Pokeylips is coming!

Or, "The Screaming Tempur-Tantrums Of An Austrailian Tourette's Syndrome Sufferer"

Or, "WHO CREATED GOD?!?!!? No matter what way you answer, it will always presume God exists. HA!"

Warning: The strong profanity used in some quotations might offend some readers. Please be advised of this before continuing.

There's always one YouTube viewer who seems to get their panties in a bunch by Christians commenting on the ridiculousness of Marshall Brain's videos. First it was MojoKhan, who got so annoyed at me that he's creating a website called JesusIsImaginary.com based on my "loopy comments." Now we have "theapokalipse," who according to his profile is an 18-year-old Austrailian who happens to hate "people like [me]." From now on, he'll be known as Pokeylips.

I'll break this guy's stupidity down into several sections:

Bad Arguments (BA)
Unanswered Questions (UQ)
Outrageous Stupidity (OS)
Self-Contradictions (SC)
Emotional Outbursts (EO)

Now, let's take a trip back in time and see how it all began. This is an offshoot of the main reasoning for posting this blog. It's found in the "Proving God's plan is impossible" video. In a completely off-topic post, he proclaims:

the twin towers
the crusades
the holocaust

is religeon not hurting people? think again.

Naturally, I inquire as to how the Holocaust was caused by religion. He replies (of course) with the reply straight off of EvilBible.com. Hitler was a Catholic, which of course means that his actions were directly caused by Catholicism. Apparently, his Catholicism caused prejudice against Jews. Pokeylips didn't think about this long enough, apparently. With every post, he was slowly fulfilling more and more items of Tekton's "You might be a fundy atheist if..." list. I pointed out to Pokeylips that not only do his actions show him to be very UNChristian, but that lots of political leaders (George Washington, for example) merely used religion as a way to get power. He was obviously not a fan of Christianity, since he said things like, "Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature." In his Table Talks, there were plenty of anti-Christian remarks that came out of his mouth. This classifies as a BA.

He told me I was resorting to "wild speculation." I then pointed out that it's really the most likely option, given the evidence. He never replied.

Now, to the more prevalent reason as to this blog entry's creation. We're currently in a debate about the question, "Who created God?" Now, as Christians, we all know the faults of this question: it sneaks in invalid presumptions that God somehow needs a cause, which violates the very definition of God. In addition, it restricts God to having some kind of temporal existence, which is contradictory, because God created time. But some atheists seem to think that this question is the ultimate stumper question. Pokeylips is one of them.

Here's some of the conversation.

ww1flyingace: If heaven & god is real? Then how did get here? God and heaven can not have just happened?

P-Dunn: Well, by very definition, God is uncaused, since he cannot be measured by any sort of time.

Pokeylips: so in other words god didn't happen, and yet he is somehow "just there" anyway that's just like saying zero equals one

if I were to use your logic, and say that something can be uncaused and still be there, why can't the universe itself be the uncaused thing?

Durr. This guy has never read any William Lane Craig. I respond with:

P-Dunn: The universe itself can't be uncaused because that would mean an actual infinite number of days has passed. But if that were true, today would have never arrived, because there's always an infinite number of days to go before today. An actual infinite number of things is impossible and incoherent.

Unlike the universe, God is not a collection of "things." He cannot be measured by any sort of time, because he created it. That's why we call him "timeless."

Pokeylips: you're making the presumption that uncaused = infinite time

not to mention, you didn't address the issue. and that's how this god got there in the first place?

Wow. There are so many stupid things in that one post. I'm surprised I didn't catch them a month ago.

He accuses me of making a presumption that if something is uncaused, it must have existed for infinite time. You'd think this would be incredibly obvious. If something didn't have a beginning, then OF COURSE it has existed for infinite time. OS. Unless he can give me an example of something that didn't have a beginning that hasn't existed for all eternity, that argument falls flat.

And who does he think he's kidding? He accuses me of not addressing the issue and then repeats the same question that I just demonstrated to be incoherent.

P-Dunn: You're making the presumption that God somehow needs a cause, and that doesn't make one bit of sense at all. The very question, "Who created God?" is about as coherent as, "What flavor is Tuesday?"

