You're all members of my band, Jenny and the Avatars.

I like that. Sounds gay.

Hello Tony, what's happening bro

Hi Tony, good to see you!

You too, both of you.

What data call a man with no shins?

Tony.

Have just finished listening to your debate with Stephanie. You made some very good points as usual but it would have been much easier if she listened to what you were saying instead of trying to prove you wrong every time you said something she disagreed with. She did the same thing with Matt Dillahunty too. The last hour was particularly fractious especially with her responses to the questions from Peter about omniscience and rape. I get the impression that she doesnt like her world view being challenged too much. Nonetheless I hope she does try and understand what you were saying and learn from it least in part if not in whole. So good work from Peter and yourself. Keep it up

Animavore wrote:What data call a man with no shins?

Tony.

Very well done. I enjoyed this.

Shouldn't he be called tofootankleny?

surreptitious57 wrote:Have just finished listening to your debate with Stephanie. You made some very good points as usual but it would have been much easier if she listened to what you were saying instead of trying to prove you wrong every time you said something she disagreed with. She did the same thing with Matt Dillahunty too. The last hour was particularly fractious especially with her responses to the questions from Peter about omniscience and rape. I get the impression that she doesnt like her world view being challenged too much. Nonetheless I hope she does try and understand what you were saying and learn from it least in part if not in whole. So good work from Peter and yourself. Keep it up

She did much better than I expected given previous interactions, and I have to make allowance for the fact that she'd been pretty much buried for most of two hours.

Cheers.

Animavore wrote:What data call a man with no shins?

Tony.

What do you call a man with only one leg?

Ani.

hackenslash wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:Have just finished listening to your debate with Stephanie. You made some very good points as usual but it would have been much easier if she listened to what you were saying instead of trying to prove you wrong every time you said something she disagreed with. She did the same thing with Matt Dillahunty too. The last hour was particularly fractious especially with her responses to the questions from Peter about omniscience and rape. I get the impression that she doesnt like her world view being challenged too much. Nonetheless I hope she does try and understand what you were saying and learn from it least in part if not in whole. So good work from Peter and yourself. Keep it up

She did much better than I expected given previous interactions, and I have to make allowance for the fact that she'd been pretty much buried for most of two hours.

Am I right to suspect that the Sye in the chat was this clown?



It was an entertaining, if at times frustrating, listen.

I've no idea how Stephanie thinks god being "outside of time" would have any bearing on "choice", were it certain that we always do the thing god already knows we'll do. What's more, I'm not convinced she has any idea, either. I liked your coin example: which of these 1 coins would you like to choose?

I wonder if she'll remove the Kalām cosmological argument from her list of top arguments for god, wherever that's posted, now you've pointed out the small matter that one of its premises is outright false and the other doesn't have a shed of evidence to support it.

Hi Matt.

No, although Sye Ten challenged me to a debate a while back as well. I declined, because all of his debates are the same, and there's no mileage in it.

The Sy in question was Sy Garte, one of the Escaping Atheism crowd, which you've no doubt come across on Twitter. He's a molecular biologist working in cancer research, and a YEC.

Stephanie has also fallen in with that group, and it shows.

I keep wondering what would happen if I introduced him to Genes4Life. May make that happen at some point if it looks like fun.

hackenslash wrote:

Animavore wrote:What data call a man with no shins?

Tony.

What do you call a man with only one leg?

Ani.

Well that was uncalled for.

lol

Matthew Shute wrote:

I wonder if she'll remove the Kalām cosmological argument from her list of top arguments for god, wherever that's posted, now you've pointed out the small matter that one of its premises is outright false and the other doesn't have a shed of evidence to support it.

I was wondering that too. As I understood it, particles that pop in and out of existence simply show that any cause thereof, if one exists, is unknown. How can one prove the absence of a cause that could potentially exist in a dimension we as yet have no evidence for?

hackenslash wrote:

Animavore wrote:What data call a man with no shins?

Tony.

What do you call a man with only one leg?

Ani.

Hello, police? I just witnessed a murder.

Pebble wrote:

Matthew Shute wrote:

I wonder if she'll remove the Kalām cosmological argument from her list of top arguments for god, wherever that's posted, now you've pointed out the small matter that one of its premises is outright false and the other doesn't have a shed of evidence to support it.

I was wondering that too. As I understood it, particles that pop in and out of existence simply show that any cause thereof, if one exists, is unknown. How can one prove the absence of a cause that could potentially exist in a dimension we as yet have no evidence for?

We can do better than that. Since the closing of the final loopholes in Bell Inequality violations in late 2015, the case is closed for hidden variables. Quantum phenomena are causeless.

I talk about it in the final section of this post, and the paper dealing with the closing of the last loophole is linked at the bottom.

hackenslash wrote:
Quantum phenomena are causeless

Does this mean that virtual particles do not need to borrow energy before they pop into existence