Mick: Atheists don't pray to Richard Dawkins
Muslims and Muhammad though...

Warrior-Z: @Mick: Pray to a God? Wanna debate God's existence ITT? We can do that rn and I'll absolutely blow you out.

Mick: Sure thing, God/Yahweh/Allah does not exist

Warrior-Z: @Mick: Premise 1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
Premise 2) The universe began to exist.
Therefore,the universe has a cause.
<
Premise 1 is true for three reasons ... "Nothing" by definition cannot do anything. We never experience something coming from nothing. Every instance of change requires a cause (ALL of our experience verifies this) and something coming from nothing would in fact be an instance of change.
Premise 2 is true for three reasons ...There cannot be an actual infinite amount of "quantitative" events. An actual eternal universe would have reached maximum entropy. The big bang shows that the universe ultimately began to exist.
The cause of the universe would have to be a sentient cause ... A non-sentient eternal state of being could never change from that eternal state apart from a volitional source (the actual cause of time,space,matter and energy would ultimately have to have been in an eternal state of being).The order and complexity of the effect (the universe) points to an intelligent cause.

Chud¹: @Warrior-Z: >10 minutes and no response
Mick XISTAS....do we have no basis for our claims?

Chud²: oh fuck this fail font shit

Chud³: @Warrior-Z:

>absolutely blow you out

'Z loves blowing on things, swallowing too

Chud⁴: @Chud:

Mick: @Warrior-Z: you're right to say that there's basically fuck all instances in which something comes from nothin which is why most intellectuals who engage with big bang
theory state already that the universe was already a thing before the big bang (albeit a more centralized and condensed ball of heat.)

Warrior-Z: @Mick: This doesn't really refute any of the premises though, you're simply acknowledging the first premise basically. Is this like a concession to the first one or?

Mick: @Warrior-Z:
I'm denying the intelligent cause part as it's pretty easy to assume that a flaming condensed heat ball would probably do something

Chud⁵: @Warrior-Z: Aren't you the same guy who used some islam "historian"'s book to try to argue that Mohommed didn't have sex with kids

Chud⁶: rather than your own fucking religion book ^^

Chud⁷: Gem gem gem

Warrior-Z: @Chud: Hadiths, theologians, historians that were even during the CALIPHATES, yeah? Wanna get beat up on that topic?
@Chud: The Quran doesn't say Aisha RA's age anywhere, retard.

Slvt4BIBISI: I don't need porn to crank my hog.

Chud⁸: @Warrior-Z:
I asked Sulaiman b. Yasar whether the semen that gets on to the garment of a person should be washed or not. He replied: A'isha told me: The Messenger of Allah washed the semen, and then went out for prayer in that very garment and I saw the mark of washing on it. (Sahih Muslim 289a)
"I often scraped it (semen) from the garment of the Messenger of Allah with my hand." (Sunan Ibn Majah 537)
"I remember when I found it (semen) on the garment of the Messenger of Allah and I scratched it off." (Sunan Ibn Majah 539)
"I asked Sulaiman bin Yasar about a garment which gets semen on it. 'Should I wash it off or wash the entire garment?' Sulaiman said: 'Aishah said: "Semen used to get on the garment of the Messenger of Allah and he would wash it off his garment, then he would go out to pray wearing that garment, and I could see the marks left on it by washing." (Sunan Ibn Majah 536)
"I used to scrape the Janabah." On another occasion she said: "The semen from the garment of the Messenger of Allah (salla Allah `alayhi wa-sallam)." (Sunan an-Nasa'i 296)
"I used to scrape it (the semen) off the garment of Allah's Messenger and then he offered prayer with it. (Bulugh al-Maram 28)
I used to wash the semen off the clothes of the Prophet and even then I used to notice one or more spots on them. (Sahih al-Bukhari 232)

Warrior-Z: @Chud: What are you trying to argue with this?

Chud⁹: @Warrior-Z: Your prophet was a child molesting, delusional, sex addict. How will you cope with this information?

Warrior-Z: @Chud: This doesn't logically follow from any of the propositions you just gave, you gave a "semen washing" instance written from Bukhari (presupposing that one is even following to my points), this is just a non sequitur. Go read more, you're illiterate as HECK.

