Depending on how they're worded (it keeps changing) I also agree with the "five things". But I'm curious what you think they prove. Do you think they amount to an argument for the existence of God? All they establish is that it's a possibility. Most atheists admit that, so I'm not sure what you think you, or Rawlings, have accomplished.
They're not changing. They're different facets of the same ideas. There are ramifications here that you've closed your mind to. They are profound, readily apparent to those paying attention. Ultimately, all of this goes to the universal, logical principle of identity and its ramifications, which are profound and have been shared here. The evidence overwhelming supports God's existence. It's not even close.
You might have had some interesting insights given your interest in the mind-brain dichotomy, but no . . . you wasted post after post quibbling, as if it were me. Get real. You might have gotten some insights from me on a number of things too had you not gone postal atheist.
I've annihilated argument after argument, but not so much as raised directly by any of you atheists around here. Atheists don't make arguments around here. They make noises. The vast majority of their posts are incoherent gibberish, personal attacks, lies. . . . Your tribe is morally and intellectually bankrupt. Mostly I've been talking to Justin. I can't do anything for dogmatic, fanatically closed-minded, pseudoscientific nitwits who don't even realize the bulk of what is coming out of their mouths, beginning with the irrationalism of their logic-defying premise, is inherently contradictory and self-negating.
One of your first posts on this thread made the amazing claim that there's no evidence for God's existence. Well, that obviously isn't true. In fact, that's silly on the very face it.
Why do you have the idea of God in your head?
All of the classic arguments for God’s existence are bullet proof as I demonstrated, despite the silly claims of post-modern atheism. Most atheists on this forum do not admit the possibility because it means acknowledging the fact that the existence of God can only be asserted without contradiction, any argument launched against it is actually a premise for an argument that logically proves God's existence.
But you don’t believe that true, do you? GT knows because he’s got hammered by it, unwittingly charging into one argument after another that proved it. He just never saw it coming. He finally admitted that just because that’s true, it still couldn’t be proved by science, as if science had anything to do with the transcendent. Where we're you? Now he’s claiming that never happened. What a cretin. What kind of person lies to himself like that.
Newsflash for you, dblack: had you been paying attention you would know what happened here, that the imperatives regarding the problems or existence and origin couple with the classical proofs for God’s existence win every time logically. The only objection the atheist has is his pitiful, default position of what is in fact nothing more than metaphysical naturalism, which is not scientifically verifiable either and begs the question without a shred of evidence or a justifiable logical argument.
Fact of the matter, dblack, I was just interested in your mind-brain insights regarding the logical principle of identity, but we never got to that. . . I wonder why. Most of the atheists on this forum are of Hollie’s ilk by far. Ignorant, stupid, irrational, hateful and arrogant. Word.
