I am an orthodox Christian, ask me a question!

[Ace Otana]

No where near it. I rejected the claim. No attacks had been made. I simply risen all thought up characters to your friends level to demonstrate that they are all the same and that your claims held no weight and so I rejected them.

[Jon Paul]

No where near it. I rejected the claim. No attacks had been made. I simply risen all thought up characters to your friends level to demonstrate that they are all the same and that your claims held no weight and so I rejected them.

You have not demonstrated that they are the same. If they were the same, all you would need to do would be to address the notion of God my argument actually arrives at.

You have specifically demonstrated that all the characters you have thought up to be "the same" are not the same, because you have to invoke your spatiotemporal "characters", viewpoint X, and ridicule them, instead of addressing my viewpoint Y. The ontological inequivalence between the viewpoint X you attack, and my viewpoint Y of a transcendent God is obvious: your characters, viewpoint X, are all spatiotemporal beings, composed of matter, impure actuality, members of the universe, whereas my viewpoint Y which you haven't actually addressed, of a transcendent God is exactly totally void of potentiality, and is actus purus, and totally void of space, time and matter.

Just another example, yet again, of your intellectual bankruptcy. Appealing to fallacious tactics by attacking viewpoint X, instead of my actual viewpoint Y, and claiming to thereby debunk viewpoint Y, even though you have only attacked a caricature of your own imagination.

[Ace Otana]

Call your god what you will or how you view it. It makes no difference. It makes no difference if your god is christian, muslim, thor, mars or any other. They are all one big character used to explain the big question of how and why we are here. The god claim in general is rejected. Notions mean nothing.

Your god is just a thought up character that came from your head.

Can't theists handle it when people tell them that their claims are rejected?

If I made the same argument for the spaghetti monster how would you argue it? "The spaghetti monster is exactly total voidness of potentiality, and pure actuality."

God is no more likely than any other thought up character. No matter what you say, this fact remains a constant.

[Minimalist]

OK, we get it.

You believe in fairy tales and we don't. What's next?

I believe in rational argumentation, and you believe in calling names to avoid accepting my arguments.

I haven't called you a "name."


Yet.

[Jon Paul]

I haven't called you a "name."

I never said you called me a name. I said you called names, by calling my rational epistemically justified and properly basic belief in God "beliving in fairy tales", which is a caricature, and of course the best (non-)argument you could come up with.

Call your god what you will or how you view it. It makes no difference. It makes no difference if your god is christian, muslim, thor, mars or any other. They are all one big character used to explain the big question of how and why we are here. The god claim in general is rejected. Notions mean nothing.

Again, you are addressing other beliefs and characters, rather than my argument. A notion means nothing apart from the argument; but in the argument, the notion of God as actus purus is the conclusion, not the premise.

Your god is just a thought up character that came from your head.

Most scientific theories are thought up theories that come from scientists heads, for instance, evolution, which was developed in a process of thinking, in a process of intellectual emanation from the intellection inside the head of humans.

That doesn't mean that it doesn't describe a real thing, a real phenomenon in the case of evolution. It certainly does. That's the point with thinking, understanding reality.

If I made the same argument for the spaghetti monster how would you argue it? "The spaghetti monster is exactly total voidness of potentiality, and pure actuality."

But the spaghetti monster is NOT void of potentiality; it is a material, spatiotemporal being, and pure actuality means transcending all attributes of impure actuality, such as matter, time, and space.

The FSM clearly is composed of matter, it is clearly flying in space and is therefore in space and a part of the universe, it is clearly temporal; it exists in time. All together, it is clearly impure actuality because it has all the attributes of a thing within the universe.

If you state that "it's not", then you are simply contradicting the very nature of the notion of the Flying Spaghetti Monster; which is a spatiotemporal and material being.

And you have no argument to support the actual existence of it; I have presented a thorough argument to support the existence of pure actuality, wholly transcendent to time, space and matter.

God is no more likely than any other thought up character. No matter what you say, this fact remains a constant.

"No matter what you say, this remains a constant". That's what I call blind, arbitrary dogmatism. You cannot evaluate or even understand arguments. You can just repeat your blind dogmatism.

Just like an evangelical American will say "Evolution is a thought up idea. No matter what you say, this remains a constant".

[Ace Otana]

Oh boy.

[Jon Paul]

Oh boy.

After you have repeated the same few lines of non-thinking in at least 10 posts, totally ignoring my responses to it, your entire argument has now been properly boiled down to these two words - "oh boy".

It is really all you can intellectually perform, for you have made no greater argument than what can be summarised by those two words.

[Minimalist]

You have a deep seated desire to rattle on as if mere verbiage somehow validates your position. I prefer to be more succinct. Thus, "fairy tales" is a useful euphemism for belief in supernatural forces. Whether you like it or not is unimportant but your feigned outrage suggests that you think this is a useful tactic. I will continue to refer to all such nonsense as "fairy tales" in the interest of brevity. You may continue to object. It doesn't matter to me.

[Jon Paul]

I will continue to refer to all such nonsense as "fairy tales" in the interest of brevity. You may continue to object. It doesn't matter to me.

And I will call you intellectually bankrupt, for failing to present any rational refutation or grounds on which to deny the soundness of my arguments, and instead resorting to caricatures. You have no reason to even be in this thread.

[Ace Otana]

How comes you placed my username over ML's post?

Either way I agree with him.

It's all just a bunch of fairytales. Delusional, nutcase fairytales.