(February 16, 2014 at 5:31 pm)MitchBenn Wrote: Why are we even bothering with this argument when its first premise is bollocks?
The idea is that "If it's possible God exists then he DOES, so I just have to prove it's possible"?
This is NONSENSE. It's POSSIBLE that all kinds of things exist. This had no bearing at all on whether they do .
First rule of epistemology is you don't let someone get away with a flawed first premise. This premise is so flawed as to be meaningless.
Completely agreed. Everyone's just bouncing around the rubble and laughing at the original poster's efforts to try to pretend the structure is still standing. Still, that can be entertaining.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
