RE: Disproving Odin - An Experiment in arguing with a theist with Theist logic
March 10, 2018 at 1:39 pm
(This post was last modified: March 10, 2018 at 1:39 pm by Edwardo Piet.)
(March 10, 2018 at 1:11 pm)SteveII Wrote: My point was and is that if God exists, he is by definition an exception.
Isn't that rather... convenient?
Quote:So, when asked how such a being could be what you assert he is, and do what you assert he does, your explanation is: ‘Well, he’s god. We can’t understand. It’s unknowable.’ You want to invoke him as an explanation for things, and use his alleged existence in positive arguments, without actually explaining anything. That is arguing in a circle. You’re using ‘god’s unknowable powers’ as a place-holder for, ‘I don’t know. He just is, and he just can.’
So how exactly does you basically repeating over and over how much you like to commit the fallacy of Special Pleading make your position rational, again? Remind me.
Which reminds me of this song that is fun:
And that's irrelevant. Kind of like your silly beliefs. Only at least this shit sounds good.
Quote:That might be a point if I was making an argument that contained those components. I know better. You are confusing an argument with try to explain what the meaning of a couple of words are, like 'supernatural'. By pointing out that Mathilda's claim is flawed, unknowable, and her conclusion is an argument from ignorance is not the same thing as making my own argument. Go ahead, show me where I made an argument with a premise and conclusion that I can't defend (definition of an assertion).
Mathilda is not making an argument from ignorance because she's not claiming that the absence of evidence of the absurd claim that is "God" means that such a God is logically impossible. She's claiming that the absurd claim that is "God" is absurd because it is absurd.
Quote:The definition of God guarantees an exception to the law of physics. I don't have to explain definitions.
So, once again, how does you repeating over and over that you love comitting the Special Pleading fallacy make your position at all rational or reasonable?
Furthermore, considering the fact that God is completely superflous and existence can precede the universe WITHOUT all the Hocus Pocus and farty Godly nonsense... I just... I just can't understand how you fuckers can believe in such utter bollocks unless you're just fucking stupid, brainwashed or dishonest. It's becoming incredibly difficult to not be an anti-theist at this point because the alternative seems to be me pretending to not think you're all childish idiots... and it would be dishonest of me to pretend.
