Comments by "WaterspoutsOfTheDeep" (@WaterspoutsOfTheDeep) on "Professor Dave Explains" channel.

  1. Really weird take. Lee Cronin was the one that humiliated himself. He couldn't even defend his position or debate James Tour. I actually watched the full debate. Cronin was a nothing burger. Tour took him to town. Cronin couldn't even debate or provide evidence for the most fundamental starting point of his field of study. He also lied saying he didn't mean what he said about origin of life being a scam when in reality he did and confirmed it in a tweet outside of the first time he mentioned it in an interview. So he is a liar.
    3
  2.  @leroyjenkins3744  Your statement makes no sense. One can't say it's a joke when you verify previously it wasn't a joke... in other words I have every right to call him a liar because he is. I don't understand how I need to explain this when it was already presented to you. This is as straight forward as it can get... Your basic comprehension must be lacking because I wasn't vague. This is simple stuff.
    3
  3.  @VitreousVirtuosa  somehow? I flat out spelled it out for you.
    3
  4.  @VitreousVirtuosa  nope as I pointed out rationality does not come from irrationality. The universe is inherently coherent aka rational in nature, we can do math which means it's been designed, we can study it and the laws it posses it makes sense that means it requires a mind at it's source and so on. These are fundamental concepts. Rationality is in reference to the nature of the structure of the universe. But yes also our mind requires a God, a rational mind can't be the product of random unguided process. No computer you would trust would ever be made in such a way.
    3
  5.  @Capy_The_Bappy  Not at all, the paradigm of reality is rationality comes rationality. If you want to present your mythology of magic called naturalism that rationality can come from irrationality the burden of proof is on you. Where is this dues ex machina mechanism that does that? Same thing with cause and effect which is the paradigm of reality, universe had a finite start if you want to do away with God you need to prove an effect magically doesn't need a cause. Notice I never used the word complexity. Rationality is ultimately the product of a mind. The universe is inherently rational this alone demands a God behind it. It's illogical otherwise for us to have the ability to do math, and the universe being able to be represented in mathematical formulas, and to study the universe and do science. List goes on and on, this are basic straight forward logical issues for the naturalist.
    3
  6.  @YGObudgetplayer1055  You can look up philosophical arguments on math, if I said math itself I misspoke it's our ability to do math and describe the universe with it. It's the link on our end. Math is an immaterial concept we can access and rationalize from our end, it's our ability to do the math. Furthermore the ability for math to be used to describe the universe we live in. That is where I'm coming from. In other words our universe is inherently coherent, rational in nature. There is no rational explanation for this other than it was intended and built into this universe. This can also be explored with our mind and it's ability to rationalize and do math not just see the math represented in this universe. None of it can have a naturalistic origin. Rationality does not come from irrationality, the burden of proof is on those who say it does. Rationality comes from rationality that's the paradigm of reality.
    3
  7.  @Rex_82948  Never given the God of the gaps fallacy. You clearly don't know what that is. Atheism however gives something even more absurd, time of the gaps. Uncaused manifestation of effects and rationality. Aka your mythology of magic. More egregious than any god of the gaps fallacy could ever be as you are literally invoking sense from nonsense there is nothing that could ever be proposed that is more pure fantasy and impossible. That is your position your worldview and you've needed it spoon fed to you several times now because you don't even grasp the implications of what you have blind faith in. Try thinking for yourself.
    3
  8.  @tacobell2009  You are making no sense. Lee Cronin was the grifter. lmao what? Lee went there for attention and self promotion just like Dave did, he didn't even address the premise of the debate he totally sidestepped everything including his own claims he was called out on. lol then at the end had the audacity to say he felt attacked!!!! rofl it was unreal.
    3
  9. lmao what? Lee went there for attention and self promotion just like Dave did, he didn't even address the premise of the debate he totally sidestepped everything including his own claims he was called out on. lol then at the end had the audacity to say he felt attacked!!!! rofl it was unreal.
    3
  10. That never happened why are you lying lol... Cronin 100% meant what he said that origin of life research is a scam he wasn't joking as his tweets confirm. It was only about a year after of continued pressure from making that statement he went back on it.
