RE: Ybe an atheist
May 30, 2018 at 12:05 pm
(This post was last modified: May 30, 2018 at 12:07 pm by drfuzzy.)
Ybe's own statements:
"There is lots of sufficient/convincing evidence for G by the way." #319
-- Despite claiming, multiple times, that he is not here to prove the existence of god. The moment evidence is claimed, evidence needs to be presented. And the claim of "there is lots of sufficient/convincing evidence" is an unsupported claim that your god exists. Poster is a liar with a "hidden" agenda by his own statements.
"Proof:
P1. If A's can"t give convincing/sufficient E (that As are able to logically reason), then As have no ability to judge E for G.
P2. I agree that As can't give convincing/sufficient E (that As are able to logically reason).
C. So, it is true they have no ability to judge (any E for G presented"
Completely ABSURD P1, since the repeated claim is that we have seen no evidence for the existence of god. We also have clearly stipulated our evidence requirements. No evidence has been presented, so there is nothing to judge. Which, of course, makes this snobbish disrespect of others absolutely hilarious.
[Assertion No G] (We can assume that "G" means "god" - although with gibberish text-speak, it could mean goblins, who knows?)
P1 If there is no G it would be illogical to believe in G ABSOLUTELY TRUE! BRAVO!
P2 No G Woopsie, here is where you slide for a lot of folks. The first premise started with IF, junior.
C. it is illogical What is illogical? "It" can be anything. Your claim just dropped into la-la-land right there. Grade: started good but ended up "F"
If no G, then no reason 4 responding. #326
We see no reason to believe that a "G" exists.
You apparently think that a "G" exists.
If you cannot provide the evidence that you claim exists in abundance, then there is NO REASON 4 THIS THREAD.
"There is lots of sufficient/convincing evidence for G by the way." #319
-- Despite claiming, multiple times, that he is not here to prove the existence of god. The moment evidence is claimed, evidence needs to be presented. And the claim of "there is lots of sufficient/convincing evidence" is an unsupported claim that your god exists. Poster is a liar with a "hidden" agenda by his own statements.
"Proof:
P1. If A's can"t give convincing/sufficient E (that As are able to logically reason), then As have no ability to judge E for G.
P2. I agree that As can't give convincing/sufficient E (that As are able to logically reason).
C. So, it is true they have no ability to judge (any E for G presented"
Completely ABSURD P1, since the repeated claim is that we have seen no evidence for the existence of god. We also have clearly stipulated our evidence requirements. No evidence has been presented, so there is nothing to judge. Which, of course, makes this snobbish disrespect of others absolutely hilarious.
[Assertion No G] (We can assume that "G" means "god" - although with gibberish text-speak, it could mean goblins, who knows?)
P1 If there is no G it would be illogical to believe in G ABSOLUTELY TRUE! BRAVO!
P2 No G Woopsie, here is where you slide for a lot of folks. The first premise started with IF, junior.
C. it is illogical What is illogical? "It" can be anything. Your claim just dropped into la-la-land right there. Grade: started good but ended up "F"
If no G, then no reason 4 responding. #326
We see no reason to believe that a "G" exists.
You apparently think that a "G" exists.
If you cannot provide the evidence that you claim exists in abundance, then there is NO REASON 4 THIS THREAD.
"The family that prays together...is brainwashing their children."- Albert Einstein