What are you telling me? Do you believe the universe is infinite or somehow cycling, or it just came out of nothing? Do you believe it's possible for an actually infinite number of days to have existed before now?

Pokeylips: no, you're making the presumption that everything needs a cause, and then factirong god into it. I'm using your logic that everytrhing needs a cause

"and that doesn't make one bit of sense at all." why not?

First, let's go ahead and point out that the two questions I asked him in the second paragraph go unanswered, and remain unanswered for the rest of the discussion. UQ.

Second, that's a strawman, and therefore a BA, as I go onto point out:

P-Dunn: False. My presumption is that "Whatever BEGINS TO EXIST has a cause." So your invalid assumption that everything needs a cause isn't my logic at all.

It doesn't make sense because God, by very definition, is a timeless being.

Pokeylips: presumptions:

* the universe had a beginning
* god didn't
* god exists

the idea that god can "just be there" is in direct contrast to your reason for introducing a god in the first place. not to mention, it's a baseless presumption.

SC. First, he asks me why God needing a cause doesn't make sense. I answer the question. Then he tells me that my statement presumes God exists...What?

BA. Another strawman argument. He tells me I'm in contrast to my reasoning for introducing God. My reasoning was that the universe had a beginning and whatever begins to exist has a cause. There is no direct contrast, since God didn't begin to exist.

But wait...Here comes a tempur-tantrum.

Pokeylips: "The very question, "Who created God?" is about as coherent as, "What flavor is Tuesday?""

fucken stupid analogy. you're trying to apply a property to something which does not have that property, and then asking something about that property.

if we were to suppose god existed, then that's a property he has, and we can therefore ask questions about this property.

Let me tell you, it took me reading it a good three times to understand what he was trying to say. And wow, am I kicking myself for not fully understanding it back then and ripping him on it.

SC. I wonder if he realizes that by asking, "Who created God?" he is "applying a property to something which does not have that property, and then asking something about that property." He doesn't see it. Then he seems to think that being created is a property that God would have if he existed, which I see as a groundless assertion.

P-Dunn: You don't have to cry over an analogy. There's no property application anywhere other than "The question is simply incoherent." And because you're a fundy atheist who thinks it's the ultimate stumper question doesn't change one thing.

If we were to suppose God existed, we'd suppose that he's timeless, like almost all theists do.

Pokeylips: I point out the flaw in your analogy, and apparently I'm crying about it.

and saying my post is incoherent is just a childish way to dodge the question. (Haha. As you'll see, Pokeylips doesn't understand what the word "incoherent" means in relation to a logical argument.)

then you go on to try and label me "fundy"
when you have no basis for that label. (This is all the basis I need.)

no, I am not a fundy for not blindly accepting a 2000 year old book

and your last comment: key word is IF
I'm not going to suppose god exists, because there is no evidence. (Ah, the repeated skeptical canard that there's NO EVIDENCE for the existence of God. How silly...We'll get to this soon.)

-----

making labels is childish, especially when you try to apply stereotypes to those labels to try and discredit the other person when you have absolutely no base to it. (Sounds like a temper-tantrum to me. Someone doesn't like to be called a fundy.)

no, I don't spend all my time arguing about religeon. (Obviously not, since you're a moron. If you did spend any time, you'd realize Marshall Brain's videos are ridiculous and most theists could whip you in a public debate.)

however I do sometimes respond to morons like you who spend lots of time trying to convinve others that your god exists, when there is actually no evidence. (Baseless assertion.)

really, I don't mind when some people are religeous. a lot of my friends are.
I just hate people like you (Waaaaaaaah.)

It's after these two posts that I invite him to TheologyWeb on his profile. Keep that in mind.

P-Dunn: You keep making the claim that there is no evidence God exists. One, you seem to forget that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. That's a fallacy.

Two, I'd consider objective moral values, the beginning of the universe, and the fact that we exist at all to be strong evidence for God. Why is this not evidence?

Pokeylips: err, no! I'm saying we should not believe in something without evidence. and there IS no evidence for a god.