    2
  11.  @JulioHernandez-jq9wg  I like to call Atheism a mythology magic because that is what it is (rationality from irrationality), in an attempt to do away with the need for mind a God. Mind>magic
    2
  12. @@sandrac9008 Mathematician John Lennox puts it quite simply rationality does not come from irrationality, the burden of proof is on those who say it does. Naturalism is predicated on a non-existant dues ex machina mechanism that produces rationality from irrationality(magic). Naturalism is literally a mythology of magic and these people have blind faith in it as we observe.
    2
  13.  @facundotorres175  As if, pretending probability can create all the rational outcomes of the universe is the rational from the irrational, that's literally a definition of magic.
    2
  14.  @facundotorres175  It's sense from nonsense. It's a mindless god of probability. It's the epitome of incoherent. It's a mythology of magic, pseudo science.
    2
  15.  @leroyjenkins3744  there is a whole line of logic inherent to what I've said think what I just said on information and how that pertains to how all life is based on information kept in DNA. information does not progress by probability to a higher state either it degrades like info theory states. it's pointless trying to talk on this platform in 2024 honestly.
    2
  16.  @leroyjenkins3744  just fyi I have to rewrite short 3-5 word phrases because I've written them before otherwise comments go poof because of something that rhymes with ham ilters. In reality I could have written 1-2 long form comments clearly and eloquently to get my argument across from the start but you can't now they go poof hint hint
    2
  17.  @Qwerty-g1b2o  Yes in one way or another you were saying truth is subjective, observer effect and so on. And not that type of value a mathematical one. We can just call it a day here lol
    2
  18.  @beemixsy  No no Tour is right, Lee was making statements that he almost has it and it all fits into the naturalistic model for an origin of life when as Tour says and demonstrates Lee has all of nothing. Tours statement on scientists are clueless has to do with the premise of the debate Lee agreed on which he completely sidestepped. Lee made outrageous claims he refused to back up. lol you people are clueless you never even watched the debate or what it was about.
    2
  19.  @simpletonballsack  Your comment is ironic because you just did what Cronin did in the debate.
    2
  20.  @RivBank-o3j  lmao what? Lee went there for attention and self promotion just like Dave did, he didn't even address the premise of the debate he totally sidestepped everything including his own claims he was called out on. lol then at the end had the audacity to say he felt attacked!!!! rofl it was unreal. You clearly never watched the debate.
    2
  21.  @dsdsspp7130  Mind boggling how you waste your time watching any of these videos yet at the same time have zero interest in the actual reality of the discussion or topic itself being discussed. Then make up a whole narrative to self validate your wasted time I assume purely based on your Atheistic worldview you want to validate. Do you even know you are wasting your own time... or is the truth you just watched a clip and are parroting what you think... either way yikes that's being willfully ignorant. Think for yourself, what I said was beyond an obvious basic observation. You'll never get true validation of your Atheistic worldview from gobbling up self-validation lol. That's a very shallow worldview and clearly not one focused on truth. But I guess how could it be when truth is relative for the Atheist and their mythology of magic. The fun is only when you pretend to be your own god.
    2
  22.  @VitreousVirtuosa  lmao no. You are making up whatever sounds good in your head. The intrinsic nature of the universe is not relative. If it was we would all have different mental perspectives. That is utter nonsense. Truth is exclusive not all inclusive. Truth is not relative. It exists whether there is a mind to view it or not. Information is a an immaterial concept, it's rational in nature. It has no naturalistic origin. It requires a mind. These are quite basic principles. If you want to pretend rationality can come from irrationality the burden of proof is on you to do so. You can't that is why naturalism and atheism is nonsense. If such a deus ex machina mechanism that could produce rationality from irrationality existed it's reality breaking. It invalidates all human personhood and achievement the universe did it all. That's why the multiverse theory has always been viewed as nonsense.
    1
  23.  @Capy_The_Bappy  Atheism: "A magical nothing created everything and when I die I become nothing, becoming one again with my creator." lmao no mind/God involved that's your worldview not mine. Atheism is a mythology of magic, rationality from irrationality a truly deus ex machina mechanism that can never exist for it's reality breaking. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Ones rational mind that you need to defend your position can't even be a product of naturalism/Atheism! It is self defeating, in three ways no less. Rationality from irrationality, end product of mindless unguided process is unreliable, and naturalism selects for survival value not truth as in whether our beliefs are true. Atheism removes science, it doesn't give any basis for thinking human rationality will reveal anything. Without God as the basis good and evil and truth loses all meaning as it's all relative then. Atheism is dead and science killed it. Atheism is a belief of blind faith that goes against the paradigm of reality that mind is required for creation. Does the author or video game programmer make something out of nothing with magic? No they use their mind. Is the mind immaterial? Yes. Does that mean it's magic? No. Is information immaterial? Yes. Does that mean it's magic? No. Mind>magic. Science does not support the view the universe is a closed system and events can't be fed in aka miracles, that's your blind faith. Believe in magic all you want but don't pretend your illogical pseudo science worldview is the high ground to argue from when it's utter nonsense and self defeating it's so absurd haha.😄😄😄
    1
  24.  @Rex_82948  Huh? The evidence is the paradigm of reality demands God. The obligation is you denying it to provide evidence to substantiate your claim. Where is your evidence for your mythology of magic called naturalism/Atheism, where is your deus ex machina mechanism that produces rationality from irrationality, where is your evidence for uncaused effects? Where is your evidence you can even trust your arguments you have nothing to establish you can even trust you have rationality to base any arguments on as your mythology of magic worldview cannot produce a rational mind/brain. You do not have the scientific or logical high ground you are arguing from ignorance.
    1
  25.  @Rex_82948  no I never lmao you don't know what God of the gaps mean hahahaha. God of the gaps means there is a gap and because we don't know, thus God did it. lol this conversation clearly isn't for you. Yes there is such a thing as time of the gaps, it means there is a gap and time is the magical mechanism that manifested the outcome. It's your absurd mythology of magic. Yes you do have faith you have blind faith in magic, the magical deus ex machina mechanism naturalisim is predicated upon and does not exist to do away with the need for a mind behind everything the paradigms of reality require. Mind>magic. Science and logic are not on your side. There is a reason intelligent design birthed modern science not naturalism, because ID actually works. You want me to talk about the biblical text and even more complicated topics when you think rationality can come from irrationality and you can get an effect without a cause? ahahahahaha 🤡 you already are way over your head and can't grasp anything being even spoon fed to you.
    1
  26.  @SaigesArstgo1031  no I haven't you are redefining God to be subject to their own spacetime creation they have mastery over. Only works in reverse, the universe had a finite start who created your creator?
    1
  27.  @facundotorres175  It's either God aka a mind producing rational outcomes or probability aka magic. Mind>magic is what a rational scientific mind would conclude. You do you though.
    1
  28.  @facundotorres175  It's not incoherent your worldview is. Naturalism is predicated on a deus ex machina mechanism that produces rationality from irrationality. Such a mechanism does not exist and is the definition of magic. You worship a mindless god of probability. You and what you believe is incoherent personified. It is fundamentally opposed to what science stands for.
    1
  29.  @facundotorres175  It's not incoherent your worldview is. Naturalism is predicated on a deus ex machina mechanism that produces rationality from irrationality. Such a mechanism does not exist and is the definition of magic. You worship a mindless god of probability. You and what you believe is incoherent personified.
    1
  30.  @facundotorres175  It's not incoherent your worldview is. Naturalism is at it's core based on an non-existant magical deus ex machina mechanism that produces rationality from irrationality. You worship a mindless god of probability. You and what you believe is incoherent personified. It is fundamentally opposed to what science stands for.
    1
  31.  @facundotorres175  As if, you worship a mindless god of probability, a deus ex machina mechanism all naturalism is predicated upon and does not exist. Literally a mythology of magic. Pseudo science so lets just keep it real here. Your worldview is the epitome of incoherent.
    1
  32.  @facundotorres175  As if, you worship a mindless god of probability, a deus/ex/machina mechanism all naturalism is predicated upon and does not exist. Literally a mythology of magic. Pseudo science so lets just keep it real here. Your worldview is the epitome of incoherent.
    1
  33.  @facundotorres175  As if, you worship a mindless god of probability, a rationality from irrationality mechanism all naturalism is predicated upon and does not exist. Literally a mythology of magic. Pseudo science so lets just keep it real here. Your worldview is the epitome of incoherent.
    1
  34.  @facundotorres175  As if, pretending probability can create all the rational outcomes of the universe is rationality from irrationality, that's literally a definition of magic. It's sense from nonsense. It's a mindless god of probability. It's the epitome of incoherent. It's a fantasy of magic, pseudo science.
