Arguments for God's Existence from Contingency

[Catholic_Lady]

I see no indication of Chad being butthurt. Looks like he's pointing out an inconsistency he sees in you accusing him of not contributing.

He told Jor to go back to sucking the cocks of random strangers after she merely pointed out that a particular video he was criticizing some of us for posting was actually relevant and informative, lol.  That's pretty unnecessarily nasty, IMO.  If it had been Min saying it to a Theist...

Yeah, he was being a real dick (though she was no angel towards him either), but I don't see him as being hurt here, imho.

[GrandizerII]

If those are what you think passes for addressing the topic then maybe you should go back to smoking the poles of Canadian truck drivers in Calgary weight stations.

As for SteveII, I didn't see that. If he did then I'll have to take him to the woodshed. You can come and watch if you want. I heard you're into that kind of thing.

Well, that's a tinge of misogyny there.

[Mystic]

Neo, if you are losing your patience, just stay off the site for a while.  Forbearance and compassion always.

[Neo-Scholastic]

He told Jor to go back to sucking the cocks of random strangers after she merely pointed out that a particular video he was criticizing some of us for posting was actually relevant and informative, lol.  That's pretty unnecessarily nasty, IMO.  

Oh, she did a lot more than that (praising a video I mean). She accused me of not adding to the discussion, so I linked to two of her posts: 1) a single hand-job emoji and 2) a one-line vulgar insult.

And besides I didn't say they were random strangers. She's probably good friends with most of them by now.

[The Grand Nudger]

Pages and pages and pages and pages and pages......lol.

There's almost enough between here and the last failure for a person to reassert the same argument as though it hadn't been thoroughly discussed.

[Angrboda]

He told Jor to go back to sucking the cocks of random strangers after she merely pointed out that a particular video he was criticizing some of us for posting was actually relevant and informative, lol.  That's pretty unnecessarily nasty, IMO.  

Oh, she did a lot more than that (praising a video I mean). She accused me of not adding to the discussion, so I linked to two of her posts: 1) a single hand-job emoji and 2) a one-line vulgar insult.

a) You weren't contributing to the conversation, and b) both of my posts were on-topic. So, you're still off the mark.

And besides I didn't say they were random strangers. She's probably good friends with most of them by now.

Yeah, you're an original alright.

[Mister Agenda]

And without a mind to form a concept by abstraction, what would be the status of some potentially abstractable quality? It seems that it would remain unabstracted, and be none the worse for it.

That would make the quality something objectively real independent of any mind perceiving it. If there were no minds, diamonds would still be hard, wood would still be flammable, stars would still have mass, photons would still travel at the speed of light, and collections of objects would still be numerable.

Things would still have properties, but those properties would not be generalized into concepts, they'd just be. I'm not sure it makes sense to say that collections of objects would be numerable without a mind to count them (or decide they're collections).

In any case, you seem to be focused on the reverse of what I asked about. Of course abstractions can be derived from objects. I asked for an object (a material object, not a conceptual one, since apparently that can't be taken as given) to be derived from an abstraction, unsupported by material evidence.

[Neo-Scholastic]

I asked for an object (a material object, not a conceptual one, since apparently that can't be taken as given) to be derived from an abstraction, unsupported by material evidence.

Well, in that case probably not. I don't see how that is relevant.

[Amarok]

Actually that is addressing the point . In the first shes expressing the fact she does not believe in the state mentioned via emoji . Then she once again puts forth a dismissal of the point she quotes . How is that not addressing the point ? when both were about the topic ?. In the second she even states the topic by name . 

As for he Wooters other comment . Mind not expressing your sexual fantasies or frustrations  about Jorm .

[Mister Agenda]

I asked for an object (a material object, not a conceptual one, since apparently that can't be taken as given) to be derived from an abstraction, unsupported by material evidence.

Well, in that case probably not. I don't see how that is relevant.

If something material and real can't be proven to exist without relevant verifiable evidence, how can something immaterial but capable of directly affecting reality be?

I think we can't prove any object or entity with independent existence (outside of minds that conceive it) is real based on logic alone, except ourselves (I think, therefore I am...I think). I think apologetic arguments are futile even if there IS a theodic God if that God hides.