Elsewhere on the internet...

The League of Reason has some social media accounts! You can find us on Facebook or on Twitter for some interesting links and things.

Arguments for God's Existence

Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 2 of 34
 [ 673 posts ] 
Arguments for God's Existence
Author Message
Dragan GlasContributorUser avatar
Online
Posts: 2946Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:55 amLocation: Ireland Gender: Male

Post Re: Arguments for God's Existence

Greetings,

By the way, Gary, it was to me that leroy was replying in his dismissal.

Kindest regards,

James
Image
"The Word of God is the Creation we behold and it is in this Word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man."
The Age Of Reason
Mon Jul 17, 2017 3:39 pm
leroyPosts: 1727Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Arguments for God's Existence

Sparhafoc wrote:You ignored my question and repeated a claim.

Read my question again: how would anyone prove to you that they understood if your working assumption is that they misunderstood if they don't accept the argument?


the question will be answered after you selected 1 of the 4 arguments, I can't read nor type nearly as fast as you can, I can not deal with 4 arguments at the same time because that would lead to very, vey long comments and replies.


or we can simply take the first argument and start.


yes I will tell you exactly what should you do, to prove that you understand the arguments.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Mon Jul 17, 2017 3:45 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1278Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Arguments for God's Existence

Dragan Glas wrote:Greetings,

By the way, Gary, it was to me that leroy was replying in his dismissal.

Kindest regards,

James



Ahh yes! Sorry, James!

How odd that confusion could possibly be generated by LEROY's interactions, like identifying the target of one his litany of accusations! Who would have predicted that treating everyone as a homogenous mass would result in them all assuming that you are talking to all of them at any given time! ;)
Faith is not a desirable place to make claims from. It is belief in the absence or even contradiction of evidence. If you're going to do religion; learn how to do religion right.
Mon Jul 17, 2017 3:46 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1278Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Arguments for God's Existence

leroy wrote:the question will be answered after you selected 1 of the 4 arguments, I can't read nor type nearly as fast as you can, I can not deal with 4 arguments at the same time because that would lead to very, vey long comments and replies.


I don't need to select 1 of 4 arguments, LEROY.

I am perfectly capable of addressing 4 arguments at the same time.

See? This is an example of how I won't simply genuflect to your whimsical demands. You do what you want, and get over yourself thinking I am here to perform tricks on your command.


leroy wrote:yes I will tell you exactly what should you do, to prove that you understand the arguments.


No, you think that's what you'll do, but what will happen is that I will laugh in your face. Of course, you accept the arguments and that's because you don't employ rationality. I, however, do. So you won't be making up my position for me, nor be the arbiter of what's acceptable or not.

Clear?

Don't give a flying fuck if it's not clear, that's still the way it's going to be.

POP goes LEROY's hubris, spraying its jism all over the forum again.
Faith is not a desirable place to make claims from. It is belief in the absence or even contradiction of evidence. If you're going to do religion; learn how to do religion right.
Mon Jul 17, 2017 3:50 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1278Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Arguments for God's Existence

LEROY's Argumentative Parable:

I am really good at chess. Probably the best chess player in the world. I have discovered strategies beyond the ken of mere mortals. If you wish to play me at chess, you should consider yourself lucky to be playing a super grandmaster like myself. As such, I will be the judge of who wins, even if it seems by the rules of chess that you are winning, even if the rules appear to be inconsistent and favour me, that's precisely why I am the best at chess, and why I automatically win because my rules are superior than chess' rules. Incidentally, I've never played chess before.
Faith is not a desirable place to make claims from. It is belief in the absence or even contradiction of evidence. If you're going to do religion; learn how to do religion right.
Mon Jul 17, 2017 4:26 pm
leroyPosts: 1727Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Arguments for God's Existence

Sparhafoc wrote:LEROY's Argumentative Parable:

I am really good at chess. Probably the best chess player in the world. I have discovered strategies beyond the ken of mere mortals. If you wish to play me at chess, you should consider yourself lucky to be playing a super grandmaster like myself. As such, I will be the judge of who wins, even if it seems by the rules of chess that you are winning, even if the rules appear to be inconsistent and favour me, that's precisely why I am the best at chess, and why I automatically win because my rules are superior than chess' rules. Incidentally, I've never played chess before.


before engaging with me on a discussion about evolution I had to prove to you that I understand the basics of genetics and heritability and answer to your question.

I am not doing anything different with you.



I don't need to select 1 of 4 arguments, LEROY.

I am perfectly capable of addressing 4 arguments at the same time.


That is because you are a super genius, that can reed 5,000 words and then type a 300 word reply in less than 12 minutes. I don't have your ability


if you don't select an argument I will select the first argument.

then I will ask you a few questions, maybe 4 or 5 questions, if you answer correctly you will prove that you understand the argument. and I would be willing to discuss with you.

if you don't agree with these terms then I simply wont be willing to have a discussion with you.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Mon Jul 17, 2017 5:47 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1278Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Arguments for God's Existence

leroy wrote:before engaging with me on a discussion about evolution I had to prove to you that I understand the basics of genetics and heritability and answer to your question.


Not true.

I did not say it was a condition of our discussion. Plus, I would never use the word 'prove' like you do - having told you at least two dozen times that you are misusing it.

Please acknowledge this FACT, because I am very suspicious of any distortion you manufacture of what I say.

I'll quote it if you like?

viewtopic.php?p=179523#p179523

Sparhafoc wrote:Ok, so let's start at the beginning.

I need to know what you know. So I will ask you some questions:


Any suggestion there that I demand you perform X before I will permit you to engage in discussion with me? I said that I needed to know what you know so that I could respond effectively without bothering with elementary stuff.

Now, please state in the first sentence of your reply an acknowledgement of your distortion of what I actually wrote.


leroy wrote:I am not doing anything different with you.


It's as different as asking me to lend you a fiver, and pointing a gun at my head and demanding it.



leroy wrote:That is because you are a super genius, that can reed 5,000 words and then type a 300 word reply in less than 12 minutes. I don't have your ability


That's not what a genius is. And I have to say that I imagine that everyone of absolutely normal intelligence is capable of maintaining 4 separate arguments. It's just 4 things, we have fingers that go far beyond that, so I can't imagine that you really do actually struggle to do so.



leroy wrote:if you don't select an argument I will select the first argument.


As I said: you do you, I'll do me. ;)


leroy wrote:then I will ask you a few questions, maybe 4 or 5 questions, if you answer correctly you will prove that you understand the argument. and I would be willing to discuss with you.


No, unacceptable.

Why is it unacceptable to me, LEROY?

I'll give you a hint: there's a false equivalence here, and you've manufactured it out of thin air, and are now trying to milk it for all its worth.


leroy wrote:if you don't agree with these terms then I simply wont be willing to have a discussion with you.


Then don't. I couldn't give a monkey's flung jizz about what you choose to do. But as I already told you, I will still be replying to your guff with critical arguments regardless of your willingness to respond.
Faith is not a desirable place to make claims from. It is belief in the absence or even contradiction of evidence. If you're going to do religion; learn how to do religion right.
Last edited by Sparhafoc on Mon Jul 17, 2017 9:28 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Mon Jul 17, 2017 9:17 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1278Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Arguments for God's Existence

Incidentally, to the man/woman sitting behind the screen who play acts LEROY.

What is your native/first language?

This is not a stick I plan to beat you with. If English is not your native language, then it would behoove me to spend more time trying to understand some of the apparently garbled sentences you construct, and to give you more leeway when you misrepresent what was clearly written.

If I knew what language your syntax was from, I might have a better chance of understanding some of the thoughts underlying these strange grammatical formations. At present, my best guess would be something Slavic.

There is also the cultural element of sophisticated argumentation. In many Middle Eastern cultures, stringing sentences together with the conjunction 'and' adds weight or importance to the latter sentences, whereas in most English speaking cultures, for example, using only 'and' is perceived as unsophisticated - more how a child approaches multiple sentences.

Again, this is not anything like a gotcha, or an attempt to make a fool of you, but an honest inquiry that could enable more effective communication.
Faith is not a desirable place to make claims from. It is belief in the absence or even contradiction of evidence. If you're going to do religion; learn how to do religion right.
Mon Jul 17, 2017 9:24 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1278Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Arguments for God's Existence

Also, just to put this silly diversion to bed.

5000 words, copied and pasted from that webpage into a text doc, arrives at 8 pages of text.

12 minutes then means about 1.5 minutes per page. I would imagine I'd read them in about a minute. I just tried with the first page and it was 42 seconds.

Is that really so unbelievable to you, LEROY? :roll:

Also, go back and look at that page. There are a) stated arguments b) random guff that is just Christian masturbation and c) other rubbish. You asked me to look at the arguments, not to watch William Lane Craig masturbating.

You can't show I didn't understand or read all the pertinent information to produce a coherent response LEROY, because I've already produced a coherent response.

As such, stop pretending you get to disqualify me on technical grounds and get back to addressing the points I made dismantling the absurd woolly bullshit argued by Craig.

Of course, if you really, really want and ask me nicely, I'll tear the whole damn thing down word by word. Just let me know, and next time I've got an hour spare and feel like kicking some tires, I will be happy to oblige.
Faith is not a desirable place to make claims from. It is belief in the absence or even contradiction of evidence. If you're going to do religion; learn how to do religion right.
Mon Jul 17, 2017 9:36 pm
leroyPosts: 1727Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Arguments for God's Existence

Sparhafoc lets look at the first arguemnt
1. God makes sense of the origin of the universe.

Sense? Really?

So it's sensible to posit that a being lives outside of time and space, who has the power to create universes with magical words, and did so with a special purpose in mind here, to create humans and tell them what they could or could not do, and wants to be in a relationship with them?

So this sense also includes making a space of at least 3.58×1080 m3, and then plopping down his special creation - the point of all this universe - on a small planet in an otherwise unremarkable solar system, with a livable area for his special purpose of just 24,642,757 square miles.

And this makes sense?

It makes no more sense than any other creation myth. Humans who didn't know about much at all, tried to imagine ways in which complicated things happened, and posited super human like characters to do the shaking and moving. No sense is involved, just story-telling, imagination, and ignorance.

It makes nonsense, I will give you that.


1 The argument doesn't even aspire to prove that the purpose was to create humans and tell them what they could or could not do, and wants to be in a relationship with them, the argument simply tries to prove that the universe had cause.

the size of the universe that the small simply that we occupy is simply irrelevant, for the purposes of the argument,


under this basis I affirm that you don't understand the argument.




2 plus the fact that It is unlikely that you read a 5000 and typed a 300 word in less than 12 minutes.


1 and 2 represent two independent lines of evidence that strongly suggest that you are not even interested in learning and understanding the arguments for the evidence for God.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Mon Jul 17, 2017 10:54 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1278Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Arguments for God's Existence

Now, please state in the first sentence of your reply an acknowledgement of your distortion of what I actually wrote.

Again, after being shown how you have misrepresented someone's words, you simply ignore it and carry on.

No, LEROY. I will not simply ignore your apparent mendacity and just toodle along in pretense that you've got something worth listening to. If you can't muster any level of basic honesty, then none of your words can be worth a wazz.

If your distortion was an error on your part, then any normal human being who wanted others to assume their good intentions would simply apologize. It's not hard, just 3 little words.

If you don't, it looks like it was intentional.

So did you intentionally misrepresent what I wrote, LEROY?
Faith is not a desirable place to make claims from. It is belief in the absence or even contradiction of evidence. If you're going to do religion; learn how to do religion right.
Tue Jul 18, 2017 1:07 am
SparhafocPosts: 1278Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Arguments for God's Existence

leroy wrote:1 The argument doesn't even aspire to prove that the purpose was to create humans and tell them what they could or could not do, and wants to be in a relationship with them, the argument simply tries to prove that the universe had cause.

the size of the universe that the small simply that we occupy is simply irrelevant, for the purposes of the argument,


under this basis I affirm that you don't understand the argument.



Under this basis, you affirm that you do not understand the nature of arguments. At no point did I suggest that I am recapitulating what was written by WLC. Instead, I am offering facts that contradict the claim.

As I have explained to you before, and as I've seen you write to other people - any logical contradiction necessitates the claim being wrong. This is how argumentation works.

(claim) God makes sense of the universe
(counter-claim) God makes nonsense of the universe.

As only one can be correct, my argument offers facts which support my counter claim which necessarily leaves the original claim in contradiction to evident reality.

My response is perfectly valid under every form of argumentation ever recorded in human history. It IS argumentation.

As such, your dismissal is irrelevant. You might as well have written the word 'sponge' 54 times and ended with the words 'u r rong!'.



leroy wrote:2 plus the fact that It is unlikely that you read a 5000 and typed a 300 word in less than 12 minutes.


LEROY once again conjuring up probabilities out of his navel.

Unlikely? Ok. Happened? Yes. What's that in your signature, LEROY? :lol:

Regardless of your expression of disbelief (and the sudden addition of 'less' - bet it becomes 10 minutes by the next iteration), you cannot provide any reason why your skepticism here is justified. I've asked you to explain why you find this unbelievable, and all you can do is repeat the same statement as if it's been established.

Nope, this is another example of you failing to comprehend how argumentation works.

If you want to claim I didn't read the article and reply in 12 minutes, then you're going to need to show this to be true. How do you plan to do that, LEROY?

Here: feel free to try to engage in some level of substantiation by experimentation:
https://www.staples.com/sbd/cre/marketi ... frame.html

You read 2,340 words per minute.


Which of course, I don't over longer bodies of text, but this short, I can read it pretty much with one long glance. Not having to scroll or turn pages makes it much easier.

Remember, LEROY. I am not you. If this wasn't clear already to you. I bet there's a bunch of things you can do better than me. Again, LEROY. All of my jobs involve reading and processing large bodies of text. Whether it's for palaeo, for lesson prep, marking work, editing scripts, directing voice actors, and many of the other jobs I do... each and every one of them relies on the efficiency of my reading comprehension.

So laugh away. You don't realize you're laughing at yourself.


leroy wrote:1 and 2 represent two independent lines of evidence that strongly suggest that you are not even interested in learning and understanding the arguments for the evidence for God.


1 is a public statement of ignorance on your part about the nature of argumentation, how it works, what the objectives of argumentation are, and as such represent nothing more than a red herring on your part.

2 is just your expression of make-believe being asserted as fact. I told you what happened, you can't believe it, even though it's far from an extraordinary claim.

Funny how you want us to accept arguments for the existence of God which is a dramatically more extraordinary claim and which, if true, impacts billions of things (yep, read the article) but you won't accept that someone can read faster than you.

You're basically the comedy routine here, LEROY. How is anyone ever supposed to take you seriously when you make up rules on the fly and appeal to illogical half-baked bullshit to worm your way out of everything?

Please do keep worming - what inevitably happens is that you show you don't get it, and that's why you believe the nonsense you believe.
Faith is not a desirable place to make claims from. It is belief in the absence or even contradiction of evidence. If you're going to do religion; learn how to do religion right.
Tue Jul 18, 2017 1:31 am
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3308Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Arguments for God's Existence

Sparhafoc wrote:
leroy wrote:stop lying, it is obvious that you did not even open the article.


Lying? What a typically ignorant accusation on your part. One you couldn't even hope to support, but you'll toss it out to try ineffectually to antagonise anyway, because you've already been shown wrong about your silly contentions, so now you flap. Best try another strategy than well poisoning, though, because that's a strategy only used by vicious cunts.

Did I say I'd flown over the Moon? No? So wherein lies your skepticism?

All I did was read the words you cited and then reply. Not a task only legendary superhumans can achieve.

What I assume you're saying is that you can't read that article and reply within 12 minutes.

That doesn't surprise me in the slightest because, even when given days to read an argument repeatedly stated to you, you still fail to comprehend it.

But don't for a moment think that all of us are as handicapped as you in that regard.

Think for a minute LEROY. You probably couldn't even type 300 words in 12 minutes (assuming that number you've quoted relates to the time between your posting and my reply), so shouldn't you also be claiming that I didn't even write the reply?

Of course, you can't obfuscate that much even to yourself (although you invariably try) but it follows from what might be considered your 'argument', although it's just another collection of words stated with wholly undue confidence.

Regardless, I have the typing speed of a professional typist, LEROY. Do you think I spend lots of time responding to your posts? Don't be daft - I've got vastly better things to do with my time - I only spend the time sufficient to show your posts as fatuous uncritical crap - mere moments, in other words. This post, for example, will take me in the range of 2 minutes from initial response, to complete destruction of the jizz you've sprayed into the conversation.

As for reading, yes, LEROY - some of us are more competent than you. I spend my life reading - it is my one true love. I read fast, LEROY. I read a standard sized book in 2-3 days, assuming I have a few hours spare. I've estimated before that I read in the region of 40,000 words a day on average. It's a significant part of all the different jobs I do.

Do you also think that Usain Bolt can't run the 100 metres dash in under 10 seconds just because it would take you 15?

Same *cough cough* line of reasoning *cough cough*.


It appears dandan/leroy has reached his Meyer limit ceiling.

Oh, and dandan/leroy's native tongue is Spanish. He will not answer that question directly, however in this case I doubt he read where you asked. He does love to glean, which causes him to ask questions that were already answered.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:45 am
YIM WWW
leroyPosts: 1727Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Arguments for God's Existence

[quote="Sparhafoc"]Now, please state in the first sentence of your reply an acknowledgement of your distortion of what I actually wrote.

don't make a big deal out of it, I didn't distorted your words in any meaningful way, it is a fact hat you wanted to test my knowledge with you questions and it is a fact that I have a similar intent.


but if you find this minor distortion offensive then sure I apologize for that
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Tue Jul 18, 2017 2:12 pm
leroyPosts: 1727Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Arguments for God's Existence

Sparhafoc wrote:

(claim) God makes sense of the universe
(counter-claim) God makes nonsense of the universe.

.


that would seem to make sense for someone who just read the "Title" of the argument,


someone who actually read the document would have noticed that the intent of the argument is to stablish that the universe had a cause, someone who actually read the document would have noticed that the argument is based on 2 premises and 1 conclusion any rebuttal should be on ether rejecting any of the premises or by showing that the conclusion doesn't follow.


again, from where I am standing all the evidence indicates that you don't understand the argument, and that you don't have a genuine interest in learning and understanding the argument.



if you what to redime yourself, If you what to convince me that I am wrong about that, you are going to have to answer 3 or 4 questions that by answering correctly you will prove to me that you understand the argument.


if you don't care what my personal opinion about you is, then you don't have to do anything
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Tue Jul 18, 2017 2:21 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1278Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Arguments for God's Existence

leroy wrote:don't make a big deal out of it, I didn't distorted your words in any meaningful way, it is a fact hat you wanted to test my knowledge with you questions and it is a fact that I have a similar intent.


You distorted my words completely, you lying toerag, and you did so repeatedly just in this thread alone. So now you're trying to justify being a liar by repeating your lie.

No such intent is apparent in what I wrote as what your intent was. So, no. Bollocks, pop it back up that rectum you use for so much of your interactions here.

There is no qualification in credulism for apologetics, LEROY. You are once again blabbing from the wrong end of your digestive tract. Already pre-empted this pathetic attempt to position yourself as an authority, and the only further response you're going to get is me laughing in your face. The sartorial master of the Emperor's New Clothes.



leroy wrote:but if you find this minor distortion offensive then sure I apologize for that



In the world the rest of us inhabit, LEROY, lying about what someone said half a dozen times does not constitute a 'small thing'.

Obviously, to you, lies are just what you do, and you seem to be saying that I should just expect you to repeatedly lie about what I write.

Oh, I do.

But that doesn't mean I will give you free pass.

You distorted what I wrote. If you desire to have even a scrap of credibility with honest people, if you make an 'honest' mistake, you'd apologize immediately. Didn't your momma teach you that? Or were you too busy tugging on your local priest's plonker to notice?

No offense was taken. Instead, you showed yourself to be a liar. No onus is on me to address your lies, but your credibility is on the line. Well, it would be if you hadn't already shown yourself to be morally stunted.
Faith is not a desirable place to make claims from. It is belief in the absence or even contradiction of evidence. If you're going to do religion; learn how to do religion right.
Last edited by Sparhafoc on Tue Jul 18, 2017 2:40 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Tue Jul 18, 2017 2:36 pm
MarsCydoniaUser avatar
Online
Posts: 823Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:15 pm

Post Re: Arguments for God's Existence

leroy wrote:no problem, this simple article lists and describes 4 arguments for the existence of God
Does God exist? We've seen five good reasons to think that God exists:
1. God makes sense of the origin of the universe.
2. God makes sense of the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life.
3. God makes sense of objective moral values in the world.
4. God makes sense of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.


Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/does-god ... z4mpXJnsLi

Is Leroy under the impression that trying ARATTs with someone new will make these arguments any more sound?

Take the 2nd argument (there was actually 5 of them on Craig's page, Leroy did not include the 1st for some reason... can you guess?): it's the Kalam cosmological argument.

Hasn't this "argument" been addressed a couple of thousand times already? And particularly Calamity Craig's use of it?

It isn't unusual from Leroy to abandon a topic where he can no longer defends his blunders with anything new but to do in order to regurgitate old ones this time? :facepalm:
"Slavery is morally ok" -
"I don't know how the burden of proof works in the mind of atheists but I don't have to prove my claims" -
Public information messages from the League of Reason's christians
Tue Jul 18, 2017 2:37 pm
leroyPosts: 1727Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Arguments for God's Existence

Sparhafoc

Did I say I'd flown over the Moon? No? So wherein lies your skepticism?

All I did was read the words you cited and then reply. Not a task only legendary superhumans can achieve.

What I assume you're saying is that you can't read that article and reply within 12 minutes


well from where I am standing there are 2 possibilities, ether you read 5000 words and made a 300 words reply in less than 12 minutes or you are simply lying

the fact that.

1 you have lied in the past

2 most people don't have this ability and there is no independent evidence that you have the ability to read 5000 and type a 300 words reply

3 the fact there is independent evidence that proves that you did not read the document (you misrepresented the argument) you replied as if you would have only read the title.


4 the fact that when people lie, they usually try to hard in justifying their assertion, which is what you are doing.

When someone goes on and on and gives you too much information — information that is not requested and especially an excess of details — there is a very high probability that he or she is not telling you the truth," writes Glass. "Liars often talk a lot because they are hoping that, with all their talking and seeming openness, others will believe them."

http://www.businessinsider.com/11-signs ... -phrases-4
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Tue Jul 18, 2017 2:37 pm
leroyPosts: 1727Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Arguments for God's Existence

Sparhafoc wrote:[
But that doesn't mean I will give you free pass.

You distorted what I wrote. If you desire to have even a scrap of credibility with honest people, if you make an 'honest' mistake, you'd apologize immediately. Didn't your momma teach you that? Or were you too busy tugging on your local priest's plonker to notice?


didn't I apologized already?
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Tue Jul 18, 2017 2:39 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1278Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Arguments for God's Existence

leroy wrote:well from where I am standing there are 2 possibilities, ether you read 5000 words and made a 300 words reply in less than 12 minutes or you are simply lying


Binary mind is binary, well what a surprise.


leroy wrote:1 you have lied in the past


Cite or reinsert your bollocks back in the sticky hole you extracted them from.


leroy wrote:2 most people don't have this ability and there is no independent evidence that you have the ability to read 5000 and type a 300 words reply


Already addressed in spades, your trolling is all you've got when you can't address arguments.


leroy wrote:3 the fact there is independent evidence that proves that you did not read the document (you misrepresented the argument) you replied as if you would have only read the title.


Only a mentally delusional person would think so.

No, you are just doing your usual merry-go-round of evasions. I honestly think you are scum, LEROY. Nasty, little scum. And if I were a Christian, and you claimed to be one, I'd be very seriously worried that I was a cunt just by association with you.



leroy wrote:4 the fact that when people lie, they usually try to hard in justifying their assertion, which is what you are doing.


What assertion would that be, LEROY?

Oh wait, there isn't one because this is another storm in a teacup you've manufactured to evade having your fatuous bullshit destroyed instantly.

Cue 85 more pages of LEROY arguing about whether I could read WLC webpage and reply in 12 minutes, because the distraction is vastly more important to LEROY than any honest interest in interaction.



[quote="leroy"
When someone goes on and on and gives you too much information — information that is not requested and especially an excess of details — there is a very high probability that he or she is not telling you the truth," writes Glass. "Liars often talk a lot because they are hoping that, with all their talking and seeming openness, others will believe them."

http://www.businessinsider.com/11-signs ... -phrases-4[/quote]

Another probablistic claim that LEROY genuflects his pitiful intelligence to because it conforms to his prejudices.

I provided you an empirical test LEROY. What was your score? :roll:

1 word a minute? That's what all this is about, isn't it LEROY? You know you're thick as shit, and you can't bear it that anyone of at least normal intelligence is manifestly more competent than you.
Faith is not a desirable place to make claims from. It is belief in the absence or even contradiction of evidence. If you're going to do religion; learn how to do religion right.
Last edited by Sparhafoc on Tue Jul 18, 2017 2:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Tue Jul 18, 2017 2:43 pm
PreviousNext
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 2 of 34
 [ 673 posts ] 
Return to Religion & Irreligion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 3 guests