It's time to review, once again, the cosmological argument for God's existence

[Ringtone]

None of that proves the existence of the god in the bible or any god for that matter.

Like I said that argument does not exclude the possibility that we are all just part of some computer simulation running on an alien hard drive

Hey, dumbass, your premature baby talk doesn't refute the argument!

Hey, dumbass, your premature baby talk doesn't refute the argument!

Hey, dumbass, your premature baby talk doesn't refute the argument!

Hey, dumbass, your premature baby talk doesn't refute the argument!

 

[Blues Man]

He doesn’t recognize it. But it’s true. He has employed a fallacy.

For anything to exist, there must be a Creator.
Lots of things exist.
——————————
Therefore, everything must be caused by the Creator.

Hey, dumbass, your premature baby talk doesn't refute the argument!

Hey, dumbass, your premature baby talk doesn't refute the argument!

Hey, dumbass, your premature baby talk doesn't refute the argument!

Hey, dumbass, your premature baby talk doesn't refute the argument!

Says the guy acting like a baby

 

[Ringtone]

You have to assume there is a god for this argument to prove there is a god.

Why is that, dumbass?

 

[Ringtone]

Says the guy acting like a baby

Says the guy who's a dumbass.

 

[BackAgain]

Says the guy acting like a baby

It may not be an act.

 

[Ringtone]

That 3 line "argument" you are touting is hardly proof of anything

Hey, dumbass, that doesn't address the argument, let alone refute it.
Hey, dumbass, that doesn't address the argument, let alone refute it.
Hey, dumbass, that doesn't address the argument, let alone refute it.

 

[Blues Man]

Why is that, dumbass?

Says the guy who's a dumbass.

says the guy who name calls like a child

 

[Ringtone]

It may not be an act.

Hey, dumbass, how could the laws of thermodynamics trump God's power?

 

[Blues Man]

Hey, dumbass, that doesn't address the argument, let alone refute it.
Hey, dumbass, that doesn't address the argument, let alone refute it.
Hey, dumbass, that doesn't address the argument, let alone refute it.

Get back to me when you grow up

 

[Ringtone]

Blues Man said:
That 3 line "argument" you are touting is hardly proof of anything

Hey, dumbass, that doesn't address the argument, let alone refute it.

 

[Ringtone]

Get back to me when you grow up

Hey, dumbass, that doesn't address the argument, let alone refute it.

 

[BackAgain]

As for this:

Now I am sure you will all have immediately noticed that the conclusion of the Kalam Cosmological Argument is not “the cause of the universe is an eternal, uncaused, timeless, spaceless, changeless, immaterial, enormously powerful, personal being who created the universe out of absolutely nothing”.​

Sigh

READ THE ENTIRE FIRST POST OF THE THREAD! PAY ATTENTION!

Excerpt:

The thoughtless fail to grasp the cogency of the Cosmological Argument because (1) they fail to grasp the fundamental imperatives of existence itself and because (2) they fail to grasp the minor, necessarily attending premises linking the major premises of the argument. To grasp the latter especially requires the thought of an open and logical mind. While the first major premise in the above is a given, one begins by observing the fundamental ontological imperatives of being:​

​

1. Something does exist rather than nothing. ​

2. Existence cannot arise from nonexistence. Absurdity!​

3. Hence, something has always existed.​

​

We can now move on to regard the minor, necessarily attending premises linking the major premises of the argument.​

​

​

1. If “existence cannot arise from nonexistence” (“absurdity!”) then for something to exist, it had to have been created.

2. Matter and energy can be neither created or destroyed.

Matter/energy exist. So, it had to have been created. (Premise 1). But if matter/energy had to have been created, then that constitutes a denial of Premise 2.

A fallacy of contradictory premises isn’t always readily apparent. Here, upon any reasonable consideration, it is readily apparent however.

 

[BackAgain]

Hey, dumbass, how could the laws of thermodynamics trump God's power?

Hey shit for brains: you assume God’s power as a premise.

 

[Ringtone]

Hey shit for brains: you assume God’s power as a premise.

A premise for what, dumbass? By the way, see my new signature, dumbass.

 

[Ringtone]

1. If “existence cannot arise from nonexistence” (“absurdity!”) then for something to exist, it had to have been created.

2. Matter and energy can be neither created or destroyed.

Matter/energy exist. So, it had to have been created. (Premise 1). But if matter/energy had to have been created, then that constitutes a denial of Premise 2.

A fallacy of contradictory premises isn’t always readily apparent. Here, upon any reasonable consideration, it is readily apparent however.

What a total dumbass, you are.

 

[Ringtone]

Get back to me when you grow up

Go fuck yourself, dumbass.

 

[BackAgain]

A premise for what, dumbass? By the way, see my new signature, dumbass.

Shitforbrains: you assume the existence of God for your OP claim constitutes a proof of God’s existence. Damn, you’re stupid.

 

[BackAgain]

What a total dumbass, you are.

Yes. You are indeed retarded. And a gutless retard at that.

 

[Ringtone]

1. If “existence cannot arise from nonexistence” (“absurdity!”) then for something to exist, it had to have been created.

2. Matter and energy can be neither created or destroyed.

Matter/energy exist. So, it had to have been created. (Premise 1). But if matter/energy had to have been created, then that constitutes a denial of Premise 2.

A fallacy of contradictory premises isn’t always readily apparent. Here, upon any reasonable consideration, it is readily apparent however.

What a total moron!

 

[Orangecat]

Then what is God's address and or phone number?

1 Heaven Place, Cloud City, Heaven, 11111.
God doesn't have a phone. He still uses a pager.