I took the answers from the seven things he couldn't answer, which essentially prove my argument, I put on another thread. When I got through with the 1x1 I put up a thing for 1x1 with him. But he runs way and refuses to debate. This is like the ninth atheist who has ran away from debating me after agreeing to. He just got through watching me stomp "Blondie" the idiot in 1x1 round. That guy was truly an idiot and truly did kick his ass.
Of closure Mat wants to stay where his trolls can give him cover. Here's the post I put up in the separate thread, the seven things he couldn't answer. Read these answer well because they show how totally inadequate his arguments were.
Look at their answers:
You've received answers meta, and Matt is FAR out of your league when it comes to physics..though you may have an edge when it comes to constructing fairytales (theology) based on your rudimentary understanding of physics. You are just being childish as usual by moving the goalposts after receiving your answers, molding a completely unfalsifiable position for your invisible friend to occupy, and always insisting on having the last word. Grow up.
Grow up he says. But the answers I've received are on the thread and half of them are like "I don't' know" or they don't apply. Read them. I have proved the answers he gave me sx. The trolls give cover and just assert the value of their comrade's crap.
What does this prove but that atheists for the most part don't think and don't care about truth?
Its plain to see, because you have actually quoted them that he did answer them.Read the actual answers they say stuff like "I don't know."
The situation seems to be that you don't like those answers.
Which is entirely your choice, but why the argumentative and overbearing tone?
no (1) (1) how can it be that nothing comes into being in life that we see but that it has a naturalistic cause. If something happens and we say it doesn't have a cause scientist say "O that's silly of course it does, everything has a natural cause."
Simple, because nothing is unstable quantum mechanically, "nothing" (and you have to be precise on what you mean by nothing, as nothing isn't necessarily nothing, Krauss pointed this out in a lecture which is available on you tube) violates the uncertainty principle (which is something we have observed)
he starts talking about the primordial state of nothingness which is not what I said. Even so his answer is wrong:
I already said "noting" to a physicists means Vacuum flux not true nothing. you are not talking about real noting you know are you not tha'ts admonishment answer.
I quote Odenwald as proof:
"How can 'nothing' do anything at all, let alone create an entire universe?
"When physicists say 'nothing' they are being playful with the English language, because we often think of the vacuum as being 'empty' or 'nothing' when in fact physicists know full well that the vacuum is far from empty.
The primordial 'state' at the Big Bang was far from being the kind of 'nothingness' you might have in mind. We don't have a full mathematical theory for describing this 'state' yet, but it was probably 'multi-dimensional', it was probably a superposition of many different 'fields', and these fields, or whatever they were, were undergoing 'quantum fluctuations'.
the universe just comes to be without a case how do you know people cant' just raise form the dead without a cause? Just becuase you haven't seen it. Mat look at the contradiction! when people say they have seen it you go "O that can't be the cause it doesn't happen." how do you know their description isn't just better than yours? if there's no causes for things then there's no reason to think it couldn't happen.
I have answered this, you are (conveniently) ignoring the different length scales that I have been mentioning. The nuclear/quantum scales and the length scale for classical physics.
that is not an answer. that has nothing to do with different observations or biased view points.
his second alleged answer is meaningless. They don't indicate that the order isn't real nor do they even hint at an answer to the second question, which was why don't things pop into existence? all his answer really means is becasue "Quantum level is real little bitty and we are on the bigger scale." that's not really germane I asked why we don't see other stuff popping. he believed the universe popped up doesn't he?
why don't we see news in my tea cup or my bath tub?
why would Hawking say gravity caused everything if physical laws aren't needed for causes? It seems he's saying there has to be cause for the universe.
I am not too sure,
that's the pattern for most of it. The other three were ideologically motivated answers about laws being descriptive but they don't do anything to demonstrate they there's this order out there.
He wont face me 1x1 in an orderly situation when I'm prepared to debate. It's got to be because he knows he's going to get creamed. why else?He's willing to waste his time on the message board saying frivolous things. It's no differnt then the fine tuning argument where he went 40 posts just his own horn as a scientists and not answering an argument.