ding,ding,ding!!! We have a winner. Thanks for playing along with your own beliefs for a post.
Atheists revenge. Persecution of theists.
- Thread starter Greatest I am
- Start date
And another missed point. (You're still making assumptions).
(And also a tacit admission your previous post was duplicitous).
He or she can't help it. All replies are utterly determined. I am not sure where rational or irrational comes into it. Doesn't 'being rational' imply choice between possible processes, when there is none?
Or?
I know this may have seemed like a joke before. But in a sense determinism is a spirituality or should lead to one. I do not mean in the epistemological sense that it is a spirituality, just that, if believed, I mean really believed, it should lead, I would think inevitably to no longer reacting to people in certain ways. What does accusing someone of 'being dupilicitous' mean where there is no free will. It's like yelling at a clam for spitting. Or at water for running downhill.
Big Chiller
Registered Senior Member
Even if we believe determinism to be true it doesn't work if we turn it into a faith because to us it always seems we acted of our own accord when we do.
Like my answer to a similar question in a different thread: I'd have no choice in my response either!
If I were to claim god was supernatural it would show he did not exist in nature...Pay close attention to the next one and remember to follow your previous logic.
If I claim god is a plan and state your not following it then he still exists.
No. All you're doing is stating that you believe he exists.
You're STILL missing the point.
Exactly. All I would be doing if I said "therefore god isn't omnipotent" would be stating a belief.
But my first assumption is always valid.
But my first assumption is always valid.
Also utterly wrong. As previously shown.
What "first assumption"? That you know what you're talking about?
which refutes your "ipso facto" claim, leading so far none of your claims to be valid. And I believe you now owe me an apology for purposefully misrepresenting my beliefs.
No it doesn't.
Stating god to be supernatural is not stating god to be non-existent - as you agreed:
(And I'm still at a loss as to what "beliefs" of mine you think I'm "playing along with").You said:
Please list my claims that are invalid.
PS if that was meant to say "leading so far to" then you're equally incorrect. Even if I were wrong on that it wouldn't mean that all of my "claims" were.
You appear to believe many things. Most of them incorrect.
Please show where I have misrepresented your beliefs (purposely or otherwise).
wow your way off. You really can't read. I'll give you one more try...
the one in which you know nature to be perfect, but can't find evidence that it is so.
appearances can be deceiving. Post 327 assumes I believe in god. I told you this was false and you continue to use this underlying assumption to make inferences concerning my beliefs. This is dishonest, especially when the only claim you have to tie the connection is that "any claim that attempts to define god is a claim that he exists" ( your own statement that refutes your logic on post 96 ) , which might I add has been shown to be false by a previously aforementioned "statement of my actual belief."
Last edited:
Really? So you changed your mind?
Please show where I have stated this. You are STILL assuming. (And in fact YOU have claimed (for me) that I don't believe this).
Which I showed to be true, based on your own statement (and subsequent agreement).
Yet you made the claim.
No it doesn't.
Also incorrect.
Are you capable of following a chain of reasoning? Are you capable of understanding plain logic?
Tell me, are you some sort of polycephalous alien? Because I find it hard to believe that anyone can be so stupid with only one head.
Yeah The statement that shows I don't believe god is irrefutable proof that I do.... sarcasm cough cough.
Can I state that as a fact? You know nature is imperfect and have evidence? Where?
Let me get this straight. You believe I believe in god, """"because""" I can define god with basic words in the english language? And you going to assume I do this just because?
You made the claim that a definition following your assumptions is a statement of what consider to be an absolute fact.
Post 96 you make a claim to what god is. Therefore I assume you believe in god, but only because I'm following your logic.
"If I were to claim god was supernatural it would show he did not exist in nature"
In the above sentence, What does not exist?
The statement didn't show that you don't.
Still dumb I see. Read what I wrote. YOU have claimed that I know this. I haven't.
Let me see...
Me: A claim of what "god is" (especially since that claim is "every natural object") is, ipso facto a claim that god exists.
And you agreed with it.
No I didn't.
No I didn't.
Still can't see your error? A claim is NOT proof.
kids these days..
you both are so busy playing 'you said/i said' that your not saying anything..
you both are so busy playing 'you said/i said' that your not saying anything..
Not my error....
Yeah you did...
So your saying you made no claim for or against his omnipotence? This I assure you is true.
There is no error to my logic. Stick to solipsism, you are really good at arguing against yourself.
Okay, one last attempt.
I'll give you the argument AGAIN, see if you can address it properly.
Either there's a plan by god or there isn't a plan.
If there IS a plan then either we're doing what god intended or we aren't.
Got that that so far?
Right:
It has been claimed that god is omniscient (i.e. knows everything).
Therefore any plan made by god will include and cater for any and all contingencies.
Okay?
If we are not following that plan (as has ALSO been claimed) then, by definition we are doing something that is not part of the plan.
Got that?
THEREFORE the plan wasn't perfect.
THEREFORE god is not omniscient.
Since one of the prime attributes of god is claimed to be omniscience it follows that any being that isn't omniscient cannot be god.
THEREFORE what is claimed to be god isn't.
Point out the errors.
And stay on track.
I'll give you the argument AGAIN, see if you can address it properly.
Either there's a plan by god or there isn't a plan.
If there IS a plan then either we're doing what god intended or we aren't.
Got that that so far?
Right:
It has been claimed that god is omniscient (i.e. knows everything).
Therefore any plan made by god will include and cater for any and all contingencies.
Okay?
If we are not following that plan (as has ALSO been claimed) then, by definition we are doing something that is not part of the plan.
Got that?
THEREFORE the plan wasn't perfect.
THEREFORE god is not omniscient.
Since one of the prime attributes of god is claimed to be omniscience it follows that any being that isn't omniscient cannot be god.
THEREFORE what is claimed to be god isn't.
Point out the errors.
And stay on track.
Yes a natural plan will include and cater for all contingencies.(ie nature is perfect) But if you don't follow them it simply means you are unnatural or supernatural.
So effectively all you're doing is claiming that the previous claimant is wrong, and that we ARE following the plan?
Edit: PS you are, once again, diverting. Natural wasn't mentioned.
And your second sentence: "But if you don't follow them it simply means you are unnatural or supernatural" is incorrect given the initial postulate
Edit: PS you are, once again, diverting. Natural wasn't mentioned.
And your second sentence: "But if you don't follow them it simply means you are unnatural or supernatural" is incorrect given the initial postulate
Last edited: