Saturday, November 11, 2017

'Sacerdotus is Stupid' Alleged Uneducated Atheist Shows Science & Philosophy Illiteracy

The alleged atheist who authored that atrocious post giving 13 reasons as to why he/she is an atheist replied to me in a new post.  Like with the first, he/she shows his/her poor understanding of science, philosophy, and theology.  Because of this, he resorted to ad hominem and personal attacks for the obvious reason: He lacks the ability to refute and failed at his attempt.  Calling me stupid shows the author's inability to engage at an adult level.  You will see the author's failed attempt to refute my refutation of his/her original post.  It is clear to me that this author is not a real atheist.  no real atheist is this stupid in regards to arguing for atheism.     
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.  

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.  My response will be in bold


A gay theist (gaytheist?) on the internet attempted to refute my recent post explaining why I'm an atheist. He claims it was "easy" and that I show a lack of understanding of science and philosophy! Ha! Nothing can be further from the truth. It's he who lacks in-depth understanding of physics, philosophy, religion, and atheism, and a refutation of his "refutation" was really easy for me, albeit just time consuming.

But since I'm off work for the next few days and I'm bored at home (it's freezing outside!) let me for the record refute his pathetic attempt at a refutation.

Here's his attempt at a refutation of my argument number 1. My original arguments can be read here.

1) The traditional notion of god isn't coherent

He responds:
The author here runs on a strawman argument. He simply does not understand the concept of God. The author assumes that God is subject to his terms or the terms of the understandings of man; that is to say, how we perceive and understand everything. He claims that theists resort to special pleading to address what he claims to be contradictions. However, he is doing exactly that. He argues that change requires times and fails to back this up. We know from cosmology that there was no time prior to cosmic inflation. Time is a product that came into existence after the "big bang." Despite this, a change did take place. If change did not take place, there would have been no "big bang" event. Moreover, the author fails to understand that God is a being, not a mere concept. This being is beyond all, transcends all. No theist, no atheist, no theologian or pope can ever truly understand God or explain Him. St. Augustine tried and experienced a vision of his angel as a young boy who was at the shore trying to put the ocean in a small hole in the sand. The boy went to and fro collecting water in a shell until St. Augustine stopped him and inquired as to what the boy was trying to do. The boy said he was trying to put the entire ocean in the hole he dug. St. Augustine brushed it off as a something that came out of a babe's mouth and explained that it was not possible for the ocean to be poured into a small hole. The boy replied that neither can he put the entirety of God into his mind.

Every time I'm told that a person has "refuted" atheism I'm sadly disappointed. This is one of those times. Here I'm clearly saying god is subject to logic. As I clearly wrote in the post, "god cannot do the logically impossible or be the logically impossible." These aren't my terms and conditions, or the limitations of human intellect, this is our ability to be logical. Deny this, and you throw all of logic out the window. That includes your ability to logically "prove" atheism false - or anything else. That change requires time is obvious and certain. To change requires two states of being that cannot exist at the same time, otherwise you'd get a contradiction: A = ¬A. This is logically impossible. That this guy doesn't understand that means he fails logic 101, and that means his assessment of the rest of the argument fails. This is why I like to get all theists to agree beforehand that god is not beyond logic. I do this because - exactly as I predict - theists resort to special pleading to explain away god's inconsistence. When he says god "is beyond all, transcends all. No theist, no atheist, no theologian or pope can ever truly understand God or explain Him," he is resorting to special pleading. If you can't coherently explain god, you can't coherently say god exists. This guy fails to do that. His response to argument 1 completely fails and did exactly what I predicted.>>

The author claims that the content was not refuted, but he/she is just saving face.  Those who are defeated often attempt to inflate their deflated egos by downplaying their failures.  

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.  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.  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.  

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.  

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. 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. 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?  

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

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.  

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.  

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

His response:

Here the author makes a huge mistake. He shows his science illiteracy by claiming that the universe is eternal. The universe is not eternal. Our universe began at the big bang from a singularity and will end after it runs out of usable energy in about 15-20 billion years from now. This is called the "heat death." Some physicists believe that the universe will probably contract back into a singularity. They call this the "big crunch." In any event, our universe is not eternal; never was and never will be. Moreover, the universe is still expanding. To say that it is eternal makes no sense since eternity indicates the reaching of absoluteness. The universe is not at the point of expanded absoluteness. Clearly, the author has no grasp of cosmology or physics. The use of the content in the links he posted, along with his inferences demonstrates this. In fact, the late and great scientist, Carl Sagan stated this about the absurdity of atheism and the idea that no God exists: 
Our universe had a cause.  It is contingent upon an antecedence that existed prior to and external to it. I address more of this in my book "Atheism In Stupid."  In reality, atheists simply substituted a conscious agent/designer with an unconscious one (

Many, many mistakes with this response. Of course, he utterly fails to understand what eternalism is despite the fact that I linked to it in my post. Eternalism comes from special relativity, which I'm sure he knows very little about. On eternalism the universe can be eternal even if it has a finite number of moments to the big bang. I explained that fully in my post, and I even linked to a lengthy argument making the case for eternalism, as well as linked to the Wikipedia page on eternalism, and despite all of that, all this flew right over the head of this guy.

I can't blame him. He's ignorant. And understanding relativity and eternalism is complex and esoteric. Your average internet apologist just doesn't understand it. Once you understand eternalism, his entire response is blown to pieces. So what can I do to emphasize this point? Should I add an additional disclaimer, perhaps in bold to my original post? I think this is what I'll have to do. I don't want future people misunderstanding this argument, since it's very important.

Oh, and an atheist is not someone certain god doesn't exist.>>


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.  

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.

Maybe an illustration will help the author understand.  Some people who are not well-educated learn better with pictures rather than semantic constructions.  It is a remnant of our cavemen ancestors who relied on pictographs. 

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.  

As demonstrated in the graphic, eternity is not possible for the universe.  There were no "moments" as the author erroneously assumes.  It was just a bang and then expansion took hold leading to the formation of the universe as it exists today.  Now, the universe will end eventually. This is a fact.  How it will end will most likely be via the loss of usable energy which will create a cold and inert universe that will go dark (heat death).  This is the most likely end based on the law of conservation.  There are other theories out there such as the "big crunch" which I described in my previous reply.  In this theory, the universe will just contract back to the point of the "big bang."  All will be destroyed in the process.  Whether or not the universe will expand afterward is unknown and highly unlikely due to lack of entropy.  As you can see, there is no room for eternity in the state of the universe.  Philosophers can philosophize all they want, but physics has the upper hand in this debate.  This is not an attack on philosophy. I love it.  I am just being realistic based on the advantage physics has.  The author seems to think that philosophy has the authority to push empirical facts.  It does not.  Philosophy exists to provide critical thought to ideas of knowledge and experience, not to push scientific fact.  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.     

<<3) Causality doesn't exist in the way we think it does

His response:

Again, the author does not understand causality nor cosmology. Our universe had a cause.  There is no dispute on this.  With the exception of one or two physicists, the consensus is that the universe had a cause.  Albert Einstein once believed that the universe was static and eternal.  He was proven wrong by Monsignor George Lemaitre who discovered cosmic inflation or the "big bang theory."  The author is appealing to ignorance in this argument.  On its merits, it falls apart when vetted against cosmology.  The "first cause" cosmological argument for God does not fail at all.  It can only fail if and when cosmologists locate what exactly triggered the "big bang" and if that trigger lacks contingency.  To date, no such thing has happened.  In fact, recent studies by CERN show the fact that the universe's existence does not make sense (see: In the early moments of the "big bang," there was anti-matter and normal matter. These two should have annihilated themselves taking away with them the entire universe before it even expanded. However, this did not occur. Our universe has remained stable and continues to expand allowing for the anthropic principle to take fold. To claim that the universe had no cause and was just there is absurd and disregards the laws of thermodynamics within a closed system.

I don't understand causality? Please. First there is no consensus on whether the universe had a cause. He shows no evidence for that. This also is an argument ad populum - a logical fallacy, and a false consensus at that. What physicists understand causality to be is exactly what Sean Carroll said it was from Carroll's paper Why (Almost All) Cosmologists are Atheists:

From the perspective of modern science, events don’t have purposes or causes; they simply conform to the laws of nature. In particular, there is no need to invoke any mechanism to “sustain” a physical system or to keep it going; it would require an additional layer of complexity for a system to cease following its patterns than for it to simply continue to do so. Believing otherwise is a relic of a certain metaphysical way of thinking; these notions are useful in an informal way for human beings, but are not a part of the rigorous scientific description of the world.Of course scientists do talk about “causality”, but this is a description of the relationship between patterns and boundary conditions; it is a derived concept, not a fundamental one.

Although general relativity, from which George Lamaitre derived the big bang idea, did disproved Einstein's idea of the steady state universe, it also confirmed another eternal concept of the universe: eternalism. (Eternalism and the steady state model are not the same thing.) There are gravitational waves, gravitational waves have non-zero Weyl curvature, non-zero Weyl curvature is only possible in 4 or more dimensions, presentism is incompatible with a 4 dimensional world. Then, presentism is false. If presentism is false, his objection to number 2 and this argument are false.

There's no appeal to ignorance on my part, I appeal to what we know, not what we don't know. This guy is simply ignorant of special and general relativity and cosmology beyond a pop-cultural understanding of it. You see, in order to really debate cosmological arguments, you need more than a lay person's understanding of physics. This guy doesn't have that.

