God is responsible for all the bad stuff that happens

[PLC1]

Psuedo-scientific????

If you must know, the cosmological argument is an ONTOLOGICAL argument. Its philosophy, not science.

Duh?

Oh, my bad, it was pseudo metaphysical nonsense, not pseudo scientific.

OK, go on back to "duh", and "HEE HAW!" That is more entertaining, anyway.

 

[numinus]

Oh, my bad, it was pseudo metaphysical nonsense, not pseudo scientific.

OK, go on back to "duh", and "HEE HAW!" That is more entertaining, anyway.

For all the times you were caught scratching your head like a simian, this is the first time you actually admitted it. Now, that is funny.

Duh?

 

[numinus]

There is no proof to state

Thought so.

As I said, it is fortunate for the rest of us that logic does not suffer the objections of boneheads.

Duh?

But you do seem to be obsessed with the problem of infinite regress of cause and effect so in the spirit of the OP of this thread, why don't you tace back evil to its first uncaused cause.

Clue, you will arrive at your god.

The creator of evil and all the bad stuff that happens

Evil, just like the fallacies you have been posting here, is merely a manifestation of your own unique and DEFECTIVE logic -- nothing at all to do with god or creative will.

Duh?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

As I said, it is fortunate for the rest of us that logic does not suffer the objections of boneheads.Duh?Evil, just like the fallacies you have been posting here, is merely a manifestation of your own unique and DEFECTIVE logic -- nothing at all to do with god or creative will.Duh?

While I will admit that your posts have a certain abusive force, they are also not only repetitive in their abuses, but unconvincing in their substance. You've been trying to prove a point for quite a while now and have failed miserably. Your defense is that all of us are "boneheads", when in point of fact it may very well be that you are such a poor explainer that even if you had a point to make you couldn't make it. I rather suspect that you don't have a point to make and are thus somewhat hampered in convincing other people of your (nonexistent) point.

One of the posters here suggested that you did in fact have a point, but if you combed your hair correctly most people wouldn't notice it.

 

[numinus]

While I will admit that your posts have a certain abusive force, they are also not only repetitive in their abuses, but unconvincing in their substance. You've been trying to prove a point for quite a while now and have failed miserably. Your defense is that all of us are "boneheads", when in point of fact it may very well be that you are such a poor explainer that even if you had a point to make you couldn't make it. I rather suspect that you don't have a point to make and are thus somewhat hampered in convincing other people of your (nonexistent) point.

One of the posters here suggested that you did in fact have a point, but if you combed your hair correctly most people wouldn't notice it.

When one has spent hundreds of posts explaining the logic of a 4-STEP ARGUMENT to someone, and STILL, this someone fails to accept the argument or show why exactly it is defective to being with, what is any reasonable individual led to conclude, hmmm?

Either this individual is a complete bonehead or he is hopelessly infatuated with fallacy the way pigs are infatuated with their own $hit.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

Or as Mare says, you are an inadequate explainer.

And there is much to support this.

But don't worry, you are trying to explain something which much cleverer people than you have failed to explain and the reason is that the argument offered is illogical.

The difference between you and the others who have tried is that they were smart enough to know when they were beaten.

Your continual wild responses are hilarious.

I particularly liked the one where you said you must be rigjht because you could quote the formula for the area of a square or somesuch piece of brilliance.

Keep up the wrath Num just don't build any bridges. If your engineering is like your arguments it would fall down pretty quickly and then you would have to stand at the site telling everyone it hadn't fallen down and that they were boneheads for trying to escape the rubble.

 

[numinus]

Or as Mare says, you are an inadequate explainer.

And there is much to support this.

But don't worry, you are trying to explain something which much cleverer people than you have failed to explain and the reason is that the argument offered is illogical.

The difference between you and the others who have tried is that they were smart enough to know when they were beaten.

Your continual wild responses are hilarious.

I particularly liked the one where you said you must be rigjht because you could quote the formula for the area of a square or somesuch piece of brilliance.

Keep up the wrath Num just don't build any bridges. If your engineering is like your arguments it would fall down pretty quickly and then you would have to stand at the site telling everyone it hadn't fallen down and that they were boneheads for trying to escape the rubble.

Only boneheads need a 4-step argument (phrased as an informal proof) expounded to them repeatedly. After all, if they don't get it the first time, there really isn't any reason to believe they'll get it the hundredth time.

Given the utter simplicity in logic, one would imagine that if the argument was indeed defective, someone would have pointed the defect already.

But then again, perhaps boneheads simply adore hearing themselves fart in the public domain.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

I guess you would know

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

he is hopelessly infatuated with fallacy the way pigs are infatuated with their own $hit.

This may be you in the discussion, Nums, you may have summed up yourself with amazing accuracy and honesty, and for this I salute you.

You obviously know very little about pigs however, they are very clean animals when given the chance, they are naturally housebroken and won't foul their living quarters if they have any other option.

 

[numinus]

I guess you would know

Certainly.

I'm not the one consistently miscomprehending the cosmological argument, am I?

 

[numinus]

This may be you in the discussion, Nums, you may have summed up yourself with amazing accuracy and honesty, and for this I salute you.

You obviously know very little about pigs however, they are very clean animals when given the chance, they are naturally housebroken and won't foul their living quarters if they have any other option.

They eat their own excrement.

Duh?

 

[top gun]

Uhm, you need to refute the cosmological argument. Its a four-step informal proof, fyi.

Unless you can refute it, you can't very well assert the claims you have made here, can you?

Okaaay... I "refute" it as informal unproven theroy... which is exactly what it is. The one thing we know for certain is that it is unknown the exact beginning of all things.

From there... there are two paths. Either keep exploring, researching and testing and advancing our provable knowledge... from the understanding of scientific basics that once confounded us like gravity & electricity to far reaching modern research like the Hubble Telescope, Super Collider and advanced things of that nature or...

Just state that it's magic and say there's no need for any of that fancy book learnin'!

 

[numinus]

Okaaay... I "refute" it as informal unproven theroy... which is exactly what it is. The one thing we know for certain is that it is unknown the exact beginning of all things.

From there... there are two paths. Either keep exploring, researching and testing and advancing our provable knowledge... from the understanding of scientific basics that once confounded us like gravity & electricity to far reaching modern research like the Hubble Telescope, Super Collider and advanced things of that nature or...

Just state that it's magic and say there's no need for any of that fancy book learnin'!

LMAO.

A refutation, itself, is a logical argument. And being a logical argument, reasons should be given exactly why it is so. And the reasons, just like in proofs, need to conform with some logical principle.

What you call a refutation is actually nothing more than agnostic fart.

Duh?

 

[9sublime]

Dawkins, did you know that some Christian scholars do not even deny this. Look for Martin Luthers argument on omniscience; “God or man’s will... does what it does, good or bad under no compulsion, but as it wants or pleases, as if totally free.”

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

I have no idea what that means but oniscience and omnipotence are mutually exclusive.

So the god as described by most christians is logically impossible as well as being bereft of existential evidence although one probably implies the other anyway.

If the god of the bible did exist it would be incontravertible that he made evil.

He made lucipher knowing what lucipher would do.

That is like Mr and Mrs Schickelgruber being told, before having unprotected sex what their potential child Adolph would end up doing but going ahead and conceiving him anyway.

Except that god had lived for eternity without the world and people and lucipher and so you really have to wonder why he did it all let alone in the knowledge of how it would all turn out.

Most people on the planet dying a miserable death after a wretched life of famine disease and war.

Great guy god eh?

No.