(October 14, 2013 at 3:29 pm)Faith No More Wrote:

(October 14, 2013 at 3:20 pm)snowtracks Wrote: well, it's obvious this website was constructed to have atheist tell each other how wonderful they are.

No, that's just a byproduct of the terrible theist arguments.

What a wonderful post you made.

(October 14, 2013 at 5:41 pm)Ryantology Wrote:

(October 14, 2013 at 3:30 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: Oh shit, he's on to us.

You're really wonderful.

(now, your turn)

You are so wonderful Ryantology! But your Avatar is twice as wonderful!

---

(October 14, 2013 at 6:39 pm)Doubting Thomas Wrote:

(October 14, 2013 at 3:29 pm)Faith No More Wrote: No, that's just a byproduct of the terrible theist arguments.

What a wonderful post you made.

Your post is wonderful too Doubting Thomas.

(October 14, 2013 at 5:41 pm)Ryantology Wrote:

(October 14, 2013 at 3:30 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: Oh shit, he's on to us.

You're really wonderful.

(now, your turn)

You're just trying to get into my pants.

(October 14, 2013 at 4:22 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(October 14, 2013 at 3:29 pm)Faith No More Wrote: No, that's just a byproduct of the terrible theist arguments.

And also how wonderful we all are.

As for snowtracks,
And when you're called on having a god for which you are unwilling to calculate the odds, you recourse to calling god "an effect." Congrats, that's a completely content free explanation. What do you mean, he's an effect? And where is your evidence that this is so?

like i mentioned, the law of physics break down under a second after the big bang. words like 'beginning', 'created' only have meaning in context of the comic timeline (which basically is a sequence of cause and effect transactions) that commenced along with the 3 spatial dim.. one of the laws of physics is the principle of cause and effect. God doesn't require a 'beginning' when view in the proper timeline (not the U.) frame of reference nor be 'caused'.

(October 14, 2013 at 7:42 pm)snowtracks Wrote: .. one of the laws of physics is the principle of cause and effect.

No, it is not.

Just curious who set your comic timelime?


Because if it was Carlin you're fucked.

(October 14, 2013 at 7:42 pm)snowtracks Wrote: like i mentioned, the law of physics break down under a second after the big bang.

Also no.

(October 14, 2013 at 8:38 pm)Faith No More Wrote:

(October 14, 2013 at 7:42 pm)snowtracks Wrote: like i mentioned, the law of physics break down under a second after the big bang.

Also no.

I think snowtracks has been mislead by reading .

A lot of folk make the mistake of thinking that the laws of physics start to break down as you wind back the clock to within yocto-seconds of the big bang.

Or maybe it's a matter of guessing what that expression really even means. "...at which the laws of physics would break down."
Cue epistemology/philosophy 101

Mr Hawking's blog disclaimer about speech synthesiser text.
"...there may be incorrect spellings, punctuation and/or grammar."

(October 14, 2013 at 7:42 pm)snowtracks Wrote: like i mentioned, the law of physics break down under a second after the big bang. words like 'beginning', 'created' only have meaning in context of the comic timeline (which basically is a sequence of cause and effect transactions) that commenced along with the 3 spatial dim.. one of the laws of physics is the principle of cause and effect. God doesn't require a 'beginning' when view in the proper timeline (not the U.) frame of reference nor be 'caused'.

Right, and even if everything you've said here is correct, what in this shows that god must be the uncaused thing, that couldn't be applied to the universe itself?