-homosexuals/).

Once again, the author tries to save face by claiming that I did not refute his/her posts. If this were the case, he/she would not be so defensive. If his/her points remained immune to refutation, then no response would be necessary since the aforementioned withstands once and for all. Clearly, this is not the case. The author was triggered into responding because he/she knows that his/her work was heavily refuted. In order to prevent readers from ignoring his/her content, he/she then resorts to attacking me (ad hominem) which is typical of a sore loser. Then he/she simply restates his/her errors hoping that readers are not astute enough to notice. The author claims that his/her arguments are a "culmination of years and years debating theism," we see this is not so. 

The statements made by the author are deprived of facts and reason. I have demonstrated this by using my own knowledge and that of others. This author is unknown, does not have a philosophy degree or any college degree. To claim a sense of academic superiority is delusional and demonstrates an underlying psychological disorder if this author truly believes that he/she has any academic credibility without possessing academic credentials. This would be the Dunning-Krueger affect which is common among alleged online atheists. Online, anyone can be anyone. This is why we see so many alleged atheist characters claiming to hold superior knowledge than even those with doctoral degrees. In light of this, that is why I request that those who want to formally debate me provide their identification and accredited academic credentials. This is to prevent posers like AtheismNTheCity from engaging someone of my caliber who holds advance degrees.





<<1) The traditional notion of god isn't coherent


In response to my first argument about the incoherency of the traditional god concept he writes,

The claim that "God is subject" to logic is fallacious. Again, I stated before that this is special pleading. The author is relying on man-made conceptions that exist to falsify the natural, not to falsify the supernatural. This is just absurd.

This response is actually absurd. If god is not subject to logic (by which I meant, and clearly wrote, that "god cannot do the logically impossible or be the logically impossible") then he's literally saying god can do the logically impossible and be the logically impossible. In other words he's saying that god can create a rock too heavy for him to lift — which of course is absurd because it creates a paradox for god's omnipotence. Every sophisticated theologian (which Sacerdotus is absolutely nowhere near) knows that god cannot create a rock too heavy for him to lift because being omnipotent doesn't entail being able to do the logically impossible. Nothing can do the logically impossible—not even an omnipotent god. Once you agree with this, you'll have to agree with my above claim that god cannot do the logically impossible or be the logically impossible.

Even famed theologian William Lane Craig recognizes this, saying on his site Reasonable Faith,

By far and away most Christian theologians do not think that God has the power to do what is logically impossible or to have created different rules of logic so that what is logically impossible would have been logically possible.

If Sacerdotus actually thinks god can do, or be, the logically impossible this would put him far out of the mainstream in Christian thought. It's also a view he cannot defend, because in order to do so he'd have to show that the logically impossible is actually possible, and no one can demonstrate that. Such a demonstration, if possible, would throw all of logic out the window, and it would thus be a self-refuting claim. He continues,

Apparently, the author simply does not know how to distinguish between God and how Greek Philosophers described Him.  God is not subject to logic or anything.  Logic is a social construct.  It is a conceptual language that man-made in order to assist in making arguments.  

I am not at all confused between different concepts of god. I stated clearly in my original post that my argument is attacking the traditional concept of god that is a timeless, changeless, immaterial mind, who also must be infinitely good, infinitely wise, and can do anything logically possible. If Sacerdotus has a problem with this concept of god he can say which part of it is wrong. Is god not timeless, changeless, and immaterial? Is god not infinitely good or wise? If not, then such a god would be like a Greek god. That is precisely the kind of god my argument is not attacking. I'm attacking the concept of god in classical theism.

By saying god cannot do or be the logically impossible I'm simply stating that—god cannot do or be the logically impossible. He's hung up on god being "subject" to something, and this is something many theists get hung up on. They want to believe god is completely sovereign, autonomous: subject to nothing. I'm simply saying that god must be and do only that which is logically possible, and most theists like Craig above agree. And once you have that my argument follows.

If extraterrestrials exist in the universe and make contact, they will not know what logic is.  Most likely, they will have a different method to reason which is based on their abilities and limitations with language.  The author assumes that everything is subject to logic and this is not the case.  Even Krauss and other atheist scientists push aside logic and ridicule philosophy because they claim it to be useless and based on personal interpretations. 

All intelligent life will know the basic rules of logic, they will just call it something completely different in their language. Logic is a social construct, like math, but it's rules apply to the real world. The law of non-contradiction says that A and ¬A cannot both be true at the same time. I can't have two apples and one apple at the same time. One or the other is true. This is not a mere social construct. This is necessary condition of physical reality. Likewise, god cannot exist, and not exist at the same time, and I'm sure Sacerdotus will never try to defend such an absurd possibility (but who knows, he is pretty stupid). Logic is described by language and symbols which are of course social constructs, but what they refer to are real objective features of reality.

Given the necessary rules of logic the traditional attributes of god are incoherent:

P1. It is logically impossible to do something without doing something.
P2. It is logically impossible to do something without change (even if everything is immaterial).
P3. It is logically impossible for change to exist without time.
C. As such, a timeless, changeless being cannot do anything.

Any claim that a timeless, changeless being can do things, like create a universe, or impregnate a virgin, or smite a people, makes a logical contradiction. It assumes something is possible that is impossible. This is just one of several ways in which the traditional notion of god is incoherent.

And of course, just as I predicted, his only resort is special pleading. Krauss and other atheist scientists are very bad at philosophy. I've written about this a lot and it's one of the ongoing complaints I have about bad atheists who make common mistakes due to their ignorance on philosophy. The irony is that Sacerdotus makes many arguments from authority, a fallacious debate tactic no one with a degree in philosophy would actually make, and he relies on atheist scientists to make his point. By his own logic I could just use them to make the case for atheism and say, "scientists A, B, and C all have PhDs are are atheists, therefore atheism is true! And if you disagree are you saying you know more than a PhD will 30 years experience?" Only an idiot like Sacerdotus would debate that way. He continues,

Notice how the author proceeds with an ad hominem. Instead of addressing my refutation on time and change, he instead attacks my academic background.  Here is my academic record. Note the many degrees that I possess. I present this not to show off, but to demonstrate that the author has no academic advantage against me.  His posts demonstrate this.  I can guarantee that the author does not possess even an ounce of the academic credentials that I possess and will not be able to post documentation of it as I have.  

