Elsewhere on the internet...

The League of Reason has some social media accounts! You can find us on Facebook or on Twitter for some interesting links and things.

Arguments for God's Existence

Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 10 of 39
 [ 766 posts ] 
Arguments for God's Existence
Author Message
SparhafocPosts: 2445Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Arguments for God's Existence

leroy wrote:I am not trying to fool anyone, you affirmed that some of the premises are false.


Cite, or retract.

Stop telling me what I did, stop telling me what words I used, stop telling me how I can write, what I can write, and how high I need to jump... and start actually responding to what I write rather than doing backflips and backbreaking contortions to evade ever offering a jot of substance.

The sad thing is.... just for a moment in another thread, I thought you'd cracked it. I thought you suddenly grasped how to have a discussion with someone. Everywhere else, you simply crap on the board over and over and over.

I affirm nothing.

Is that perfectly clear for you?


leroy wrote:I simply what to know which premises do you think are false so I can justify them, I honestly think that I am making a reasonable requirement.


Sure.

Read this thread -... yes, this very thread, the one in which you are asking me which premise I think is false. Having just spent 6 pages telling you what I reject and why I reject it, feel free to read what's already written, rather than expecting I will write it again. If you ignored it the first time, then the onus is on you to get your arse in gear and stop acting the twat.

I explain it all comprehensively in this thread in reply to you. I will not write it out again when you've just spent 6 pages refusing to allow me to state my argument.

Want to know why? Read what I've already written.

Want to pretend that your inability to respond to my criticism is really me being defaulted on a technicality you just conjured? Be my guest.

The truth will remain, regardless of your concoctions.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Sat Jul 22, 2017 8:07 pm
SparhafocPosts: 2445Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Arguments for God's Existence

leroy wrote:because if you grant that the universe has a cause, (understanding universe "as all space time and everything in it") you will have to automatically grant that the cause is necerairly timeless, spaceless, inmaterial and personal which are some of the properties commonly ascribed to God.



The KCA is unacceptable specifically because its conclusion is based on a faulty premise.

If we are obliged simply to accept that the universe has a cause, then that might as well be the postulate because it would be no more subtle than the postulate in play in the original.

Whatever begins to exist has a cause

Erroneous assumption, no truth can be arrived at from a conclusion based on a faulty premise, except by sheer chance rather than logic. :roll:





The latest Creationist frontier: all meaning must be subverted, destroyed, and rebuilt in a glorious new image.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Sat Jul 22, 2017 8:09 pm
SparhafocPosts: 2445Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Arguments for God's Existence

Is there an explanation other than trolling?

In another thread, LEROY seems to understand exactly how the burden of proof works, stating that the burden is on the affirmative position.

viewtopic.php?p=180548#p180548


LEROY wrote::lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

I find it perplexing that atheist are not willing to carry the burden proof even when they make the positive argument.



Yet in this thread, somehow it's me - the guy rejecting LEROY's (by proxy) affirmative position who's obliged to furnish argument or evidence.

How inexplicable if seen through honest glasses.

Either which way, this is how you nail jelly to wall.

Yes, LEROY - I find it perplexing how you think I am required to state my rejection as an affirmative when you have taken the affirmative and that's what I am rejecting.

Don't care how many hands you want to wave, I saw you pocket the rabbit. Now stop playing silly buggers with your little wand.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Sat Jul 22, 2017 8:31 pm
SparhafocPosts: 2445Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Arguments for God's Existence

I wonder what epithet would best describe the actions of a 'gentleman' like LEROY?

Obviously, one would need to stick within the remit of civility, while also being able to offer the general public the understanding of the utter deviousness, the obsessive recapitulation, the failure to even be consistent in failing at logic, succeeding to grasp logic only when it's useful to grasp it, then spending 6 pages derailing it when it's not useful.

It's only fair. We have signs for falling rocks, sharp turns, and deer splattering on your hood. All visitors to this site should be warned. I might even be persuaded of it being a good idea to put right on LEROY's avatar - that might give him pause; branding liars and thieves tends to attract unfavorable attention to their motives rather killing their shell games.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Sat Jul 22, 2017 8:40 pm
Dragan GlasContributorUser avatarPosts: 3178Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:55 amLocation: Ireland Gender: Male

Post Re: Arguments for God's Existence

Greetings,

leroy wrote:
Dragan Glas wrote:We've gone through all this before, leroy (& ff).

