Entropy, Kalam, and First Cause

[Cato]

Another way of putting my point: it seems like some kind of "god"-explanation is the most reasonable conclusion; the only reason one would reject such an explanation is if he were already predisposed against the notion of god. (i.e. approaches the question with unwarranted naturalistic/materialistic presuppositions)

Dumbass! To be effective, foreplay must be arousing yet inferior to the actual fucking. What I quoted above indicates that you suffer from premature ejaculation. You sauntered into these forums sincere in your quest for rational conversation, yet dropped the turd above.

Some kind of 'god' could never be a reasonable conclusion for anything, except for maybe an excuse that your dumbass parents would believe in lieu of the truth that you got knocked-up by the village idiot.

Also, if I were to throw a stone at your face I guarantee you would duck without giving it much thought. So much for unwarranted materialistic presuppositions.

Hint: What you consider profound, most of us have already considered and can easily dismiss; many times we borrow refutations that are already 500 year old. Try this: evidence. Sounds simple enough, but it's something that nobody before you has been able to produce. We've heard all the arguments, but have never been given any evidence. You can't argue your god into existence. Try pointing the cunt out if you can.