Once you understand eternalism and the fact that it negates causality as it is typically understood, the first cause argument is done. This guy make no cause for causality - he just asserts it's true. He doesn't defined what he means by "cause" at all, unlike what I did, nor did he attempt to refute my case. He just asserts "Our universe had a cause." It's not an argument, it's a claim.>>


Yes, the author does not understand causality.  Yes, there is a consensus that the universe had a cause. This is taught in all cosmology, physics and astronomy courses.  Clearly, the author has never taken any of the aforementioned. The author claims that I showed no evidence, yet in my previous post I provided the paragraph the author quoted with a hyperlink. Once again, the author misapplies the argument ad populum. The aforementioned is coined for criticism against common belief, not scientific fact.  In science, a consensus is needed.  This is why the peer review system exists. This is how science checks and balances itself.  We see once again that this author simply is aloof to the facts. The author then appeals to Sean Carroll in order to avoid addressing my reply. He/she does not realize that Sean Carroll is giving his personal opinion and does not even offer data or statistics to back up his claims. If you look at the pdf file linked, there is no data. It is just an essay that he wrote.  Give me a break. 

Carroll is just giving his opinion.  He believes that events do not have purpose or causes, but does not show why.  He says, "they simply conform to the laws of nature." He does not answer how nor where these laws came from, nor why these laws exist and why they exist in the way they do.  Laws need a lawgiver if we are to think logically here.  Ironically, the author bolds a quote that attacks eternalism: "these notions are useful in an informal way for human beings, but are not a part of the rigorous scientific description of the world."  This pretty much is what I wrote in my previous reply regarding eternalism. The irony...

Once again, eternalism is not part of science. Science does not confirm this. I already showed that nothing in the universe is determined and even embedded a link of my former physics instructor, Dr. Kaku explaining why nothing is determined by nature. The author as expected failed to address them.  He.she cannot do so because he/she does not understand anything being discussed. Minkowski spacetime shows that space and time are not determinate for every observer that has existed and will exist.  For each event in A, there are many who will disagree as to whether or not they are determinate from the constant. Here is an equation to show this which I know the author will not understand, but I demonstrate it anyhow to show I know more than this author.  v = –c to +c represents the acceleration of uniformity of a person in life. With this pattern, the hypersurface parameter of the person project in a non-linear fashion.  Because of this, none of the hypersurfaces interact simultaneously showing that the patterns are not indeterminate. The non-zero Weyl curvature has nothing to do with what the author thinks it does. They have to do with the gravitational waves that exist in the vacuum of space.  The author shows he/she is completely clueless about physics and philosophy.  Any reader can see the fallacies in the author's claims without possessing a background in physics or philosophy.  

4) The big bang does not say the universe came from "nothing"

His response:

And again, the author shows his/her ignorance of cosmology. The universe did, in fact, come from "nothing." Cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin's calculations have demonstrated this. He is not alone. Other physicists such as Hawking, Kaku and even Krauss have posited that the universe came from nothing. As with everything else in physics, theories continue to be studied. Nevertheless, the consensus among physicists is that the universe did come from nothing. Some posit that the universe was the size of a proton and somehow contained the necessary gravitational force to begin expanding into what it is today. The idea of something coming from nothing seems mindboggling. However, it is not. Since gravitational energy is negative, it is, therefore, zero in a closed system. Matter is naturally positive and when added to the energy of gravity, it is equal to zero. Because of this, the existence and formation of a closed system universe where something comes from nothing is possible and does not violate the laws of conservation. The mathematics is clear and contradicts the author. Our universe did, in fact, come from nothing. It is understandable why some alleged atheists without a physics background can get confused. The word "nothing" in physics is also used to describe quantum fluctuations such as virtual particles. Neither Aquinas nor William Lane Craig has failed. In fact, Aquinas was ahead of his time. Had he known quantum physics or cosmology, his arguments would have been even stronger, scientifically speaking, since he pretty much nailed it despite using philosophy.

Vilenkin, Kaku, and Krauss all make the mistake of calling the quantum vacuum "nothing." If this guy read my response, he'd see that I clearly and logically showed that if the universe began at the big bang and there is no space or time before that, then there never was a state of nothing that existed. When physicists say the universe came from nothing, they don't literally mean there was a state of nothingness, and then *poof* you get a big bang. This is a problem of language, a problem of semantics that this guy clearly doesn't understand because he hasn't gotten advanced enough into the arguments. I think physicist Brian Greene said it best:


The author begins with a laughable remark, "Vilenkin, Kaku, and Krauss all make the mistake of calling the quantum vacuum 'nothing.'"  This is just ridiculous.  The author claims to know more than Ph.D. physicists. It is Dunning-Kruger at work. I think Krauss would get a laugh out of this. The author failed to logically show anything other than he/she does not have a strong grasp of cosmology and philosophy. The author now is working on a strawman claiming that I stated that physicists literally present "nothingness" and literally nothing. I wrote in my previous reply-post, 

"The idea of something coming from nothing seems mind-boggling. However, it is not. Since gravitational energy is negative, it is, therefore, zero in a closed system. Matter is naturally positive and when added to the energy of gravity, it is equal to zero. Because of this, the existence and formation of a closed system universe where something comes from nothing is possible and does not violate the laws of conservation.  Our universe did, in fact, come from nothing.  The word 'Nothing' in physics is also used to describe quantum fluctuations such as virtual particles."  

Clearly, the author did not read this or simply does not understand what he/she reads. I think the latter is the case. He does not understand anything regarding cosmology and physics. He/she also disregards the fact that prior to the "big bang," everything is based on speculation. No physicist has the best answer in this regard.  Even Dr. Hawking stated that we simply do not know what was before the "big bang" and that we may never know.    

<<5) Argument from core theory

He responds:

Science has made no such statement on the soul. In fact, many physicists and neurologists are acknowledging that there exists some form of immaterial energy that controls the body or gives life to it.  Physicist Penrose conducted studies and came to the conclusion that the "soul" may exist within microtubules in brain neurons after he discovered quantum vibrations which account for randomness and behave as an algorithm within the human person. The topic is still under discussion among physicists and neurologists. Moreover, the author is wrong when he/she claims that 5% of the universe is made up of fermions and bosons.  In fact, the number changes.  Sometimes there are more.  Sometimes they are equal, and so on. Any given matter particle will produce and absorb many particles within its existence.  Because of this, we can surmise that there are more bosons than fermions. This static percentage that the author gives is nonsense. In regards to the Core Theory, the author is resorting to special pleading. He/she argues that because particles and forces account for each other, then there can be no room for any metaphysical interaction between the aforementioned. This is simply bad science.  To date, physicists have not discovered all particles and forces in the universe.  If this were the case, CERN would have shut down a long time ago.  In fact, new particles are being discovered nearly every year. There is still a lot we do not understand on how our universe works. In fact, just last year, the large hadron collider discovered other particles and forces that operate apart from those in the Standard Model. This poses a big threat to the ideas presented in the Cord Theory (see:

Science has indeed made a statement about the soul through scientists, and the data we have from science shows no soul. He proposes a highly (and I mean highly) speculative idea from Roger Penrose (who is fond of some woo) that the soul resides on microtubles in neurons. Are you kidding me? You're putting that up against the standard model? He says the percent of the universe that are made of fermions and bosons changes, but offers zero evidence of this (something he typically does).

He also doesn't understand the argument. We don't need to know all the forces and particles in the universe. All we need to know is all the forces and particles relevant to human beings, and that includes everything in the standard model and gravity. New quarks that the LHC discovered are irrelevant to human beings because we are not made of those heavy quarks, which rapidly decay. Core Theory coverseverything you experience in your everyday lives, without exception. That includes what humans are made of — and humans are not made of, nor are they affected by dark matter, dark energy, or certain generations of heavy quarks. What we are made of is fully accounted for, and it leaves no room for the soul without violating the standard model.

What he wrote is literally the most common misunderstanding everyone has to the argument from Core Theory. That means he just doesn't understand the subject matter enough. B Mesons might also explain why our universe shouldn't exist.>>


Science has made no such statement. One can search on Google Scholar for such a peer review paper and will find none. You will find a few scientists; namely, in the psychology field who wrote papers on the soul. If the soul were defined via science as in the case of evolution, it would be taught in school as a scientific fact.  We see again that the author is simply not a friend to the facts. He/she demonstrates this by his response to Penrose's studies on microtubles in neurons and how they relate to quantum physics. The author clearly did not understand or is being willfully ignorant on the topic. This is why he claims no evidence was posted, when in fact, they were. He/she simply chose to not address it, for obvious reasons. He does not have the credentials to engage in such difficult topics.  Moreover, it was the author who makes conclusions about the number of fermions and bosons (5%).  He never provided evidence for this. I simply corrected his/her claims. I wrote that the number changes because matter particles produce and absorb many particles during their existence. Therefore, we cannot pin down an exact number.  That is what I wrote.  The author is so aloof that he/she does not even remember who wrote what.  That is funny. 

He/she claims that I do not understand the argument, but we all can see that he/she does not understand the response. He/she makes another ridiculous statement here, "We don't need to know all the forces and particles in the universe.  All we need to know is all the forces and particles relevant to human beings..."  Is he/she serious?  We are all particles in the universe and vice-versa!  Human beings are not distinct substances that exist aside from space-time and matter!  This guy is so ridiculous, for crying out loud!  The knowledge of all particles that may exist is vital to understanding human beings because we are those particles!  The author shows his ignorance by claiming that we are not made up of quarks.  Atoms make up our bodies. These atoms are hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen.  However, these atoms have protons and neutrons in the nucleus which in turn are made of quarks.  Again, the author shows his/her science illiteracy. We can pretty much rule out his/her arguments are faulty due to a lack of strong base on facts. So it is not that anyone misunderstands the Core Theory, it is that he/she has no idea what it is and is misrepresenting it.  What this author is doing is like pushing the idea that 2+2=5 as fact while calling those who disagree the ones who "misunderstand."  The Standard Model is not set in stone. As I explained, it is constantly being challenged. Note how the author did not even address the rest of my reply regarding Meson particles, Wilczek himself, patients who are declared dead and come back after cells begin to die etc.  Could it be that he/she has no rebuttal?  Note that all he/she has done is say that I do not understand. He/she does not offer any rebuttal.