You're talking about our space-time continuum - since the Big Bang.

As has been explained to you before, the Big Bang wasn't the beginning of the universe (all that exists), just our bit of it.

Kindest regards,

Jame


so what, it is still a fact that the universe (all space time and everything in it) ether had a cause or it didn't ......so which one is it? which one is better supported by the evidence?

As I pointed out in the linked thread, if "all space and time" refers to our space-time continuum since the Big Bang, then it had a cause - if you're talking about the multiverse, then it's unknown whether it had a cause or not.

Regardless, even if there was a cause, it doesn't mean that it's supernatural - that's just what WLC, you, and all other theists want/claim to be the case.

The KCA says nothing about the nature of the cause - if you want to claim it's the Christian God, then you have to exclude with evidence any other supernatural cause as well as all natural causes.

The burden of proof is on you - as it always has been.

Kindest regards,

James
Image
"The Word of God is the Creation we behold and it is in this Word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man."
The Age Of Reason
Sat Jul 22, 2017 11:34 pm
leroyPosts: 2030Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Arguments for God's Existence

Sparhafoc wrote:Is there an explanation other than trolling?

In another thread, LEROY seems to understand exactly how the burden of proof works, stating that the burden is on the affirmative position.

http://theleagueofreason.co.uk/viewtopi ... 48#p180548


LEROY wrote::lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

I find it perplexing that atheist are not willing to carry the burden proof even when they make the positive argument.



Yet in this thread, somehow it's me - the guy rejecting LEROY's (by proxy) affirmative position who's obliged to furnish argument or evidence.

How inexplicable if seen through honest glasses.

Either which way, this is how you nail jelly to wall.

Yes, LEROY - I find it perplexing how you think I am required to state my rejection as an affirmative when you have taken the affirmative and that's what I am rejecting.

Don't care how many hands you want to wave, I saw you pocket the rabbit. Now stop playing silly buggers with your little wand.




however there is a difference,

I admit that the "slice of God argument" is a good argument against the exístanse of God, the argument is certainly based on premises that seem more likely to be true than wrong.

my only line of defense is to appeal to the fact that even though it is a good argument it is not a conclusive argument against the existence of God because the premises have never been proven to be definitely true.


If I would have said that the argument is BAD I would have to show that at least 1 of the premises is wrong, or unlikely to be true.

given that you seem to be implying that the KCA is a BAD argument, it is fare to ask which of the premises you think is false and why
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Sun Jul 23, 2017 12:53 pm
Dragan GlasContributorUser avatarPosts: 3178Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:55 amLocation: Ireland Gender: Male

Post Re: Arguments for God's Existence

Greetings,

Read the first post on this page, leroy, Sparhafoc has told you he's already explained what's wrong with the KCA - all you have to do is re-read the thread.

Kindest regards,

James
Image
"The Word of God is the Creation we behold and it is in this Word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man."
The Age Of Reason
Sun Jul 23, 2017 1:01 pm
leroyPosts: 2030Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Arguments for God's Existence

Sparhafoc wrote:
leroy wrote:because if you grant that the universe has a cause, (understanding universe "as all space time and everything in it") you will have to automatically grant that the cause is necerairly timeless, spaceless, inmaterial and personal which are some of the properties commonly ascribed to God.



The KCA is unacceptable specifically because its conclusion is based on a faulty premise.

If we are obliged simply to accept that the universe has a cause, then that might as well be the postulate because it would be no more subtle than the postulate in play in the original.

Whatever begins to exist has a cause

Erroneous assumption, no truth can be arrived at from a conclusion based on a faulty premise, except by sheer chance rather than logic. :roll:
i]



well why do you think that the premise is faulty? to say that something came in to existence without a cause is like saying that it came from nothing, which is ridiculous and logically absurd (or at the very least unlikely to be true)

I would say that there are at least 2 good reasons to grant that premise.


