Atheist Network

Haha, well he hid the absurdity slightly better. Slightly.

Yeah well about that, I know it's a bit much to ask but could you tear my scissors analogy apart?
And if possible, in a way so that even I understand why it sucks, please?

Oh well, I'll live with it.

Again?
Eh, and no. His #2 was:


All A rapes B
If you do not rape B then you are not an A.

A=me
B=logic

Darn it, now I'll have to send Logic to therapy

The last time I went to therapy I was raped.

The last time I went to therapy the dude told me I needed to keep a diary and I told him I didn't want to keep a diary and he pretty much said there wasn't anything he could do for me then.

What are you, Ally Sheedy from The Breakfast Club?

What a douche bag.




Uh, sure.

Oh.. the fact that bloke goes in with the Kalam (Lane Craig) premise, just shows what a tool he is.

Meh..

Therapist.... THE RAPIST, OH SHIT

*cowers*

I guess I'm getting used to it...

Not really.



There's no need to 'tear it apart' past pointing out that if a god exists/existed, and that god willed the creation of the existence, and that god was all knowing at the time of said creation, then everything within existence happens according to that god's will, and no one else's, period.



If you can't understand that, you suck. But you understand it, so you still suck for disingenuously feigning confusion. Point of fact, there's only one way out of your corner of suck.

Ahh, so if God creates man knowing that man will invent scissors, it's not man but God that is the creator of scissors!

Yeah that's why I asked you, so I could disingenuously feign confusion to hide my evil theist plot.

Haha, stop posting right?
Well, I'd rather appear stupid then stay stupid.
*puts up "No place like home" poster in corner of suck*

Help me out here, guys? I agree that it is not a logically valid implication that 'If A then B, then if not-A then not-B', (A is clocks and B is flight in your example, right?), but I don't understand why you have interpreted what the OP is saying in his first premise that way.

To me, the first premise is basically trying to say something like, "As God is defined as the creator of everything that exists that isn't God, then if God exists, everything that exists that isn't God was created by God." That appears logically consistent to me, and from there the OP is trying to argue God into existence, like all ontological arguments attempt to do.


I'm not saying his ontological argument works, I'm just trying to get on the same page as you both here with respect to premise #1.

That is the point LL as to why I see the absurdity. Jerome (the dude on the other site) premise is by using the Kalam Cosmology Arguement is inferring that "God" IS the uncaused cause and that is that. I am sure though that MANY a theist believe that G-o-d "exists", whereby negating the whole "what begins to exist" is caused angle as it would mean that God would need to have been created in order TO exist, whereby God cannot be the uncaused, cause.

Try reasoning that one out with a theist though!

*scratches head* I don't see where in his ontological argument he is injecting anything from the Kalam Cosmological Argument, or am I not understanding you correctly, Wooly? As far as I can tell, he only mentions KCA in his preamble as one of the reasons why he wants to attempt an ontological argument.



Heh, yeah, I have tried to numerous times. Hell, I still remember being the other side of that argument actually, puzzled as to why the stupid atheist is having trouble understanding, "God = eternal, so there. Duh!"

You're accusing me of equivocation in the first quote? or, what?

In your previous reply to me you were guilty of equivocation, with you using the term "made" in two senses, Sam - ie "If man fashioned the scissors out of what God made, who made the scissors?" (If you want to discuss that....reply to that post.)

Or, what!

Just using a word that can have two senses does not an equivocation make.
And I originally used the word "created" which you changed into "made", and I'm guilty of equivocation?
Wow, ok.
What different senses of "made" are you thinking about? Invented and created? And how would that make my question an equivocation?

Why should I reply to another post something we are discussing in this?

That is the point hon. He mentioned Lane Craigs waffle KCA (by mere mention) Lane Craig is near like a "reasoning" icon in many religious circles, and I reckon that the Jerome fellow is catering to THAT particular audience, hence his cheesy "rebut" comment at the end.. where there has been NONE.

He then as you can see goes on to support the KCA premise as to his ontological arguement, which in turn makes the target audience happy, hence again, no rebuttal.

Seriously I am sure if there has been ANY rebuttal to his points, they have been promptly deleted. I know this as I DID. *wink*

Then, what was the point you were making with the two quotes?