Creation and Origin

[Sum1sgruj]

'Nothing' doesn't exist in physics, though. That is not because there cannot or at some point was not 'nothing', but simply 'nothing' has not been observed directly.
There's a lot of comical irony in that, actually.

See, one thing infinite has going for it is that it is used in math a lot within physics. Einstein's Relativity is based on infinite, string theory is based on infinite, etc. etc.
And we find uses for some of these equations, but they are nonetheless left open to much criticism. There is nothing that warrants infinite in the observable world.
To put it into light, if reality was infinite, then the universe would have already came and gone and everything would be a straight line with no endpoints (though string theory tries to patch this). There would be no expansion or shrinkage. Or leakage, if you dive into the more bizarre aspects of theory
Infinite just hurts science no matter how it is used for advantage, and that is a pure and simple fact. It contradicts everything, not to mention the idea that no theory with infinite seems to actually work.
These are the stepping stones to discovering a 'maker' with the base logic that something cannot come from 'nothing'. Having no beginning and being infinite backwards and forwards is the only alternative, and it simply just doesn't work with what we observe.

 

[CassinoChips]

Voila! There you have it. Now grow up and have a discussion instead of talking shit, and maybe I will fell it necessary to continue posting.

If you're afraid to defend your argument, don't start one.

I'm sure a certain mod will magically com here with that biased tip of his spear and talk about not getting 'defensive' or what not

Nope, I'll just close the thread since you can't seem to follow directions.

even though you few have been much more so and started it to begin with. As usual.

Getting defensive and what not.

Five on one mashing? No. lmao

Getting defensive and what not.

Final warning. Stay on point, don't point fingers, argue the information civilly. Otherwise the thread gets locked. Rocket surgery, it is not.

 

[Will Graham]

Well ok from what I've read Gruj, you seem to be saying we can either choose to believe in a creator, or infinity. I am going to proceed with my post assuming this is correct, if it is not my apologies.

First of all I don't see how infinity has contradictions, reality would not have come and gone. It would not be a straight line, it would not be a definite shape as it is endless. You're not really explaining what you see the concept of infinity as, and I think that is where the problem in the debate lies.

Now to tackle your, creator or flawed physicist choice. Well first of all there are many theories on what came before the universe, all of which you seem to be disregarding. Then when you say that we have come up against a brick wall in knowledge, that it is due to the ineffable nature of a creator. Science has met brick walls before and overcome many of them, in fact some might argue that is the basis of science. A phenomena that we cannot explain, so we seek to understand it.

There could even be a third possibility that you are neglecting, for example we used to think that light either came in particles or waves. Turns out we were wrong, you seem to be taking our absence of knowledge as proof. It is not up to a scientist to disprove a baseless theory, it is up to the believer to prove it.

 

[der Astronom]

Just thought I'd point out that there's a distinction between actually disproving something and not having enough evidence (ie, the default position). If you want to disprove something, this is usually done through a contradiction. Which is usually only possible if we are talking about arguments that are falsifiable. If it's not falsifiable, then we're done; there's nothing to argue or talk about. You can't argue for the validity of something that's not falsifiable because it's no longer subject to logic (and true/false doesn't apply to it either). Now if we have a falsifiable argument, disproving something usually involves demonstrating that the condition under which a falsifiable argument is false exists and is sufficient (as opposed to necessary; this is often the case with math disproofs. You can often demonstrate an idea in math as being incorrect by simply coming up with one example.) However, there is the other option, which is that we are unable to say anything about the argument--now if we set aside arguments that are not falsifiable for the moment, then we will have to consider arguments for which the proofs or evidence for them are not convincing enough. In which case, we just can't say anything about them. However, what we believe and what we know are different. You either believe the argument is true, or you believe it's false. In most cases, it usually makes sense to take the default position of not believing the argument to be true until there is adequate evidence, since asserting an argument to be true without evidence basically amounts to lying about stuff you don't know.

 

[Sum1sgruj]

I think infinite is not reaching how I am trying to prescribe it.

So I will get into the technicality of it:

An infinite reality easily works if it has a starting point. Infinite is not even an issue in this case.
But an infinite universe with no beginning, and therefore being infinite in both directions of time, there are huge contradictions.

For example, if there was no starting point, then we would have already come and gone before we came. There is nothing not baseless about theoretical ideas such as string theory that piece together a patching concept for this, and yet people hold fast to a much more logical concept.

A 'maker' has been programmed into people's minds to be illogical, thinking it has to have a face and speaks to us through prophets when really, it can easily be just a part of nature as an atom or virtual particle.

I have already described 'sentience' to be little more then cause and effect and only an opinion to non-sentient objects. In fact, if we are literally part of reality, then we are literally reality itself, and it's reality that is sentient or non-sentient.
But if reality is infinite, then I'm writing this and not writing this, I'm sentient and not sentient, and the sky is blue, and not there to even be blue. Even in an infinite world, there has to be a stable ground that is turning the gears for existence to even be an illusion.


Anyways, more on infinite:
In string theory, all matter is reduced to strings. This is a way of making an infinitely large circle be able to curve, because when you add and allow dimensions to tango, the can fold infinite things into a finite construct.
For example, our entire universe can expand forever, but it is inside a zero-point singularity which is not infinite.

It's hard math, and likely prohibitively so. Theoretical physicists know what the issue is and that is why they struggle to have a scientific approach. Applying an infinite property to reality requires an entire re-haul of understanding, and that is what string theory, among others, are.

 

[unadulteratedawesome]

For example, if there was no starting point, then we would have already come and gone before we came.

You can have finite things within infinity. You could, for instance, mark out a 3 inch piece of an infinitely long line. You could do this an infinite number of times.

A 'maker' has been programmed into people's minds to be illogical . . . it can easily be just a part of nature as an atom or virtual particle.

Then why call it a 'maker' at that point? It seems to me more of a situation of people unable to let go of the concept of a creator or god, even if they are forced to arbitrarily attach the label to natural phenomena to feel better.

In fact, if we are literally part of reality, then we are literally reality itself, and it's reality that is sentient or non-sentient.

Wow, a world-shattering revelation. We are real. I'm sure nobody's ever come to that realization before! And in your model, 'reality' is simultaneously sentient and non-sentient.

But if reality is infinite, then I'm writing this and not writing this . . .

I am not even sure what you mean by 'reality' being infinite. If space is infinite it doesn't change our observable universe or that our observable universe is finite. If time is infinite, without a starting point, it doesn't change that an hour passes and that there is a past and a present from our perspective, it only introduces the possibility of time flowing in both directions (as in you can travel back in time) or a causal loop.

For example, our entire universe can expand forever, but it is inside a zero-point singularity which is not infinite.

As far as I know, the most accepted current model of the universe is flat and infinite.

Applying an infinite property to reality requires an entire re-haul of understanding, and that is what string theory, among others, are.

String theory and theories like it are meant to make general relativity and quantum mechanics compatible. Both are correct at different perspectives.

 

[Sum1sgruj]

String theory and theories like it are meant to make general relativity and quantum mechanics compatible. Both are correct at different perspectives.

They can't both be right. Hawking specifically states this. Saying they are correct at different perspectives is like my saying the sky is purple and I can prove it by putting on red glasses.

As for infinite, obviously it is not getting through because you seem to be fixated on an infinite which has a starting point. I have already pointed out undeniable contradictions in which exotic theories such as string theory try to work around.

Sentience only exists in the idea that something can act on it's own accord, and it doesn't have to be 'alive' to do so. Because in all technicality, 'life' is just as 'non-life' and reality is all the same manifestation.
But something cannot act on it/s own accord to 'be', and so Spinova's metaphorical god has a big problem if reality has a beginning.

You see, because the idea is the completion of Spinova's philosophy, and it works against it.
And I think the irony of it is that atheists are very willing to accept something such as Spinova's god, but when it's put to the test of modern observation many people turn to mathematics which is both premature in our current, relatively primitive era and very unlikely all the same.

 

[unadulteratedawesome]

They can't both be right. Hawking specifically states this.

I didn't say they were. One is concerned with the macro and the other the micro. Both are correct by themselves. The issue arises when the two overlap.

Saying they are correct at different perspectives is like my saying the sky is purple and I can prove it by putting on red glasses.

No. It's more like trying to measure the width of a hair with a ruler. The ruler works, but not at that level.

As for infinite, obviously it is not getting through because you seem to be fixated on an infinite which has a starting point. I have already pointed out undeniable contradictions

You pointed out false, nonsensical contradictions. And I addressed an infinite timeline without a beginning directly, so no, I was not fixated on one with a starting point.

Sentience only exists in the idea that something can act on it's own accord, and it doesn't have to be 'alive' to do so.

That's sort of like eastern philosophy. And even there the idea of sentience is simply referring to the senses themselves. A rock is only sentient insofar as it can interact physically with things, so it has one 'sense'. In western philosophy, sentience is defined as being the ability to have subjective experience. And that would be contingent on something being alive.

I reject your idea of sentience. It's too vague and the way you use the word relies on equivocation. You can prove that the universe/god is sentient, but because of the actual definition you use that is pointless.

Because in all technicality, 'life' is just as 'non-life' and reality is all the same manifestation.

Considering what we're made of, yes, life is just like non-life. But there is a definite difference in behavior.

But something cannot act on it/s own accord to 'be'

Why not? The question of where matter, energy, time, etc all came from is meaningless when we consider a reality, or lack thereof, where those things did not exist predating our current reality. The rules of our reality could have arisen when it was created. Spinoza simply applied the label of 'God' to the deterministic rules of the universe; reality itself. His abstraction is utterly pointless, it doesn't change anything.

Spinova's philosophy, and it works against it.

It's Spinoza, not Spinova.

And I think the irony of it is that atheists are very willing to accept something such as Spinova's god

I certainly don't.

A few people mentioned it earlier, but your argument is a poorly worded version of the first cause cosmological argument. I recommend you read these refutations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument#Objections_and_counterarguments

Your argument relies on people accepting certain premises which are unfounded. I do not accept these unfounded premises (as we cannot determine their truth values at this time), so I cannot accept your argument.

 

[Sum1sgruj]

You pointed out false, nonsensical contradictions.

No, I didn't. You just don't want to accept, in which I could really give a damn. And sense when were contradictions sensible? Quite the oxymoron there.

I reject your idea of sentience. It's too vague and the way you use the word relies on equivocation. You can prove that the universe/god is sentient, but because of the actual definition you use that is pointless.

I just use the word sentience to make it less confusing. There is no such thing as true sentience unless there is a god and we are more then subjects of reality. Your sentience is just cause and effect, neurons firing in the brain, etc. in which is of reality itself.
So reject it. I could really give a damn.

It's Spinoza, not Spinova.

Proof that I dealing with someone who is just trying to be insultive instead of being reasonable. Whoda fukkin thunk it.

If you do not believe in Spinoza's god, then you are going to have a very hard time with reality being infinite, because this metaphorical god (nature) can only exist if it (nature) is infinite.

I do not accept reality being infinite because it simply does not work. That is why Spinoza's god is even necessary to become a philosophy, as nature coincidentally is capable of stability even though it's alleged nature in the context of infinite does not allow it.

The universe is not static. This has been long been shown, as it contracts and expands. If you are an atheist, you have to believe that infinite universes are being spewed constantly because ours is fine tuned extremely to allow life. This actually includes much more then traditional ideas. Every single aspect of this universe must be perfectly tuned. This includes even the rate of expansion and the cosmological constant. Everything.
Such stability to allow life is so absurdly improbable that unless you believe in an infinite amount of universes and extra dimensions, it is a false interpretation of reality. Plain and simple.

 

[Marquis of Granby]

No, I didn't. You just don't want to accept, in which I could really give a damn. And sense when were contradictions sensible? Quite the oxymoron there.

I just use the word sentience to make it less confusing. There is no such thing as true sentience unless there is a god and we are more then subjects of reality. Your sentience is just cause and effect, neurons firing in the brain, etc. in which is of reality itself.
So reject it. I could really give a damn.

Proof that I dealing with someone who is just trying to be insultive instead of being reasonable. Whoda fukkin thunk it.

If you do not believe in Spinoza's god, then you are going to have a very hard time with reality being infinite, because this metaphorical god (nature) can only exist if it (nature) is infinite.

I do not accept reality being infinite because it simply does not work. That is why Spinoza's god is even necessary to become a philosophy, as nature coincidentally is capable of stability even though it's alleged nature in the context of infinite does not allow it.