Mick: @Chud:
Based on Sahih al-Bukhari 5134 we can still say Muhammad was a pedo but nowhere in the paragraph you gave mentions again

doe it does still prove he's a degenerate fuckwad

Chud¹⁰: @Warrior-Z: Your religion had its prophet have children wash cum off of his clothes is the point. it's even in your "holy" book

Mick: Mentions age*

Warrior-Z: @Mick: First off, that's not the Quran. Second
@Chud: @Mick:
Debunked here:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MiupfAM3Sb5GNC9HkP58MbhYUQe2JW38-W9QuZ9e2o8/edit?tab=t.0

>INB4 THEY POST THE SAME HADITH THAT GOT ADDRESSED

>INB4 THEY START TO BEG THE QUESTION

>INB4 THEY BACKTRACK

>INB4 THEY START COPING

>INB4 THEY SAY THAT I AM COPING (NOT A REFUTATION)

>INB4 AD HOMS

Chud¹¹: @Warrior-Z okay but what would xe have to gain from lying about being 9?

Slvt4BIBISI: Arguing about religion is pointless they've been around for millennia every question has been asked.

Chud¹²: @Slvt4BIBISI go back to shitting up the schlog

Chud¹³: @Warrior-Z Also, if you can't trust stuff that is literally in your own book then what can you trust

Slvt4BIBISI: @Chud: I can do both.

Chud¹⁴: @Chud

>no responses

Warrior-Z: @Chud:

>in your own book

What do you mean by this proposition? Are you saying it's the holy book?

>okay but what would xe have to gain from lying about being 9?

That's not the argument.

Warrior-Z: @Chud: Spoke too soon, we sent these comments at the same minute.

Demonic_Passion: I mean us Satanists believe in god but we fucking hate him

Warrior-Z: @Demonic_Passion: That's Theistic Satanism, albeit the ordinary troony Satanists I've seen are just atheists but edgier, which is different from that.

Demonic_Passion: @Warrior-Z:
Yeah. Most Satanists are actually just leftist athiests but I am an actual Satanist (someone who is in opposition to God)

_account: @Demonic_Passion: do turkroaches really

sloptranWNBAG: Schlog is a shitty site
It's a controlled kike splinter

_account: @sloptranWNBAG: literal safe space for trannys, they can't handle the booru style

Chud¹⁵: literally kill Z and Mick with like knives or rocks or molotovs or some shit

Chud¹⁶: How the FUCK can you be a muslim but hate pedophiles? It's common knowledge that muhammad liked kids, not to mention the AoC in most islam dominated countries is comically low. Atheists are absolutely disgusting but this is just a pot meets kettle situation.

Chud¹⁷: @Warrior-Z: The KCA's been deboonked geg
Problem with P1: There's no logical contradiction entailed had the universe had a first moment, before it existing nothing like how there is nothing north of the north pole. Because there then would have been no time without spacetime (entailed by definition), conservation laws are not broken.
Problem with P2: There's no logical contradiction in the notion of an infinite past. See Roger Penrose's CCC for how an infinite past is compatible with the Big Bang and entropy.
While both premises are maybe true, that'd only lead to the conclusion of that "God maybe exists", which isn't what you're arguing for.

Chud¹⁸: *There's no logical contradiction entailed in the universe having a first moment, before which existed nothing like how there is nothing north of the north pole.
ESL sry

Gupta_Singh: @Chud: Sirs i want ur sexi sister picture

Warrior-Z: @Chud: All of this is already debunked.
@Chud: This is a fallacy called a false analogy, since the analogy of the "North Pole" depends on the spatiotemporal aspect of the universe for the view of the North Pole to be plausible. It does not explain the notion of absolute nothingness. Conservation laws and spacetime dependencies presuppose that the universe already exists, and therefore, one will be begging the question if the presider is to assume its existence beforehand. A fallacy of appeal to authority is committed if a theory (Penrose's CCC) placed in evidence is not demonstrably logically self-coherent thus, it does not invalidate the assumption. CCC is, therefore, too speculative for it to settle issues regarding actual infinites or entropy reaching singularity. For a cyclical universe to be plausible, entropy must reset to its lowest state. This, however, violates the second law of thermodynamics unless there is an external intervention hence it does establish that an infinite number of cycles before the present-a time before time is impossible truly. You also commited a strawman, misrepresentation of the argument. The premises necessitate a transcendent, sentient cause (volitional, eternal, non-material), consistent with the classical concept of God. The nature of the cause can be inferred from the qualities of the effect order, complexity, and intentionality consistent with the actual premise.

