One question for Christians

[Statler Waldorf]

Godidit only makes sense if you swallow the premise to begin with. That it can be shoehorned into a logical framework when it's the 'axiom' doesn't prove shit, other than the agenda of the armchair philosopher who spouted it.

More assertions I see. The existence of God is a logical necessity. There is nothing in logical reasoning presupposing naturalism, in fact from a naturalistic framework you cannot even justify your use of reasoning. God must exist in order for anything to be knowable. He is the ultimate foundation for all reasoning. This is precisely why you have to steal from the Christian's conceptual scheme.

His fiery bubbles makes all past, present, and future laws possible. You can read more in that cave, but you have to die and resurrect three times in march for three years before it will fly you to this hidden cavern. I have personal experience with this dragon and its workings, so that's all the evidence I need to know it is true.

How does a material dragon govern natural laws without the matter he’s made up of also being subject to such laws? Or is your dragon immaterial?

[Bad Writer]

He is both material and immaterial, wishing to be either according to his whimsy, but as this is his (or her, if it pleases you) natural way of acting, this behavior is in total agreement with his complexities. Because of this, there are no contradictions in its nature.

Also, as this dragon (or sometimes unicorn) made up all the laws that govern our world, he is only subject to them until he wishes to change them. And he does.

[Captain Colostomy]

SW- You're delusional. God is a logical necessity....because you want it so!

All this fancy philosophizing has hemmed you in. I feel sorry for you.

[Bad Writer]

SW- You're delusional. God is a logical necessity....because you want it so!

All this fancy philosophizing has hemmed you in. I feel sorry for you.

Well then, sir. Set yourself free with my new polka dotted dragon/unicorn religion. It's all the rage, and it's a more sound presupposition than god.

[Statler Waldorf]

He is both material and immaterial, wishing to be either according to his whimsy, but as this is his (or her, if it pleases you) natural way of acting, this behavior is in total agreement with his complexities. Because of this, there are no contradictions in its nature.

How can a dragon be immaterial? Does he know what the future will be? Is he eternal?

Also, as this dragon (or sometimes unicorn) made up all the laws that govern our world, he is only subject to them until he wishes to change them. And he does.

You just contradicted yourself, I asked you how you knew future uniformity will exist in natural law, and you said because your dragon is governing nature uniformly, but now you just claimed that he changes natural laws regularly. Which is it?

SW- You're delusional. God is a logical necessity....because you want it so!

Personally attacking me only makes you look weak. God is a logical necessity because the preconditions of reasoning and knowledge require that He exists.

All this fancy philosophizing has hemmed you in. I feel sorry for you.

Fancy philosophizing?

[ronedee]

Well then, sir. Set yourself free with my new polka dotted dragon/unicorn religion. It's all the rage, and it's a more sound presupposition than god.

How many followers do you have?

[Bad Writer]

Well then, sir. Set yourself free with my new polka dotted dragon/unicorn religion. It's all the rage, and it's a more sound presupposition than god.

How many followers do you have?

So far the contradictory (yet real) dragon has only one adherent, but that follower realizes he doesn't need people to agree with him in order for his claims to be true.

SW, since this very real yet immaterial dragon is a naturally occurring paradox that he himself (herself) created, something that refutes it actually works in its favor, as the more false it is, the more true it becomes. How do I know? Because it told me so. The writings on the cave wall are my proof, but it may be some time before you see them...and I cannot guarantee three resurrections for three years straight either. Trust the unicorn though...er...cockatrice...er...I mean dragon.

[Statler Waldorf]

SW, since this very real yet immaterial dragon is a naturally occurring paradox that he himself (herself) created, something that refutes it actually works in its favor, as the more false it is, the more true it becomes. How do I know? Because it told me so. The writings on the cave wall are my proof, but it may be some time before you see them...and I cannot guarantee three resurrections for three years straight either. Trust the unicorn though...er...cockatrice...er...I mean dragon.

Nice, I see the wheels have fallen off of your analogy wagon. The original purpose of your analogy (I assume) was to try and demonstrate that your dragon can just as adequately explain the preconditions of knowledge as Yahweh’s existence does. Thus far you have failed. You have undermined our confidence in the uniformity of nature, thus rendering all scientific inquiry impossible. To make things even worse you have now allowed for the possibility of logical contradictions, which renders all deductive proof impossible. All you have done is add support to my original position; only Yahweh’s existence can justify the preconditions of reasoning and knowledge, therefore we can know that Yahweh exists as far as we can know anything at all. Thanks for the assist my friend!

[Bad Writer]

Oh, come now. God of the paradox (your god) can kiss my dragon's ass. Both defy nature and natural laws, but my dragon unicorn does so with flair.

You must be a hoot at family reunions when you go bankrupt in Monopoly and yet you declare yourself the victor by claiming that your game piece, the vintage automobile, still holds more value than all their properties put together. And you wonder why people don't like playing with you.

[Statler Waldorf]

Oh, come now. God of the paradox (your god) can kiss my dragon's ass. Both defy nature and natural laws, but my dragon unicorn does so with flair.

We’re not talking about being able to defy natural laws; we’re talking about accounting for future uniformity in natural law and excluding the possibility of logical contradictions existing. Your dragon’s existence cannot account for either, God’s can.

You must be a hoot at family reunions when you go bankrupt in Monopoly and yet you declare yourself the victor by claiming that your game piece, the vintage automobile, still holds more value than all their properties put together. And you wonder why people don't like playing with you.

Better than being the guy who claims that the creator of Monopoly never existed and therefore the game arose through purely natural and unguided processes over billions of years of chance and necessity.