Originally posted by 667joeWhat is your problem? I was never arguing that God exists. It is not as if you have convinced me by superior reasoning to believe that God does not exist; this simply was never the topic. Are you having trouble following this conversation?
Finally you admit my position regarding the existence of god is correct. Thank you very much. I know it was hard for you to admit I am correct, and I want to thank you sincerely. I will overlook the petulant tone of your remarks.
Originally posted by 667joeWell, it is certainly an ad hominem attack; it just is not an ad hominem argument, which would be a fallacy. You really are crazy. You think that one of the great logicians of the last century is surpassed by Christopher Hitchens. You seriously lack any sense of balance.
This is an ad homenim attack. Debaters resort to such when they have weak positions.
Originally posted by Conrau KThank you for agreeing with me again. I will settle for two out of three, but I stand with Hitchens even more now that you have denigrated him.
Well, it is certainly an ad hominem attack; it just is not an ad hominem argument, which would be a fallacy. You really are crazy. You think that one of the great logicians of the last century is surpassed by Christopher Hitchens. You seriously lack any sense of balance.
Originally posted by 667joeActually, I really don't agree with you on several points. As for Christopher Hitchens, I did not denigrate him at all. I just said that he is not surpassed by Kurt Godel (which, really, could hardly be construed as an insult.) Whatever, go back to your usual baiting with someone else.
Thank you for agreeing with me again. I will settle for two out of three, but I stand with Hitchens even more now that you have denigrated him.
Originally posted by 667joeWith logic like that the sky's the limit for you pal!🙄
If god were a baseball player, it would be safe to say god would be the best baseball player, right? The question is could god the pitcher strike out god the batter? Conversely, could god the batter hit a home run off god the pitcher? No matter how you look at this riddle, god comes out less than omnipotent. In my view this riddle makes a case that there is no god.
1 edit
Originally posted by 667joeWhat exactly are you trying to accomplish here Joe?
Bill, since you have not responded, I can only assume you can't tell me where my logic is wrong.
Are you just hanging on, baiting theists (and people who you *think* are theists) in the vain hope that some teenager or atheist-nouveau will jump in and vindicate your arguments??? Or perhaps you're a closet theist and trying in some clandestine way to make us atheists look bad with sh**ty arguments to earn brownie points with your church and God?
Your logic fails dismally; it has been shown to you in detail how this is the case.
Originally posted by AgergYour reply did not answer the question. Your lack of answer is the answer! Thank you!
What exactly are you trying to accomplish here Joe?
Are you just hanging on, baiting theists (and people who you *think* are theists) in the vain hope that some teenager or atheist-nouveau will jump in and vindicate your arguments??? Or perhaps you're a closet theist and trying in some clandestine way to make us atheists look bad with sh**ty arguments to e ...[text shortened]... and God?
Your logic fails dismally; it has been shown to you in detail how this is the case.
1 edit
Originally posted by 667joeThat's probably because I have already gone at great lengths to show you the error of your ways, as has Conrau, as have others. We've tried in a number of ways to articulate in a form you would understand; that if your premises are invalid, then so are your conclusions. It gets wearisome.
Your reply did not answer the question. Your lack of answer is the answer! Thank you!
Your premise is that all gods must be able to do the logically impossible to qualify for the term "omnipotent". As this is a premise most reasonable theists would reject then your conclusions are moot.
Note when I say they would reject that premise, I mean to say: "they don't hold the opinion that their god must satisfy 667joe's definition of omnipotence" they probably have a more tenable and logically compliant formulation of the word.
Originally posted by AgergMy position is that god cannot possibly do what theist attribute to him and therefore, the god of such theists can not exist. I assume you believe in a supernatural god and it would solve a lot of issues were there such an entity, but alas, there is no way known to verify his existence and until there is, I am certainly not going to waste my time praying to him (as if he were Santa Claus). You are right though, I do find amusement with people who are theists especially when they claim there is a god who has very specific rules for us to live by, but when the foolishness of a particular rule is pointed out, they claim it is impossible to know god or understand him fully. You guys can't have it both ways. A square circle can not exist, and neither can a supernatural god.
That's probably because I have already gone at great lengths to show you the error of your ways, as has Conrau, as have others. We've tried in a number of ways to articulate in a form you would understand; that if your premises are invalid, then so are your conclusions.
Your premise is that all gods must be able to do the logically impossible to qualify for ...[text shortened]... ence" they probably have a more tenable and logically compliant formulation of the word.
3 edits
Originally posted by 667joeI assume you believe in a supernatural god and it would solve a lot of issues were there such an entity
My position is that god cannot possibly do what theist attribute to him and therefore, the god of such theists can not exist. I assume you believe in a supernatural god and it would solve a lot of issues were there such an entity, but alas, there is no way known to verify his existence and until there is, I am certainly not going to waste my time praying to ...[text shortened]... ys can't have it both ways. A square circle can not exist, and neither can a supernatural god.
Your assumption is incorrect; there is no god (or gods) that I believe in (you should have inferred this from my response a few posts prior).
Your attempts to purposely define a god that is illogical and then disprove it (noting that twhitehead has shown the futility of this in the first page of this thread) could serve only one purpose: To educate theists that the god you just made up, and is not representative of the god they believe in, doesn't exist
Wow! 😞
Originally posted by AgergRefer back to my very first sentence in my last post. Despite your supercilious attitude, I see you agree with me. Thank you!
[b]I assume you believe in a supernatural god and it would solve a lot of issues were there such an entity
Your assumption is incorrect; there is no god (or gods) that I believe in (you should have inferred this from my response a few posts prior).
Your attempts to purposely define a god that is illogical and then disprove it (noting that twhitehead ha ...[text shortened]... made up, and is not representative of the god they believe in, doesn't exist
Wow! 😞[/b]
1 edit
Originally posted by 667joeApart from the coincidental point that neither of us believe in god I fail to see where I ever hinted that I agree with you on anything.
Refer back to my very first sentence in my last post. Despite your supercilious attitude, I see you agree with me. Thank you!
My disbelief does not imply belief in the impossibilty of gods.