Notice how I didn't resort to ad hominem attacks in my follow up post and how Sacerdotus fails to actually understand what a proper ad hominem attack is. Also notice how I don't need a degree to easily show how his arguments against mine all easily fail a basic test of rationality. Anyone can post a screenshot of a degree online. Degrees also mean nothing if you can't do basic logic and reason, and many people with degrees are educated idiots, I hate to say it.

Sacerdotus arguments do not demonstrate he knows anything about science or philosophy other than some popular level apologetics. And this can be easily shown by me. He continues,

The author claims that I am resorting to special pleading when I state the attributes of God. This is not so and demonstrates the author's lack of understanding of the term. Special pleading is defined as an opponent disregarding the standards, principles or rules while creating special criteria to except him or herself.  What I stated is not special pleading. 

When you say "God is not subject to logic," that is special pleading! He's saying everything else is subject to logic except my god. And if he tries to claim logic is just a social construct and not anything objective, then he's shooting himself in the foot because such a claim itself would also just be a social construct. Apparently his "degree" in philosophy failed to teach him that.

The description I gave of God is the standard in theology. The author is the one who engages in special pleading by distorting physics and philosophy in order to push a narrative that is not factual. I demonstrated how he/she created his own exception in order to knock down the idea of a God existing. He completely disregarded the standards of theology, philosophy, and physics and created his/her own exception in order to make a fallacious argument. 

What description of god? Does he mean merely saying god is not subject to logic? That can't be because William Lane Craig, someone far more knowledgeable than a sophomoric internet apologist like Sacerdotus agrees with me that god doesn't have the power to do what is logically impossible, and that's all I need to make my argument. I don't distort physics or philosophy to make my points—I'm channeling the mainstream ideas on the concept of god. In fact, it is Sacerdotus who distorts science and philosophy because he's ignorant about both subjects, as I will show in the next arguments.

Notice the other special pleading remark he/she makes in his new post:
"If you can't explain god, you can't coherently say god exists." Can you see the fallacies here?  

No, because there are no fallacies there.

1) He/she ignores the standard of theology in regards to God being an awesome and absolute being that no mortal can truly grasp. 

This is special pleading. When you have an aspect of god that is in contradiction and your only resort is "no mortal can truly grasp" this, it is special pleading. This is the oldest apologetic trick in the book and the fact that he has to resort to such a canard demonstrates that he knows there is a contradiction in god's nature.

No atheist or rational person should be expected to believe in a being that cannot even be rationally explained, and whose best attempt at an explanation is to resort to the old "god's a mystery" that "no mortal can truly grasp." God's an incoherent made up being. That's why no one can grasp it.

2) Because of this, he/she then creates an exemption by claiming that one cannot posit God exists because he/she believes God needs to be fully explained in order to posit existence.  

No, god's contradictions need to be fully explained. We do this in every other area of our lives, I'm only holding god to the same standards. If I told the police an incoherent story as my alibi, they are under no obligation to except it if I tell them "no mortal can truly grasp" my alibi. To say a special exception is needed for god is, guess what? Special pleading!

Think about it. Physicists do not understand the universe completely, therefore, the universe cannot be posited to exist. Does that make sense?  It would to this author who lacks strong reasoning skills. So clearly, the author is resorting to special pleading due to his/her inability to reason and use actual facts.  

This is all wrong. I'm not saying you need to know everything in order to say something exists. I'm saying something that is in contradiction with itself does. The universe isn't in a logical contradiction with itself. Oh, and we can see the universe. So we have daily empirical evidence it exists. We have no such thing from god. All we have is a self-refuting description of an invisible being, much of which is in tremendous disagreement from theist to theist. Comparing god to the universe is comparing apples to oranges.

Verdict: Sacerdotus has come nowhere near to refuting my first reason for atheism. Nowhere near! And notice something else: he hasn't even offered an attempt to coherently explain god. All he does is resort to special pleading in saying "no mortal can truly grasp" god.

Sad and predictable. His alleged "degree" is useless. But it gets even worse for him.....>>


Sacerdotus:

The argument is not absurd at all. Logic, as I have stated before, is a social construct. It is a man-made set of rules used to make arguments sound. They are not an ends to a universal means nor an ends to ontological parameters. To claim that God is subject to logic is to make logic the God of God. Remember, God is the absolute being. All depends on Him for existence. All that the universe and human mind contain derive from God. This includes logic because logic is a social construct. Similarly, math is a social construct. Math is a language we use to describe the quantification of things visible and invisible in the universe. 

Logic is no different. It is a system man created. Logic as a concept is believed to have been developed by the ancient Greeks. However, some claim it may have originated in India before the 6th century BC. As you can see, logic is a social construct. It comes from society. Logic is not some disembodied consciousness that exists and from which we must measure all things against. Logic itself has limits and weaknesses. It fails to account for factors it cannot process. We often have seen this mocked in the Star Trek franchise where Spock and other species who rely on logic are presented as aloof. Even mainstream atheists mock logic and philosophy by claiming it lacks empirical qualities. Again, this is because people like AtheismNtheCity do not understand what logic is and place it on a pedestal. Logic exists only to assist in making sound arguments. It does not exist to measure all things against it.

This is why we see AtheismNtheCity fail in his/her attempt to reason. Let us supposed that God is subject to logic, this means that logic is a free-standing entity that is above God. If this were the case, then God is not God. God is just a being contingent on logic. Logic would become the necessary being. This would completely devalue theism and theology. What AtheismNthecity does not understand is that when philosophers claim that God can only do the logically possible, they are arguing via philosophical terms. They are explaining that logical consistency is founded in the person of God. Context is key. This is where we see this author fail in his/her points. We can see his/her poor understanding of philosophy and theology (he/she has no degrees). The question about God creating a rock He cannot life has been refuted countless times as a Fallacy of Contradictory Premises. 

 God can certainly create a rock so heavy He cannot lift because this is what it means to be God. God has absolute power and might. If He can create a universe out of nothing, then why can He not do anything else? The problem here is that we have reached our limit to grasping the awesomeness of God. We see in Scripture how we are told that God can do all things (Luke 1:37, Matthew 1926). So we can see that once AtheismNthecity grasps that logic is a man-made concept that is not bounding on God that God is capable of doing the impossible and the illogical (from our perspective).

The author even cites theologian William Lane Craig to make his/her case. He/she fails to understand the context Craig is using with I alluded to above. The author also fails to understand that Craig is giving his opinion. Notice how Craig states, "most," and not "all" in reference to theologians. He is also not a Catholic. As a Catholic, I do not rely on Protestant theologians for my knowledge or arguments. Craig will disagree with me on the papacy, Scripture, Sacraments and so on. Relying on a Protestant to refute my claim is silly. Of course there will be disagreements between a Protestant and Catholic. 

Moreover, if we are to take AtheismNtheCity's poor interpretation of Craig as factual, we would run into problems. Craig's words would then can be used to invalidate the miracles of Jesus. Jesus would then have not been able to walk on water because a hominid walking on water is not physically or logically possible. A hominid would sink in water because of the differences in density. Muscles and bones are more dense than water. For a male of 33 years of age to walk on water is not physically or logically possible. This is why the Catholic Church describes this event as a miracle. 

A miracle defies logic as we perceive it. Let me repeat this: A Miracle Defies Logic as we perceive it. Similarly, we can also invalidate Jesus' conception. Jesus is said to have been conceived by the Holy Spirit via the womb of Mary. Naturally speaking and logically speaking, this is not possible. First, the Holy Spirit is immaterial. Things that are immaterial cannot fertilize female human eggs. Conception requires physicality. It requires copulation which did not occur in the case of the Incarnation of Christ. Moreover, what about Jesus turning water into wine? Again, the composition of water and wine are extremely distinct. There is no way to transform water directly into wine or wine into water unless we extract the water from the substance that is derived of the grape. 

Lastly, what about the Resurrection of Christ? Jesus is said to have risen after 3 days. Again, naturally and logically speaking, this is not possible. The verdict is that these events are miraculous in nature. Miracles again defy logic as per our perspective. So we can see the pickle Dr. Craig and AtheismNthecity have gotten themselves into if they believe God is subject to the social contruct we call logic. In fact, some atheists have mocked AtheismNtheCity on this on Twitter:













As you can see, AtheismNthecity inadvertently defended the miracle of Jesus walking on water. Does a real atheist really do this? The answer is no. It is clear to me that this author is not a real atheist. Either he/she is not a real atheist or is a really ignorant one who has no academic background. I will let readers decide.

If the reader took a physics course, he/she would also learn that things get more hairy in the quantum realm where particles defy logic! The author is clearly confused on the concepts of God throughout history. He/she even misspells God. This shows he/she is working on a platform of ignorance, rather than facts. The God the author is describing is the God of philosophy, not God. This is why the author is confused. Great Catholic thinkers such as Anselm, Aquinas and Augustine built upon the ideas Greeks had of God. They did not see them as the ends. The author seems to think that just because Craig and other theologians have a view of God that this must be the consensus or the correct view. That is not the case at all. 

I would submit that the explanation of God that the Catholic Church gives trumps that of Craig and other Protestants. Protestants separated from the Catholic Church. They exist just to protest the Church and her teachings. I respect Dr. Craig and he does offer some good arguments; however, he is not infallible nor the authority on theology or philosophy. There are bigger names out there such as Kung and Ratizinger (Pope Benedict XVI). The suggestion that God can only do the logically possible is faulty. It is a poor understanding of God and how God revealed Himself in the Bible. To claim that God cannot do the logically possible disqualifies God from creating the universe since the creation of such a thing was the result of a state prior to logic even existing!

The author claims that "all intelligent life will know the basic rules of logic." This is a ridiculous statement. As stated before, logic is a social construct. It is dated to ancient Greece or India. Unless all intelligent life (including extraterrestrials) lived during this time, the author's claim is nonsensical. He/she then cites the law of non-contradiction as an attempt to save logic. Even this law is not perfect. A and ¬A is not set in stone, so to speak. We can have (P ∨ ¬P) or ¬(P ∨ ¬P)x. There are instances where two realities that are contradictory can exist. Let us take into account hermaphrodites who possess both sexual organs. We can see other examples where two realities that are contradictory or assumed to be as such are capable of coexisting. The author fails to grasp that these terms found in classical logic are derivative of ancient Greece. Humanity has learned a great deal since. Again, in quantum physics we see particles which should not exist, but do exist. They exist in a spiral of contradictions which physicists are still trying to figure out.

Ironically the author admits that logic is a social construct which reflect real objective features in reality. Notice how the author does not state that reality and its features are subject to logic.

The author then resorts to another fallacy, he writes:

"P1. It is logically impossible to do something without doing something.
P2. It is logically impossible to do something without change (even if everything is immaterial).
P3. It is logically impossible for change to exist without time.
C. As such, a timeless, changeless being cannot do anything."


These presmises run on special pleading. Note how the author does not provide proof that it is logically impossible to do something without doing something, to do something without change or for change to exist without time. We know via cosmology that this is exactly how the universe formed. There was no time prior to the "big bang," yet the "big bang" happened and our universe is here. Nature contradicts this faulty syllogism presented by the author.

Moreover, he/she wrote:

"Any claim that a timeless, changeless being can do things, like create a universe, or impregnate a virgin, or smite a people, makes a logical contradiction. It assumes something is possible that is impossible. This is just one of several ways in which the traditional notion of god is incoherent."

