Proof A=A

[tavarish]

Kind of you to butt in Tav.

Tanky Tanky.

No Tav. If you followed this conversation you'd know that WC made a claim that I'm pursuing him for. Yay it's another opportunity for you to vomit your rhetoric. No point dude.. save it to make a point sometime.

I've been pursuing you for lots of claims. I have followed the conversation, and it's the same regurgitation of your definition of God, which is yours alone, by the way. Your subjective reasoning is spewed up as objective fact, and you have nothing to back it up with. Your definition of God is logically impossible for the following reasons:

You claim God is all powerful, yet has a nature that he is subject to. He can also create things that are not of this nature. Either God is not all powerful (and cannot act against his nature), or he does not have this nature - in which case, he would not fit your definition of God. Even if he chose this nature, you don't give an account for WHY God would choose this nature over any other.

A cannot equal B.

You claim God just "is", but you say it is irrelevant if he exists or not. Logically you cannot objectively "be" and not exist at the same time.

A cannot equal B.

You claim the bible should not be taken literally, but only as a message within context. However, you do believe that Jesus, the son of God, physically came to Earth to rid the believers of sin. Either the bible is a historic book or isn't.

There isn't an "almost non-fiction" section in the bookstore.

Yes fucktard. Go develop a brain and work out some shit.

Wow, such a great point! I don't have a brain! Any more of those winning intellectual arguments from that shining beacon of intellectual honesty you call a mind?

Transcendental.

do you need pics?

Being transcendental is not a physical nature, nor does it explain anything in a physical sense. I think what you're trying to allude to is panentheism, or just that God operates this universe from outside the universe. In that case, I'd say that's a pretty bold claim, and I find it pretty funny how all you have to support it is a book that can't be taken literally and your own fuzzy feelings.

It is not a rationally sound statement, it is an argument from ignorance.

The argument from personal incredulity, also known as argument from personal belief or argument from personal conviction, refers to an assertion that because one personally finds a premise unlikely or unbelievable, the premise can be assumed to be false, or alternatively that another preferred but unproven premise is true instead.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

As is your argument too. Exactly so... stalemate.

Stalemate? You're using the tu quoque fallacy in that one. Please elaborate, being specific of course, on how my argument is at all fallacial.