Post 96 you assume god is not god.
Atheists revenge. Persecution of theists.
- Thread starter Greatest I am
- Start date
Big Chiller
Registered Senior Member
Post 96 states that what isn't all powerful isn't god.
Correct. What evidence do you have that something isn't all powerful?
Read post 96.
The question should be: what evidence do you have that something is all-powerful?
Irrelevant. But the Answer isn't
Epistemological?
Gesundheit!
Which ones?
(I'm not saying I haven't made any, rather that what NH persists in presuming to be an assumption on my part usually turns out not to be).
You know I used to try to say words when I sneezed - which is not uncouth like trying to say words when burping (my aesthetics) - but as well as 'episte..' would go, 'mological' would be a challenge. But don't think for one moment I won't try.Gesundheit!
Oh, well, you must have them or you wouldn't be able to say his or her reasoning and/evidence are problematic. You could only scream 'I remain unconvinced'. Which I think is a good thing to scream and it shortens discussions. (again, my aesthetics). If 'they' then say you should be convinced, you can say you are unconvinced by that. Very hard to end up defending assumptions with that tack.
No charge for the tip.
No I was actually looking for a valid argument. I'm almost too tired of laughing at the same unchallenging joke, but pineal just made it funny again.
Ah, that must be why you haven't posted one yet: you can't find one.
So, ready to apologise for accusing me of lying? Or even back up your assertion?
If it's so "unchallenging" how come you've consistently avoided addressing it?
as opposed to the " ... uh, well he just doesn't"?
And your point here would be...?
The ONLY "argument" NH has so far presented has boiled down to that.
Yeah "unchallenging". As pineal pointed out I can sit here and point out that I never said "god, exists" nor have I provided a reason as absolutely absurd as you suggest I have. Im no expert but I think that makes you a liar.
All day...
Then provide your refutation.
Oops, lie:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2828011&postcount=178
Wrong:
You're right. You're not an expert, but you are a liar.
Wrong, wrong, wrong!!!
The words were. God "exists" as a straight proclamation of my belief that lead directly to the belief of god. A definition of the word is not proof of belief. take it back. It is not true.
The words were. God "exists" as a straight proclamation of my belief that lead directly to the belief of god. A definition of the word is not proof of belief. take it back. It is not true.
A claim of what "god is" (especially since that claim is "every natural object") is, ipso facto a claim that god exists.
Or maybe you're going to deny "everything natural" doesn't actually exist?
I see that you're incapable of giving a rational or coherent (or honest) reply.
I'm done with you.