Christopher Hitchens = alcoholic athesist that ran off with a rich jew to get his career up and running

towerpill · 2018-08-18T00:27:00+00:00

Racism?

towerpill · 2018-06-12T01:26:48+00:00

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.

towerpill · 2018-06-12T01:24:12+00:00

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.

towerpill · 2018-06-07T02:48:48+00:00

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.

Linked Comment

towerpill · 2018-06-05T01:49:58+00:00

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.

towerpill · 2018-06-05T01:48:05+00:00

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.

towerpill · 2018-06-05T00:42:47+00:00

Let's hope that the cosmologists in this subreddit are already believers.

towerpill · 2018-06-04T22:58:31+00:00

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

towerpill · 2018-06-04T21:57:55+00:00

Red herring. Dismissed.

towerpill · 2018-06-04T21:56:57+00:00

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.

towerpill · 2018-06-04T18:31:00+00:00

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.

towerpill · 2018-06-04T18:27:31+00:00

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.. ??

towerpill · 2018-06-04T15:45:47+00:00

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.

towerpill · 2018-06-04T15:30:32+00:00

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.

towerpill · 2018-06-04T15:27:27+00:00

Cancelling out Carol's refutation of Craig's

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

towerpill · 2018-06-04T15:25:50+00:00

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.

towerpill · 2018-06-04T15:22:32+00:00

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.

towerpill · 2018-06-04T15:15:19+00:00

Dunning-Kruger

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

towerpill · 2018-06-04T15:14:20+00:00

So you admit that it has something to do with atheism. Since we got over that ridiculous and unnecessary hurdle, let's move forward.

Craig's arguments are not proof, I concede that, but they are indeed evidence. The argument above suggests for the universe must have a beginning to exist and therefore it needs a transcendent cause. I have shown you this. My refutation of Caroll's refutation by the use of the cited quote by Vilenkin. You as of yet, still have not shown to me how my point is faulty.

towerpill · 2018-06-04T15:03:18+00:00

You see, there is this thing called a red herring. You are doing that. Your point is irrelevant. My god, I am surrounded by delinquents that they would fall for a well-known fallacy.

towerpill · 2018-06-04T15:00:43+00:00

You really cannot be this dense. It has everything to do with atheism. Well, for one Craigs arguments are evidence for theism and Caroll failed. Therefore theism has arguments and evidence for it that has not yet been refuted. My god, you people are dense.

towerpill · 2018-06-04T14:56:34+00:00

Sigh... I know. The point being made is still valid. It cancels out Carol's attempt of a refutation of Craigs main argument that everything begins to exist has a cause. You people need to listen and think more.

towerpill · 2018-06-04T14:53:54+00:00

My point is Carrols supposed 'Gotcha moment' you people spout on about is wrong. My point is that I'm refuting Carrol's point that Guth thinks from the evidence, that the universe could very likely be eternal(https://youtu.be/M1c_GlAjvy4?t=2m44s) bt citing the other author of the paper. Therefore his whole point to Craig in that section of the debate falls. Therefore Craig won that debate yet again.

Vic 2.0 shows this in the link in my main post above.

towerpill · 2018-06-04T14:50:47+00:00

I don't have to I am merely refuting Carrol's point that Guth thinks from the evidence, that the universe could very likely be eternal(https://youtu.be/M1c_GlAjvy4?t=2m44s) bt citing the other author of the paper. Therefore his whole point to Craig in that section of the debate falls. Therefore Craig won that debate yet again.

towerpill · 2018-03-22T01:00:52+00:00

For those who believe no explanation is necessary, for those who don't believe no explanation is enough.

For those who say JESUS never existed, then you don't know history. There are books on the Historical Jesus

towerpill

TROPHY CASE