<<6) Libertarian free will is incoherent

His response:

Here, the author makes so many mistakes.  He/she claims that if our thoughts are caused or uncaused, that we cannot control them.  This is ridiculous. He/she fails to take into account that our control is the cause. The fact that you and I can think of anything at any time, shows we are in control. The act of doing so shows the cause: our will in unison with the neurological structure of the brain. The author here is thinking in a linear sense and is completely ignorant of physics; particularly m-theory. We are in space and time, they have an effect on us. We exist in 4 dimensions (possibly up to 12) and are limited to them. We cannot perceive the others. To sum it up, string theory is the idea that particles are strings existing within and interacting with different dimensions. For example, string theory posits that what I am doing now is just one of the many outcomes within "reality." In this dimension I am blogging, in another, I could be blogging but chewing gum, etc etc. All of this can happen at the same time or at different times. You can test this with something that refracts light and a flashlight. When you put the beam on it, the light will "split" into parts pointing at different points. It is the same light, but they are at different points in space and time and in different dimensions. You can observe this because you are outside of that light, but if the light were conscious it would not be aware of this and would only be aware that it can exist at its respective point. In light of this (no pun intended), we know free will exists. Moreover, free will exists at an atomic level. Electrons and other particles behave in a random manner which allows for free will.  This is called the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.  Nothing in the universe is deterministic.  One of my former instructors, renown professor Dr. Kaku explains here:   Determinism is not taken seriously by most philosophers, less by physicists.  Here is a piece from philosopher Huemer:

Our control is the cause? This is the best argument he has? This is absurd. Our control can't be the cause because our control has to be caused itself. Or it has to be uncaused. And neither option allows for free will. You can't choose your thoughts before you have them, so the fact that you and I can think of anything at any time, doesn't show we are in control. It shows we can have different thoughts. Oh and by saying "We exist in 4 dimensions" is to admit eternalism, which is 4 dmensionalism. Once you have that, you negate free will. String theory is irrelevant here.

Quantum indeterminacy doesn't get you free will. It would mean your atoms are random fluctuations, and you cannot have control over random fluctuations because for something to truly be random it must be uncaused, and you can't have control over something uncaused. Dr. Kaku I'm afraid doesn't know what he's talking about.

My argument doesn't depend on determinism, it depends on logic. From his quote:

"1. We should refrain from accepting unjustified beliefs. (Premise; presupposition of reasoning.) 2. To say that one should do something implies that one can do it. (premise) 3. So we can refrain from accepting unjustified beliefs. (From 1, 2) 4. Assume that hard determinism is true. Then what we actually do is the only thing we can do - that is, what can be done is done. (Assumption, definition of hard determinism.) 5. Therefore, we have no unjustified beliefs. (From 3,4) 6. Many people believe in free will. (Premise.) 7. So the belief in free will justified. (From 5,6)."

Premise 2 is wrong. When a determinist says one should do something they don't know if they can in the future, but they do know that telling someone to do something increases the likelihood of that person doing it. Premise 3 is false in the sense that "can" doesn't mean "will." Premise 5 doesn't follow. And that means 7 is false.

Read here: "If Determinism Were True There'd Be No Reason To Try And Convince Anyone Of Anything"


Our control is the cause. If there is no us, there is not thought. Thought requires a conscious intelligence capable of assimilating stimuli, processing said stimuli and exporting it into a form of communication (verbal, physical, orthographical). Just because our control is a cause does not mean it is the absolute cause. There are different points of causality. Our bodies were caused by conception. But the eggs and sperm that because us had their cause. We can only define a cause within an ontological parameter as it currently exists.  Moreover, the 4 dimensions are space, time, matter and energy. This is what we believe we exist in. There may be up to 12 according to M- Theory. We may not even be able to perceive them.  The science is still developing in this area. A 4-dimensional state of 4 does not mean there is no free-will. Notice how the author fails to prove his/her claim. Next, the author claims that Dr. Kaku does not know what he is talking about.  Seriously? A top physicist does not know what he is talking about?  We can see how foolish the author is. He/she does not have the academic credentials to state that Dr. Kaku is wrong. The author clearly has no clue about physics. Electrons behave in a random manner showing that nothing is determined in this universe. If this were not the case, we all would be frozen in time. There would be no room for differences in nature because all would be set to a determined standard. String theory is very relevant here because it deals with the many vibrations in the "strings of life," so to speak. If this author would take courses on this, he/she would not come across as so ignorant of science. 

Next, he/she claims that premises are wrong in Huemer's take on why determinism is not probably. What is wrong is his/her understanding. To say that one should do something implies that one can do it otherwise one would not state so. For example, I will say that I can make a gold ring if I cannot do so. Premise 3 is not false because "can" does imply that something could be. "I can" means that something is possible if there is a will. "I Can ride a bike." "I can jump and dunk a basketball."  Premise 5 follows because the previous premises show that we cannot have unjustified beliefs. Therefore, premise 7 is true, not false.  The author clearly did not understand the premises. 

<<7) Brute facts are unavoidable

His response:

Here the author shows his/her ignorance of philosophy and even plagiarizes a Wikipedia article (ünchhausen_trilemma). The author argues that God has an immutable nature, then there was no need to create a universe. This is just a silly argument. God created the universe out of love. The creation is not necessary for Him, but it is for us because we exist in it. As a kid, I had an ant farm. I had no need for it in regards to survival. I had it because I wanted to care for ants and learn from them. Similarly, God has no need for a universe or humanity; not even the angels.  He created them simply to share His love. A married couple has no need to have children. They do so because they want to start a family and share their love with their children. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

Plagarizes? I simply list the trilemma and link to it. That's not plagarizing. I don't claim to have discovered this trilemma. So this guy has no idea what he's talking about. I don't claim that "God has an immutable nature, then there was no need to create a universe," I claim that god's will to create this universe is not necessary and once you allow that, the reason why god willed this universe must be contingent, and once you get that you get a dilemma. This guy has no clue about philosophy.

After that he goes over some Catholic dogma that states god created the world according to his wisdom, but not out of necessity - and that's my point! The explanation to why god created our world is not necessary, and that means it must be contingent, since those are your only two options. Then you get the dilemma. And my argument doesn't rely on there being one universe. There can be billions of universes and my argument would still work: why did god create these particular billion universes and not another billion? Same problem.

So he's clueless as to the problem he's in.>>


Yes, that is what the word plagarize means.  The author wrote word-for-word an article from Wikipedia. Note, Wikipedia is not a valid source.  Anyone can edit it. Universities frown upon it and automatically fail students who use it as a source. The fact that this author derives his/her content from Wikipedia shows academic sloth. Moreover, I never stated that the author discovered the trilemma. He/she is clearly lying here. Nor did I claim that he/she claims God has an immutable nature etc.  This author clearly has reading comprehension problems. I stated that the author does not understand theology and the immutable nature of God. This is why his/her argument fails. The author claims that "God's will to create this universe is not necessary.." this premise is baseless. 

Notice how the author fails to substantiate it. He/she claims it and expects readers to take it at face value. That is not how making arguments work. You have to present a premise and support it. This is why the author's arguments fail. None of them hold water, so to speak. Not only does the author misrepresent philosophical axioms, he/she fails to expound on and infer from them.  It is not that I do not understand philosophy, I have a degree in it and am a member of Phi Sigma Tau. I was taught by famous atheist philosopher Dr. Pigliucci. This author is just an amateur arm-chair quack. What he/she presents is not philosophy. It is a sophism. The author clearly does not understand what necessity means in philosophy. Aquinas argued that all things that exist are dependent on other things for said existence. He then continues that there is a Necessary being which He described as God. If the author understood this, he/she would not have used the argument he/she used. Instead, the argument of infinite regression would have been better, despite being flawed as well. So in fact, the author has no point at all. There is no dilemma. Look at the flawed premise:

" I claim that god's will to create this universe is not necessary and once you allow that, the reason why god willed this universe must be contingent..."

God's will is necessary if He is the creator and necessary being. See where the author fails? He/she is completely confused with the terminology. Next, the author writes:

"After that he goes over some Catholic dogma that states god created the world according to his wisdom, but not out of necessity - and that's my point! The explanation to why god created our world is not necessary, and that means it must be contingent.."

Look at this carefully. It is not logically coherent. God created the world according to His wisdom. No necessity is needed. The argument from necessity entails that the universe needed a necessary being, not that the necessary being needed to create the universe.  See where the author simply gets it wrong?  Moreover, the author ignored my previous reply where I wrote:

"Moreover, the author claims that God created only one universe.  We simply do not know this.  For all we know, there can be multiple universes that God has created and chose not to reveal to us.  In the Bible, it says that God 'rested,' not that He stopped creating (Genesis 2:2-3)."

Again, the author simple restated his/her error and added personal attacks. This shows that he/she is defeated and is resorting to pigeon chess.

