Search Results
6/19/2025, 12:56:45 AM
>>507910087
>why can't you argue against the iron clad logic in posts like these >>507907980
Well, firstly because it's not logic. Seriously, none of it. The science-denying author of that post thought it sounded right in his mind so he tried to pass off his tautology as something serious. But it's not. The problem is he's extremely limited in his thinking, only able to comprehend the world through his beliefs, tainting everything he perceives with fabricated nonsense.
>matter lacks mind, intent, consciousness and good will
The universe was most certainly not designed with us in mind. Humans can exist naturally only on a tiny sliver of crust on this planet, able to rise up no more than 2 miles above the surface and even less below it. We are literally hundreds of light years from the next habitable planet without our technology to protect us.
● Logic doesn't have to pre-date matter, but the fact is they seem to have arrived around the same time. Chronology is not correlation, but there's no contrary evidence otherwise.
● No evidence exists for a "first cause" only speculation
● The Prime Mover is a irrational speculation Aristotle attempt to rationalize. For those who don't know, rationalization is not logic.
● No evidence is known for what was before the cosmos inflation, so mislabeling it "nothing" is unscientific.
● Calling everything you don't like an "impossibility" is the language of non-falsification.
People with an IQ north of 100 (and passed 9th grade science) should know that the Inflationary Theory of the Cosmos only begins at the moment the proto-particles of the universe began moving away from each other. The Big Bang makes NO claim what might have been before it, or if time, gravity or matter even existed then. Atheists are just non-believers, they don't have to explain it and believers against it hypocritically enjoy the fruits of science (technology) while falsely smearing it out of the other side of their duplicitous mouths.
>why can't you argue against the iron clad logic in posts like these >>507907980
Well, firstly because it's not logic. Seriously, none of it. The science-denying author of that post thought it sounded right in his mind so he tried to pass off his tautology as something serious. But it's not. The problem is he's extremely limited in his thinking, only able to comprehend the world through his beliefs, tainting everything he perceives with fabricated nonsense.
>matter lacks mind, intent, consciousness and good will
The universe was most certainly not designed with us in mind. Humans can exist naturally only on a tiny sliver of crust on this planet, able to rise up no more than 2 miles above the surface and even less below it. We are literally hundreds of light years from the next habitable planet without our technology to protect us.
● Logic doesn't have to pre-date matter, but the fact is they seem to have arrived around the same time. Chronology is not correlation, but there's no contrary evidence otherwise.
● No evidence exists for a "first cause" only speculation
● The Prime Mover is a irrational speculation Aristotle attempt to rationalize. For those who don't know, rationalization is not logic.
● No evidence is known for what was before the cosmos inflation, so mislabeling it "nothing" is unscientific.
● Calling everything you don't like an "impossibility" is the language of non-falsification.
People with an IQ north of 100 (and passed 9th grade science) should know that the Inflationary Theory of the Cosmos only begins at the moment the proto-particles of the universe began moving away from each other. The Big Bang makes NO claim what might have been before it, or if time, gravity or matter even existed then. Atheists are just non-believers, they don't have to explain it and believers against it hypocritically enjoy the fruits of science (technology) while falsely smearing it out of the other side of their duplicitous mouths.
Page 1