I thought your god was keeping you safe

[Losty]

I’m sorry, but are you really incapable of debating a Christian without stooping to calling them a retard? That’s kinda sad.

I do so hope that your post is a joke.

In your tag, whenever you post, you have an emoji that shows someone wanking and 'Jerkoff' in the title too.

I wasn’t joking and i don’t see how the jerkoff in my title has anything to do with it? That jerkoff is there because someone else called me a jerkoff. Though...I suppose I may be being a bit hypocritical being that I called someone a titty baby yesterday lol.

I have used name calling in arguments so I probably have no right to say anything. But Jesus Christ on a popsicle stick can you come up with a better insult please

[Lemon Curry]

So now we are stooping to such lows as co-opting the views of others in support of your argument.

Let's face it christard, you are fast losing this one but don't realise it because you are too dumb.

That's the problem with christards.  Too dumb to realise how dumb they really are.  Look up Dunning-Kruger, sonny.

Besides, shouldn't you be off to crutch, er church, with mommy and daddy.  It is, after all, 'man on a stick day'?

---

Actually, they have been, many, many times before you began spouting your mindless and ill-devised fuckwittery.  You are just too stupid to realise.

Like I said, deal with the arguments and evidence.  

We did, dumbass.  But you are just too stupid to realise.

---

I do so hope that your post is a joke.

In your tag, whenever you post, you have an emoji that shows someone wanking and 'Jerkoff' in the title too.

I wasn’t joking and i don’t see how the jerkoff in my title has anything to do with it? That jerkoff is there because someone else called me a jerkoff. Though...I suppose I may be being a bit hypocritical being that I called someone a titty baby yesterday lol.

I have used name calling in arguments so I probably have no right to say anything. But Jesus Christ on a popsicle stick can you come up with a better insult please

Yes, it's about time I stopped using the terms religtard/christard/fucktard.  Even I'm getting a tad bored with them.

I shall ponder.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Has "drooling idiots" been over-used?

[Lemon Curry]

Has "drooling idiots" been over-used?

Probably.

Maybe I should just drop the insults totally and stick to facts.

That would be novel - for me, I mean.

I used to do that in the future.

---

So now we are stooping to such lows as co-opting the views of others in support of your argument.

Let's face it christard, you are fast losing this one but don't realise it because you are too dumb.

That's the problem with christards.  Too dumb to realise how dumb they really are.  Look up Dunning-Kruger, sonny.

Besides, shouldn't you be off to crutch, er church, with mommy and daddy.  It is, after all, 'man on a stick day'?

---

Actually, they have been, many, many times before you began spouting your mindless and ill-devised fuckwittery.  You are just too stupid to realise.

Like I said, deal with the arguments and evidence.  Just calling someone names doesn't do anything to cover for your lack of intellectual curiosity.  I don't think I've ever dealt with any atheist who hasn't said essentially the same thing, but what I've also never seen......is an atheist who has actually attempted to grapple with the arguments & evidence.  I guess that's still the case, and I've been popping into places like this for 20 years or so now.  Amazing...!

So you have been popping into places like this for 20 years and this is the best you can muster after all this time?  Really?

Be ashamed.  Your arguments are pathetic.

Be not ashamed and I'll have to be ashamed for you.

[Succubus]

Could you list a few of these reasons.

And welcome to the forums.

#1 - The fact that the entire time-space universe came into existence a finite time ago.  (Related to the Cosmological argument)

#2 - The fine-tuning of the constants and quantities of the space-time universe that make intelligent life even possible in this universe.  (Fine-Tuning argument)

#3 - The complex information contained within DNA. (Intelligent Design and/or Teleological argument)

#4 - The applicability of mathematics to the physical world - the mathematical structure upon which the universe seems to be based.  (Argument from applicability of Mathematics)

#5 - The reality objective moral laws & duties.  (The Moral argument)

#6 - The historical reality and authenticity of the existence, death, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.  (Argument from the historicity of the salient details of the life, death, and post-death appearances of Jesus of Nazareth).

There are other logical arguments as well...

Wot! No argument from Near Death Experiences?
What sort of fundie are you?

Or were you saving that till later?

[brewer]

#1 - The fact that the entire time-space universe came into existence a finite time ago.  (Related to the Cosmological argument)

#2 - The fine-tuning of the constants and quantities of the space-time universe that make intelligent life even possible in this universe.  (Fine-Tuning argument)

#3 - The complex information contained within DNA. (Intelligent Design and/or Teleological argument)

#4 - The applicability of mathematics to the physical world - the mathematical structure upon which the universe seems to be based.  (Argument from applicability of Mathematics)

#5 - The reality objective moral laws & duties.  (The Moral argument)

#6 - The historical reality and authenticity of the existence, death, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.  (Argument from the historicity of the salient details of the life, death, and post-death appearances of Jesus of Nazareth).

There are other logical arguments as well...  Philosopher Alvin Plantinga can give well over two dozen arguments, few if any of which have been refuted.  If the logical arguments go through, so that the conclusion follows directly from the premises, then they constitute genuine evidence, unless or until a substantive objection is made and can be sustained to demonstrate why the argument does not go through.

Can you show me evidence (concrete, not abstract) of a gods existence in reality that does not require an argument? Until you can, all you have is a belief in a mental construct. 

I could easily argue that Superman exists.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

He von't be beck.

[brewer]

He von't be beck.

Inspector Kemp, is that you?

[Amarok]

Logical reasoning is acceptable, as long as you don't smuggle shit into the arguement .....

I asked you to refute I can walk on water ..... and you failed, that doesn't prove I can walk on water.

Maybe use yours and your friends arugument style can prove I can walk on water ...


1) Whatever falls can be higher (False Premise)  Given gravity, there must be a point of first fall, any higher than which would not fall.  So higher than the point of first fall, that which first falls could not be higher.

2) If there is nothing solid higher then its floating

3) If you can float then you can walk on water

4) Therefore Madog can walk on water

---

At work.


I did note your list.

I also see other's have offered rebuttals already, so there's that as well.

Plus, it would seem, that your points specifically rest on your premises actually being , y'know, correct..... Or, better yet, 'Real'.

Cheers.

Yeah, look into the arguments.  They've been made and not successfully rebutted today.  It's amazing...

Here's another list by someone I'm sure you're familiar with.  Look into each of the arguments he gives (there are numerous videos for each of the arguments by this specific gentleman).  You can see them done in the classroom and in debate forums where they go unrefuted for years on end.  

So your whole case is just repeating craigs catalog of long refuted arguments.....Sad

---

At work.

Oh fek me.

Master Craig.

*Sigh/groan*

I really don't want or need to wade through the Kalam atm.

Since I'm otherwise currently engaged.

I read you loud & clear.  Handed what you asked for, and you're not interested!  Hahaha!  I get it....i get it.

Craig's sophistry has been debated to death

---

So now we are stooping to such lows as co-opting the views of others in support of your argument.

Let's face it christard, you are fast losing this one but don't realise it because you are too dumb.

That's the problem with christards.  Too dumb to realise how dumb they really are.  Look up Dunning-Kruger, sonny.

Besides, shouldn't you be off to crutch, er church, with mommy and daddy.  It is, after all, 'man on a stick day'?

---

Actually, they have been, many, many times before you began spouting your mindless and ill-devised fuckwittery.  You are just too stupid to realise.

Like I said, deal with the arguments and evidence.  Just calling someone names doesn't do anything to cover for your lack of intellectual curiosity.  I don't think I've ever dealt with any atheist who hasn't said essentially the same thing, but what I've also never seen......is an atheist who has actually attempted to grapple with the arguments & evidence.  I guess that's still the case, and I've been popping into places like this for 20 years or so now.  Amazing...!

Craig's arguments have been refuted to death the fact you have been at this 20 years and still think any of his idea's still work is either proof you are lying or never bothered to read any responses .

---

Why would that be?  I'm rationally justified in my belief in God.  Naturalism or materialism leads to determinism, which cannot be rationally affirmed.  Again I say, "who's deluded?

1. No you are not 

2. No it does not 

3. Both can be rationally affirmed 

4. It's still you I'm afraid

[Peebothuhlu]

At work.

Oh fek me.

Master Craig.

*Sigh/groan*

I really don't want or need to wade through the Kalam atm.

Since I'm otherwise currently engaged.

I read you loud & clear.  Handed what you asked for, and you're not interested!  Hahaha!  I get it....i get it.

Oh, I am sorry.

I was so busy I completely missed this reply.

I do appologize.

Well... I offer a small, provisional appology since you seem to be unable to grasp that whe some one puts "At work." as the heading of their post then they actually mean they're not able to give you all of their attention undivided since they are, litterally, engaged in other serious concerns.

That being said I am noticing a... derth... of reading comprehension when it comes to your responding to people G G.

Such that you either only choose to address one or two lines of some one's reply. Or you seem to ignore their reply and just... respond with words.

Strange behaviour, that.

Cheers.

Not at work.