    1
  35.  @facundotorres175  As if, pretending probability can create all the rational outcomes of the universe is rationality from irrationality, that's literally a definition of magic. It's sense from nonsense. It's a mindless god of probability. It's the epitome of incoherent. It's a mithology of magic, seudo science spelled wrong on purpose so comment doesnt go poof.
    1
  36.  @facundotorres175  As if, pretending probability can create all the rational outcomes of the universe is the rational from the irrational, that's literally a definition of magic. It's sense from nonsense. It's a mindless god of probability. It's the epitome of incoherent. It's a mythology of magic, pseudo science.
    1
  37.  @facundotorres175  Let me spell it out for you since you don't see the obvious. If naturalism can produce what it claims sense from nonsense that means all human achievement and personhood ceases to exist the universe did it all. It's a self defeating premise at it's core.
    1
  38.  @leroyjenkins3744  No. Something rational must come from something that is rational a mind. Claiming something rational can come from something that isn't is magic. This is pretty basic logic you shouldn't struggle with yet you are. This is a information based universe, it can be represented by math meaning a mind coded and designed it. That isn't magic honey it's like an author writing a book.
    1
  39.  @leroyjenkins3744  Let me connect the dots for you again. The Christian God, Jesus is called God the Word and claims to be the truth the ultimate truth of all things. He spoke the universe into existence that is the transfer of information. That the universe exists within and is sustained by him. It is not magic or a closed system. It is exactly as science has shown us.
    1
  40.  @Qwerty-g1b2o  Rational as in having a function or value. Never said the universe was irrational. In fact it IS rational showing it must have come from a mind. Think of rational as information then, words require a mind to write them. If you want a naturalistic explanation which is counter to the paradigm of reality that probability can produce language then the burden of proof is on you. A random number generator can do it minimally but not consistently or larger words far less compound progressing anything produced to a higher state. Think two words produced in a row. This is why evolution is nonsense. It's illustrates how probability can't be a production mechanism for naturalism, it's predicated on it but it can't work. It's a magic 8 ball and pretending it gives results is a belief in magic, it doesn't work.
    1
  41.  @Qwerty-g1b2o  in other words irrational is chaos or randomness, and rational is logic or order. To pretend the a magic chaos box can spew out logic and order far less to compound and amount to anything is a belief in magic and mindless predestination. Think the laws of the universe, amount of matter in the universe, all the compounding factors for earth and life, countless improbabilities of molecules structuring themselves to make building blocks of cellular machines that don't yet exist, DNA, DNA replicator and so on and so on. It's a completely irrational belief. Naturalism is predicated on a god in the machine mechanism that produces everything from probability, but ignores the failed outcomes. Infinite probability does not give infinite results. A coin can flip heads but will it always for naturalism? That's a belief in magic.
    1
  42.  @leroyjenkins3744  When an author writes a book is that story the words from nothing? No. That's not magic. No different for God setting up the laws of the universe, or coding the DNA of life. This is a information based universe. Pretending probability can do it, a magic box of random can produce it all is believing in magic. Truly from nothing, no rational source. A magical nothing. That's naturalism/atheism.
    1
  43.  @leroyjenkins3744  When an author writes a book is that story the words from nothing? No. That's not magic. No different for God setting up the laws of the universe, or coding the DNA of life.
    1
  44.  @leroyjenkins3744  This is a information based universe. Pretending probability can do it, a magic box of random can produce it all is believing in magic. Truly from nothing, no rational source. A magical nothing. That's naturalism/atheism.
    1
  45.  @leroyjenkins3744  This is a information based universe. Pretending probability can do it, a magic box of random can produce it all is believing in magic.
    1
  46.  @leroyjenkins3744  Truly from nothing, no rational source. A magical nothing. That's naturalism/atheism.
    1
  47.  @Qwerty-g1b2o  In other words the crux of your whole argument is truth is subjective. Truth is not subjective, it's exclusive not all inclusive. Otherwise your premise is self defeating, it's not "my truth" nonsense argument then.
    1
  48.  @leroyjenkins3744  information is an immaterial concept. The storage device of information is not the information. I can't write much than 2-3 sentences or comments go poof. I can only assume most of the premise behind what I write is obvious. This isn't a forum for discussion now.
    1
  49.  @leroyjenkins3744  just fyi to understand what some other people have to deal with on this dumpster fire of a platform
    1
  50.  @Qwerty-g1b2o  Not that type of value >.> lol lets just call it a day
    1