We saw above in a tweet how the author contradicted him/herself. Here he/she claims that it is illogical for the creation of the universe, impregnation of a virgin etc are not possible. However, in the tweet above, he/she states that God can do only the logically possible. Which one is it? We can see how the author is confused and contradicts him/herself. Moreover, virgins can become impregnated. Where did the author get the idea that it was not possible? Also, the universe comes from a timeless state. Dr. Steven Hawking has stated this and provided this fact in all posts written to date. Note how the author AtheismNtheCity has failed to address it.

He accuses me of special pleading, but we all know that he/she is the one engaging in the tactic. Note his/her misuse of the appeal to authority fallacy. Reliance on authorities in a field is not an appeal to authority. If this were the case, then all college papers, all peer review journals are an appeal to authority because they use references. Notice how he/she resorts to another personal attack by calling me an idiot. We see here who is the real idiot who cannot get fallacies correct! The mockery he/she has received from atheist peers has to be a clear indication that this guy simply does not get atheism right nor how to reason. The writing of this guy clearly shows that he/she does not have a strong grasp of philosophy etc. What is troubling is that this guy refuses to acknowledge his/her errors. Even a Catholic professor of philosophy called him/her out on his/her errors and this author refuses to be humble and make corrections.

Degrees do mean a lot. There is no way an uneducated blogger can claim academic superiority against one with several degrees. That is simply illogical. I am doing this guy a favor by correcting his/her posts. He or she should be more appreciative of this. He/she claims that my arguments do not demonstrate knowledge of science or philosophy, yet I cited experts that agree with me. Does that make sense? The author is clearly just trying to save face where he/she has failed to provide strong knowledge in science and philosophy. Notice again how this writer misuses the term special pleading. I explained it to him/her in my previous post. The phrase, "God is not subject to logic" is not special pleading. This is because I am working with the standard and not going beyond it. I explained this in my previous post, see: http://www.sacerdotus.com/2017/11/sacerdotus-is-stupid-alleged-uneducated.html. The author continues restating what was already refuted in the link I have just provided. It seems like he/she ran out of gas.






<<2) Since the universe is eternal no god could not have created it


To my second argument he makes even more mistakes, because he's totally ignorant on the relevant science and philosophy, and it's so easy to show. He writes,

The author claims there are many mistakes in my response but fails to present them.  Eternalism is a philosophical principle, not a physics principle. Here we see who really does not know anything. He/she conflates terms and creates a disaster in his/her arguments.  One does not need a degree in philosophy to see this in the author's content. In my previous reply, I addressed why the universe cannot be eternal even if there were a finite number of moments to the big bang.  The author fails to acknowledge this fact held by the consensus of physicists and cosmologists. Note how the rest of the author's reply rests on ad hominem. His/her cognitive lethargy takes over here.  

I've presented many of his mistakes, and will do so again more explicitly. Eternalism is just the philosophical name for a scientific principle derived from special relativitySpecial relativity says that simultaneity is relative to reference frame. Once you have that, you have eternalism, which says that the past, present, and future, all physically exist in what is commonly called a spacetime block. This view is simply called eternalism in philosophy, but it is also called the B-theory of time, the tenseless theory of time, or simply block time. They all mean the same thing, just called different things. Eternalism is also the dominant view in physics and has been for 100 years since Einstein came up with special relativity and general relativity.

What Sacerdotus doesn't realize (and is proof he's totally ignorant of the subject matter) is that he's assuming a theory of time in his arguments. He's assuming presentismwhich is also a philosophical principle. But unlike him, I actually providence evidence eternalism is true. Sacerdotus provides no evidence presentism is true, he's not even aware that he's assuming this. Imagine how stupid he is: he accuses me of saying a philosophy of time is true, when meanwhile he's assuming another philosophy of time is true, and he's not even aware of this or providing evidence unlike me. To me this is indicative he's lying about his philosophy degree, because no one with a degree from an accredited university can be that stupid.

I don't conflate any terms. Eternalism is well known to mean exactly what I said it was. Sacerdotus is just totally ignorant about it. He never made any argument that the universe can't be eternal even if there are a finite number of moments since the big bang. All he did was presuppose presentism, and then claim that since there are a finite number of moments since the big bang, the universe therefore cannot be eternal. That's it! But eternalism refutes that because all moments exist — they never come into or go out of existence. Therefore, the universe as a whole never comes into or goes out of existence, and such a universe cannot be created by a god.

For those of you still confused about what this means, here's physicist Brian Greene, who has 35+ years doing physics, explaining how special relativity shows eternalism is true:


In other words, the theist must concede that if eternalism is true, no god could have created it. Then the debate becomes over whether or not eternalism is true. And for that I've provided many argumentsthat Sacerdotus did not refute or even try to refute. Here are those arguments:


Sacerdotus has to show (not assert) that these arguments fail, or that presentism is true in order for him to say I'm wrong here. He can't do so. The consensus of physicists are eternalists, like me. Sacerdotus is in the minority. So he has no idea what he's talking about, as usual.

He/she cannot refute my previous reply.  Special relativity itself is contingent to the finite universe itself.  There is no way it is eternal.  Again, the author resorts to special pleading to make his/her poor case.  He/she ignores the standard and exempts him/herself by formulating a paradigm that does not fit the standard, but his/her own poor understanding of philosophy and physics. Next, he/she tries to correct the late and great astronomer Carl Sagan by claiming to present what atheist means. It is just absurd.  Can we say Dunning-Kruger effect?  It is loud in this author.

already did refute the previous reply, and it was pathetically easy. Special relativity describes the nature of space and time, and is applicable to the whole universe, which if it is like an eternal block universe, you cannot say god created it—because the block universe always existed. It never came into being. "There is no way it is eternal," is not an argument, it is an assertion. A false one at that. If Sacerdotus is still after all of this confused as to what eternalism means (hint: it doesn't mean there are an infinite number of moments in the past) then there is no hope for him. He's proven himself to be an educated idiot, if his degree is even real, which I doubt.

Here is what we know about the universe.  The graph above illustrates it and provides some basic facts.  Hopefully, the author will understand better via visuals.  The orange sun-like image on the graph is the "big bang" or the moment of it.  Prior to this was nothing.  There was no space, time, matter or energy.  We do not know, scientifically speaking, what was this state or how to describe it. Some believe this "nothingness" was just primitive quantum fluctuations.  We simply do not have the data to concretely give a scientific explanation.  This is why we smash particles at the Particle Collider at CERN.  Hopefully, we can learn more based on how these particles behave when separated.  

And just as I suspected, he is even more stupid than previously thought. He still doesn't understand what eternalism is. Sacerdotus, eternalism doesn't mean there is an infinite number of moments since the big bang. It means all moments of time physically exist. This would be apparent if he actually read the links I put into my blog. But I doubt he's clicked on a single hyperlink I've made.

And no, "nothing" doesn't exist "prior" to the big bang because the big bang (on standard cosmology) is the first moment of time. There cannot be a moment before the first moment. It would be like saying time exists before time exists. Logically absurd. Nothing never existed. This is a point of faulty logic that Sacerdotus as well as many prominent physicists like Lawrence Krauss makes. They call something nothing. But that's not the case. What we need here is a philosophically inclined physicist who understands how to think logically about the big bang. Once such physicist is Sean Carroll. Here he explains the mistake Sacerdotus and Krauss are making:


All of Sacerdotus's attempts to demonstrate there are a finite number of moments since the big bang are utterly futile because I'm not denying that. This is the beauty (and complexity) of eternalism. Eternalism can be true even if there are a finite number of moments since the big bang but Sacerdotus is too stupid even after several attempts at explaining this to get it. Educated idiot indeed.

Philosophers can philosophize all they want, but physics has the upper hand in this debate.  

I agree, and you know what physics says? It says there is a relativity of simultaneity. And once you have that you have eternalism! Again, eternalism is just the philosophical name for the theory of time derived from the scientific theory of special relativity. In order to deny eternalism, you have to deny special relativity (read again: Here's What You Have To Believe In Order To Deny Eternalism). And that's not a price I'm willing to pay because, as Sacerdotus says, physics has the upper hand. He's just too ignorant to realize physics is on my side, not his.

Sacerdotus, prove to me you're not as stupid as you make yourself out to be by acknowledging that eternalism doesn't say there's an infinite number of moments in the past. I've explained this to you 3 times now. If you don't get it by now, you are indeed an idiot.

He can push eternalism all he wants, but he must acknowledge that it is just a philosophical axiom, nothing more.  It cannot trump cosmology or physics which rely on incontrovertible evidence that fit the facts.  Eternalism is not scientific fact.     

Philosophical axiom? What? It is not a philosophical axiom. Only someone completely ignorant would say such a thing. Eternalism is just the philosophical name given to what the scientific theory of special relativity says about time. Special relativity says there is a relativity of simultaneity. Given this, all moments of time exist. I've gone above and beyond demonstrating this is true with assuming nothing more than special relativity is true.

Verdict: Sacerdotus is still completely and utterly ignorant about eternalism even after 3 attempts at explaining it. He's still thinking it means having an eternal number of moments in the past. This is the mistake that every amateur makes about it and proof he's a low level internet apologist. Someone smart (with a degree in science and philosophy) would already understand the subject matter and know what eternalism, presentism, and possbilism are before making any cosmological argument. Clearly Sacerdotus is completely ignorant of all the major theories on time, and that's why he failed to refute my argument.>>


Sacerdotus:

There are no mistakes. The science and philosophy are clear. The author simply fails to grasp the content he/she is trying to use. Other atheists have pointed this out to him/her. 

Eternalism is simply a philosophical name. It has nothing to do with science or special relativity. Eternalism is a subset of philosophy of time. In philosophy, there are many branches. These branches offshoot into smaller parts where all kinds of discussion are held. These branches have nothing to do with science. The author simply does not understand this. Philosophy of science is not science. It is a study of scienctific ideas and the idea of science itself. We can see the ignorance of the author clearly when he/she makes the claim that eternalism is science and bsed on special relativity. The truth is that eternalism relies on special relativity to make arguments.  

You can read more on it here: https://books.google.com/books?id=qUMuFaXjNjEC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA326#v=onepage&q&f=false.   As you can see, it is a philosophical term, not scientific. Science is already settled on the fact that the universe had a beginning and will end. Eternalism is not a dominant view in physics because we know causality exists. B-theory of time is also a philosophical idea that borrows from physics.  It is not physics.  B-theory and A-theory was formulated by J.M.E. MCTaggart who was a philosopher at Cambridge. These theories are thought experiments and are not science.  We also know time is linear and only travels in one direction. We also know that everything is trapped in the present. There is no past or future that we can rewind to or fast forward to. To suggest otherwise is to contradict physics.  Eternalism on this fact alone fails. These philosophical axioms along with AtheismntheCity's faulty premise runs on scientific ignorance and a poor understanding of Dr. Einstein's special relativity theory.  Space-time are interconnected and virtually the same thing. They are a woven fabric, so to speak which had their beginning at the big bang.  Therefore, time had a beginning alongside space and matter.  There is no room for eternity.   

What the author fails to understand is that space-time and matter are. It is no wonder why his/her response to my refutation entails calling me stupid and so on. He/she clearly has no rebuttal and is resorting to ad hominem. I enjoy this fact very much because it shows that I am winning and he/she is losing. As I have stated before, Einstein believed that the universe was constant and not expanding. He assumed that determinism was correct.  However, he was proven wrong by Catholic priest Monsignor Lemaitre who discovered cosmic inflation. Moreover, I even provided a video of one of my instructions, Dr. Kaku who explained this. The author dismissed it as "wrong." This shows why AtheismNthecity is not a true scholar and is uneducated. For him/her to dimiss Dr. Michio Kaku as "wrong" is extremely ridiculous. We are talking about a renown theoretical physicist who authored many books and is invited as an expert on many science programs and the media. Note that AtheismNtheCity has no college degree. This makes his/her dismissal of Dr. Kaku even more absurd. 

Also note how the author never addressed my previous refutation. He/she simply ignored it and called me stupid. This is not a rebuttal or even an argument. The writer is simply resorting to ad hominem to compensate for his/her inability to refute my refutation. This writer keeps showing his/her ignorance with each point. Again, fellow atheists have called him out on it. It seems that Atheismnthecity wants to argue philosophilcal axioms rather than defend his/her claims. I am not here to argue presentism vs eternalism. What I am here to do is refute the use of both to attack God's existence. It is clear that neither atheismnthecity nor those who commented on his/her post do not understand this. I am not arguing for either point.  What I am arguing against is the misuse of them to attack God. I will not repeat what I wrote. You can see it here: http://www.sacerdotus.com/2017/11/sacerdotus-is-stupid-alleged-uneducated.html.  The author is simply restating what I refuted already in the link.

Moreover, Atheismnthecity uses a video where physicist Brian Greene speaks of time-dilation to somehow support his/her view. It does not.  Not once does Green even mention eternalism nor support the claims of Atheismnthecity.  What he does is explain time-dilation in relation to space-time and the speed of light. This is nothing new. We can "see" the past just by looking at the night sky. The light from stars that we are is light that has left the star billions of years ago which is reaching the earth now. This is not eternalism nor supports it.  See the video's transcript:


00:01
there's a wonderfully startling
00:05implication of time dilation that isn't00:09often as fully emphasized as it might00:12and I'd like to briefly describe it to00:15you now it has to do with the following00:17fact so we know from the formula for00:21gamma that the effects of time dilation00:25only really kick in in a significant way00:29when the relative velocity that's being00:33studied in a given situation approaches00:35the speed of light that's all true but00:38there is another way in which the00:41effects of time dilation in which the00:43effects of the relativity of00:45simultaneity in fact can be amplified00:48over very large distances over very00:52large distances these effects can become00:55significant even when the speeds00:57involved are ordinary everyday01:01velocities so how does this go well to01:04set it up let's first think about time01:07for a moment from the perspective of01:10experience right so we all generally01:13think of time as a kind of continuous01:16unfolding a continuous flow but for the01:19purpose at hand it's useful to also01:21think about time in a different way as a01:23kind of series of moments a series of01:27snapshots one moment after another01:30moment after another moment and any01:33physical process can of course be01:35described in this way a flower wild01:39animal running moment after moment after01:41moment horse running and so forth it's01:43just a series of snapshots that capture01:46each subsequent moment in time in fact01:48you can even go out into space if you01:52will and think about the earth in its01:54orbit around the Sun again moment after01:58moment after moment okay so what I'd02:01like to do is start with that way of02:04thinking about things and I'd like to02:06compare my set of snapshots my sequence02:11of events that are unfolding over time02:14and want to compare my snapshots to02:17somebody else's snapshots who's moving02:20relative to me and to do that there's a02:22related idea that I want to introduce02:25which is the concept of a now slice and02:29by a now slice what I mean is I consider02:33the world and I think about all things02:36that are happening right now02:38like the stroke of 12:00 on a clock or02:40at that moment my cat jumping or perhaps02:44other events like a bird taking flight02:47at this very moment say in Venice or we02:50can go cosmic on this too so we can02:52imagine at that very moment a meteor02:55just striking the surface of the Moon or02:58go even further away we can imagine a03:01supernova explosion way in the far03:04reaches of our galaxy now a now slice is03:08a slice in this picture here where I put03:12down all those events which I say happen03:15at one moment in time and if I look at03:18one now slice after another this is the03:21unfolding of one moment after another03:23after another so each of those events03:27that lie on a given slice constitute03:30those things that I say were real we're03:33happening at a given moment one now03:36after another now after another now03:40there are two points that I want to03:43stress about this we give this picture a03:47name that makes perfectly good sense we03:51call this space-time right because we03:54have all of space in each one of these03:57slices imagine the slice goes on forever03:59includes everything that's out there in04:01the cosmos at a given moment and along04:04this direction of course we have the04:06unfolding of time so we have space and04:08time that's where the name comes from04:11second point is common sense and04:16everyday experience would tell us that04:21every single observer in the universe04:25regardless of their motion04:26should agree on what is on a given now04:30slice that's the Newtonian view of how04:32the world is put together but when04:36Einstein comes into the story that04:39radically changes because with Einstein04:42we have now learned that the constant04:44speed of light means that observers who04:46are in relative motion do not have the04:49same sense of simultaneity they do not04:52agree on what is happening at a given04:55moment in time and that has a startling04:59implication that I'd like to describe05:02and to do that let me use a little05:04metaphor here it's one that actually I05:06used in my nova program fabric of the05:09cosmos if you've seen that but if not05:10it's a straightforward metaphor think05:13about this whole expanse this whole05:15space-time expanse as if it's kind of05:18like a big cosmic loaf of bread and what05:21these now slices are I'm basically05:23cutting this loaf of space-time in two05:27pieces which represent all of space at a05:30single moment in time from my05:31perspective if someone is moving05:34relative to me they have a different05:36perspective of what now is what is05:38simultaneous and that means05:41they carve up the loaf at a different05:45angle from me so let me just show you05:49that schematically so let me imagine I05:52consider the bird's eye view of that05:55picture just because it's easier for me05:57to draw and let me write down my now06:02slices in there so from the bird's eye06:05view I will draw space at one moment of06:10time-space I'd say the next moment in06:13time the next moment in time and so06:16forth so these are all my now slices and06:20just so that I have these labeled in a06:22way that we all understand put it down06:25here going to the right in this picture06:29is what I consider the future and go in06:36this direction is what I consider06:39the past now somebody is moving relative06:44to me and let's say they are also06:48interested in drawing space-time slices06:52so let's draw theirs06:55and because they're moving relative to06:58me06:59they will slice up this region of07:04space-time at say a different angle07:07relative to me they slice the loaf with07:10a knife that's angled relative to my07:13slice because their notion of07:15simultaneity what's happening at a given07:17moment say differs from mine now if we07:21are dealing and this is the point if we07:24are dealing with low velocities the07:28person far away has a low velocity so07:31we're not talking about velocities near07:33the speed of light what that translates07:36to in this picture is that the angle07:39that we have here this angle is07:44relatively small so in the vicinity of07:49where that person is sitting low07:52velocity motion has virtually no impact07:54but the point and I'll show you an07:56animation of this in a moment is that07:58over larger and larger distances let's08:01say I am over here and let's say08:04somebody else who's doing the moving is08:07far away over very large distances a08:10tiny angle can get amplified into a very08:14large difference in time a very large08:17difference in our conception of what's08:20happening at a given moment so let's08:22take a look at that idea in in animated08:27form let's imagine we are looking at a08:32big expanse of space and time and we08:35have a character an alien very very far08:39away in space and we have a more08:43familiar looking character a human being08:45sitting still on a bench over here now08:48if initially these two individuals are08:51not08:51moving relative to one another they08:53share the same idea of simultaneity if08:56there's no motion so they slice through08:59the space-time loaf in the same way they09:02both agree on what's happening at a09:05given moment in time okay09:07but now let's change things a little bit09:10let's let our alien friend hop on an09:14alien bicycle say and let's say the09:17alien starts to ride away from me09:21because of the relative motion between09:23the alien and me or the guy on the bench09:26the alien has a different conception of09:29simultaneity a different notion of09:30what's happening now and what that means09:33is when the alien slices up the09:36space-time loaf into all of space at a09:39given moment the now slice the now slice09:42will cut through at a different angle09:44and again the point is small velocity09:47means small angle but consider a small09:50angle over larger and larger and larger09:53distances between us and that small09:56angle turns into a big change in time so10:01in fact the aliens now slice actually10:03sweeps into the past and it can be a10:07significant sweeping into the past when10:10you put in some numbers as we'll do10:12later on in this course you find that10:14the sweep goes beyond when that guy was10:17a baby goes further back in time than10:20that and in terms of events on earth10:24that the alien would claim to be10:26happening right now10:27from his perspective it might be10:30hundreds of years ago say Beethoven10:33putting the final touches on the fifth10:36symphony now the thing that's not10:38completely obvious about this and does10:40take some mathematics and if you're10:42taking the math version of this course10:43we will do the math if you're not taking10:46the math version I hope this is10:47sufficiently exciting that you might10:49take the math version of the course but10:52putting that to the side why did it10:55swing to the past and not say to the10:57future here's a quick way of thinking10:59about it remember the treaty signing11:01ceremony president of backward land11:04right backward man was11:05rushing away that president and he11:07signed the treaty late11:10right he was not the one who did it11:13first he did it second if you recall so11:16in essence if you are moving away you11:19are sweeping to the past you are old11:21news from that perspective but that also11:24means thinking now from the treaty11:26perspective the president of forward11:28land if you are approaching if you're11:31going forward your notion of11:33simultaneity should sweep into the11:35future and indeed that is the case so if11:38the alien hops on the bike again but11:42turns around say and doesn't ride away11:45from Earth but rides toward the earth11:48then indeed the aliens notion of what's11:52happening right now on earth does sweep11:55from what we consider to be the present11:57into what we consider to be the future12:01and might include strange things from12:04our perspective like this guy's12:05great-great-great granddaughter maybe12:07teleporting from one place in the12:10universe12:11to another so the point is the whole12:16notion of what you consider to be real12:20what you consider to be taking place12:22right now is totally dependent on your12:26emotion right so initially when the12:30alien was not moving say relative to us12:32let's put ourselves in the position of12:34the guy in the bench from our view we12:37agree with whatever the alien says is12:40happening right now whatever's real we12:43totally agree right12:44now when the alien gets on a bike we12:47don't suddenly discount the aliens12:50perspective because he's on a bike so if12:53the alien then says that other events12:56are considered to be now to be real on12:59his now slice at a given moment we13:02should Accord that statement the same13:05status the same believability as when13:08the alien wasn't moving relative to us13:10so if the alien tells us that things in13:13our distant past are real they are on13:16his now slice so to give13:18moment we need to take that into our13:21perspective on what's real if the alien13:24tells us that things in our future are13:26on his now slice at a given moment we13:29need to take that into account too so13:32what this collectively tells us is that13:35the traditional way that we think about13:38reality the present is real the past is13:41gone the future is yet to be that is13:44without any real basis in physics what13:49we're really learning from these ideas13:50is that the past the present and the13:53future are all equally real14:07you


Greene even stats that the past, present and future are equally real. This actually supports presentism. Our preception of time is in the here and now, yet we are aware of things that happened which we call "past," and contemplate things that can happen, which we call "future."  The video actually goes against Atheismnthecity, yet he/she calls me stupid.  We can see who is the real stupid one who does not bother to do proper research.

AtheismNthecity claims that " Special relativity describes the nature of space and time, and is applicable to the whole universe, which if it is like an eternal block universe, you cannot say god created it—because the block universe always existed. It never came into being.." this is just not factual. We know that the universe did not always exist. I have quoted Dr. Hawking on this already. Atheismnthecity is relying on an understanding of the universe from the 17th century. We have learned much more since the 1930's. To state otherwise is delusional.  Hawking writes:



"Another attempt to avoid the universe having a beginning was the suggestion that there was a previous contracting phase, but because of rotation and local irregularities, the matter would not all fall to the same point. Instead, different parts of the matter would miss each other, and the universe would expand again with the density remaining finite. Two Russians, Lifshitz and Khalatnikov, actually claimed to have proved, that a general contraction without exact symmetry would always lead to a bounce with the density remaining finite. This result was very convenient for Marxist Leninist dialectical materialism, because it avoided awkward questions about the creation of the universe. It therefore became an article of faith for Soviet scientists.
 When Lifshitz and Khalatnikov published their claim, I was a 21 year old research student looking for something to complete my PhD thesis. I didn't believe their so-called proof, and set out with Roger Penrose to develop new mathematical techniques to study the question. We showed that the universe couldn't bounce. If Einstein's General Theory of Relativity is correct, there will be a singularity, a point of infinite density and spacetime curvature, where time has a beginning. Observational evidence to confirm the idea that the universe had a very dense beginning came in October 1965, a few months after my first singularity result, with the discovery of a faint background of microwaves throughout space. These microwaves are the same as those in your microwave oven, but very much less powerful. They would heat your pizza only to minus 271 point 3 degrees centigrade, not much good for defrosting the pizza, let alone cooking it. You can actually observe these microwaves yourself. Set your television to an empty channel. A few percent of the snow you see on the screen will be caused by this background of microwaves. The only reasonable interpretation of the background is that it is radiation left over from an early very hot and dense state. As the universe expanded, the radiation would have cooled until it is just the faint remnant we observe today. 
Although the singularity theorems of Penrose and myself, predicted that the universe had a beginning, they didn't say how it had begun. The equations of General Relativity would break down at the singularity. Thus Einstein's theory cannot predict how the universe will begin, but only how it will evolve once it has begun." -http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-origin-of-the-universe.html.

Atheismnthecity claims that my statement that the universal is not eternal is an assertion is really his/her poor understanding of cosmology. Next, the author claims that I do not understand eternalism when in fact he/she is the one who is misrepresenting it and fails to understand that I am attacking his/her use of it. He/she then claims that Dr. Krauss and myself are wrong when using the word "nothing" in physics. This is absurd because the term is in fact used in physics. He cites Sean Carroll as an authority, yet the quote does not even mention the word nothing. It is referring to something "popping into existence." The quote is being taken out of context by Atheismnthecity. He/she is quote-mining and in the process, making him/herself look foolish by providing quotes that do not even address my point.

We can see how atheismnthecity has demonstrated him/herself as being the "stupid" one by twisting the theory of relativity and misrepresenting philosophical axioms.  It is no wonder why he/she resorts to ad hominem. What else can be said when refuted than call your opponent stupid?  This puerile take on debate shows that atheismnthecity is ill-equipped to engage in rational discussion. His/her poor grasp of philosophy and physics demonstrates this.  You, the reader can see this clearly and do not need me to point this out.  In fact, on Facebook many have mocked Atheismnthecity's take on eternalism and so on. They see his/her arguments are stemming from a poor academic background. With every post, atheismnthecity shows him/herself as being allergic to the facts. 







<<To be continued in part 2.>>


Sacerdotus:


How fun!  I love refuting these silly posts.  I do so because I want others to see that atheism is in fact stupid and has no merit. It has no support from philosophy or science.  Atheismnthecity is making my job easier by proving the points I made in my book Atheism In Stupid.  By presenting atheism and him/herself as stupid, this further validates my book.  I cannot wait to refute part 2. This is easy and fun to do.  

No comments:

Post a Comment

Thank you for reading and for your comment. All comments are subject to approval. They must be free of vulgarity, ad hominem and must be relevant to the blog posting subject matter.

Labels

Catholic Church (473) God (320) Atheism (252) Jesus (217) Jesus Christ (215) Bible (180) Pope Francis (166) Atheist (153) LGBT (132) Science (123) Liturgy of the Word (106) Christianity (88) Rosa Rubicondior (77) Pope Benedict XVI (73) Abortion (71) Gay (66) Prayer (56) President Obama (56) Physics (46) Philosophy (43) Vatican (39) Christian (38) Christmas (34) Blessed Virgin Mary (33) New York City (33) Psychology (32) Women (29) Biology (28) Liturgy (28) Politics (28) Baseball (26) Religious Freedom (24) Pope John Paul II (21) Space (21) Holy Eucharist (19) NYPD (19) Pro Abortion (19) Supreme Court (19) priests (19) Evil (18) Child Abuse (17) Pro Choice (17) Donald Trump (16) Evangelization (16) First Amendment (16) Police (16) Protestant (16) Death (14) Health (14) Astrophysics (13) Christ (13) Marriage (12) Priesthood (12) Blog (11) Pedophilia (11) Racism (11) Illegal Immigrants (10) Poverty (10) Apologetics (9) Muslims (9) Theology (9) Vatican II (9) Autism (8) Divine Mercy (8) Human Rights (8) Personhood (8) September 11 (8) Big Bang Theory (7) Condoms (7) David Viviano (7) Easter Sunday (7) Ellif_dwulfe (7) Evidence (7) Gender Theory (7) Gospel (7) Jewish (7) academia (7) Barack Obama (6) Humanism (6) Morality (6) Pentecostals (6) Traditionalists (6) Babies (5) Cognitive Psychology (5) Cyber Bullying (5) NY Yankees (5) Spiritual Life (5) The Walking Dead (5) Angels (4) CUNY (4) Donations (4) Ephebophilia (4) Eucharist (4) Gender Dysphoria Disorder (4) Holy Trinity (4) Podcast (4) Pope Pius XII (4) Evangelicals (3) Hispanics (3) Massimo Pigliucci (3) Pluto (3) Pope John XXIII (3) Sacraments (3) Baby Jesus (2) Dan Arel (2) Death penalty (2) Encyclical (2) Founding Fathers (2) Freeatheism (2) Hell (2) Oxfam (2) Penn Jillette (2) Pew Research Center (2) Plenary Indulgence (2) Catholic Bloggers (1) Cursillo (1) Dan Savage (1) Divine Providence (1) Eastern Orthodox (1) Fear The Walking Dead (1) Pentecostales (1) Pope Paul VI (1)