Gupta_Singh: @Warrior-Z: can i have your sister

Imperfene: @Warrior-Z:

Warrior-Z: @Gupta_Singh: Kill yourself pedo, you do realise that you speaking of siblings can refer to children?
@Imperfene:

Imperfene:

Chud¹⁹: @Warrior-Z: 1. As I stated, the conservation laws and spacetime dependencies are not violated as there was no moment were the universe did not exist, because moments are points of time and thereby presuppose the existence of the spacetime. There was never thus a moment of absolute nothingess. Rather, there is a time boundary where there was nothing beforehand in the manner that there is nothing north of the north pole. Do you understand the analogy? It's not false.
2. I referred to CCC in short because I hoped that you understood that explaining an entire cosmological model in 'ru comments is worse than just reading it elsewhere. It's as speculative as any other model.
3. The second theory of thermodynamics isn't violated because, in CCC, the universe at its lowest entropy is the same at its highest. This is why I referenced it so that you perhaps would read it. I can summarize it for you: in CCC, all matter eventually becomes photons (light), which're timeless. If there's no time, there's no space. We thus get the same conditions of the early universe, and it acausally starts over. If you dispute the possibility of acausal effects, I'd be interested in hearing your argument.
I'm not making appeals to authority nor strawmanning you either.

Gupta_Singh: A loudest hindu pajeet brap ^

Warrior-Z: @Chud: The analogy thus fails because the view of the North Pole is precisely dependent on that spatiotemporal aspect of the universe-An absolute nothingness is not expounded. Conservation laws and spacetime dependencies presuppose that the universe is already present it would totally be begging the question on the part of presider to assume such existence beforehand.The fallacy of appeal to authority slips in if a theory (Penrose's CCC) should presuppose clear logical coherence that does not often require denial of its basis. The CCC is thus speculative too much to settle issues of actual infinites or entropy towards singularity. If one were to construct a cyclical universe, effective entropy would have to reset to that lowest point. However, given the second law of thermodynamics, this can happen only by virtue of an external intervention, and so it provides a valid argument for the impossibility of an infinite number of cycles before now-a time before time. misrepresentation of the argument. The premises necessitate a transcendent-sentient cause (volitional, eternal, non-material), consistent with the classical concept of God. The nature of the cause can be inferred from the qualities the effect has-order, complexity, and intentionality-consistent with the actual premise.

Imperfene:
KYS

Chud²⁰: @Warrior-Z: You're repeating yourself. Let me make this as simple as I can for you:
1. What logical contradiction is entailed by the view that the universe had a first moment, with no time beforehand?
2. What logical contradiction is entailed by a model being "speculative"? Every explanation is speculative because we do not know. KCA relies on the impossibility of the contrary, but I showed that the contrary is possible.
3. What logical contradiction is entailed by matter turning into spaceless-timeless light and thereby resetting entropy? Saying "this can happen only by virtue of an external intervention" presupposes that CCC is invalid, and I see no reason to accept that premise.

Chud²¹: Rodney Cluff o opoios exigei:

To selas paragetai apokleistika apo ta somatidia poy ekpempei o esoterikos ilios tis gis kai o iliakos anemos stin pragmatikotita, den mporei na eiselthei sto magnitiko pedio tis gis. Alla ektrepetai gyro apo ayto. Episis ta chromata toy selas prokaloyntai apo entona stroma energitikon ilektronion poy ekpempontai apo tin poliki mesa stin atmosfaira opoy ayta sygkroyontai me somatidia moriakoy azotoy, moriakoy oxygonoy kai atomikoy oxygonoy. To pio synithismeno chroma toy selas, to prasino, poy ekpempetai apo diegermena atoma oxygonoy ta opoia sygkroyontai me ilektronia chamilis energeias. To skoyro kokkino chroma apo moria oxygonoy otan ayta sygkroyontai me energitika ilektronia

Rodney Cluff who explains:

The aurora is produced exclusively by particles emitted by the Earth's inner sun , and the solar wind actually cannot enter the Earth's magnetic field. But it is deflected around it. The colors of the aurora are also caused by an intense layer of energetic electrons emitted from the polar in the atmosphere where they collide with particles of molecular nitrogen, molecular oxygen, and atomic oxygen. The most common color of the aurora, green, is emitted by excited oxygen atoms colliding with low-energy electrons. The dark red color is from oxygen molecules colliding with energetic electrons.

Warrior-Z: @Chud: Belief in the universe having some first time without a time before that can only avoid self-contradiction if "nothing" is redefined to mean "a boundary of spacetime", thus totally conflating being with prior temporal coordinates. However, this circumlocutes causal metaphysics, which asks for an account as to why spacetime began to exist at all. The wording "no time before" does not escape the Principle of Sufficient Reason, as it does not provide a rationale for that boundary existing rather than nothing at all hence, such existence requires transgressive cause. To speculate is not in itself contradictory, but, basing arguments purely on speculative models (like CCC) which carry no evidential or logical necessity is to contravene Occam's Razor, and hence multiply assumptions without reason. Further, mere possibility is no guarantee of plausibility. KCA establishes the impossibility of infinite regress or self-causation, and would provide more coherent explanatory power for how the universe came into existence than those speculative theories based on no empirical grounds and logical necessity. CCC proposes that spaceless-timeless photons cause the entropy "reset" yet this takes for granted some form of acausality, which is at variance with empirical causality (a decidedly universal one). To assert that light causes entropy to be "reset" without any cause for that action and without explanation contravenes the Second Law of Thermodynamics and also Leibniz's Contingency Argument supposing an uncaused reset, it has to possess of itself a sufficient reason. In the absence of an external intervention, such "reset" becomes brute fact it cannot explain the finely-tuned architecture we find in the universe. The CCC appears less coherent than the volitional cause of creation proposed by theism. I have no idea if you're even

TRACKING

within the conversation, this isn't looking good for you right now.

Warrior_India: Good morning sirs, keep ranging on me kids, i am blody batman superhero, or punisher, i epically own you kids, keep ranigna and send me a sexy picture o your sister

Chud²²: @Warrior-Z: Again, you're repeating yourself.
1. None of this shows that a logical contradiction is entailed by the view that the universe had a first moment, with no time beforehand. Rather you assert that the PSR must be applied, but why should it be applied if the universe began to exist without a cause?
2. CCC and the universe being created by something immaterial, spaceless, and timeless are both speculative. I see no reason to favor any of them. Infinite regresses aren't metaphysically impossible.
3. You refer to "empirical causality", where something comes from something, when supporting a view were something came from nothing. Either way, there are empirical observations which may be acausal (for example: exactly which atoms of a substance will decay during a half life cannot be determined and seems to be completely random, acausally selected). No logical contradiction is entailed.

>I have no idea if you're even TRACKING within the conversation, this isn't looking good for you right now.

It's hard to talk with someone who doesn't understand half the things I say.

Warrior-Z: @Chud: LMAOOO WAIT YOU JUST ASSERTED A WHOLE PRESUPPOSITION LMAOO, YOU CAN GO AHEAD AND PROVE THAT OR SUBSTANTIATE THAT PRESUPPOSITION OR IT'LL JUST BE DISMISSED VIA HITCHENS RAZOR. Now, while both CCC and the theistic explanation remain in the area of speculation, according to a theistic explanation, a single simple being which accounts for the universe's existence, laws, and fine-tuning is actually existent, and under Occam's razor is a further favorable, simpler cause for considering the overall existence than CCC, which supposes arbitrary infinite cycles and unexplained causal reset. Then, therefore, this is proof against infinite regress-a-la Hilbert Hotel or traversing an actual infinite incomprehensible scenario is not logically coherent. Therefore, the more rational position would be that theistic causality rationally explains whatever CCC supposedly is. Empirical causality asserts that everything that happens has a cause thus, a physical theory does not suggest acausality, but rather probabilistic causation according to quantum laws that presuppose a causal design set to work. A mere random universe emerging from nothing without an external cause contradicts the axiom ex nihilo nihil fit. Nothing in the realm of empirical observation could even remotely entertain even the notion of anything as being actually acausal, and hence postulating it entails brute facts that violate both PSR and Occam's Razor, hence rendering CCC and its counterparts as being at once explanatory vacuous. You're losing terribly right now, quit debating this is just not looking good for you whatsoever.

Chud²³: ^ain't reading allat

Chud²⁴: @Warrior-Z: 1. Quit running. Why would an acausal event have FSR enforced unto it and what logical contradiction is implied otherwise? You say that it can be dismissed via Hitchen's razor, but so can Hitchen's razor as well, since no evidence substantiates it. Clearly, some principles are accepted as is. If you would follow your methodology with Hitchen's and Occam's razors, the simplest explanation with the best evidence would be solipsism, as there is no evidence for that your senses are reliable (any evidence for it presupposes that your senses are reliable).
2. Explain clearly how an infinite, immaterial, spaceless, timeless, etc. entity is more likely than CCC. You can't, since both require assumptions. Those of CCC however are falsifiable.
3. Hilbert's hotel confuses different kinds of transfinite sets. Clearly, the infinity which contains a guest in the first room is different from the infinity that does not, yet both are endless.

>A mere random universe emerging from nothing without an external cause contradicts the axiom ex nihilo nihil fit.

This is why I always have to repeat that there was never a moment where the universe didn't exist as moments presuppose time. Again, you don't understand what you're replying to.

>Nothing in the realm of empirical observation could even remotely entertain even the notion of anything as being actually acausal

Atomic decay was already mentioned.

Chud²⁵: Transfinite numbers, not transfinite sets. Sorry.

Warrior-Z: @Chud: @Chud: An acausal event does not submit the PSR whatsoever this principle is a universality because not applying it undermines proper reasoning as such. The nonexistence of a logical contradiction does not imply an explanation. Consider brute facts like acausal events as explanatory dead ends that violate Leibniz's Contingency Principle. The razor applies Hitchens': unsupported claims can hardly be swept under the rug. It does not self-refute arbitrarily it merely favors minimalism and evidence. Solipsism, rigorous but incompatible with Occam's Razor, cannot account for the coherence and intersubjectivity of experience without positing a shared reality. For this reason, denying the PSR or leaning upon brute facts leaves an epistemological void that mauls down any rational discourse. An infinite and immaterial being, outside time and space, is not simply postulated it is metaphysically required for explaining the contingent and fine-tuned universe. The necessary being avoids an infinite regress and is therefore in essence the simplest one than the CCC that posits speculative cycles and brute resets. The falsifiability of the CCC does not carry it through as higher than other theories the laws of logic and mathematics are unfalsifiable, hence stronger than any other. Theism gives an ultimate ground for reality, while CCC shifts the explanatory gap without closing it. The intelligibility of the universe fits much better with the intelligent cause than with blind purposeless processes. Hilbert's Hotel exposes the metaphysical absurdity of any actual infinity, however transfinite, because it can either be empty or filled. No actual infinite then can coherently exist in reality, because it brings about contradictions by the subtraction or the addition of its infinite subsets. So too, atomic decay is not purely acausal rather, it is probabilistic causation. Quantum mechanics proceeds under the law-based framework that takes causality for granted at a fundamental level. "There is no moment at which the universe didn't exist" dodges the question of why spacetime per se exists, while mistaking temporal finitude with metaphysical nothingness. Therein lies the matter: were there no chosen, necessary cause, we were left with brute facts and explanatory voids, thus making theism definitely the more coherent alternative.

Chud²⁶: @Warrior-Z: @Chud: @Warrior-Z: @Chud: @Warrior-Z: @Chud: @Warrior-Z: @Chud: @Warrior-Z: @Chud: @Warrior-Z:
warrior z samefagging his post

Chud²⁷: loads of braps above me

Chud²⁸: @Chud:

>warrior z and imperfene both logged out at the same time

like clockwork

Warrior-Z: @Chud: @Chud:

KEEP TAKING LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ AND KEEP RAGING ON ME! YOU LOSE ALL DEBATES! ISLAM WON, REPLY IF YOU AGREE!

Teasuck: GEEEEEG they really look like this

Chud²⁹: @Teasuck: that was debunked

Chud³⁰: @Warrior-Z:

Chud³¹: NuReply clarification
Theism/Deism is possible on the grounds:
A. Law of Conservation of Energy (Cannot be created nor destroyed -> All Energy has an Infinite Lifespan -> Infinite Being that represents the total field/collection of energy

Chud³²: NuReply clarification
Theism/Deism is possible on the grounds:
A. Law of Conservation of Energy (Cannot be created nor destroyed -> All Energy has an Infinite Lifespan -> Infinite Being that represents the total field/collection of energy

Chud³³: B. Multiple Infinities exist mathematically (Principle of Cardinality, represented by Aleph: Ancient Semitic Letter that represents the oneness of God) and every set of things can be well ordered (Well-Ordering Principle) -> The highest of Infinities would be God, who sets all things in order

Chud³⁴: C. Our Universe is finite and still expanding but space and time is theoretically infinite. If other Universes exist it can prove that space and time is not limited to our Universe but instead trancends it -> Multiverse could be proven, and then be proven to be infinite -> Infinite amount of Creation, proving an Infinite Creator, that being God

Chud³⁵: @Chud: Oh would you look at that! The Hebrew Aleph's Unicode/UTF-16 Decimal Encoding reads 1488
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleph#Character_encodings
Yup, issa Jewish VVin

Chud³⁶: Kys pedo-z

Chud³⁷: im not readin allat