1 given our experience and observations, this premise has always been show to be true,based on what we know, there has never been something that came in to existence without a cause (this includes virtual particles). it is simply arbitrary to make an exception with the universe, we all grant that planets, solar systems and galaxies have a cause, to make an exception with the universe just because you don't like the theological implications, is to make the taxi cab fallacy

it is fare to assume that the universe also had a cause unless you provide a good reason to make an exception with the universe

2 it remains inexplicable, why is it that "nothing" can only create universes, why not horses, computers, planets or alcohol? what makes nothing so discriminative against everything except universes?........this will imply that "nothing" has a special property that makes it capable of creating universes, and nothing else, but by definition "nothing" can not have any property.

to say that "nothing" created the universe, is to say that "nothing " has special properties which is logically incoherent.



do you have any good reason to think that Whatever begins to exist has a cause is a faulty statement?
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Sun Jul 23, 2017 1:28 pm
leroyPosts: 2030Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Arguments for God's Existence

Dragan Glas wrote:Greetings,

Read the first post on this page, leroy, Sparhafoc has told you he's already explained what's wrong with the KCA - all you have to do is re-read the thread.

Kindest regards,

James


sure, just because everything is the universe has a cause, that doesn't necessarily mean that the universe itself has a cause, that is the only objection that he has raised, and I already responded to that.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Sun Jul 23, 2017 1:32 pm
leroyPosts: 2030Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Arguments for God's Existence

Dragan Glas wrote:As I pointed out in the linked thread, if "all space and time" refers to our space-time continuum since the Big Bang, then it had a cause - if you're talking about the multiverse, then it's unknown whether it had a cause or not.

Regardless, even if there was a cause, it doesn't mean that it's supernatural - that's just what WLC, you, and all other theists want/claim to be the case.

The KCA says nothing about the nature of the cause - if you want to claim it's the Christian God, then you have to exclude with evidence any other supernatural cause as well as all natural causes.

The burden of proof is on you - as it always has been.

Kindest regards,

James


yes we whent over this before.

even using your line of reasoning.

A) if the whole universe is just our space-time continuum since the Big Bang then yes the universe had a cause

B) if there is a multiverse then it may or may not have cause


so it could be that>
"A" is true and the universe has a cause
"B" is true and the universe has a cause
"B" is true and the universe did not have a cause

so of the 3 possible scenarios, 2 of them support the conclusion of the KCA, so even if we ignore the fact that Occam's razor would say that we shouldn't invoke the existence of other universes without any justification, and even If we ignore the fact that at least some of the arguments in favor of the KCA would apply to the multiverse, it is still true that by your logic you should grant that the universe has a cause.


Regardless, even if there was a cause, it doesn't mean that it's supernatural - that's just what WLC, you, and all other theists want/claim to be the case.


it means that the cause would be timeless, space less, inmaterial and personal, ..........you don't have to call it supernatural if you don't what.



if you want to claim it's the Christian God, then you have to exclude with evidence any other supernatural cause as well as all natural causes


granted. but that is beyond the scope of the KCA,
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Sun Jul 23, 2017 1:50 pm
Dragan GlasContributorUser avatarPosts: 3178Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:55 amLocation: Ireland Gender: Male

Post Re: Arguments for God's Existence

Greetings,

leroy wrote:
Dragan Glas wrote:As I pointed out in the linked thread, if "all space and time" refers to our space-time continuum since the Big Bang, then it had a cause - if you're talking about the multiverse, then it's unknown whether it had a cause or not.

Regardless, even if there was a cause, it doesn't mean that it's supernatural - that's just what WLC, you, and all other theists want/claim to be the case.

The KCA says nothing about the nature of the cause - if you want to claim it's the Christian God, then you have to exclude with evidence any other supernatural cause as well as all natural causes.

The burden of proof is on you - as it always has been.

Kindest regards,

James


yes we whent over this before.

even using your line of reasoning.

