Spinoza99, please explain . . .

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Eriku, I'm still waiting for you to reply to the post I made on the other thread.

The yawn is strong in this one.

As for the answer to your statement, I explained why in an 11000 word paper. If you would quote from it and show me where I have erred it would be much appreciated.

That paper just keeps getting bigger, don't it. But 11,000 words of bullshit are still 11,000 words of bullshit.

[Tigger]

Why hold a false belief when you can hold a true one? Well, which God do you subscribe to, and why is it truer than the other?

Eriku, I'm still waiting for you to reply to the post I made on the other thread.

As for the answer to your statement, I explained why in an 11000 word paper. If you would quote from it and show me where I have erred it would be much appreciated.

I think the error was in writing it in the first place. Theists:

[Deep Sea Isopod]

Whether or not the designer of the universe hears human prayers is not something I want to speculate on.

But surely, if it can control all the atoms and laws in the universe, it can hear and answer our prayers? Think about it!

As for why care? Well, do you care about holding false beliefs? Why hold a false belief when you can hold a true one?

Why hold any belief?

Your questions seem to be more concerned with ethics than with metaphysics.

Which one proves there is a god?

[FBM]

Still awaiting evidence. Just a little. The tiniest scrap of real evidence.

I wrote a 10,000 word essay where I outlined many proofs. It would help if you would quote some of my proofs and try to refute them.

No, what would help would be for you to produce some evidence. You see, first we start with observation of phenomena, then we proceed with necessary inference based on the observation. Without the initial observation of evidence, we could speculate endlessly and build elaborate rational structures about the number of angels that could dance on the head of a pin, you see. A first-year student of Logic 101 learns that it's possible to build a valid argument with conclusions that are patently, demonstrably false in the real world. Let me know if you want examples. (Other than your own, that is.)

Oops. 'Scuze me...

[MrFungus420]

Why hold a false belief when you can hold a true one? Well, which God do you subscribe to, and why is it truer than the other?

Eriku, I'm still waiting for you to reply to the post I made on the other thread.

As for the answer to your statement, I explained why in an 11000 word paper. If you would quote from it and show me where I have erred it would be much appreciated.

ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!

"104: ARGUMENT FROM FORMATTING
(1) Behold, foolish atheists, I present you with an incontrovertible proof of the existence of God.
(2) [Christian posts 10,000 word document without a single paragraph break.]
(3) [Atheist's eyes implode.]
(4) I see that nobody can refute (2).
(5) Therefore, God exists."

From: http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm

[FBM]

I don't think Spinoza wants to play anymore.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I don't think Spinoza wants to play anymore.

We don't play fair. Facts were not mentions when the game started. Were they?

[FBM]

I don't think Spinoza wants to play anymore.

We don't play fair. Facts were not mentions when the game started. Were they?

Use of logic, reasoning and demands for evidence...fuck. My bad.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I don't think Spinoza wants to play anymore.

We don't play fair. Facts were not mentions when the game started. Were they?

Use of logic, reasoning and demands for evidence...fuck. My bad.

Well, facts are hard to refute when your argument consists of that old lament, "Woo is me!"

[FBM]

I don't think Spinoza wants to play anymore.

We don't play fair. Facts were not mentions when the game started. Were they?

Use of logic, reasoning and demands for evidence...fuck. My bad.

Well, facts are hard to refute when your argument consists of that old lament, "Woo is me!"

Nailed it!

[spinoza99]

I don't think Spinoza wants to play anymore.

I still want to play, I'm just waiting for someone to defend the antithesis.

[FBM]

I don't think Spinoza wants to play anymore.

I still want to play, I'm just waiting for someone to defend the antithesis.

And we're still waiting for some evidence to give weight to your speculative word salad and hand waving. Evidence. You got any?

[spinoza99]

I don't think Spinoza wants to play anymore.

I still want to play, I'm just waiting for someone to defend the antithesis.

And we're still waiting for some evidence to give weight to your speculative word salad and hand waving. Evidence. You got any?

Since you won't answer my questions, FBM, we can't have a dialogue.

I outlined my evidence and my reasoning in an 11000 word paper which you have yet to quote from and demonstrate where I have erred.

[FBM]

I don't think Spinoza wants to play anymore.

I still want to play, I'm just waiting for someone to defend the antithesis.

And we're still waiting for some evidence to give weight to your speculative word salad and hand waving. Evidence. You got any?

Since you won't answer my questions, FBM, we can't have a dialogue.

I outlined my evidence and my reasoning in an 11000 word paper which you have yet to quote from and demonstrate where I have erred.

I've demonstrated several times in the other thread where you've erred in your logic. For instance, starting with your favored conclusion, god, and working ad hoc to piece together support for it. I've tried to clue you in that the way serious scholars go about determining the truth or falsity or probability of a claim is to first start with your favored question, not your favored answer. Then you examine the relevant evidence and base your conclusion on whatever the evidence says, whether or not it supports your pet idea. If it pisses on your pet theory, suck it up, be a man about it and move on. Accept reality when it stares you in the face, rather than squirm around and cobble together one garbled word salad after another as a defense against that reality.

Your "evidence" is all word salad, none of which specifically supports your claim that a supernatural sky-daddy exists. You're taking unrelated information, twisting it unrecognizably, juxtaposing it with further unrelated data, and claiming fallaciously that it somehow supports your nonsensical conclusion. You have no empirical evidence whatsoever that specifically supports your claim that there is some sort of supernatural being in charge of all this. If you have some, out with it. Like I said, without empirical evidence, we may as well be arguing about the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin. It's a pointless, speculative waste of time and an embarrassment to the human species. I'd hate to be the one to have to explain to an alien visitor that we still have people who take this sort of crap seriously and who are not required to be under constant supervision*.

*(Edit) Assuming you are.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Since you won't answer my questions, FBM, we can't have a dialogue.

You would use that old dodge here? I think stupidareus.org would be your best bet for that one.