<<8) Omnibenevolence is incompatible with the natural evil of evolution

His response:

Here, the author cites Christopher Hitchens regarding a creator who is "cruel, incompetent etc." This is a common argument used by atheists which they believe is strong, but it really is not. The argument is very bad as it assumes that God is subject to our interpretation of morality or what is ethical. The author then argues that evolution somehow proves God does not exist or is cruel. This is a typical ridiculous argument made by alleged online atheists who do not have a grasp of science or theology. The idea that since mass extinctions occur in nature and that this proves God does not exist or is cruel is extremely silly. The author proceeds to make claims that the process of evolution is cruel and clumsy. Any evolutionary biologist would laugh at the idea. Natural selection is not a clumsy or evil process. Those organisms with the best genes and ability to survive are the one who do so. This makes perfect sense. In school, those who study hard pass while those who do not, fail. This does not make a teacher or school clumsy or evil. The author argues that "God knowingly chose a process that requires suffering that is logically unnecessary." We see here the poor argumentation made by the author. He/she assumes that suffering is a concept that is part of nature.  It is not. Suffering is a social construct. It is a word that we give to a particular experience which we describe as unpleasant. What is suffering exactly?  Philosophers debate this all the time.  Is suffering when a child is forced to eat vegetables? How so? Are not vegetables good for the child? I make this point to show that we must define suffering properly and place it in the proper perspective.  The author uses it in a fallacious way when he/she applies it to the evolutionary process. Moreover, the author fails to acknowledge that sin brought death and suffering to the world (Genesis 3:14-19; 4:1-15, Romans 5:12,  Romans 8:20-22). God did not create suffering or evil. These are not real things that exist in nature.  They are the privation of what is pleasant and good. Similarly, darkness is not a real thing that exists. It is just the absence of light which does exist. Any mass extinctions or disappearance of species of earth is not "suffering" or "evil." These are just the consequences of real processes that happen in nature. The idea that suffering invalidates God's omnibenevolence is based on poor reasoning.  I wrote in my book Atheism Is Stupid an extensive refutation of the so-called "Problem of Evil." In the refutation, I wrote, 

Many, many problems with this attempt to rebut my evolutionary argument against god. First, I assume the Christian's own moral claims and beliefs, not my own. I'm simply taking the idea of infinite goodness the theist claims god is, and then showing how that is not compatible with the cruelty of evolution. No evolutionary biologist will say evolution isn't cruel or clumsy. They all know it is blind and the organisms who do not have the best genes die an often painful death. He forgot to mention that. Comparing studying school to inherited genes is beyond silly - you can't study or do anything for better inherited genes!

Suffering is a social construct? Um what? I think being eaten alive qualifies as objective suffering. I think being burned to death in a forest fire qualifies as suffering. I think having a wasp's larva eat you alive from the inside qualifies as suffering. There's no fallaciousness on my part here.

And appealing to Genesis as a literal history is fallacious. There was no Adam and Eve. Animals have been suffering and dying for millions of years before humans even existed. This guy's a creationist and has no clue about science. You can't claim you know about science and be a creationist! That's ridiculous to the point of insanity.

If his book is anything as bad as his arguments in this post, his book is high school level apologetics, at best!>>


There are no "many problems," only one: The author's take. I refuted why the author's claims that an infinite goodness attribute in God is incompatible with evolution. I explained how the author is making false conflations and applying social constructs to concepts when they are not applicable. For example, we cannot say hurricane Maria was evil and cruel because it wiped out Puerto Rico. That is absurd. Hurricane Maria was a natural phenomenon. It does what it does(rain/gusts etc). To claim that this natural phenomenon is "cruel or evil" is extremely stupid. Only sentient beings are capable of cruelty and evil. We can see how the author does not have a strong grasp of vocabulary and how to apply words accurately to nouns. No evolutionary biologist would say that nature or evolution is cruel of clumsy. This would be extremely bad science. To make such a claim is to put an inert event or object at the same level as a conscious and sentient being. Moreover, not all organisms die a painful death. In fact, not all organisms have pain receptors!  Suffering is a social construct. Human society simply uses that word to describe what it perceives as something unpleasant. But is it unpleasant? This is debatable. 

Some people derive sexual gratification from what others may call suffering. Who is right?  This is why we say that suffering is a social construction. Being eaten alive can be classified as suffering but also can be classified as the food chain/prey vs predator. I appeal to Genesis to explain to the author the way Judeo-Christian thinkers view suffering and why it exists. We are discussing God and religion, are we not? Christianity explains the existence of what we call suffering as a consequence of Original Sin. I cannot use physics or psychology to address the Christian view of it. I have to use theology and Scripture just like an engineer needs to use geometry. The author claims that there was no Adam and Eve. This is simply false. Note how he/she offers no evidence. We know that all human beings have genetic information from one woman who is believed to have lived in Africa. Biologists acknowledge this fact. Via speciation, we know that there had to be a man and woman who were compatible with each other to the point of allowing reproduction which allowed for the homo sapiens to exist and become the dominant species. Human beings did not appear out of nowhere. Once again, we see the author lacks an understanding of philosophy, biology, and anthropology.  My book refutes his nonsense and other atheist misconceptions. This is why it is popular and has converted 18 atheists to date!  It is no wonder why this author is afraid to read it.  Unlike the author, I do not rely on my own narrative. I cite peer review journals, books, and experts to show why atheism makes no sense and is stupid.

<<9) No god of any religion is compatible with the ontological argument for god

His response:

This is another ridiculous argument.  To suggest that no God of any religion is compatible with the ontological argument for God is just silly. The Ontological argument for God from St. Anselm posits that since we can conceive the idea of greatest conceivable being, then God must exist since our minds allow for this conception. The argument is strong on that point but weak on others. It does beg the question as to why we can think of such a great being.  However, it can also leave it open to conceive any other entity as being great, i.e "Flying spaghetti monster or Russell's Teapot."  The author attempts to capitalize this by claiming that any religion can formulate any great being.  He/she uses Yahweh as an example.  He/she writes:

I use Yahweh as an example because Yahweh is the Christian god, and I can easily conceive of a god greater than Yahweh. He never addresses this point, which means he doesn't address my argument!

Saying, "There is ONE GOD and over 3,000 ways man has tried to describe Him," is absurd because those 3000 gods all have different incompatible traits. It also does nothing to refute my argument. He finishes with:

The author even acknowledges that his argument does not disprove God's existence. This speaks volume of the poor reasoning.   

This guy is extremely stupid because I explicitly said in that argument that "This doesn't disprove god per se, but it shows that none of the concepts of god in any existing religion can even meet the standards of greatest conceivable being, and therefore none can be god."

He's completely dishonest and/or ignorant.>>


Yahweh is not the "Christian God." Even Pope Francis stated that Catholics/Christians do not own God. As I explained in my reply in my first post, "Yahweh" Is just the way God revealed Himself to Moses. Is it more of an ontological statement than a designation. Saying that there is One God and over 3,000 ways man tried to describe Him refutes the author's claims. There is simply just one God. Man called Him Zeus, Allah, Bhrama, Yahweh, Baal, El, etc. They all had a consensus that there is a creator and just called Him by different names or titles. So regardless of what title or name the author used, he/she is still referring to the One. 

This is why the author cannot refute my reply and resorts to ad hominem by calling me stupid, dishonest and ignorant. We can see the frustration. I can see why he/she is upset. When facts corner an uneducated person, panic ensues and the uneducated person becomes defensive. We see this in this author here.  He/she simply cannot refute the truth. 

<<10) Euthyphro's trilemma

His response:

Here the author recycles the banal Euthyphro's dilemma which is geared towards polytheism, not monotheism. The dilemma posits whether or not good exists independent of God. Does God ordain something as good because it is independently good or is it Good because God ordained it as so? This is pretty much the dilemma posited in Euthyphro's thought experiment. The author assumes that the theist has a problem when trying to address this. In reality, the atheist is the one who has the problem. God is good. God is the fullness of goodness and love. God is love (1 John 4:8). Goodness and love do not exist as separate entities from God. As stated before, when God created everything, He said that it was "good." This means that God is the one who defines what is a "good." The goodness of something does not exist independently of God. Call to mind what I wrote before about pleasure etc being social constructs. In light of this, what is good and evil is often defined by man in different ways based on circumstance and experience (ie hamburger example).

Euthyphro's dilemma applies to monotheism as much as it does polytheism. His response is (predictably): "God is good." But I already addressed that!!! This third option only opens up a further dilemma. If the claims is that god is good, I can ask, "Is god good because of the properties that he has, or are the properties that god has good because he has them?" Basically, if god is good because he’s loving and kind, then those properties are good independently of god, and thus goodness and morality would have to exist independently of god. But if the properties god has are good because god has them, then god has to be good logically prior to any properties he has, and that makes god’s goodness unintelligible. How can god be good prior to being loving or kind, or having any good making properties?

He's totally clueless as to the problem he's in because he has a high school level understanding of philosophy and apologetics. But he says "God is the one who defines what is a 'good.'" That would be saying morality is arbitrarily decided by god. In other words, god could say murder was good. Answer this: Why is god good? He can't answer without falling into the above dilemma. There's no lack of reasoning and knowledge on ontology. He's clueless about ethics.>>


It actually does not. The Euthyphro dilemma originates from Greece where polytheism was the norm. Euthyphro himself was a priest of a polytheistic sect. If he were alive today, he would not understand the argument the author is making and will probably be upset at the distortion the author is giving the dilemma that bears his name. Furthermore, I did not simply state "God is good." I wrote more than the author acknowledges. We can assume why he/she does not acknowledge my refutation. He/she cannot address it. Once again, the author restates his/her faulty premise.  

