Apikorus

It seems that if my free will actions are independent of God, then the set-theoretic union of those actions plus God must be "greater than" God. But perhaps this is best left for another thread.

I believe that the "principle of sufficient reason" is very likely meaningless. If the origin of this principle and reason itself is God, then invoking it to argue for God is circular.

I also maintain that notions of causality "outside time" are of dubious applicability to the physical universe, unless they have falsifiable consequences.

Perhaps, as I had mentioned, the existence of God may be likened to the Axiom of Choice in set theory. The axiom of choice has been proven to be independent of all other set-theoretic axioms.

But it's been stimulating to chat with you, Kenny. Best wishes for the coming year.

[ December 22, 2001: Message edited by: Apikorus ]</p>

Koyaanisqatsi

Well, congrats, Kenny. You did the one thing I expressly asked you not to do; spout unsupportable, ambiguous poetry instead of providing practical details.

How poetic. Specifics or will you just continue to make unsupportable claims such as this?

Great. How?

Another unsubstantiated, meaningless platitude.

You have said nothing of substance whatsoever.

[quote]KOY: Or does he act within every moment in some manner, meaning that he is time-dependent, too?

Again, that's fun poetry that says absolutely nothing. So far, all you are doing is making or referrencing grandiose claims with nothing to back them up other than definition.

Arguments from authority carry no weight here, so you'd best start providing practical details to these pointless ravings if you want to be taken seriously.

Again, how? He blinked and presto? Accordingly, I can just as legitimately counter these pointless declaratives with my own and state that it was I who blinked everything into existence "all at once."

Using your "reasoning," because I have stated this to be true it is therefore true.

More baseless declaratives. Replace the word "God" with "Koyaanisqatsi" and the exact same result will be mandated by your argument from authority, just so long as I define myself as The Creator and Sustainer of Existence.

You have presented no other basis than mere definition to establish your claims, so my claim is just as legitimate as is yours.

Since I created every moment in time "at once," every moment in time exists as it does through the direct result of My action.

Absolutely no qualitative difference.

Logical contradiction. "Acting" in every moment demands time-dependancy. There is no way around this irrefutable fact.

Yes, but how? My question to you was to the details and specfics of such sweeping, grandiose declarations. Your only answer is to state, in essence, "Because he is defined that way by us."

That is not just insufficient, it is laughable. Accordingly, the exact same claims can be made by myself and your "reasoning" would have absolutely no way to refute me.

Your entire argument boils down to, "It just is this way," which, as you well know, is not an argument at all.

More baseless declaration.

HOW? You keep simply declaring this is the case without presenting any possible means for such a process to occur.

Again, I can just as easily counter that I perceive every detail of reality perfectly, from the large to the small and that, therefore, I am what you call "God."

There is no difference between your declarations and my own and your own logic applies just as readily to my unsupported declarations as to you own.

What the apologists "hold" or don't "hold" is entirely irrelevant to this discussion as your own baseless claims have demonstrated.

By the same logic, you should know by now that orthodox Koyaanisqatsi theology holds that I am the uncreated creator of all existence, communicating through this medium to tell you the truth.

It states that he made man in his image and that no man has seen his face. Such terminology--regardless of the attempts of subsequent apologists to interpret it logically so that there are no contradictions--proves that humanity looks like God.

No, it does not. Being made in one's image is by no means a metaphor. It is a declaration of (alleged) fact.

The only "good reason" you are referring to is that it obviously cannot be true that we are made in God's image if god has the attributes you are proclaiming he has, thus the "good reason" is to apologize for the glaring logical inconsistencies found within the mythology instead of what should have happened; the whole thing discarded as childish fantasy.

Then you have failed to present a credible, even common sense practical explanation of how such a being can factually exist and served only to demonstrate that your belief is the result of nothing other than indoctrination; it is true because you were told it was true.

How so? You have claimed that he "acts" in every moment in spacetime. Accordingly, that means that god physically causes every single atom throughout the entire universe to go from "A" to "B" to "C" ad infinitum in every instant at every point in the continuum on a constant basis simultaneously.

Even if he manages to accomplish such an impossibly overwhelming feat via telekineses, his "essence" must be manifest in some time-dependent manner in order to accomplish the linear progression we all perceive in vastly differing degrees.

How is possilbe to be outside linear progression while at the same time constructing and maintaining linear progression?

A carpenter builds a house and it can be argued in a poetic sense that his "essence" is within every beam and every nail, but to then claim that the carpenter maintains the integrity of every single atom (including the humans who inhabit the house) is patently absurd.

Again, the fact that cult members concoct ridiculous, illogical excuses for the glaring logical contradictions found within a particular mythology has no relevancy to the discussion. If it is claimed that god made man in his image, then we are necessarily talking about a being that looks like us, regardless of whether or not no one has seen his face.

Extracting poetry from fiction is fun mental masturbation, but that's all it is.

You are doing nothing more here than spin control; redefining concepts that are simply not logically possible and then stating, "Yep," as if that is somehow a cogent, intelligent response when it is not.

Grandiose, unsupportable claims carry no weight here, so unless you can detail the specifics, your argument is baseless declaration, no more "true" than my own claims of divinity.

In other words, you have no argument.

[ December 22, 2001: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>

Scrutinizer

Hi Kenny,

What do you mean by this? What is a "moment" in space-time if there are no temporal "moments" apart from our subjective experiences? Why do we perceive time if it doesn't exist?

So, you still exist as a kindergarten student, and you are still making decisions in the same real sense as you are making decisions as a college student? So, you're still painting pictures and reciting your ABCs and all the rest of it? Why do you think, if that is the case, you only perceive yourself to exist as a college student? Why don't you perceive both your kindergarten and your college existence?

What do you perceive is an example of a way that your kindergarten consciousness influences the way you act as your college consciousness?

I'm trying, but it's very hard to grasp what you mean when you say something simply "is". So, I simply "am". So, is there no real difference between me writing this post now and me going to bed later? Why will I "later" only experience "going to bed" when "writing this post" exists in no less of a real way?

I think I'm going to explode due to brain-overload!

Regards,

- Scrutinizer

Kenny

Sorry I have not posted in a while; the holidays have been keeping me busy. I don’t know how much longer I will to keep up this thread and I do not promise to respond to everything posted from here on out.

Imhotehp,

I have already dealt with this issue in considerable detail by arguing that causality fundamentally reflects logical relationships and, thus, does not require time to be meaningful. You have failed to engage these arguments.

I never said that God does not experience “moments” in space-time. In fact; I have argued just the opposite – that as an omniscient being, God experiences absolutely everything. What I mean when I say that “God transcends time” is not that God has no experience of space-time events, but that God does not perceive time as something which passes. As an omniscient being, God is fully aware of every location in the space-time continuum “at once” in a single subjective present.


God Bless,
Kenny

Kenny

Apikorus,

Notice that I did not invoke it to argue for God. I clearly stated that it followed from my theistic worldview. However, I believe that it could be used in reverse to argue for God in the following manner: One could argue that the principle of sufficient reason is a necessary presupposition of rational thought and then show that the principle of sufficient reason some how implies the existence of God. If the principle of sufficient reason is truly a necessary presupposition of rational thought then it must be accepted even if one chooses to be an agnostic on what the reason for the principle of sufficient reason is. One could then use it as a premise in something like the cosmological argument.

If it turns out that the principle of sufficient reason itself must depend on God, and if it is irrational to deny the principle of sufficient reason, then it would also be irrational to deny the existence of God. Consequently, you would have a version of the transcendental argument. I have not made any such argument in this thread, however.

This is not an acceptable move to a theist such as myself. As I believe that everything comes from God, depends on God, and points back to God, I cannot hold that there are any aspects of reality which are independent of God.

It has been stimulating to chat with you as well. Best wishes to you also. Thank you for your willingness to engage in dialog and consider ideas which differ from yours on their own merits. Not all atheists seem to be willing to do this and so it is refreshing to encounter those that are.

God Bless,
Kenny

Kenny

Koy,

Just exactly what sort of description are you looking for Koy (i.e. that is what would you consider to be a fundamental explanation)? “How” typically means that some sort of description is given of the manner in which something comes to pass, but I have already given such a description – out of the infinitely many logical ways in which the universe could be (the majority of these ways being chaotic) God selects the way that the universe actually is by willing it to be so. God’s will is itself a fundamental source of causation.

Since we approaching such fundamental concepts as the ground of all being and being itself, it starts to become meaningless to seek more fundamental explanations. I said that “God also providentially guides all things by imposing order and regularity on the universe.” Would you care to explain why it is that such order and regularity exists? If it’s because of the laws of physics, then how is it that the laws of physics govern reality? If you don’t think that the laws of physics govern reality but merely describe it, then what is it about reality that allows it to be described by them? Why do certain laws of physics describe the universe while other possible laws do not? If it is because matter has certain fundamental properties, then just exactly what is a “property” and what is it about a “property” that makes things behave in a certain way, and why the properties that hold in our universe as opposed to some other set of properties? I’m not asking these question as part of an argument for God; I’m asking them to show that we can always play the “how” game until we come to a point where we regard certain explanations as fundamental. In a theistic worldview, God is the most fundamental level of reality.

If you had been paying attention to my posts, you would have seen me state countless times that I am responding to an internal critique of the Christian worldview (one that grants the premises of Christianity for the sake of argument), not attempting to argue for its truth directly. Since it is an internal critique, I should be allowed to use Christian premises to respond to it without have to also argue for those premises.

Except for the fact that I have already dealt with that issue in some detail in my discussion of causality, which you have made no response to.

Well, I’m glad to see you’ve become such an expert in Biblical hermeneutics Koy. The fact that I see diffraction patterns when I shine light through a grating proves that light is not a particle in spite of the attempts of physicists to rationalize the data away (with all their convoluted “Quantum Mechanics&#8221 and smooth things over such that there are no longer “contradictions” in nature. Or, perhaps, physicists presuppose that nature operates as part of a coherent system such that it is inappropriate to isolate certain components of it without considering their relation to all the other components. You may draw whatever inferences form this example you wish.

There is no universal definition of simultaneity from inside the universe according to relativity. God does sovereignly will the entire space-time continuum (with all the moments in space-time contained therein) in all its details to exist as it does; as such God’s will is causally involved in every moment.

Is the author of a book limited to its linear progression? Must an author only conceive of how her book will turn out from beginning to end? Might she have the end in mind first? Might she even (with sufficient mental capabilities) conceive of the entire work in all its interrelated parts at once?

A Carpenter is finite individual, so of course it is absurd. If God were just some big guy in the sky, it would also be absurd. However, the God of Christian theism is not a big guy in the sky, but the ground of all being. In other words, according to Christian theism reality is personal at is deepest level as opposed to impersonal and God is the most fundamental aspect of reality.

Of course; I’m just a cultist apologist after all. Any attempt on my part to explain anything about my beliefs or to argue for their logical consistency can be safely dismissed as cult propaganda. “Freethinkers” such as yourself need not even consider any other possibility.

From your responses here as well as how I have seen you treat the other Christian posters on this board, I see no further need to continue discussing these items with you as I see no genuine willingness on your part to dialog and learn about what Christians believe, but only a desire to attack your opponents without really listening to them.

God Bless,
Kenny

[ January 02, 2002: Message edited by: Kenny ]</p>

Kenny

Hi Scrutinizer!

Good question as it allows me to make some needed clarifications. What I mean when I say that time has no “metaphysical primacy” is that it is not a thing in itself. Time does exist in the sense that it meaningfully describes relationships between things in the universe, but not in the sense that it is something unto itself which “passes” or “flows” from one moment to another. God can be said to experience time in the sense that God perceives how everything is related to everything else but not in the sense that time is something which “passes” from God’s perspective.

A helpful way to conceptualize this might be to think about a story-book. There are certain events which happen in the plot of a story-book that can meaningfully be describe as happening before other events and after other events, but the book itself just “is.” A reader can pick it up and start at the end or in the middle if she wishes. An omniscient reader could take in the whole story at once. Just as it is possible to number pages in the book and there-by assign “locations” to the various events that take place therein, “locations” can be assigned to the various events in space time in the context of a four dimensional geometry in which there are three spacial coordinates and one time coordinate. Each coordinate could be defined as a “moment” in space-time, but each moment (in this objective sense) would simply “be.” There is no “passing” from one moment to the other. Incidentally, it should be noted in relativity there is no absolute set of coordinates by which to assign values to all the various moments in space-time, but there are certain values describing the relationships between coordinates that remain the same no matter which coordinate system you pick.

As far as our perception of time passing is concerned, I believe it is simply an illusion which results from our limited perceptions. When we sit down to read a book sequentially, for instance, we subjectively perceive that the plot is “developing,” but in reality the plot just “is.” If we were omniscient readers who could take in the entire book at once, we would not perceive the plot as something which “develops” but as a mosaic laid before us all at once.

Because my college student existence involves a different set of perceptions than my kindergarten existence and these perceptions are related to each other in certain ways which makes it impossible for me (as a finite perceiver) to perceive them as occurring in the same subjective present.

One example, is that (in the college set) I remember doing certain things as a kindergartner. Consequently my actions as a kindergartner are determining the memories I have as a college student. Right now (assuming, hopefully, that I will live for some time after this) my actions as a college student are influencing the actions that I am taking in the space-time locations that accompany my (subjectively future in the college set of perceptions) career which are in turn influencing my actions as an old man in retirement, etc.

I have already addressed this issue to an extent. You *are* experiencing both your writing this post and your going to bed, but your perceptions in each of these sets of space-time locations are limited and related to each other in such a way that it creates the subjective illusion that time as passed. I realize that it is hard to conceptualize things this way because it is contrary to the manner in which we are accustomed to think, but I believe that there is nothing inconsistent about such a view. Furthermore, I think it makes the most sense philosophically, and this view is supported by Relativity theory (although I think that there are alternative ways to interpret relativity which are consistent with the metaphysical notion that time passes).

God Bless,
Kenny

[ January 02, 2002: Message edited by: Kenny ]</p>

Scrutinizer

Hi Kenny,

Your clarifications were most helpful, thank you!


This is the only part at which I feel a bit like this:

But that's due to my inadequate knowledge of science. I understand that you're busy, so there's no need to expound on these "four dimensional geometry" concepts if you don't have the time.

Regards,

- Scrutinizer

[ January 02, 2002: Message edited by: Scrutinizer ]</p>

Kenny

Scrutinzer,

I have a little time, but you know how it is – always running out

It’s very simple, actually (at least at this level ). When we want to specify where something is in three dimensional space, we assign three coordinates (x,y,z). To assign a coordinate in space-time, we have to add a time coordinate such that our coordinate set for specifying the location of an event in space-time becomes (x,y,z,t). The distance between two points in space (in Euclidian geometry) is given by the formula S = sqrt[(x)^2 + (y)^2 + (z)^2]. Analogously, the space-time “separation” between events in in Special Relativity (the Euclidian case of General Relativity) is given by the formula S = sqrt[(x)^2 + (y)^2 + (z)^2 – (ct)^2] where “c” stands for the speed of light. The minus sign reflects the fact that, although analogous, time is not identical with space (you can’t measure time with a ruler and space with a clock for instance) and thus it enters into the geometry in a slightly different way than does space. If the stuff under the square root turns out to be a negative number such that S is imaginary, the separation between events is said to be time-like. If S is a real number, the separation is said to be space-like. S turns out to be invariant in all reference frames (that is it will take on the same value no matter what reference frame you choose). It also turns out that if the separation between events is space-like their temporal ordering can be reversed when transforming between reference frames, but if it is time-like, it cannot be. This means that if an explosion happens here and another happens in the Androminda galaxy (such that the separation is space-like), there will be some reference frames in which the one that happens here happens first, others in which the one in Andromida happens first, and still others in which they both happen at the same time. There are no reference frames, however, in which a bullet that has been fired from a gun can be regarded as returning to the barrel of the gun instead (because this involves a time-like separation).

God Bless,
Kenny

[ January 02, 2002: Message edited by: Kenny ]</p>

Koyaanisqatsi

And you've done it again...

Is it so difficult to just address every point I make on a point-by-point basis, using my words and addressing my arguments? Apparently so...

I've already told you this twice now. Had you bothered to simply cut and paste my post and respond directly to what I typed, you would know this and be able to address it without this pointless evasion.

It's not difficult. Here, let me show you:

There, see? You've made a claim. You haven't answered my question, you've made a claim; an unsupportable and ridiculous claim at that.

Let's deconstruct. I asked you not to provide any unsupportable poetry; to provide details as to just exactly how god's will "acts" in every moment and you answered by saying, "It just does."

That is obviously not an answer. It is nothing more than a childish proclamation without merit or support and since you have no authority to make such declarations stick, it isn't even an argument from authority (which, even if you had said authority, would still be fallacious).

You are simply repeating yourself by saying "His will does this." HOW does his will "do" anything at all? That is the question and you are not allowed to simply answer the question with "It just does, because he's god," or, "I don't know, but I know that it does."

Got it now, Einstein?

You're the one making a baseless, nonsensical claim and then justifying it by simply declaring, "that's the way it is," or worse, stating it is true based on nothing more than definition.

The sentence, "God selects the way that the universe actually is by willing it to be so" has no meaning; no basis in either fact or reality and is nothing more than a worthless declarative, so either detail the practical specifics of just exactly how such a claim works or concede that you are deliberately using mystical, baseless language that has no practical application, aka, poetry.

See? You actually think that this sentence has some sort of fundamental quality to it, when the fact is that it does not.

As I did before, let me demonstrate: "Koy's will is itself a fundamental source of causation."

There. We have both made a "fundamental" claim as to the "causation" of all existence and since you have offered absolutely nothing to support your claim over mine, they both stand and I am now a deity with the will to create all existence.

If it works for you then it works for me and we have arrived at little more than a childish standoff of, "Oh yeah? Nuh-unh! Is not!"

More baseless bullshit. You have merely defined the word "god" to be a "fundamental explanation." That is heinously unacceptable and you know it.

These kinds of ludicrous, unsupported and arrogant proclamations, by the way, lead to my (how did you put it later?), "desire to attack your opponents without really listening to them," so now you know from whence it comes. There is nothing to "listen" to, other than "It just is this way because I and others say it is so."

Horseshit.

And I asked you detail just exactly what does that mean and how does that work? Accordingly, I can just as easily state, "Koy also providentially guides all things by imposing order and regularity on the universe," and it would have the same impact as your own worthless declaration!

Just because you type it with some sort of warped, assumed authority does not make it remotely "so," or didn't you learn that in kindergarten with the rest of us?

I don't presume to have that answer; you do, which means you are the one who must provide the how's and the why's and not this simplistic, declarative bullshit.

All you have done is defined the mysterious and unknown with the letters "G," "O" and "D" strung together.

I have used the letters "K," "O" and "Y."

No other qualitative difference exists between the claims.

Ask a physicist. Unlike you, I don't pretend to have answers based on personal whim and the ridiculous belief in a mystical fairy god king who magically blinked everything into existence.

Are you done with the poetry or is there more?

What has this to do with a mystical fairy god king who magically blinked everything into existence in order to trifurcate into flesh so that he could kill himself as a necessary sacrifice to himself in order to save everyone from himself?

If you want to discuss "first cause," that's one thing, but you'd better (a) establish that it was necessarily a supernatural cause (don't just claim it; establish it) and (b) establish that the supernatural cause was necessarily some form of anthropomorphic "father/creator" being, before we can even begin to link any of this ludicrous, suppositional wish fulfillment to the christian cult mythology.

Your claims are not just arrogant, baseless and ridiculous, they are way too cult biased to even attempt to address coherently, so don't go bitching and moaning when this fact you deny is pointed out to you in stark enough terms to keep you from scurrying away from the point like a cockroach from light.

Support your claims or concede that they have no basis in reality and are therefore nothing more than your own, personal, baseless proclamations.

A property is a set of actions that we have observed and assigned. As to what "makes it behave" in a certain way, we don't know, and by "we" I mean every human on the planet.

If you are claiming you do know why and your answer is "Goddidit," and that the definition of God is "the mysterious unknown," then you are, figuratively speaking, an idiot.

Plain and simple.

Not an insult; just an observation of verifiable, demonstrable fact, so, again, don't bitch and moan when that is pointed out to you by anyone here as a childish means to avoid the real issues.

Wrong! You have not "come to a point" at all! You have done nothing here but simply, arbitrarily defined the "unknown" as "God."

Likewise, I have done the exact same by defining the "unknown" as "Koy."

By your own logic, both of us are correct and both claims are equally legitimate; a point I made repeatedly that you have never addressed.

Which is to say, quite literally, "FLE093j;lak is the most fundamental level of reality."

In other words, unsupportable nonsense just as legitimate as claim as your own.

Yes, I already made note of that simplistic tactic and quite rightly dismissed it as the disingenuous "out" that you intended it to be. No dice. You are the one making the arguments, therefore you are the one responsible for those arguments by association, unless you'd like to simply weasel out of the whole damn thing right now and say, "Hey, I don't believe any of the shit I typed, I'm just telling you what others believe," in which case your entire posting here will be demonstrated conclusively--as the worthless tripe that it truly is.

Trying to fob off your own arguments under a thinly disguised veil of "these are someone else's beliefs, not mine" is even worse than making bad arguments to begin with and if that truly is the case, then you should be ashamed on far deeper levels than already established.

Bullshit! They're not supportable no matter who makes them.

Bullshit. That was my response. There is no way around the fact that "acting" within every moment demands time-dependency. That is an irrefutable fact, which means that your "discussion of causality" does not refute it, nor does your childish claim of "god's will."

You can't refute something with nothing more than unsupportable proclamation! Acting in every moment is the very definition of time-dependency as without "moments" there is no such thing as "time," and without time there is no possible way to "act" within it!

For you to simply proclaim, "Nuh-unh! By god's will..." does not refute a goddamned thing.

Thanks and since you did not present a counter-argument, I'll accept this as a concession of my point.

No, it does not and the analogy (if that's what you're attempting here) does not apply. Physicists didn't just define light to have the properties that it has; it was by observation and rigorous experimentation after years of intense study that they arrived at their current understanding of the way photons behave.

If you would care to present the equivalent analysis to the tangible evidence of your god's existence, by all means. Then and only then would such a pathetic attempt at an analogy be applicable.

Not a single physicist out there does this, so I'm at a loss as to why you are so disingenuously generalizing in order to make a point that is not tenable, nor applicable.

You stated that as if you had made a salient point, when you had not. Physicists do not "presuppose" anything at all, which is the point. Only a cult member would have the need to "presuppose" that which is not within evidence; to pretend that something factually exists when there is no reason to do such a thing other than indoctrination.

The fact that you can't see this and don't understand even as you are reading these words that what you've just written is not applicable and has no relevancy to what we have been discussing--that it serves as little more than an irritating sidetrack evasion from the point--just bares that out even more.

That's one theory that breaks down at the quantum level, where there is very good evidence of universal simultaneity (the tests on the Beryllium atom, for example, existing in two separate energy states at the exact same time), but what has this got to do with the presupposition that a mystical fairy god king magically blinked everything into existence in order to punish it?

You're mixing your first cause metaphors again!

BASELESS, UNSUPPORTABLE, HORSESHIT.

Accordingly:
Absolutely no difference.

Now grow up and support your childish claims with something more substantial than either, "It just is," or, "This isn't my argument; I'm just..."

Yes, when he or she is writing it, which is the logical extension of yet another of your incorrectly applied analogies! You are the one who keeps claiming that it is god's will that acts within every single moment of time, which necessarily means that he is writing it in a linear fashion just as we are experiencing it!

Don't play around with concepts your cannot understand at least on some simplistic level, all right? It's remarkably tiresome to have to explain your own illogic to you.

NOT WHILE THEY'RE WRITING IT. Accordingly, to apply the extension of this little tidbit of errant analogy, God would have to stop acting within every moment in order to contemplate (i.e., conceive) of how his "book" will turn out from beginning to end!

I am a writer. At no time do I write while conceiving. I conceive, then I type. I conceive, then I type.

That is the order of things and since you are the one claiming that god acts in every moment and that he is also (somehow) not time-dependent, then tell me exactly at what point does god conceive of the next moment before effecting it?

Don't just claim that he does this, since that would be yet another worthless, unsupportable declarative; detail just exactly how it is possible for a being to exist out of time and within time at the exact same time?

You are describing a nonsensical paradox and while those are certainly fun to mentally masturbate too, that's all it amounts to. Why then try to force what cannot exist into existence through either an argument from authority/definition or from a parasitic out (i.e., "this is what they argue, not me, so take it up with them")?

She certainly might, but she'd still have to write it and to write it she'd have to be time-dependent.

I see. Let's see if you can keep that logic in mind and describe something that would not be "absurd....?"

And this is not absurd how? From Webster's, just to help you out:

What element of a claim that an invisible, mystical fairy god king magically created us out of dirt in order to punish us for disobeying him is "reasonable, sound or congruous" or that has a "rational and orderly relationship to human life?"

I would appreciate a direct answer to that and not simply the old "answer a question with a question" approach that is already formulating automatically in your head right now.

Then you and the christian theism that you are championing are demonstrably wrong on the most fundamental aspects of reality.

Thank you, once again, for conceding my argument by attempting to avoid it through a poor attempt at misapplied irony.

Pathetic attempts at redirection will not get you off the hook. You are continuing to do nothing more than just redefining concepts that are not logically possible and then stating, "They are so," as if that is somehow a cogent, intelligent response when it is not and then, when called on this obvious ploy, try to either weasel out by a claim that they aren't actually your own arguments or that I'm just out to get you, as if I could give a rat's ass about you or your beliefs.

You have presented a fallacious argument built upon unsupportable presuppositions based entirely upon arguments from authority and definition and nothing else.

It's not my fault that you don't know the most basic rules of argumentation and debate so don't piss and moan (and falsely accuse) others when they point these facts out to you.

Quite right. I don't give a rat's ass about what cult members believe as I have pointed out in just about every single post I've ever posted here. People believe in profoundly stupid things on such a grand scale that my mind literally boggles at the enormity of it all, but then that isn't the point and your childish false accusations serve only as a pathetic attempt to sidetrack the discussion away from the more salient discussion, so let's focus this all back where it belongs, on the lack of evidence and the fact that you are incapable of presenting a cogent, coherent, supportable argument, shall we? That, after all, was what I was addressing and you have never refuted; only evaded.

It is precisely because I "listen" to you that I proceed with what you disingenuously label an "attack," so if you aren't capable of following simple rules of argumentation and evidentiary support, then leave and don't let the URL slam you in the ass on your way out.

There's nothing I hate more than being falsely accused as a pathetic means to avoid the arguments, so if it wouldn't be too much trouble for your sensitive little psyche, address the goddamned arguments point-by-point and demonstrate counter-refutation if you're at all capable, because this kind of pointlessness just grates on me.


Got it?