Kind of you to butt in Tav.

(March 9, 2010 at 5:09 pm)tavarish Wrote: Shifting the burden of proof! Yay!

No Tav. If you followed this conversation you'd know that WC made a claim that I'm pursuing him for. Yay it's another opportunity for you to vomit your rhetoric. No point dude.. save it to make a point sometime.

(March 9, 2010 at 5:09 pm)tavarish Wrote: Didn't you say that the bible wasn't to be taken literally?

Yes fucktard. Go develop a brain and work out some shit.

(March 9, 2010 at 5:09 pm)tavarish Wrote: Explain God's physical nature please.

Thanks.

Transcendental.

do you need pics?

(March 9, 2010 at 5:09 pm)tavarish Wrote: It is not a rationally sound statement, it is an argument from ignorance.

The argument from personal incredulity, also known as argument from personal belief or argument from personal conviction, refers to an assertion that because one personally finds a premise unlikely or unbelievable, the premise can be assumed to be false, or alternatively that another preferred but unproven premise is true instead.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

As is your argument too. Exactly so... stalemate.

(March 9, 2010 at 5:29 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Kind of you to butt in Tav.

Tanky Tanky.

(March 9, 2010 at 5:29 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: No Tav. If you followed this conversation you'd know that WC made a claim that I'm pursuing him for. Yay it's another opportunity for you to vomit your rhetoric. No point dude.. save it to make a point sometime.

I've been pursuing you for lots of claims. I have followed the conversation, and it's the same regurgitation of your definition of God, which is yours alone, by the way. Your subjective reasoning is spewed up as objective fact, and you have nothing to back it up with. Your definition of God is logically impossible for the following reasons:

You claim God is all powerful, yet has a nature that he is subject to. He can also create things that are not of this nature. Either God is not all powerful (and cannot act against his nature), or he does not have this nature - in which case, he would not fit your definition of God. Even if he chose this nature, you don't give an account for WHY God would choose this nature over any other.

A cannot equal B.

You claim God just "is", but you say it is irrelevant if he exists or not. Logically you cannot objectively "be" and not exist at the same time.

A cannot equal B.

You claim the bible should not be taken literally, but only as a message within context. However, you do believe that Jesus, the son of God, physically came to Earth to rid the believers of sin. Either the bible is a historic book or isn't.

There isn't an "almost non-fiction" section in the bookstore.

(March 9, 2010 at 5:29 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Yes fucktard. Go develop a brain and work out some shit.

Wow, such a great point! I don't have a brain! Any more of those winning intellectual arguments from that shining beacon of intellectual honesty you call a mind?

(March 9, 2010 at 5:29 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Transcendental.

do you need pics?

Being transcendental is not a physical nature, nor does it explain anything in a physical sense. I think what you're trying to allude to is panentheism, or just that God operates this universe from outside the universe. In that case, I'd say that's a pretty bold claim, and I find it pretty funny how all you have to support it is a book that can't be taken literally and your own fuzzy feelings.

(March 9, 2010 at 5:29 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:

(March 9, 2010 at 5:09 pm)tavarish Wrote: It is not a rationally sound statement, it is an argument from ignorance.

The argument from personal incredulity, also known as argument from personal belief or argument from personal conviction, refers to an assertion that because one personally finds a premise unlikely or unbelievable, the premise can be assumed to be false, or alternatively that another preferred but unproven premise is true instead.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

As is your argument too. Exactly so... stalemate.

Stalemate? You're using the tu quoque fallacy in that one. Please elaborate, being specific of course, on how my argument is at all fallacial.

Well such a nice collection of fallacies Tav. I think I'll let them stand there in all of their contradictory glory. After all, it's been explained to you before... me going over it one more time isn't going to make it sink in is it?

(March 9, 2010 at 6:35 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Well such a nice collection of fallacies Tav. I think I'll let them stand there in all of their contradictory glory. After all, it's been explained to you before... me going over it one more time isn't going to make it sink in is it?

Please do, as my tiny monkey brain can't hold in more than one wikipedia link at a time. Please explain. Be specific.

I already explained Tav. Please try to understand the answers already given, then come back if you need to know something new.

(March 9, 2010 at 7:51 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: I already explained Tav. Please try to understand the answers already given, then come back if you need to know something new.

Here is your answer to every single question I've ever given you.

Good job, man. You should be a politician.

(March 9, 2010 at 10:32 pm)tavarish Wrote:

(March 9, 2010 at 7:51 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: I already explained Tav. Please try to understand the answers already given, then come back if you need to know something new.

Here is your answer to every single question I've ever given you.

Good job, man. You should be a politician.

He should indeed He'd get my vote, at least

YaY!

"I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer I gave last week"

(March 10, 2010 at 3:38 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: YaY!

"I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer I gave last week"

link?

(March 7, 2010 at 4:28 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: This whole conversation stems from your claim that God is logically impossible. You made the claim. You back it up.

Since you obstinately refuse to be intellectually honest with me I fail to see why I should give you my time of day. You claimed that logic can't disprove god. A ridiculous statement that demonstrates you've failed on a basic level to understand what's required for an existence claim and ignores that god has always been a concept that can't be supported by logic but conversely it can be refuted without evidence.
This isn't the scientific method we're talking about here which can't actually prove or disprove god without evidence first, this is logic 101, and every argument for god, last time I checked, is fallacious. Either way you fucked up. Have the decency to admit that much at least.

fr0d0 Wrote:Yes, you abandoned your argument and now proceed to turn this into some fabrication of your imagination.

And lo, fr0d0 went even deeper into the rabbit hole.

The only thing I've abandoned mate is the hope of sensible conversation with you.

fr0d0 Wrote:So man, both male and female, was the image of God. Geddit?

Humor me - what is this 'image of God' pray tell? According to you its...

I AM A LADY

*shudders*

fr0d0 Wrote:It's a rationally sound statement.

You have no idea what rational means if you honestly think that.

Birds and Trees aren't proof of god, the IPU, or any deity for that matter.