What I wrote before already destroyed his/her fallacious premise:

"God is good. God is the fullness of goodness and love. God is love (1 John 4:8). Goodness and love do not exist as separate entities from God. As stated before, when God created everything, He said that it was "good." This means that God is the one who defines what is a 'good.'"

The author completely ignores my refutation regarding social constructs and the application of them based on event, circumstance and the like. We see the poor reasoning of the author again. He/she does not understand that God is absolute. There cannot exist anything apart from God. Think of God as a pie. When a pie is whole, there cannot be anything else added to it. The pie is "full" and whole.  It is absolute. This is why we say God is Good and God is Love. God is compassion, God is holy, God is Infinite, God is eternal. God is absolute.Perhaps the author needs to invest in a dictionary to learn what words mean and learn about fractions and whole numbers. The author asks, 

"How can God be good prior to being loving or kind, or having any good making properties?" 

I answered this already. I wrote:

"The answer is simple, God is the absolute Good.  Being loving or kind is a manifestation of that good.  The same applies to us. Our goodness is not dependent absolutely on our actions.  We can be good without showing it.  A student can be good at math without having to show off to others is or her math skills.  A catholic nun or Buddhist monk can be good without having to go out and hand out sandwiches.  The latter is just a manifestation of goodness."

It seems that the author did not read my replies or did not understand them. He/she is simply restating his/her faulty arguments while claiming that I do not understand or an ignorant.  This is typical of alleged atheists online who do not know how to reason, yet claim to have more knowledge than even scientists and philosophers with doctoral degrees and decades of experience in their fields.  

The author asks "Why is God good?"  God is good because all good originates from God. This is logic. If God is the absolute and is the creator, then all derives from Him. If God did not create the universe, then good, life itself would not be.  This is why I state that the author does not understand ontology. Even a high school level philosophy knows more than this writer. I can guarantee that this author has no credentials in philosophy.  I dare him/her to post a verified document or record showing his/her credentials in philosophy.

Note how he/she resorts to ad hominem. It is very telling of his/her inability to address the points made that refute his/her nonsense.

<<11) Religious belief is product of the brain

His response:

Here, the author relies on terminology from Michael Shermer. Shermer borrowed these ideas from cognitive psychology which posts the phenomenon of pareidolia and so on. The author then describes how patternicity and agenticity developed via evolution to allow for greater survival against predators and the like.  The problem here is that the author and Shermer distort science to push a narrative that is self-contradictory.  They claim that seeing patterns and agents that are not there is hardwired into us. We, in turn, say they are ghosts, angels, gods and so on. Now, look carefully at what the author wrote, "What does all this mean? It means that seeing patterns and agents that aren't there is hardwired into our brains..."  Do you see the problem here?  The author makes a huge contradiction. How can one detect patterns and agents that are not there?  In other words, how can one assign a conceptual pattern to patterns and agencies that are not there? This makes no sense.  Both the author and Shermer rely on special pleading to make the claim that these undetectable patterns and agencies "manifest into belief in spirits, demons, angels, ghosts, and gods." The truth of the matter is that we are all hard-wired to believe in God, not ghosts, spirits or anything else.  Scientist Graham Lawton who is an atheist himself has stated that atheism is naturally impossible. It simply does not exist.  

There is no problem or contradiction. It's very easy to detect patterns that aren't there. Childishly easy. In fact, that was already explained in my argument! This idiot just completely ignores it and then asks a question about the very thing that I explained. We detect them because we have a tendency for false positives and I explained why. That is undeniable. Shermer doesn't claim they're undetectable, he claims they're detectable and he explains why this is the case. We're not hardwired to only believe in "God." He produces zero evidence for that. He continues.

This scientific view is supported by another atheist scientist, Pascal Boyer. Now let us assume that this author and Shermer are correct. We believe in gods because of evolution. The idea does not make any sense. Evolution prepares an organism to survive in nature. The key word is nature. It will not benefit an organism to look for patterns and agencies not found in nature when actual natural dangers exist. In other words, it is not possible for organisms to evolve to believe in supernatural agencies and patterns unless the organism was preexposed to them and this allowed for evolution to process the tangible stimuli. The author and Shermer inadvertently acknowledge the existence of the supernatural via their arguments.

Organisms will survive better in nature because having a false positive is much better than a false negative. That's why animals in nature that are at the bottom of the food chain are constantly paranoid. I explained why we have false positives and why that helped our survival, yet again he asks a question that was explained in the post! This makes his last two sentences completely false. This guy is utterly inept at logic and reason.>>


There is a problem and contradiction here.  How can one easily detect patterns that are not there?  That is silly.  If a pattern was detected, that means it is in fact there!  What the author is describing is like a radar detecting a ship that is not there. Does that make sense?  Of course, it does not!  It is irrational. Note how he/she calls me an "idiot." He/she is frustrated because I caught him/her in a big blunder. He also misrepresents Shermer. The author then shows his/her ignorance again.  He/she claims that we are not hardwired to believe in God only despite even Shermer stating so (see:  We have the VMAT2 gene which accounts for this. I also cited other ATHEIST scientists who confirm this, yet the author dishonestly claims that I provided no evidence.  Typical lying for atheism. The author then claims that organisms survive better due to false positives. This is just absurd. 

False positives will bring about poor reasoning which in turn will endanger an organism. If a primate detects a false positive in a bush and pays more attention to it, the primate will make a run for it and possibly run into the predator. It makes more sense for an organism to pay attention to actual nature and not imagine things that are not there.  This is why the claim that we believe in God because of natural selection and survival makes no sense. Also, the claim that animals at the bottom of the food chain are constantly paranoid is complete hogwash. I guarantee the author that a venomous snake will not be paranoid around him or her.  Neither will a spider. Despite their size, they will fight back regardless of the food change.  We see how this author is completely ignorant of science. I do not even have to make this post to show it. Any educated reader will come to the same conclusion that this author is simply pushing his/her narrative while ignoring scientific facts and philosophical knowledge. His/her own writing shows his/her stupidity.

<<12) All the arguments for god fail

His response:

The author claims that all arguments for God fail. This is simply not true and is why atheism is on the decline worldwide. It is nearly extinct in Russia! Atheism has no answers, only misconceptions.  Everything that begins to exist does, in fact, have a cause. To say otherwise is to be ignorant of science and philosophy who rely on the principle of causality. The author him/herself is a product of causality. His parents copulated which allowed for fertilization. At conception, the author came to be. He began to exist as a separate organism on this earth. To say otherwise is nonsense and disturbing. I have already demonstrated that the universe did come out of nothing.  The author is simply not well-informed on science. His statements show his lack of knowledge. I refuted his "brute facts" easily using science and philosophy.  Had the author done his/her homework, he/she would not have made this post showing such disdain for facts. The premise of KCA does not negate free will. I have demonstrated this using physics and philosophy in my previous refutations.

Atheism is declining? Um, has this guy read anything in the last 10 years on the subject? The number of atheists is increasing (See here: Number Of Religiously Unaffiliated "Nones" In US Rises to 25%) Atheism isn't supposed to provide answers, it's just lack of belief in any god. Nothing begins to exist because that presupposes presentism, which begs the question. Nothing in science relies on the "principle of causality." In fact, it's science that negates the principle of causality. Read Sean Carroll's quote above. Causality is a derived term, not a fundamental one. This guy has no idea what he's talking about. He never refuted any brute facts of mine and he's simply delusional if he thinks he did. He never shows the KCA doesn't negate free will. He must be one of those people who thinks that asserting the opposite of what I said is an argument.

The author's criticism of the Fine-Tuning argument shows that his/her own arguments need fine-tuning. His/her criticisms are based on misconceptions, poor understanding of science and philosophy, and a heavy reliance on special pleading. The author presents him/herself as the authority or archetypal source for how a universe is to be created and run. Nothing in the fine-tuning argument suggests that God could only create the universe in one specific way. This is just nonsense from the author. The author claims that the Moral Argument is negated by his premise listed in 10. However, I have demonstrated his argument to be faulty. He/she simply lacks the understanding of science, philosophy, and theology to adequately make a strong critique of the moral argument. The same is done with the ontological argument. The author claims to have refuted it, in reality, the author simply showed his/her poor understanding of the argument and how it applies to theology. There is no contradiction or circular argument. The author's ignorance is the problem here when vetted against philosophy, theology and the arguments themselves. In a rush to "refute" the arguments, the author failed to understand them and address their points. What we see is the author pushing a narrative based on misinformation and misconception.

The fine tuning argument does indeed suggest god can only create humans one way. If god could create humans a trillion physical ways, then there's a trillion ways humans could physically exist, and the fine tuning argument is rendered false. He just asserts god is good to refute my rebuttal to the moral argument, but I already addressed that. Claiming I'm wrong isn't an argument. It's an assertion.>>


Atheism is declining. The author is not up-to-date and relies on an old 2014 study.  According to the Pew Research, atheism is on the decline (see: Previous studies claiming that the "nones" is on the rise clearly specify that these "nones" are not atheists, but those who are indifferent to religion. In other words, they are people who simply do not adhere to organized religion but still believe in God.  Atheism or atheists who completely reject God and religion are in fact on the decline. It is nearly extinct in Russia (see: 

I am not surprised that this author seems to be allergic to facts. His/her arguments are void of them. Moreover, science does not negate the principle of causality. It is a principle studied in physics and cosmology.  The quote from Sean Carroll does not address what the author thinks it does. I demonstrated that in my previous reply.  I refuted each point the author made using solely science, theology, philosophy, psychology and scripture where appropriate in order to correct the author's misconception on sin and suffering from a Christian perspective. This author did not bother to read my post it seems. He/she claims that I never showed the KCA does not negate free will.  I did, in the previous responses. I even stated this. I wrote,


As stated before, this author is an academic sloth. He/she is so quick to play contrarian that he/she does not bother to read an opponent's rebuttals. In a formal debate, he/she would lose a lot of points.  Paying attention is key to a debate. If the author simply skims through an opponent's rebuttals and is triggered to resort to ad hominem and strawman, then the author is simply asserting the contrary as factual. I mention this in my book "Atheism Is Stupid." It is a defense mechanism used by alleged atheists when cornered with facts. They refuse to tackle them so their only option is to play contrarian.  This tells us that this author is either not a real atheist or is extremely uneducated in the fields he/she pretends to hold mastery in.  

