Discussing “Can fallen angels be hurt by any kind of metal?” with an Atheist

There’s a reason that I posted the following question to the Quora site (see my discussion of it here):

Why do atheist missionaries on Quora troll theism question, reply with positive affirmation one-liners asserting the non-existence of God & run away (& when called on it to prove their positive affirmation, they just run away even faster)?

The reason is that it’s ubiquitous—not only on that site but everywhere.

To that site’s question Can fallen angels be hurt by any kind of metal?, Mark Lambert (“Plasma Physics Engineer and Cosmology theorist (1957-present)”) replied:

Metal, or anything else, cannot harm imaginary creatures. Angels, fallen or otherwise, along with all manner of the supernatural simply aren’t real in this universe.

I, Ken Ammi, replied:

That they are “imaginary creatures” is a positive affirmation which you must prove. Yet, in a way you are right that “the supernatural simply aren’t real in this universe” since, by definition, “supernatural” refer to not “in this universe” ontologically or by necessity but able to interact with it.

Mark Lambert:

No, the burden of proof is for YOU to show why and how and where they DO exist. I have supplied valid reasons, consistent with the observed universe and proven laws of physics, why they cannot exist (they violate Conservation).

The absolute inviobility of Conservation was experimentally confirmed the morning of the first atomic bomb blast in 1945. Even the possibility of god(s) and all manner of supernatural died at that moment. Conservation is absolute and inviolable and is confirmed by atomics, lasers, computers, microelectronics, starlight visibility, etc., etc., etc.

There is no possibility of “interacting” with the supernatural because to do so violates Conservation. Interaction (even just waving) either sends energy (information) out of our universe or let’s it back in. Either way Conservation is violated and that ain’t happening. Fin. Period. Full stop.

They are “imaginary”. QED

Ken Ammi:

Friend, you are beginning with a series of mere jumps to merely asserted conclusions based on hidden assumptions.

For example, you imply “proof” is required and we should based our views on what has been proved but don’t bother saying why, on your worldview.

Likewise, you appeal to “reasons…the observed universe…laws of physics” things that “violate” the “absolute inviobility of Conservation” that which has been “confirmed” but on Atheism you must reason to reason which is unreasonable circular reasoning and there’s no universal imperative to adhere to reason.

Likewise, on Atheism “the observed universe” is accidental as are the “laws of physics” as is our ability to discern them and there’s no universal imperative to adhere to them.

Thus, there’s no universal imperative to not “violate” them or to believe in things that would be able to violate them.

So you have no basis upon which to condemn view that imply a violation of Conservation and no premise upon which to demand adherence to that which has been “confirmed.”

See you declare “They are ‘imaginary’. QED” as a half-thought rather than something like “They are ‘imaginary’. QED and we ought to not believe in imaginary things within an universe wherein there is not universal imperative to not believe in imaginary things because ___________________” and then fill in the blank.

You have a lot of ground work to do since merely asserting jumped to conclusions will only result in you digging yourself a deeper hole: a bottomless pit of assertions.

Mark Lambert:

I’m not your friend and don’t take that tone with me.

Proof is required for belief otherwise it’s just unsubstantiated fantasy or opinion. If you can’t measure it, it’s an opinion, not a fact. It was postulated that angels exist without any evidence, eg. It’s an opinion.

Likewise, you appeal to “reasons…the observed universe…laws of physics” things that “violate” the “absolute inviobility of Conservation” that which has been “confirmed” but on Atheism you must reason to reason which is unreasonable circular reasoning and there’s no universal imperative to adhere to reason.

This is gibberish. It is unreasonable to reject reason. You can’t form a reasonable rebuttal without reason. So you’re reasoning that there is no reasoning?

Since there is no universal imperative to obey natural laws then please demonstrate by defying gravity or showing a consistent violation of Conservation.

Your words deny reality but offer nothing but opinion to rebut observed facts.

Did the atom and hydrogen bombs work? Yes? Conservation is demonstrated to be absolutely correct.

Can you see distant starlight? Yes? Conservation is demonstrated in the entire observable universe.

Are you using an electronic device? Yes? Conservation is demonstrated everywhere electronics are used.

Can you demonstrate any instance of Conservation not holding? No? Then you have no proof I’m wrong, “friend”

Which of the above assertions do you deny? Conservation is absolute and inviolable in this universe. Make a measurement that disproves Conservation that can be duplicated and I’ll concede.

Ken Ammi:

Well, if I’m not your friend we will have to work on changing that.

I’m unsure to what “that” refers but you seem to have opened a window into your modus operandi which is emotive since you are subjectively reading “tone” into black and white texts.

My objective is to understand you, to understand your hidden assumptions. That’s especially so since you write a lot of what I term half-thoughts.

For example, “Proof is required for belief otherwise it’s just unsubstantiated fantasy or opinion. If you can’t measure it, it’s an opinion, not a fact. It was postulated that angels exist without any evidence, eg. It’s an opinion” period. Yet, you didn’t bother to say how/why on your worldview “Proof is required” since “unsubstantiated fantasy or opinion” are to be rejected, see you merely asserted that. Just like, “If you can’t measure it, it’s an opinion, not a fact,” you don’t say why we ought to reject mere opinion and accept fact.

Keep in mind that if you’re an Atheist then on your worldview facts are accidental, as is our ability to discern them, there’s no universal imperative to adhere to them, nor to demand/expect others to adhere to them.

That’s part of why I’m attempting to understand where you’re coming from in terms of hidden assumptions.

See, you say “Your words deny reality” but on Atheism reality is accidental, as is our ability to discern it, there’s no universal imperative to adhere to it, nor to demand/expect others to adhere to it.

Note that what you subjectively consider “gibberish” is not a standard and many people use such catch-words as a means to run away from issues.

You ask “So you’re reasoning that there is no reasoning?” but that is an incoherent question following from the fact that, “on Atheism you must reason to reason which is unreasonable circular reasoning” so a cogent reply would have been something like, “Not so, since on Atheism reason __________ and so adhering to reason is a universal imperative” (you just need to fill in the blank and then we can see if the conclusion is a non sequitur or not (not that logical fallacies are a problem on Atheism).

Thus, the context was that “on Atheism…there’s no universal imperative to adhere to reason.”

So, when it comes to conservation, that too is accidental on an Atheist worldview and well, you know the rest: as is our ability to discern it, etc.

Now, you noted, “absolute inviobility of Conservation was experimentally confirmed…in 1945” but when would you say it was first predicted?

Also, I thought to note that you are taking a styled bottom up approach but the text you seek to critique take a styled top down approach.

What I mean by that is that it denotes the creation of the time, space, matter continuum which is our universe to consist of what may be termed dimensions (or, realm) as Wernersbach noted. So, you seem to be arguing uni-dimensionally.

By definition, God (Angels, etc.) would be in a different category than uni-dimensional “energy (information).”

Thus, to send “energy (information) out of our universe or let’s it back in” still implies conservation since the multi-dimensional view would be that Angels, for example, are traversing dimensions and not that they are someone absconding from the universe as if they had to travel to the outreaches of it and then kept going through an exit.

Ken Ammi since he didn’t reply, I commented this, “Friend, I was at least interested in that ‘you noted, ‘absolute inviobility of Conservation was experimentally confirmed…in 1945’ but when would you say it was first predicted?’”

Yet, no reply was forthcoming anymore—and it’s too bad since I was going to note to him that Genesis chap. 2 predicts the first law of thermodynamics which is that within a (physically closed) system the total energy remains is constant: it can be transformed from one form to another, but not created nor destroyed.

Well, Genesis chap. 1 has God creating, creating, creating, etc. and then chap. 2:1-2 notes, “the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. And on the seventh day God finished his work that he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all his work that he had done.”

Thus, God creates and then ceases from doing so.

Moreover, the second law, which some simply refer to as entropy, is predicted in the fall into sin in Genesis chap. 3.

In the meanwhile, a certain Gary Wernersbach had commented to Lambert:

For the love of science Mark, shut up and read.

Theories of the Universe: How Many Dimensions Are There?

What is 11th dimension? – Definition from Computer Glossary, Computer Terms

What is 11th dimension? – Definition from WhatIs.com

Do we really live in only three dimensions? | CMS Experiment

All of this is straight forward, been around a long while and should not be new to you. If it is, you have a lot to catching up to do. The Cerns article good. Easy to understand.

For more details, see my relevant books.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Twitter page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites all which are available here.