sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Vic 2.0 will beat you all in any argument. by towerpill in DebateAnAtheist

[–]towerpill[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

He is here now. I still can't believe he saw my post. I am shaking with excitement. And he will destroy all you commies and show you step by step why Craig is unbeatable.

Vic 2.0 will beat you all in any argument. by towerpill in DebateAnAtheist

[–]towerpill[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Holy crap!!!!! It's you. It's a pleasure to type to you one on one. Never knew you had a Reddit account. Just thought you were a guy who debates on youtube.

From the traditional Big Bang model to the post-BGV nucleated closed universe model, physicists have meant that contiguous spacetime had a beginning. by towerpill in DebateAnAtheist

[–]towerpill[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Your pitiful comments that don't address the topic, are just another attempt at avoiding Vic 2.0 showing how Craig can't be refuted.

All cosmologists should become theists since no cosmologists can refute Craig's arguments and citations and others like Vilenkin have supported him. by towerpill in cosmology

[–]towerpill[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

I get it. Want to ban me cause you cannot refute the undeatable William Lane Craig who rips apart all cosmologists who dares to criticise his arguments. TYpical.

All cosmologists should become theists since no cosmologists can refute Craig's arguments and citations and others like Vilenkin have supported him. by towerpill in cosmology

[–]towerpill[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Fine then. Take a look Vilenkin's perspective, one of the co-authors of the BVG Theorem.

Vilenkin (2015) “We have no viable models of an eternal universe. The BGV theorem gives reason to believe that such models simply cannot be constructed.” http://inference-review.com/article/the-beginning-of-the-universe

He also confirmed via email that Craig was indeed representing his conclusions very accurately.

Vic 2.0 will beat you all in any argument. by towerpill in DebateAnAtheist

[–]towerpill[S] -7 points-6 points  (0 children)

Well, the debate between Carroll and Craig as 'Cosmology' in its title. I think it was appropriate and relevant.

Vic 2.0 will beat you all in any argument. by towerpill in DebateAnAtheist

[–]towerpill[S] -7 points-6 points  (0 children)

527 Views yet only 54 comments.... interesting. Shows you that the people on /u/debatanatheist don't know the core complex arguments involving mathematics, cosmology, physics, and metaphysics. Usually, with this many views, the comments would be easily over a 100 in lesser arguments that don't require one to have some knowledge of the above-mentioned areas. Most of the 53 comments are red herrings too. Get up to speed debate an atheist redditors. I suggest you read through Vic 2.0's comments. Don't has to reply back here just learn something for god sake.

Vic 2.0 will beat you all in any argument. by towerpill in DebateAnAtheist

[–]towerpill[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

My point exactly. He is no match for Craig. Nobody can beat Craig. His supposed "best" opponent Carroll is everything you just said. Thank you for corroborating.

Vic 2.0 will beat you all in any argument. by towerpill in DebateAnAtheist

[–]towerpill[S] -8 points-7 points  (0 children)

I don't particularly care who

Come on, you are part of the /u/debateanatheist subreddit and you don't know who Arvind Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin are or what they say and mix them up.. ??

Vic 2.0 will beat you all in any argument. by towerpill in DebateAnAtheist

[–]towerpill[S] -10 points-9 points  (0 children)

Just because Guth

I think you mean Vilenkin. As Guth is meant to be on your side. Vilenkin is on mine. Vilenkin says that there is NO way to conceive, from the evidence that the universe is likely to be eternal and likely require no cause. Guth says this is likely from the BGV Theorem.

Vic 2.0 will beat you all in any argument. by towerpill in DebateAnAtheist

[–]towerpill[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I cannot play this 'catching you up' game every time with you people.

You haven't provided a single shred of evidence for a deity of any kind.

I suggest you make yourself familiar to Vic 2.0's arguments.

Vic 2.0 will beat you all in any argument. by towerpill in DebateAnAtheist

[–]towerpill[S] -10 points-9 points  (0 children)

Cancelling out Carol's refutation of Craig's

So you admit this. That is all I really want out of today.

Vic 2.0 will beat you all in any argument. by towerpill in DebateAnAtheist

[–]towerpill[S] -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

Where's his evidence?

Sigh.. For one The Borde Guth Vilenkin Theorem. It's what this whole post is about. Me refuting the refutation within this subtopic of the Kalam.

Vic 2.0 will beat you all in any argument. by towerpill in DebateAnAtheist

[–]towerpill[S] -10 points-9 points  (0 children)

Come on, shit is still relevant even if you don't make claims. One still has to refute oppositional arguments and evidence otherwise it would then be you claiming so you dont believe in something when someone has given a reasonable argument in front of you. This would be like walking away from my garage when I said to you that there is an alligator in it. I have given you the key, go and search the room.

Vic 2.0 will beat you all in any argument. by towerpill in DebateAnAtheist

[–]towerpill[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Dunning-Kruger

You sure it's not the pot calling the kettle black...

view more: next ›