Somehow, I failed to respond to this specific post. But it appears here, as well as other places, that Pokeylips has no understanding of what a logical fallacy is. I told him that he's using Appeal to Ignorance, which is saying that the lack of evidence is evidence of something else: absense. That's a fallacious appeal. But Mr. Pokeylips seems to think that's all well and good, which further confirms his statement that he doesn't spend too much time arguing about religion. Oops.

Here's a response to one of the two posts above.

P-Dunn: I don't see that you've pointed out any flaws. You still haven't demonstrated how "Who created God?" is a coherent question.

You've also yet to show how a book being 2000 years old somehow disproves it. What about Tacitus's Annals? And who said I was accepting it blindly?

Also, you're the one that said "If we were to suppose God existed" first. Please make up your mind.

Pokeylips: I wsan't referring to its age alone. the age does represent what period in history it was written in.

remember, people used to believe the Earth was flat.

(What does the age have to do with anything? He still fails to demonstrate this. He also doesn't seem to be aware that people like Galileo were Christians and that the "Earth is flat" philosophy was written down by pagans before it was by Christians. I wonder what that knowledge would do to his ego. ;-) )

Pokeylips: you haven't demonstrated that my question was not coherent. and I actually said "who OR WHAT" not just "who"

the bible has flaws.
6th commandment vs Deuteronomy 13

I said it hypothetically. you said it like it's the truth.

I guess, "Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer," doesn't apply here. He thinks that you can ask any stupid question and you must get a detailed answer.

Concerning the terrible canard, it is answered by merely pointing out the original Hebrew. In the 6th commandment, the word for "kill" is rastach, which meant predatory, premeditated murder. In Deuteronomy 13, this is clearly talking about judgement being enacted, which is a completely different matter. But apparently, that's not good enough for him, as you'll see in a second.

I said it like it's the truth, while you said it hypothetically? Oh, so I guess it's all just fine and dandy. COP OUT!

P-Dunn: Yet you constantly use "2000 year old book" to somehow take away from it's validity.

The fact that people believed the Earth was flat is irrelevant. That's called the Genetic Fallacy.

Pokeylips: it's completely relevant, it shows that people can believe in all sorts of wrong ideas when there is no evidence to support them

and that's why I'm an atheist
it's simply more logical to hold the negative position unless proven otherwise

Here we have again Pokeylips' blatant disregard for logical fallacies. OOPS. And unfortunately for him, lack of evidence best supports the agnostic position, not the atheist position.

Here are some other miscellaneous comments about this issue:

Pokeylips: you're ignoring parts of Deuteronomy 13
it tells you to kill preachers of other religeons, people who worship other gods, and people who work on the sabbath

which is a direct contradiction of the 6th commandment

P-Dunn: This is yet another argument by outrage. Please get some substance to your arguments. It also proves you didn't even read, much less comprehend, what I JUST SAID. "Murder" and "Enacting Judgement" are two completely different things.

Exegesis. EX-UH-JESUS. Learn to use it.

Pokeylips: murder: killing somebody, when they don't want to be killed

there is no way you can reclassify killing somebody as something other than murder, or maybe assasination

and you have yet to prove that your god exists. unless you can do that, all your arguments are void. get some substance into YOUR arguments, and then back them up. and stop making baseless assertions.

P-Dunn: Unfortunately for you, under that definition, raping/shooting a teenage girl and shooting Osama bin Laden are equally bad. Would you spare Adolf Hitler's life because he didn't want to be killed? Face it, there's a difference here. You can reclassify it as breaking of the law and the consequences that follow: a death penalty.

You've yet to do anything but show me you don't want to be given any decent arguments. You think, "Who created God?" is the unanswerable question, for crying out loud.

Pokeylips: you presumptuous fuck. human morality is subjective.

if we were talking about how bad it would be without human morality, then they wouldn't be "bad" - since bad is a concept that falls under human morality.

And we'll leave off on the morality discussion, since that goes on a seperate tanget. I'll post a seperate article about how he trips over his own arguments there.

Now, see him address the evidence I gave him:

Pokeylips: that's not evidence because it doesn't actually prove anything.

Hold on, let's focus on that statement. Read it a few times until you see how stupid of a mistake he just made.

yes, we exist. but that has no bearing on how or why. (Sure it does...)
yes, we have moral values. that is a product of survival through evolution. (Remember this. He agrees with me that there are objective moral values here. He'll contradict himself later.)
the univers may or may not have a beginning. we can't make any assumptions about it. (Why not, again? What test did you use to determine this?)

And here's the mistake:

P-Dunn: ...Evidence in itself isn't supposed to prove anything. Bad mistake. (Oops)

The most probable explanation of our existence, I think, is that we were created rather than the universe popping out of nothing and molecules generating themselves.

Sociobiological evolution = something became taboo over the course of time. Sorry, but that is not objective. Under that view, how can we say rape is wrong?

Most of the evidence points to a beginning of the universe, so assumptions are safe.

He never responded to this post, so let's go on to our next snippets of conversation.

Pokeylips: you have yet to explain exactly why your god is not created. if he wasn't created, then how is he there?

yeah, it sure does make a whole lot of sense that an infinite thing like god can "just get there" and the universe, supposedly so much lesser than god, must have been created

(I'll add right now a few things...The first part is a lie. I'd explained that many times before to him, but he seems to suffer from short term memory loss.

Secondly, he makes himself look like an idiot. He says it doesn't make sense that an "infinite thing like god can 'just get there.'" He doesn't seem to realize that the word "infinite" means "no beginning or end." There was no "getting there" for God.

P-Dunn: This is only an issue of you irrationally measure God by time. If you posit that God is timeless, and as such doesn't have a temporal existance, then God simply is, and there is no need for a beginning or end. More generally, we can't really say much about what kind of temporal existance God has...He isn't a part of this universe.

Keep in mind that without space, time doesn't exist, both have to exist at the same time. Prior to creation there was no space, just God.

Pokeylips: time is a concept, and as such, is something that nothing can be "outside of"

and you didn't think that the uncaused thing could be the universe itself?

Oh, that really refutes my whole argument, doesn't it? Define "concept."

P-Dunn: No, I don't think the uncaused thing could be the universe. Because once again, if the universe is uncaused, it must have been around for an actually infinite
number of days. If this is true, then today would have never arrived. Today
would be the end of an actual infinite, which is incoherent and impossible. This
is an argument you continue to ignore.

I don't have enough room here to adequately address this issue, so it seems. See your profile for a comment that I left a while back. (He still hasn't answered the challenge)

To which Pokeylips can only reply:

Pokeylips: and yet you ignore time when it comes to your god. fucking brilliant.

This guy's a master of the Swift Refutations department, isn't he? Prepare yourself for another SC:

P-Dunn: I don't "ignore" time. I recognize that God can't be measured by the time we know of and experience, since he created it.

There's a huge difference.

Pokeylips: no, you weren't "ignoring" time. you were making assumptions about it, and not backing those assumptions up.

Oh? So I wasn't ignoring time, huh? Plus, I've backed up that "assumption" hundreds of times. Get a grip.

P-Dunn: I presume that an actually infinite regression of causes is impossible, so there must be a First Cause that was uncaused.

Why is it impossible? If the universe is uncaused and has always existed, then it must have existed for ETERNITY. However, that would mean there was an actually infinite number of days before today. There is no end of infinity...Today would have never arrived.

There MUST be a first cause.

beervolcano: There musn't. But even if you assume that there must be a first cause, why do you assume that it is a very specific god described in a very specific book?

(I feel like it's worth answering this question, since it seems honest and I missed it before. I assume it's a very specific god because of the evidence to support the Bible. On the basis of the Kalam argument alone, I wouldn't conclude that The God of the Bible exists. It's best used as an argument in a succession of arguments, not by itself, when trying to prove Christianity.)

Pokeylips himself fails to address this argument once again. Therefore, I feel it's a good stopping point for now. Stay tuned for Part 2.

© Copyright P-Dunn's Apologetics. All rights reserved.