Mario Villalobos

@tscottme @AgainstAtheismX You failed every argument on not understanding categories, at least the internet will keep this here for further people to rejoice in the ass you made of yourself today ☺️ Farewell, my beloved cult member

@MarioFunk @AgainstAtheismX More meta discussion and change of subject. You failed to refute my argument and this isn't the first argument you've lost but remembered as a victory.

It's interesting how angry Atheists get at the prospect of the Christian hell. Not the pagan greek Hades. Or the norse underworld. Only the Christian hell...

@tscottme @AgainstAtheismX I gave you 2 things

@MarioFunk @AgainstAtheismX I asked what thing can you name that began with no cause?, not what are the philosophical implications of the idea of an uncaused thing?

@tscottme @AgainstAtheismX At this point I need to ask, do you understand your category mistakes?

@MarioFunk @AgainstAtheismX I'm not surprised you have given up on your announced task and decided to change the subject to categories.

@tscottme @AgainstAtheismX I did. You made a category mistake and your arguments are worth shit. I gave an example and everything, I hope by the end of this discussion you understand what a category mistake is

@MarioFunk @AgainstAtheismX Sure, right after you refute my argument, I'll do that.

@tscottme @AgainstAtheismX Are you saying Genesis correctly explains the expansion of the universe? 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

@MarioFunk @AgainstAtheismX God described origin and expansion of the universe about 4,000 years ahead of scientists. The field of modern science only exists because of the Christian worldview which understaood a rational creator, would put order in the world and a man with imago dei would understand it.

@tscottme @AgainstAtheismX Worst comeback so far

@MarioFunk @AgainstAtheismX Fascinating, science isn't investigating why things happen? Have you told the scientists?

@tscottme @AgainstAtheismX I haven’t met this dogmatic atheist you describe yet

@MarioFunk @AgainstAtheismX "oh atheism is just a lack of belief in god", now here are the 27 different things you must do and here are 3 things I expect you to believe instead.

@tscottme @AgainstAtheismX You gave a great example to teach you about categories! If this a scientific question: radioactive decay or quantum vacuum fluctuations. If this is a philosophical question: There’s no logical contradiction in something beginning without a cause

@MarioFunk @AgainstAtheismX What begins to exist without a cause? Be specific and don't just wave your hands, please.

@tscottme @AgainstAtheismX I’ve refuted every stupid thing you’ve said because you make category error that take all sort of weight to this terrible arguments, I’m surprised that you still don’t understand this

@MarioFunk @AgainstAtheismX I'm not interested in your evaluating of the discussion. I'm waiting for you to just refute my argument. Enough of the meta argument analysis, please.

@tscottme @AgainstAtheismX You can just change your name to “I don’t undersand categories” at this point

@MarioFunk @AgainstAtheismX Science has no universe creating mechanism, no physical constant adjusting mechanism, no life producing mechanism, no reason producing mechanism, no conscience producing mechanism, no morality producing mechanism but does claim to have all of the important answers. Ha ha

@tscottme @AgainstAtheismX That is another lie. Your particular abrahamic deity is not suported by science, so far you’ve proven ignorant regarding what is a scientific claim and a philosophical one, is like you enjoy it

@MarioFunk @AgainstAtheismX My claim explains more of the universe, life, etc and is supported by science more than the 'we don't know what, how, why happened and therefore trust us' atheist propose.

@tscottme @AgainstAtheismX You are only right about the last part, science is not searching for the “why” of this constants because that is a philosophical question. Categories are not your thing

@MarioFunk @AgainstAtheismX I'm not saying 'if the universe is a brute fact, but imagine one thing different', you are saying that. I'm saying fine-tuning shows an omnipotent, omniscient, universe-maker and science shows no reason why those constants should be what they are.

@tscottme @AgainstAtheismX Your strawman on atheism has categories too? Awesome, tell me more about this cornered apologetic atheists

@MarioFunk @AgainstAtheismX More of you talking about the discussion instead of refuting my argument. Atheism has 2 versions. The Atheist 2-Step 1) a lack of belief, when atheist is backed into a corner, 2) a prescription for everyone in society when atheists decide how others should live.

@tscottme @AgainstAtheismX No-boundary isn’t “convenient”, it removes singularities and fits general relativity with quantum principles. That’s exactly what good physics does

@MarioFunk @AgainstAtheismX Other than being convenient, what evidence supports the no-boundary explanation?

@tscottme @AgainstAtheismX You’re assuming everything must have a beginning because things within the universe do. That’s a composition fallacy. Quantum mechanics is counterintuitive, I would understand that it can be witchcraft to you

@MarioFunk @AgainstAtheismX And what evidence for the no boundary model excludes a beginning of the universe? What other things in the universe exist but have no beginning? Sounds like witchcraft.

@tscottme @AgainstAtheismX Look, I do have a bias when studying, so do you. What matters here is the strength of the argument, so far you’ve been lacking a little bit

@MarioFunk @AgainstAtheismX It's more important for an atheist to arrive at the 'there is no god' answer than it is to understand anything about the universe. That supports my claim that atheism is just dogma nobody is allowed to examine. It's a cult.

@tscottme @AgainstAtheismX This was not your original claim. Now you seem to be making a philosophical claim, this has been sadly chaotic but we might be geting somewhere eventually

@MarioFunk @AgainstAtheismX You suggested mathematical models might explain fine-tuning or another feature and therefore my argument might not be correct. Math models have no power in reality which math model are you expecting to explain the universe or fine-tuning?

@tscottme @AgainstAtheismX Science doesn’t say what creates universes, at the moment it remains a philosophical dicussion but you have a strong confussion with categories

@MarioFunk @AgainstAtheismX You are discussing the discussion instead of refuting my argument. What can creates universes, according to science?

@tscottme @AgainstAtheismX You can strawman atheism all day, dude, go crazy with the dumb claims

@MarioFunk @AgainstAtheismX Atheism announces the conclusion before doing the investigation. "I don’t claim to know how reality came to be, I do know that is not from a moral eternal being that has a relationship with you." Atheism is rebellion against God, not science.

@tscottme @AgainstAtheismX A personal, moral, all mighty and eternal being is not the most science-suported anything, try being honest. Those are philosophical features developed by theologians, some easily refuted. For doing this for 50 years, you are not very good, mate

@MarioFunk @AgainstAtheismX I gave the most science-supported conclusion for universe, matter, life, reason, morality, consciousness, etc and you have theories and guesses and possibilities. Universe requires personal, omnipotent, moral, rational, conscious creator. God of the Bible is that cause.