A) if the whole universe is just our space-time continuum since the Big Bang then yes the universe had a cause

B) if there is a multiverse then it may or may not have cause


so it could be that>
"A" is true and the universe has a cause
"B" is true and the universe has a cause
"B" is true and the universe did not have a cause

so of the 3 possible scenarios, 2 of them support the conclusion of the KCA, so even if we ignore the fact that Occam's razor would say that we shouldn't invoke the existence of other universes without any justification, and even If we ignore the fact that at least some of the arguments in favor of the KCA would apply to the multiverse, it is still true that by your logic you should grant that the universe has a cause.

Wrong. You're including our universe ("A") within the multiverse ("B").

There are only two possibilities - that the universe (absolutely everything natural) has a cause or it doesn't. And since that's unknown, we can't say that the universe has a cause.

leroy wrote:
Regardless, even if there was a cause, it doesn't mean that it's supernatural - that's just what WLC, you, and all other theists want/claim to be the case.


it means that the cause would be timeless, space less, inmaterial and personal, ..........you don't have to call it supernatural if you don't what.

Again, wrong. We went over this in the linked thread.

"Personal" is not a property of the cause - nor is "immaterial", as I explained before.

You're still trying to sneak in a supernatural cause where none is warranted.

leroy wrote:
if you want to claim it's the Christian God, then you have to exclude with evidence any other supernatural cause as well as all natural causes

granted. but that is beyond the scope of the KCA,

Since you're using the KCA to argue for the Christian God, then you have to exclude all other supernatural and natural explanations.

Kindest regards,

James
Image
"The Word of God is the Creation we behold and it is in this Word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man."
The Age Of Reason
Sun Jul 23, 2017 5:22 pm
hackenslashLime TordUser avatarPosts: 2439Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:43 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Arguments for God's Existence

leroy wrote:however that doesn't change the fact that according to your article, virtual particles do not pop in to existence without a cause


Care to quote the bit in the article where I say that?

Good luck with that.
Sun Jul 23, 2017 9:43 pm
hackenslashLime TordUser avatarPosts: 2439Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:43 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Arguments for God's Existence

leroy wrote:even if we ignore the fact that Occam's razor would say that we shouldn't invoke the existence of other universes without any justification,


You're misapplying Occam's Razor here. Given the existence of at least one 'universe', it's perfectly reasonable to posit others without violating Occam's Razor. In fact, the violation occurs with the insistence that our 'universe' is the only one, because now you're positing the existence of an entity that hasn't been shown to exist, namely a barrier to other universes arising.

Logic: She's a tough mistress.
Sun Jul 23, 2017 9:49 pm
hackenslashLime TordUser avatarPosts: 2439Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:43 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Arguments for God's Existence

leroy wrote:If I would have said that the argument is BAD I would have to show that at least 1 of the premises is wrong, or unlikely to be true.


No, you wouldn't, because that's not how deductive arguments work. You only have to show that the argument is invalid, i.e., that the route from premises to conclusion is faulty, or that the argument is unsound, i.e., one or more premises may not be taken as axiomatic. It simply isn't necessary to demonstrate the falsity or probable falsity of a premise, and your insistence that it is commits yet another fallacy, namely onus probandi, or shifting the burden of proof.

The KCA is a bad argument for all the reasons I've stated and more. It commits fallacies including - but not limited to - equivocation (flipping between ex nihilo and ex materia in 'begins to exist), blind assertion, fallacy of composition and more. Further, premise 1 is factually incorrect. The Coriolis Effect begins to exist, yet it has no cause.

It isn't just a bad argument, it's a shocking argument, with only fallacies holding it all together.

ETA:

it means that the cause would be timeless, space less, inmaterial and personal, ..........you don't have to call it supernatural if you don't what.


Nonsense. If our universe had a cause, then that cause could not be timeless, because that cause would have to exist 'prior'. There is no escaping temporal language here. Moreover, if M-Theory is correct, then there never was a time when there was no space.

The assertion that the BB represents the beginning of space and time is as unfounded as the arse-water upon which the Kalam Fallacy rests. It's complete horseshit. No cosmologist I'm aware of takes seriously the idea that time began at the big bang. Kalamity Kraig's pseudo-philosophical claptrap is of no utility here, and he should have let Aristotle alone.
Sun Jul 23, 2017 9:57 pm
leroyPosts: 2030Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Arguments for God's Existence

Dragan Glas wrote:

There are only two possibilities - that the universe (absolutely everything natural) has a cause or it doesn't..

