(5 hours ago)Jal Wrote:

(6 hours ago)Angrboda Wrote: Can you point to a defect in my rebuttal?  No?  Then stop with the pathetic talk about delusions when you're the one that's deluded.

I'll state it again for clarity.  Things need to be similar to that analogized for an analogy to have force.  An eversoftening golf club isn't similar to forces like gravity.  The analogy involves contact.  Gravity does not.  The analogy has no force.  It is a failed analogy.

No contact? That's even worse. Now I don't even have to swing the intangible golf club to move the ball. It's all magic - really it is.

Come back to when you start making sense.

Here's the sense. You proposed a principle. You were asked to support it. You provided an analogy. Your analogy was invalid. Therefore your principle is unsupported.

Since your principle was the only thing that made your objections valid, once support for the principle vanished, the principle was dismissed. Your objections are just bollocks.

Your incredulity about invisible forces isn't a logical objection. That's just you being a whackjob.

This dude is just a grade A moron who when backed into a corner simply lies. Pathetic.

(5 hours ago)Angrboda Wrote:

(5 hours ago)Jal Wrote: No contact? That's even worse. Now I don't even have to swing the intangible golf club to move the ball. It's all magic - really it is.

Come back to when you start making sense.

Here's the sense.  You proposed a principle.  You were asked to support it.  You provided an analogy.  Your analogy was invalid.  Therefore your principle is unsupported.

Since your principle was the only thing that made your objections valid, once support for the principle vanished, the principle was dismissed.  Your objections are just bollocks.

Your incredulity about invisible forces isn't a logical objection.  That's just you being a whackjob.

And I'll likely be in stitches on judgment day when God asks you, "Why did you fall for the lie that intangibles can push tangibles?"

(5 hours ago)Jal Wrote:

(5 hours ago)Angrboda Wrote: Here's the sense.  You proposed a principle.  You were asked to support it.  You provided an analogy.  Your analogy was invalid.  Therefore your principle is unsupported.

Since your principle was the only thing that made your objections valid, once support for the principle vanished, the principle was dismissed.  Your objections are just bollocks.

Your incredulity about invisible forces isn't a logical objection.  That's just you being a whackjob.

And I'll likely be in stitches on judgment day when God asks you, "Why did you fall for the lie that intangibles can push tangibles?"

Still just you being a dishonest whackjob. Real people settle things with reason and logic. Weasels just lie and pretend that they have.

(5 hours ago)Angrboda Wrote:

(5 hours ago)Jal Wrote: And I'll likely be in stitches on judgment day when God asks you, "Why did you fall for the lie that intangibles can push tangibles?"

Still just you being a dishonest whackjob.  Real people settle things with reason and logic.  Weasels just lie and pretend that they have.

Ok. Whatever.

(5 hours ago)Jal Wrote:

(5 hours ago)Angrboda Wrote: Still just you being a dishonest whackjob.  Real people settle things with reason and logic.  Weasels just lie and pretend that they have.

Ok. Whatever.

I take it you're not going to try to justify this principle of yours. Sad. That's really sad.

(5 hours ago)Angrboda Wrote:

(5 hours ago)Jal Wrote: Ok. Whatever.

I take it you're not going to try to justify this principle of yours.  Sad.  That's really sad.

You're funny. 

You probably save a lot of money in the marketplace. I hear intangibles come cheap.

(5 hours ago)Jal Wrote:

(5 hours ago)Angrboda Wrote: I take it you're not going to try to justify this principle of yours.  Sad.  That's really sad.

You're funny. 

You probably save a lot of money in the marketplace. I hear intangibles come cheap.

Intangibles move a lot more than an invisible god you have no evidence for.

"Trust me, bro. I met God in college."

You're a joke.