Lastly, the fine-tuning argument does not entail that God can only create humans in one manner.  That is just silly. If this were so, why would male and female exist, or different colors, shapes, and sizes among the species?  We see the silliness of this author's claims. The fact that God can create in many physical ways does not disprove fine tuning. It just shows God can choose any design. The author makes absolutely no sense in his/her comment.  He/she is wrong on the merit of his/her own claims, not because I state so. What the author fails to grasp is the fine-tuning argument entails the ontological state of life now, not in the hypothetical.  Things are fine-tuned now. If God created life in a different matter (IE water-based life instead of carbon), that too would be fine-tuned.   

<<13) All religions appear man made

His response:
Not all religions are man-made. Only Judaism and Catholicism can describe themselves as revealed religions. God directly founded them. Judaism began with Abraham and Catholicism via Jesus Christ who is the Son of God and the second person of the Holy Trinity. The author makes the suggestion that religious texts are inconsistent and fail to be corroborated by history and archaeology. This is simply not true. The author is clearly working with misconceptions and not facts. Israel has many archaeological sites that prove the events of the Bible. To reject them is to reject science and foster antisemitism. The tomb of David is there, the sites holy to Judaism and Christianity are there. They are all verified by archaeologists, historians, and biblical scholars. Just last year, the University of Tel Aviv release a study that showed that the writers of the scriptures were not illiterate goat herders and that their content corroborates with discoveries in archaeology (see: Just recently, the story of Joshua's battle at Gibeon was confirmed by the journal Astronomy & Geophysics (see: ). There are many more sources one can find online that show that the events of the Bible are historical and supported by hard evidence and documentation. Nothing in the Bible is contradictory. The Bible is a collection of books written at different points in time, by different people and to different audiences. The contradictions atheists claim exist are due to their lack of comprehension of the literary styles and the methodology of how to interpret ancient texts. I can guarantee that this author has never taken any biblical studies course. He or she is relying on banal arguments circulating on the internet which is never vetted against scholarship.

Um, virtually all religions describe themselves as revealed religions. Nothing about Judaism or Christianity is special. I already showed archeology contradicts the Bible, and he doesn't refute that:

As evidence to support his claim that the Bible doesn't appear man made, he links to a post he wrote that the Bible records a solar eclipse accurately. And this somehow is suppose to prove the Bible as a whole is compatible with science? This is a horrible attempt at logic. Many ancient societies recorded astrological events. The Chinese recorded one of the earliest in 1302 BC. By his logic, ancient Chinese religions are true. My position is not that everything in the Bible is historically false. My view is that many of the Bible's historical claims are false. The Jewish enslavement in Egypt, the exodus, wandering Sinai for 40 years, the military conquest of Canaan — the central stories in the books of Moses (who didn't exist), none of them have been shown to be archaeological by science (and this includes a historical Adam and Eve). Showing that the Israelites recorded an eclipse doesn't in any way show the Bible's central historical claims are true

And it's total bulls**t to claim that it's antisemitic to say the Old Testament's claims weren't historical. This is coming from a guy who thinks Adam and Eve were historical! Enough said.

The author asks, "If there was indeed an all-knowing creator who revealed himself, why would he do it in such a way that contained all the ignorance extant of that time? Why not include a few detailed verses about something like evolution, DNA or germs which no one knew about at that time?" This question shows a poor understanding of the term Divine Pedagogy. Divine Pedagogy is the idea that God guides man throughout history, slowly revealing Himself based on man's level of understanding and abilities. Think of it as Star Trek's "Prime Directive." In the franchise, the Prime Directive exists to prevent advance cultures from interfering in primitive ones. God reveals Himself to man based on his lived experience. This makes sense due to man's paranoia when encountering new things or alien things. Take the age of exploration for example. When White European men landed in the western hemisphere, some native tribes mistook them as gods. The experience of pale face humans riding on huge animals we call horses must have been frightening.  If that made a huge impact on man, imagine if God appeared to man as He really is? How many people will be scared out of their wits? Imagine the panic!  God reveals Himself to man based on his lived experience. This is why Jesus came as a poor baby and lived as a commoner. He could have come with pomp and circumstance, but He chose to do it in a humble way to show that God understands us at all levels.  God loves man and wants man to be with Him for eternity to live in bliss and love. Knowledge of DNA etc will not bring about this end.  Moreover, who is to say that God did not reveal the knowledge that we have now? All knowledge comes from God. However, knowledge of the natural world will do nothing to make man good or holy. Grace and our response to it is what matters in the scope of things. I assume and hope that God will reveal how He made the universe at the end of time. This would be awesome. God is too awesome to be processed all at once. Human beings are finite creatures with finite minds. It is impossible for the finite to process the infinite.  This is why we are hard-wired. Atheists are not immune to this.  This is why they seek God as well. It makes no sense for someone who denies the existence of God to be fixated on something he/she believes does not exist. 

This is the stupidest response ever. Are you telling me that 2,000 years ago man couldn't handle the idea of evolution, DNA or germs? Humans would be "scared out of their wits"? So it was ok to reveal to them laws that condone sexism and slavery, and killing people for working on the Sabbath, killing people for worshiping other gods, genocide - and that wouldn't "scared out of their wits"? This is absurd! It's what I hear over and over again from theists on this issue: god couldn't reveal actual scientific truths because it humans couldn't handle it. That's utterly absurd. He's saying they could handle the death penalty for certain kinds of sex, being witches, working on the wrong day, being rude to mommy and daddy, and a host of other nonsense, but can't handle germs, a heliocentric solar system, DNA, or any other unknown scientific knowledge at the time? Please! Don't insult my intelligence. This is obviously an excuse theists give because they know their religion contains all the scientific ignorance of the time and no knew knowledge that was detailed and specific — which an all knowing god could easily do. The point of this knowledge is not to make people go to heaven, it's would be to prove the revelations in Judaism really came from an all-knowing god by containing facts no one knew or could know at that time. This would make Christianity more believable. Instead, it's ignorance fails to distinguish it from all the other religions of the time. This is totally lost on this guy.

Then he makes the claim about all knowledge coming from god. Two words: prove it! Lastly, he says "It makes no sense for someone who denies the existence of God to be fixated on something he/she believes does not exist." Well by that logic, it makes no sense for someone who believes in god to be fixated on the disbelief in god. He's espousing high school level apologetics. The reason why some atheists like me focus on religion so much is because other people believe it and use that belief to discriminate against others or kill. That's why we're motivated to destroy religious belief. Your belief affects me. Just to take a recent example in the US, judge Roy Moore in Alabama who's currently running for senate uses the Bible to justify discrimination against homosexuals (which this author is!), discrimination against atheists (which I am), and Moore's colleague even used religion to justify him messing around with under age girls by saying Joseph was married to Mary when she was a teenager! This is why we atheists want to destroy religion. Not because we think it's true, or that god exists, it's because we see how wrong and harmful it is. We care about people understanding truth.>>


Not all religions describe themselves as revealed. The majority of religions understand themselves as part of a culture or a philosophy. We see this among African tribes, Asian religions and even among Native Americans. The author never showed that archeology contradicts the Bible because no such thing exists. If the author is privy to information that universities in Israel are not, he/she should share it. Note how the author relies on a YouTube video instead of peer review journals to make his/her claim. It is laughable. The video itself has a misleading title which tells me that it is just propaganda that someone is trying to push to others. 

Here is a video showing study abroad MA program for those looking to study the archaeology of the Bible.  If the Bible was false and there was no archaeology to back up the stories, no reputable university would have such a program.

If I had the time and money, I surely would love to take this program to task.  Perhaps the author should apply for it so he/she can set aside his/her ignorance by making false claims that archeology does not support the Bible. 

I provided more than one line regarding the accuracy of the Bible. The author apparently did not bother to view all of them.  Many ancient societies have recorded astrological events, however, a recent study showed the biblical accounts were more accurate. The author could read the studies which I linked to the posts.  Moreover, the author is running into a strawman again. I refuted his/her claim that archeology contradicts the Bible and never made the claim that astrological events say religion is true.  The Bible is not religion. Can you see how silly this author is and how bad he/she is at reasoning?  Defending the accuracy of accounts of the Bible in relation to archeology is not an endorsement of any religion.  So the author's comment about Chinese religions being true is extremely stupid and reflective of the cognitive lethargy the author engages in.  
To claim that the Bible is not supported by archeology is pure stupidity and antisemitic. The author is denying the history and culture of a people. This is racist.

Here are some more articles from several sources on the many findings that confirm the Biblical accounts:

Next, the author claims that my response is the "stupidest response ever." This is typical of someone who has run out of answers.  The author claims that humanity could have handled knowledge of evolution, DNA and germs centuries ago. He/she is speculating here. History shows that the unknown scares people. As stated in my previous reply, natives did not take well to the appearance of white men. During the plague, citizens believed it was a curse or a demon who was at fault. Even today, some have trouble accepting evolution. Does this author deny this?  Moreover, some even have trouble with climate change facts!  The idea that people cannot handle hard facts is not fictitious. We see it today. The author demonstrates it as well by relying on sophism rather than facts on his/her website. Acknowledging history, physics, theology as I presented them will harm his/her cognitive bias.  This is why he/she became very defensive in his/her replies.  

Moreover, let us take into account the incident with Orson Welles' "War of the Worlds."  On October 30, 1938 the story was broadcast on radio. Many people actually thought that Martians were invading the earth. This resulted in many suicides and panic, according to several accounts. This is perhaps why governments are secretive regarding alleged UFO sightings or crashes (see:  In light of this, would humans not handle random information that challenges their current existential state? Absolutely not!  They will not handle it. The author insults his/her own intelligence by holding the irrational views that he/she holds.

Furthermore, the suggestion that religion contained scientific ignorance is just absurd. It was the Catholic Church that gave us science. Friar Roger Baco formulated the scientific method that we use today. Priest Copernicus gave us heliocentrism. I can go on and on showing how the Catholic Church created and contributed to the modern understanding of science that we have today. Even hospitals and psychology have their origin in the Catholic Church; not to mention, schools and universities. Again, this author simply does not research anything and runs with his/her fallacious narratives.  This is why the title of volume 1 of my book is "Atheism Is Stupid." It really is when you vet it against the facts.  The content found on this author's website is demonstrative of the stupidity atheism is.    

Notice how the author ignores the birth of Christ as a direct revelation from God. Christ is God, the second person of the Holy Trinity who became incarnate and walked among men, women, and children. Jesus is and was a historical figure. There is no dispute here. One can claim that He was just a man, but we have to see the logic regarding why His Church survived. If Jesus was just a mere man, no one would risk his/her life for Him. No Christian would risk being thrown into the lions or face persecution for a mere mortal. Remember, other "messiahs" were around before, during and after Christ claiming to be the "chosen one." These cults died away when their leaders passed. However, Christ's Church lived on with Peter as the first pope up to now with Pope Francis at the helm. We can see that this person of Christ was so impactful and "walked the walked," so to speak, that followers continued His mission even after He ascended to Heaven. The author fails to take into account this impactful revelation. No other religion can claim the success Catholicism has.  

Lastly, the author writes:

"Then he makes the claim about all knowledge coming from god. Two words: prove it!"  

If God created all things, then only He can know everything about it. It is logically sound that God would be the source of knowledge. If you want to know about Ford vehicles, will you go to Kia?  It would not make sense to do so because Kia is a different company and designs vehicles differently.  One would logically go to the source of the product to learn more about it. Hence, God can only be the one source of knowledge. 

Next, the author writes:

"Well by that logic, it makes no sense for someone who believes in god to be fixated on the disbelief in god. He's espousing high school level apologetics."

It makes perfect sense since we are called to preach the Good News to all the world (Matthew 28:19). This is a Christian's job. We are to go out and share the news of Jesus Christ to all the world and provide a reason for our hope (1 Peter 3:15). As a former atheist who holds degrees in the sciences and philosophy, I do exactly this. I refute atheist nonsense wherever it is found and show Catholics and other religious people how stupid atheism really is and that they can easily refute it.  Look how fast I refuted this author's nonsense; not once, but twice!  It is child's play to me. I have been there and done that, so to speak. No atheist can present an argument that I have not used myself during my years as an atheist.  To me, it would be like someone teaching me the multiplication table after I earned several college degrees.  There is no such thing as "high school level apologetics," by the way.  This shows how ignorant this author is.   

The author then claims that he/she focuses on religion because of discrimination against others or because of killing. This is just unfounded. In fact, atheist leaders such as Stalin hold the record for the most mass murders. A study from Case Western Reserve University and Babson College even found that atheists are psychopaths. It seems that we should be more worried about atheists, than religious people. May I remind the author of the recent attack in Texas by an atheist. He gunned down 27 people without concerned, many of them children. How about Hicks who gunned down Muslims?  The author's hate for religious people must have a psychological root. Perhaps he/she was offended or hurt by a religious person and is holding a grudge. His/her opinion is based on prejudice, not facts. The author claims to want to "destroy religious belief," but he/she clearly has failed in that endeavor. 

We live in a pluralistic society and must tolerate one another. I personally do not see how beliefs affect me. In Boston, we have Muslims, Atheists, etc. None of them bother me.  Perhaps the author needs some psychological help to learn how to tolerate others and work alongside them.  Justice Moore can state all he wants, but laws exist to prevent discrimination.  Moreover, I am not a homosexual. If I were, I would not be allowed in seminary. The author is resorting to personal attacks due to his/her inability to address my refutation.  One cannot rely on one man (Moore) to make rash conclusions.  

<<In summary

He writes:

The author outlined 13 bad reasons to be an atheist. I have shown why these arguments failed when vetted against reason, science, philosophy, and theology. The facts are simply not on the side of atheism. Only the cognitively lethargic would believe that these 13 arguments presented by this atheist author refute God or religion. They do the contrary. They show that Atheism Is Stupid, which is the conclusion I came to after being an atheist most of my life and why I chose the words at the title of my books. There exists no atheist who can make a strong argument for atheism. Atheism is a fictitious premise that runs on misconceptions as fact. It distorts science and philosophy to meet its ends of deception and ignorance. My book refutes this author's arguments more deeply as well as other commonly used arguments. I recommend you get a copy and learn why Atheism Is Stupid when vetted against science, philosophy and so on. 

This guy thinks he's "refuted" me! He's busy patting himself on the back at what he thinks is a job well done. What he doesn't realize is that every single one of his responses utterly fails to refute my arguments. Every single one. He completely fails to properly understand science, and has shown he only has a pop-culture understanding of it. He's completely ignorant of eternalism - which I mentioned over and over again and linked to. He apparently didn't click on a single one of my hyperlinks. Several times he asked questions about things that I had already answered because he completely ignored arguments I made. This shows he's either a liar or completely inept at analytical thinking. I think he's both. If his book is anything like the caliber of these arguments I can safely say that his book is high school level apologetics based on ignorance to science, philosophy, religion, and of course, atheism! And that characterizes the vast majority of the apologetics out there.

Don't waste your time on his book.>>

I do not think I refuted this author's post, I actually did. This is why it is one of the most popular posts on my site.  Over 5,000 views already!  It rose in popularity within an hour of being posted. I have gotten praise from both theists and atheists on it.  It seems that the author is "anally injured" and is attempting to save face after I destroyed his/he poor reasons to be an atheist. Even others have criticized his/her poor post:

If atheists are even calling out this author's science and physics, then that speaks volumes about his/her science illiteracy. I have shown how this author has no clue about cosmology, physics, philosophy and so on. He/she is presenting dishonest information that pushes a narrative of ignorance. It is not different than a creationist pushing creationism as fact. The author has failed to address my previous refutation and simply resorted to personal attacks and name-calling. He/she has become defensive because he/she lacks the ability to reason and present coherent rebuttals.  Because of this, his/her only defense is to "clawback" at me with insults and slander. Slander does become the tool of the loser and we see that in the poor response by the author. It is no wonder why he/she fears my book and the sale of it. If my post did so much harm to his/her nonsense, imagine what my book can do. In fact, sales have increased after I posted the rebuttal to this author's nonsense. I have also had new followers on Twitter and Facebook because of it!  

This blogger is no threat to anyone, only him/herself. The content is easily refutable and proven to be false when vetted against academia. Moreover, the fact that this author discredits scholars and presents him/herself as a more accurate authority demonstrates the Dunning-Kruger effect.  He/she plays the contrarian by simply presenting the opposite assertion as his/her argument and never touches my actual refutation. This is why he/she has been accused of simply restating his/her errors with the inclusion of ad hominem. It is an indication that he/she is defeated and lacks the ability to refute my refutation. In a formal debate, this author would not last against me. He/she is simply not prepared and does not make any effort to get the facts correct.  This alleged response is simply Pigeon Chess. 

Ironically, the author uses the name "The Thinker" on Twitter, but the reality of his/her content is contrary. There is no sense of thinking in his/her content. He/she simply borrowed from Shermer and Wikipedia and presented arguments that are self-defeating. I demonstrated several times how his/her post contradicts itself, lacks coherency and fails against the actual facts presented by science, philosophy, theology and so on. 

My book Atheism Is Stupid will prepare anyone for the nonsense called atheism. This is why the author is apprehensive to read it.  Anyone who is confident in his/her views would read anything, including content that challenges said views.  I read this author's content without fear. I also read other atheist content.  They do not strike fear into me or doubt because I was there at one point in my life and know the arguments and how to refute them. However, this author clearly is sophophobic with content that questions refutes and challenges his/her cognitive bias. It is understandable why this author is pusillanimous towards my book. I am used to atheists and alleged online atheists fearing me and my work.  This is why they slander me everywhere.  I doubt that this author will attempt to answer my post. He/she has nothing left to provide. Science, philosophy etc simply do not support this author. He/she is supported by cognitive bias and ignorance. This meme captures the author's attempt at a rebuttal:

Theists can rest easy knowing that atheism and alleged atheist such as this author is no threat to God or religious belief.  Their content is self-defeating.  


  1. For point 1 it sounds like you're saying that God is not bound by logic. Would this include creating a square circle, or do you mean something else by that statement?
    From what I understand, this would put you outside of mainstream theistic thought, and would mean that you aren't the intended audience.
    I agree with your characterization of logic to a point. I don't think it's merely a social construct, but I also don't think it's some set of immaterial "rules" as many seem to. I would expect aliens to understand logic and math once they understood (some of) the symbols, as they're formal systems with simple axioms that (in the case of standard math and clasical logic) were created to describe/model the "mid-sized" world humans inhabit.
    I'm not sure where in your previous response to point 1 you describe the attributes of God. Given your statement that God is beyond logic, etc, I don't think you could really even begin to build a concept of God, except perhaps through Apophatic Theology - is that what you're proposing?

    1. Logic is a social construct. How can God or anyone be bound by a man-made concept? Logic exists to assist in making coherent arguments. It is not meant to be the absolute measure of all things. As for square circles, they are possible, mathematically speaking. The Trigonometric and Spherical law of Cosines allows for the formation of such an object.


      After this, we can remove the x:


      We then come up with a spherical square with equally distributed squares on each vertex that equal to 120 degrees:


      Now if we can do this with mathematics and the universe is mathematical, then what is to stop God from doing this or greater?

      You have to understand that logic is not meant to describe God. It is meant to formulate arguments that are coherent with our understanding of God. There is a big difference. God is an infinite being, man is not. It is not possible to truly grasp the awesomeness of God. No matter what theology or philosophy we can formulate, none of them can truly grasp God. If we could truly grasp God, then He is not God. He is another finite concept that we figured out. This is why God is hard to understand on all sides: theism, agnosticism and atheism. It has nothing to do with Apophatic theology.

    2. So can god exist and not exist at the same time?

    3. Define existence. What does it mean to exist? What does it mean not to exist? Philosophers do not know. If existence is what we perceive and God can manipulate what we perceive, then it is logical for Him to exist and non exist. In fact, Christians go through periods where they do not perceive God.

    4. If you're saying existence itself is unknown, then you're in no position to even say god exists. To say god exists pressuposes you know what existence means, and that the whole concept isn't up in the air.

      Sac: "If existence is what we perceive and God can manipulate what we perceive, then it is logical for Him to exist and non exist. In fact, Christians go through periods where they do not perceive God."

      This makes no sense. For god to make you not perceive him it presupposes god exists in such incidents, therefore god is not existing and not existing. And clearly things can exist that you do not perceive, such as people you've never met.

    5. I am making you think. This is what philosophy is about. Philosophy is not science or history where it is settle on an issue. Philosophy is an ongoing state of thinking and criticism. No philosopher will say that he or she knows what existence truly is. This is why philosophy has so many branches. You do not seem to understand this. Everything in philosophy is debatable. That is the point of it. The search for wisdom. The word "existence" and our application of it is a social construct. We understand it based on our senses and perception. However, this does not mean that our senses and perceptions are the ends to the means. We know that our senses and perception are often not exact. This is how I can tell that you have never studied philosophy formally. You do not know how to think like a philosopher. Existence is always a heavy topic of debate in philosophy. This is why God is still under discussion in philosophy and theology and why I brought up the logic and God thing. Nothing is set in stone.

  2. For point 2, Eternalism is a term given to the 4 dimensional space-time that falls our of Relativity theory. You seem to be proposing an tensed theory of time, while the 4D spacetime of Relativity supports a tenseless theory of time. Since your responses seem to assume a tensed theory of time, while The Thinker is speaking about a tenseless time, your points don't appear to hit the mark.

    1. Eternalism simply does not work. It is incompatible with the theory of Relativity which posits that space-time are connected. Based on modern cosmology, eternalism is simply not feasible. Philosophical axioms are not science. This is where Atheismnthecity fails because he/she presents them as science. Philosophers can debate all they want about topics in the branch of philosophy of time. However, physics has an upper hand in the debate because it actually falsifies claims via empirical study. What does not hit the mark here is your take on my statements.

    2. Sac: "Eternalism simply does not work. It is incompatible with the theory of Relativity which posits that space-time are connected. Based on modern cosmology, eternalism is simply not feasible. Philosophical axioms are not science. This is where Atheismnthecity fails because he/she presents them as science."

      The view that space and time are connected is eternalism. Eternalism is the 4 dimensional block universe, which is derived from special relativity. If you don't know this you do not know the basics of relativity.

      Physics backs up eternalism, because eternalism is based on the relativity of simultaneity from special relativity, which is confirmed by all evidence. I'm not sure you understand the subject matter.

    3. No, the view that space and time are connected is general relativity. Eternalism is a philosophical axiom based on special relativity. It is just a thought experiment and not fact. There is no evidence that a block universe exists just like there is no evidence that a multiverse exists. You are free to believe in a block universe, but you are not free to push it scientific fact. This will get you into trouble with physics. Physics does not back up eternalism. This is why there is no scientific research on it. Only a few physicists such as Sean Carroll present ideas on it, but they have no hard proof for its existence. I understand the subject matter well and can say that it has no scientific backing. If you believe otherwise, then you will be in for a rude awakening if you ever take a quantum physics course. The professor and possibly other students will "eat you alive" in a discussion. General relativity makes eternalism obsolete.

    4. You clearly don't understand the subject matter well. The view that space and time are connected is special relativity. General relativity begins with spacetime as true (which it gets from special relativity) and shows how it's curved.

      Eternalism is not a philosophical axiom. It's not an axiom at all, it's a conclusion. Special relativity says there is a relativity of simultaneity, and a relativity of simultaneity can only exist on eternalism, as it would not be compatible with presentism.

      The relativity of simultaneity can only be true if eternalism is true, and every single experiment shows that simultaneity is relative. So physics backs up eternalism. It's presentism, the view you unknowingly presuppose, that has no evidence, as it is imcompatible with special and general relativity. You need to do more research.

      Eternalism is also the dominant view among physicists. When you learn SR and GR, you learn why eternalism is true. Just because the professor doesn't say 'eternalism' that doesn't mean they aren't showing eternalism is true. Presentism is the minority view. Science doesn't deal with hard proofs, science deals with falsifying hypotheses.

    5. That is funny. We all know that you are the one who does not understand the subject matter. A simple Google of "Eternalism" shows a box that clearly states that eternalism is a philosophical axiom. It has nothing to do with physics. You will not find the term in any physics text book. Eternalism is a topic from philosophy of time. YOu also fail to understand that general relativity complete special relativity with the factor of gravity. Because of general relativity, the idea of eternalism makes no sense. Since time and space are connected and began at the big bang, then the universe had a beginning. Eternalism, eternity, infinity or whatever you want to call it are not a factor. This is the mainstream physics until something new comes along. I have even quoted Hawking to you several times and you do not seem to comprehend this. Moreover, you seem to think that I am advocating for presentism. I am advocating for nothing other than the current science. You are arguing from thought experiments from philosophy of time, not actual scientific facts. Eternalism does not even disprove God's existence. In fact, if eternalism is true, if we are in a block universe then this can just prove that God created the universe as a possible software program, or the universe is God. Your arguments do not help atheism. Science deals with hard proofs. This is why experimentation is done.


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.


Catholic Church (761) God (406) Atheism (343) Jesus (343) Bible (311) Jesus Christ (286) Pope Francis (230) Atheist (228) Liturgy of the Word (192) Science (152) LGBT (146) Christianity (139) Pope Benedict XVI (81) Rosa Rubicondior (79) Gay (78) Abortion (75) Prayer (66) President Obama (57) Physics (53) Liturgy (52) Philosophy (52) Christian (50) Vatican (50) Blessed Virgin Mary (44) Christmas (43) New York City (41) Psychology (41) Holy Eucharist (36) Politics (34) Women (34) Biology (31) Supreme Court (30) Baseball (29) NYPD (27) Religious Freedom (27) Traditionalists (24) priests (24) Space (23) Health (22) Pope John Paul II (22) Racism (22) Evil (20) First Amendment (19) Pro Abortion (19) Protestant (19) Theology (19) Christ (18) Death (18) Apologetics (17) Astrophysics (17) Child Abuse (17) Evangelization (17) Illegal Immigrants (17) Pro Choice (17) Donald Trump (16) Police (16) Priesthood (16) Pedophilia (15) Marriage (14) Vatican II (14) Divine Mercy (12) Blog (11) Eucharist (11) Gospel (11) Autism (10) Jewish (10) Morality (10) Muslims (10) Poverty (10) September 11 (10) Easter Sunday (9) Gender Theory (9) Holy Trinity (9) academia (9) Human Rights (8) Pentecostals (8) Personhood (8) Sacraments (8) Big Bang Theory (7) CUNY (7) Cognitive Psychology (7) Condoms (7) David Viviano (7) Ellif_dwulfe (7) Evidence (7) Spiritual Life (7) Barack Obama (6) Hell (6) Hispanics (6) Humanism (6) NY Yankees (6) Babies (5) Cyber Bullying (5) Gender Dysphoria Disorder (5) Massimo Pigliucci (5) Podcast (5) Pope Pius XII (5) The Walking Dead (5) Angels (4) Donations (4) Ephebophilia (4) Pope Paul VI (4) Catholic Bloggers (3) Death penalty (3) Evangelicals (3) Pluto (3) Pope John XXIII (3) Baby Jesus (2) Dan Arel (2) Eastern Orthodox (2) Encyclical (2) Founding Fathers (2) Freeatheism (2) Oxfam (2) Penn Jillette (2) Pew Research Center (2) Plenary Indulgence (2) Cursillo (1) Dan Savage (1) Divine Providence (1) Fear The Walking Dead (1) Pentecostales (1)