Mick,

are you here for reasonable debate? Or to post unevidenced assertions and declare yourself the winner on every subject?

I have to say, frankly, what you're posting has been posted a million times before and debunked in equal measure. Using fallicious (and demonstrably false) logic does not win you any debating kudos anywhere, except maybe on theist sites.

(June 6, 2014 at 2:40 pm)mickiel Wrote: Logic is a proof of God Magic Space Monkey;
Fallacy is a proof of God Magic Space Monkey;
argument is a proof of God Magic Space Monkey
ignorance is a proof of God Magic Space Monkey

I can use any of those terms and proveGod Magic Space Monkey exist.

FIFY

(June 6, 2014 at 2:44 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: There's already 13 pages to this thread.

When are you going to start?

I don't think he will, considering every counter point we mention he ignores and moves on to another unrelated point.

This sounds an awful lot like someone else we had here recently....
Of course, it could be the usage of the same ideas/tactics that just gets repetitive.

---

(June 6, 2014 at 2:49 pm)bennyboy Wrote:

(June 6, 2014 at 2:40 pm)mickiel Wrote: Logic is a proof of God Magic Space Monkey;
Fallacy is a proof of God Magic Space Monkey;
argument is a proof ofGod Magic Space Monkey
ignorance is a proof ofGod Magic Space Monkey

I can use any of those terms and proveGod Magic Space Monkey exist.

FIFY

HEATHEN!!!!

(June 6, 2014 at 2:42 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote:

(June 6, 2014 at 1:28 pm)mickiel Wrote: There are many scriptures, but I did not intend on using the bible; why do that here? Anyway one is in psalms 104:1-2 it says god clothed himself with honour and majesty, and gave himself light, or covered himself; which means he created those parts of himself. If he already had it before, what need would he have to give it to himself again? So this scripture, and others like it reveal that god actually created parts of himself.

And I am giving the evidence that I have as I go; that's all I can do. If others don't view it as evidence, what can I do?

---

What selected physics and chemistry? To avoid infinite regression I say God began it all.

---

Why are you wasting your time reading what I have to say if I am of no importance?

Infinite regression is a philosophical non-issue.

Name one problem caused by potential infinite regression that is not philosophically or epistemically solvable.

Even assuming an infinite chain of events up until this point, nothing would change.

In fact, the chain of events from before the beginning of time to modern day is, by definition, infinite.

Entropy, the deterioration of matter.

Is there a reason I'm being ignored whenever I post something to you, OP?

(June 6, 2014 at 2:34 pm)mickiel Wrote:

(June 6, 2014 at 2:30 pm)bennyboy Wrote: You know that God created parts of himself? How, pray tell, do you know that?

he once said " I am what I am"

He said that? How, pray tell, do you know that?

(June 6, 2014 at 2:49 pm)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: Mick,

are you here for reasonable debate? Or to post unevidenced assertions and declare yourself the winner on every subject?

I have to say, frankly, what you're posting has been posted a million times before and debunked in equal measure. Using fallicious (and demonstrably false) logic does not win you any debating kudos anywhere, except maybe on theist sites.

I am not trying to win, I am trying to explain. I like debating, but again, if you don't like my style, what can I do? I have declared myself a winner of nothing. Are you suggesting that I leave, because my debate is so fallacious?

(June 6, 2014 at 2:52 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Is there a reason I'm being ignored whenever I post something to you, OP?

Yes, because he doesn't actually have a response.

All he has is the 'Gish Gallup'.

Nothing more to see here, move along...

(June 6, 2014 at 2:52 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Is there a reason I'm being ignored whenever I post something to you, OP?

I am trying my best to respond to everyone; sorry if I missed something.

(June 6, 2014 at 2:51 pm)mickiel Wrote:

(June 6, 2014 at 2:42 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote: Infinite regression is a philosophical non-issue.

Name one problem caused by potential infinite regression that is not philosophically or epistemically solvable.

Even assuming an infinite chain of events up until this point, nothing would change.

In fact, the chain of events from before the beginning of time to modern day is, by definition, infinite.

Entropy, the deterioration of matter.

This only applies if you assume matter and time existed prior to space time, which we have no reason to, and misunderstand the second law of thermodynamics, and the law of conservation.