:lol: :lol: :lol:

interestingly hackenslash and Sparhafoc would disagree with that statement.

all I am saying is that given your words, if our momentum is all there is then the universe has a cause.

if there is something else (like a multiverse), then the universe may or may not have a cause, or in other words, most scenarios entail a cause.

but even ignoring that point, the arguments of the KCA would also apply in a multiverse.
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/popular- ... l-argument

Again, wrong. We went over this in the linked thread.

"Personal" is not a property of the cause - nor is "immaterial", as I explained before.



well the article explains why is the cause necessarily personal and inmaterial, what is wrong with that justification?


Since you're using the KCA to argue for the Christian God, then you have to exclude all other supernatural and natural explanations.

Kindest regards,

James


yes granted, I would need to provide other arguments in order to conclude that the the Christian God is the cause. but that is beyond the scope of the argument.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Mon Jul 24, 2017 2:01 am
leroyPosts: 2030Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Arguments for God's Existence

hackenslash wrote:
leroy wrote:however that doesn't change the fact that according to your article, virtual particles do not pop in to existence without a cause


Care to quote the bit in the article where I say that?

Good luck with that.


sure,

These energy fluctuations, which have come to be called 'virtual particles' (virtual because they're short-lived, not because they aren't real) borrow energy from spacetime in the form of a differential, manifesting as virtual particle pairs, move apart a little, and then come back together and annihilate.


as you explain in the article, energy fluctuation are the cause of virtual particles

The Coriolis Effect begins to exist, yet it has no cause.


yes motion is the cuse of the Coriolis Effect

Nonsense. If our universe had a cause, then that cause could not be timeless, because that cause would have to exist 'prior'


wrong, the cause and the effect can be simultaneous

Moreover, if M-Theory is correct, then there never was a time when there was no space


granted, and you don't have to invoke M theory, this would still be true even if M theory is where wrong.

No cosmologist I'm aware of takes seriously the idea that time began at the big bang.

yes that is the prevailing view among cosmologists

In this lecture, I would like to discuss whether time itself has a beginning, and whether it will have an end. All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago. This is probably the most remarkable discovery of modern cosmology. Yet it is now taken for granted. We are not yet certain whether the universe will have an end.

http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html


but even if we grant that there was time before the big bang, there would still be many reasons to assume that time begun to exist anyway,
https://arxiv.org/abs/1204.4658
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Mon Jul 24, 2017 2:25 am
hackenslashLime TordUser avatarPosts: 2439Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:43 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Arguments for God's Existence

leroy wrote:as you explain in the article, energy fluctuation are the cause of virtual particles


Wrong. The energy fluctuations ARE the virtual particles. Where's the cause?

yes motion is the cuse of the Coriolis Effect


Ooops. Meant to say the Casimir Effect. Been arguing with flerfers.

wrong, the cause and the effect can be simultaneous


Oh, fuck. Let's see if you can explain this any better than Kalamity Kraig. Since he's considerably more intelligent, I don't hold out much hope.

granted, and you don't have to invoke M theory, this would still be true even if M theory is where wrong.


Wrong again. Only in M-Theory, or in any model in which time and space arose from the BB, and there are no such models currently on the table.

yes that is the prevailing view among cosmologists


No it isn't, and it hasn't been for at least thirty years.

snip...


Hawking is talking about a very specific definition of 'universe' there, which is why I used the scare quotes. Not an absolute beginning.

but even if we grant that there was time before the big bang, there would still be many reasons to assume that time begun to exist anyway,
https://arxiv.org/abs/1204.4658


Wrong. There's never a reason to assume anything until it's demonstrated. Also, Vilenkin is wrong, and running much further with the evidence than is warranted. I'm fully cognisant of his work, considerably more than you are. This is directly in my wheelhouse, while yours consists of.. what, exactly?
Mon Jul 24, 2017 3:12 am
SparhafocPosts: 2445Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Arguments for God's Existence

leroy wrote:however there is a difference,


Yes, the difference is that in one thread, you are the claimant, and in the other, taking the negative (although you're not taking a negative towards the actual claim made, but rather the claim you'd prefer to take a negative for).