The universe is not static. This has been long been shown, as it contracts and expands. If you are an atheist, you have to believe that infinite universes are being spewed constantly because ours is fine tuned extremely to allow life. This actually includes much more then traditional ideas. Every single aspect of this universe must be perfectly tuned. This includes even the rate of expansion and the cosmological constant. Everything.
Such stability to allow life is so absurdly improbable that unless you believe in an infinite amount of universes and extra dimensions, it is a false interpretation of reality. Plain and simple.

you're the advocator of faith. if you can believe in god and have no evidence to suggest that he/she/it exists other than "science cannot prove my god doesnt exist" then other people are entitled to have faith in science which may not be able to provide evidence for everything but it certainly tries.

why is it so unthinkable that universes have evolved over billions of years to allow life to exist. that doesnt sound any more farfetched (to me) than the idea of a magical being creating everything in 7 days.

i dont think this "intellectual" pursuit is gonna get you anywhere. certainly not on a final fantasy forum. maybe try a pro creationism site or something because people here obviously feel they have slightly more sensible ideas (and im inclined to agree) which you cant seem to cope with. they disagree, you get hostile. badabing badaboom.

 

[Sum1sgruj]

i dont think this "intellectual" pursuit is gonna get you anywhere. certainly not on a final fantasy forum. maybe try a pro creationism site or something because people here obviously feel they have slightly more sensible ideas (and im inclined to agree) which you cant seem to cope with. they disagree, you get hostile.

Quite untrue. I get upset when I feel I am wasting my breath just so others can jump on the bandwagon and insult someones intelligence instead of discussing/debating. Every contrary has been defeated by previous posts that I have made,, a big circle of crap.
No, the only person who needs to be sanctioned on when/how/where/what is you and a couple others. do not for a second try to tell me anything in that respect. I am on a few forums, with this one having the most bias and rudeness, and technical masquerades to boot.

 

[Marquis of Granby]

Quite untrue. I get upset when I feel I am wasting my breath just so others can jump on the bandwagon and insult someones intelligence instead of discussing/debating. Every contrary has been defeated by previous posts that I have made,, a big circle of crap.
No, the only person who needs to be sanctioned on when/how/where/what is you and a couple others. do not for a second try to tell me anything in that respect. I am on a few forums, with this one having the most bias and rudeness, and technical masquerades to boot.

if you feel like youre wasting your breath so much quit trying to come off as some sort of intellect. ive already said you can barely string a coherent sentence together, if people arent understanding you as youve intended thats your fault. and if you cant accept that not everyone is going to think the same way as you do then maybe you shouldnt "debate". this is after all only a final fantasy forum, not a lovely intellectual creationist forum. if you cant accept these things then i dont know what to tell you but maybe if what you want to do is talk at people ie preach rather than talk to them, then the debate forums arent for you. and theres really no need to get hostile over it

 

[Abstract Debauchery]

Every contrary has been defeated by previous posts that I have made,, a big circle of crap.

Only, you've defeated nothing. Well, maybe in your own head you have. However, all you've managed to do is preach and get high off of your own hype to the point where you believe you've "proven" your point and "proven" others wrong.

When it comes to proof, or disproof, of a religious figure, no one "wins". That's the simple truth of it, which is why I don't really jump into these things. Shit gets said, shit then turns circular, then shit eventually ends up to people debating about debating styles.

How about this? Both sides quit giving two shits about what the other side believes, and just let everyone be happy believing in whatever it is they believe in? You believe in a god, I don't, big fucking whoop. You're happy believing in a god, I'm happy believing that there isn't one. Don't shove your opinion down my throat and I'll give you the same courtesy.

Deal? Allrighty then.

 

[der Astronom]

I string sentences and discuss very well, it's just not what you want to hear. That is a pure and simple fact.

Oh really? If there's nothing wrong with what you are communicating across, then I would say you've made a lot of fallacies.

And like I said, trying to insult my intelligence. Am I psychic or what

I don't care if people do or do not feel the same way I do. I don't know why you keep trying to preach that, as well as keeping on saying this a 'final fantasy forum'. What does that have to do with anything except that a few people who like FF cannot comprehend much of anything that doesn't translate to 'this statement is exactly what you believe'.

If you really felt that we, who happen to like FF by association (thanks a lot for painting us with a broad brush) must automatically dislike anything you say, or don't understand you no matter what, then there's really no reason why you're even trying to in the first place.

Case in point: I don't make it a habit of harassing people on creationist forums because any fallacy I point out to them falls on deaf ears. They're not interested in a good, civil honest debate where people care about the truth, and care when they are being logically inconsistent (gee, sounds familiar?). There's really no point in trying to convince anyone of anything if they don't play by the rules of standard debate and logic, and I'm certainly not after forcing people to believe in or accept things they either don't or can't. I post here because I know there are people willing and able to read these messages and consider them.
Likewise, if you're just here to advertise your point without conforming to standard debate, and without providing sufficient justification for any point you make, you're wasting your time; most people in the debate section care about the truth, and care about logical consistency. Any attempt at avoiding any of these is futile, and won't gain you an audience while you're here. It's the exact opposite case of the creationists' forums.

You want to talk about irony, well there you have it. The only one being hostile is you and a couple others, I would suggest you read over these threads. Which is something you should have done in the first place.

Presuming that someone must have the same opinion as you after reading all the threads you've been a part of in the debate forum is rather...presumptuous, don't you think?
As for the hostility, debate can get hostile. Get used to it. What I actually find worse than mere hostility is willful ignorance of fallacies that have been nicely pointed out to you by several different people who have also additionally been patient enough to try explaining it to you in several different ways, and pretending that there's nothing wrong with your arguments. All of these things don't contribute to a particularly good debate; it just kills the discussion because you're not willing to talk about your own arguments in detail. Instead, I feel we are spending too much time on your complaints and attempts to stop the debate.

How about this? Both sides quit giving two shits about what the other side believes, and just let everyone be happy believing in whatever it is they believe in?

Now I have no idea from what angle you're viewing this, but I don't think we have to shut up about what other people believe in. It's also known as the "shut up, that's why" argument. Now I'll agree that what other people actually believe in is nobody's business, but I don't think there's anything wrong with discussing what other people believe in. Not to mention there are people who are hypocritical about this (not saying you are); they will say we should just get along, and then at the same time, they'll speak out against something atheists or people of other religions do for religious reasons (even if it has no effect whatsoever on them). And if what people believe in can lead them to cause harm to others, I think people's beliefs are worth examining. So long as you claim that your belief is more than personal, there's something worth discussing. If you hold a private belief that affects nobody except yourself, then I wouldn't care.

 

[Sum1sgruj]

Seriously, the only ability some of you have is the remarkable talent of turning obvious things into 'presumptions'.
I have overturned everything that has been spoken of, in my head and on the damn thread itself.
I see no contrary at all, and so this is no longer a discussion or debate. This is a stoning junction that is laughable and it really just concretes many past statements I have made in light of it.

der Astronom, you don't even know what fallacy means. Read a dictionary. I have been dying to tell you that for a good long time now.

The world is godless and you are a construct of cause and effect. The universe either came from nothing or it is infinite and an elegant construct more unlikely then Zeus is keeping infinite from contradicting reality itself.
We have found the truth! And to think Dawkins and Hawking have been going on with all this giberish for so long
Yay for a godless universe!

End_
I don't need to deal with mockery and contempt just because people want to be hardheaded. Grow up. Look up the defniitions of debate and discussion while you are at it, der Astronom. And drop the technical bullshit you so do not even follow yourself as well as the people you defend for better or worse.

 

[der Astronom]

Seriously, the only ability some of you have is the remarkable talent of turning obvious things into 'presumptions'.

It is not obvious that anyone will have the same opinion as you of these threads after having read them. Case in point: Licky has probably read all or most of the debate threads you've been a part of, and I don't think he shares the same opinion as you do.

I have overturned everything that has been spoken of, in my head and on the damn thread itself.
I see no contrary at all, and so this is no longer a discussion or debate. This is a stoning junction that is laughable and it really just concretes many past statements I have made in light of it.

No, you've just refused to see it. You've just decided that because you have no rebuttal to make for any of the points we've made, or any attempt to explain or answer any of the questions we've posed to you, you've decided to declare you've won to shut us up, and kill the discussion.
Thanks a lot for doing the "shut up, that's why" argument.

der Astronom, you don't even know what fallacy means. Read a dictionary. I have been dying to tell you that for a good long time now.

I do not believe that is an adequate demonstration of my knowledge of a fallacy. And you can demonstrate that I don't know what a fallacy is quite simply by pointing out what's wrong with any of the rebuttals I made where I point out you made a strawman, ad hominem, etc. or any other fallacy I've pointed out in these threads. I am not responsible for the validity of your rebuttals; you are.

The world is godless and you are a construct of cause and effect. The universe either came from nothing or it is infinite and an elegant construct more unlikely then Zeus is keeping infinite from contradicting reality itself.
We have found the truth! And to think Dawkins and Hawking have been going on with all this giberish for so long
Yay for a godless universe!

Thanks once again for demonstrating a straw man fallacy.

End_

(really?)

I don't need to deal with mockery and contempt just because people want to be hardheaded. Grow up. Look up the defniitions of debate and discussion while you are at it, der Astronom. And drop the technical bullshit you so do not even follow yourself as well as the people you defend for better or worse.

The only person I've really noticed doing all the mockery in this thread is you. Now I didn't really want to point out that you should probably not be posting on an FF debate forum and hoping to win, and while I happen to agree, (well, unless you smart up and either explain your arguments properly or concede you made a fallacy) it's certainly much nicer than "shut up, that's why", which you've been doing the entire time.

And if you think debate is too technical, I think you don't understand what it is. Pointing out fallacies is very much a part of debate, and if you don't like it, I think you're the one that needs to grow up if you are to stay here.

 

[unadulteratedawesome]

If you do not believe in Spinoza's god, then you are going to have a very hard time with reality being infinite, because this metaphorical god (nature) can only exist if it (nature) is infinite.

No. Why do you keep assuming I follow that asinine philosophy or that I feel the need to assign the label of God to something?

I do not accept reality being infinite because it simply does not work.

I'd say part of the problem is that you don't understand it.

The universe is not static. This has been long been shown, as it contracts and expands.

The universe contracting has not been shown and is actually counter to our current model of the universe. There's accelerating expansion which means there's no eventual contraction.

If you are an atheist, you have to believe

Alright motherfucker, I'm turning caps lock on: THE ONLY THING REQUIRED TO BE AN ATHEIST IS A LACK OF BELIEF IN GOD - NOTHING MORE. You can be a Buddhist in addition to an atheist.

 

[Sum1sgruj]

Really, what point have you or anyone else made? That there is no proof? Spoke on it a long time ago. That it's just as unlikely as any scientific idea? Already spoke on it. That my ideas are fallacies? You can't call it a fallacy unless you call all of science a fallacy as well. And fallacy isn't even the correct term, it's unproven. Starting to see the cycling concept? Probably not, but I do.

unadulterated awesome, I don't even know what you are going on about. You do not seem to understand much of anything about infinite and such. You really need to just wrap your head around the concept before you start falsely accusing people of not understanding something.

 

[der Astronom]

Really, what point have you or anyone else made? That there is no proof? Spoke on it a long time ago.

And we are not satisfied with your "rebuttals", if they can even be called such.

That it's just as unlikely as any scientific idea? Already spoke on it.

Have you not considered any of our rebuttals? Do you mean to say the only thing you have to say in response is "shut up, that's why"?

That my ideas are fallacies? You can't call it a fallacy unless you call all of science a fallacy as well.

In the unlikely event that that were true, it still doesn't change the fact that you made a fallacy.

And fallacy isn't even the correct term, it's unproven. Starting to see the cycling concept? Probably not, but I do.

A fallacy is a logical inconsistency. If something is unproven, you need to prove it or provide some evidence, or else your argument is just as useless as an argument that has a fallacy. In any case, it's the same difference.

unadulterated awesome, I don't even know what you are going on about. You do not seem to understand much of anything about infinite and such. You really need to just wrap your head around the concept before you start falsely accusing people of not understanding something.

And that's actually what you've been telling people every time they make a valid rebuttal against any of your arguments. "Shut up, that's why". This is precisely the reason why a lot of us feel like you shouldn't be debating here.

 

[Sum1sgruj]

Everything that has been spoken of, I already spooke it. Who spoke on physics? Me. Who states the word physics and pins against me? Others.
I have more then exemplified the problem with infinite, as any physicists know as well. String theory, among others, try to reach around the problem. I have shown this very, very well and have even provided demonstrations.

I am not going to listen to people practically telling me that all I am doing is telling people to 'shut up', as you call it, when my potency on physics have already been shown and have already acknowledged rebuttals before the fact.

There is, after all, a word for that.
You got it.