(September 26, 2014 at 7:05 pm)snowtracks Wrote:(September 22, 2014 at 12:40 pm)RobbyPants Wrote: Wait. We're circling back to the cosmological argument, again? That was already refuted 20-40 pages ago. No circling back to refuted arguments just because you think we've forgotten.you haven't refuted crap; on your best day, not even close. dream on puddles.
The puddles argument wasn't talking about the cosmological argument. It was addressing your fine tuning argument (which was refuted with iterative probability). You can't even keep your own arguments straight. No wonder you don't see that they've been refuted.
Try to keep up.