Where there's no difference is in how you try to shift the burden of proof depending not on the rules of argumentation and logic, but by which serves you best.



leroy wrote:I admit that the "slice of God argument" is a good argument against the exístanse of God, the argument is certainly based on premises that seem more likely to be true than wrong.


Irrelevant. You are not the arbiter of your opponent's argument. They are free to make any case they want to, and your only duty (should you feel the compunction) is to defeat that argument.

In this thread, you are trying to pretend that my position means I am not engaging in discussion, whereas in reality, your refusal to acknowledge my argument, and your repeated attempts to tell me what argument I should have, means you are engaging in specious bullshit.

This is not really at question any more - anyone can simply look back from page 4 onwards and look at the progression of posts and see that you have done exactly this.


You can stop doing it if you want to, at which point we may be able to proceed with a discussion.

Or you can continue doing engaging in this, in which case insofar as anyone would consider, I've won the point by default and you've been unable to erect so much as a word in favour of your position.

No amount of distraction, hand-waving, or amateur dramatics can change that. The rules work the same for both sides, or they are not rules at all.



leroy wrote:my only line of defense is to appeal to the fact that even though it is a good argument it is not a conclusive argument against the existence of God because the premises have never been proven to be definitely true.


Except that's not what's happened at all. In reality, in the other thread you've made a strawman of the position - tried to make it weak and unwieldy - then 'defeated' the weaker argument that only you had espoused.

Actually, your behavior there is exactly the same as here: you refuse to allow your interlocutor to own their own position, and you seem be under the delusion that you get to make the arguments for both sides.



leroy wrote:If I would have said that the argument is BAD I would have to show that at least 1 of the premises is wrong, or unlikely to be true.

given that you seem to be implying that the KCA is a BAD argument, it is fare to ask which of the premises you think is false and why


I 'implied' it?

Really?

Quite amazing that you think you can say such things to my face, LEROY. I rejected the argument in no uncertain terms from the very first post, and I spent hundreds of words explaining why, and all of those explanations were written directly to you. Those words are still here, in this thread, and serve as a permanent record of the reality of the conversation.

You may not wish to acknowledge reality - I certainly cannot oblige you to - but you don't get to lie to my face. Anyone and everyone is welcome to look back through the thread and see who's engaged with honest and valid discussion, and who's tried everything short of starting a fire to evade honest and valid discussion.

6 or 7 pages of explanation in that very thread. 6 or 7 pages that you have replied to. 6 or 7 pages of explanation of why the premise is false, the postulate in error, and thus the argument being untrue... so you don't actually get to pretend that it's me who's not written the explanation, rather you need to step up and acknowledge that it's just your failure to acknowledge my argument.

Either which way, I still maintain the same argument - feel free to address it any time you find the competence.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Mon Jul 24, 2017 5:29 am
SparhafocPosts: 2445Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Arguments for God's Existence

Dragan Glas wrote:Read the first post on this page, leroy, Sparhafoc has told you he's already explained what's wrong with the KCA - all you have to do is re-read the thread.


Sadly, there's no doubt that LEROY knows this to be true, but it's inconvenient for him to acknowledge, so he doesn't.

Either we're here to discuss our ideas, or we're here to win debates.

If the first, LEROY is not going to do well telling me what I can or can't think.

If the latter, he's lost.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Mon Jul 24, 2017 5:31 am
SparhafocPosts: 2445Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Arguments for God's Existence

leroy wrote:well why do you think that the premise is faulty?....



I can see that you've written a hundred or so more words after this first sentence of your post, but given that I've already explained this to you over several pages, and given that you know perfectly well what my reasons are for calling the postulate faulty, then you need to think about why I should bother reading your words when you can't be bothered to read mine.

Of course, it's not really 'reading' that's the question here - it's your mendacious behavior.

That's what all this is about: a complete lack of credibility or honesty on your part.

When you show you are not going to keep acting like a child, perhaps you'll be treated like an adult.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Mon Jul 24, 2017 5:34 am
PreviousNext
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 10 of 39
 [ 766 posts ] 
Return to Religion & Irreligion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests