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

[BackAgain]

Indont

Notice the circular fallacy.

Assuming an eternal God creator as a first premise...

...to argue for an eternal god creator.


Truly embarrassing pap.

I do not generally agree with Fort Fun. But when he’s right, he’s right.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

College sophomores often study this pile of garbage argument whe learning what "infinite regression" is.

It's a good, primitive, simplistic example of this type of crap argument for them to cut their teeth on.

 

[Ringtone]

Indont

I do not generally agree with Fort Fun. But when he’s right, he’s right.

LOL! I'm surrounded by morons.

The cosmological argument does not presuppose God's existence, you drooling tards'.

The foundational premise is that something exists rather than noting.

So you're finally conceding that the First Law of Thermodynamics does not and cannot prohibit God the Creator from creating or destroying matter/energy?

Without a lot of double speak, see if you can answer that simple question with a yes or no.

Thanks.

 

[Ringtone]

College sophomores often study this pile of garbage argument whe learning what "infinite regression" is.

It's a good, primitive, simplistic example of this type of crap argument for them to cut their teeth on.

First of all, you silly ass, the term is an infinite regress.

Question: An infinite regress of what?
Answer: An infinite regress of causality/temporality.
Question: Why is an infinite regress of causality/temporality an absurdity?
Answer: Because such a thing could never be traversed to the present.

You're stupidly implying that an infinite regress of causality/temporality can be traversed to the present?

Please explain away the primitive and incontrovertible logical imperative that refutes your dumbass.

Wait! Let me grab some popcorn.

 

[Ringtone]

143

Post #152.

 

[Blues Man]

The mystical nonsense would be yours, nature worrier, apparently, if you believe that everything that exists had to have a cause for its existence.

How exactly would that work, dummy? Are you saying that nonexistence caused existence?! Are you a 'tard?

So you think that cause is some all knowing all powerful god that loves us all unconditionally?

Unlike you I don't see the need to make up stories to explain what we don't know.

How are you any different from a prehistoric man who prayed to thunder gods because he didn't know what thunder was and it scared the shit out of him?

 

[BackAgain]

LOL! I'm surrounded by morons.

The cosmological argument does not presuppose God's existence, you drooling tards'.

The foundational premise is that something exists rather than noting.

So you're finally conceding that the First Law of Thermodynamics does not and cannot prohibit God the Creator from creating or destroying matter/energy?

Without a lot of double speak, see if you can answer that simple question with a yes or no.

Thanks.

143

 

[BackAgain]

Post #152.

143

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

the term is an infinite regress.

I am aware. I was once one of the college sophomores laughing at the absurdity of your argument and getting a good grade in philosophy class for correctly dissecting the steaming pile of s***. Your typo fetish in no way makes up for your idiotic and childish attempt to pass off an argument that gets laughed out of a sophomore philosophy class.

Good luck with your tired cheap parlor trick. Maybe you will get lucky and find a child or a very uneducated person to fool.

 

[Ringtone]

So you think that cause is some all knowing all powerful god that loves us all unconditionally?

Unlike you I don't see the need to make up stories to explain what we don't know.

How are you any different from a prehistoric man who prayed to thunder gods because he didn't know what thunder was and it scared the shit out of him?

Unlike you I stick to the facts of the pertinent logical imperatives, while you witlessly spout absurdities like all things must have a cause as if it were the theist asserting your stupidity.

Moreover, you're the nature worrier, the magic whisperer. Nature did it! LMAO! Atheists are such silly asses.

 

[Ringtone]

143

So you're finally conceding that the First Law of Thermodynamics does not and cannot prohibit God the Creator from creating or destroying matter/energy?

Without a lot of double speak, see if you can answer that simple question with a yes or no.

Thanks.

 

[BackAgain]

So you're finally conceding that the First Law of Thermodynamics does not and cannot prohibit God the Creator from creating or destroying matter/energy?

Without a lot of double speak, see if you can answer that simple question with a yes or no.

Thanks.

143

 

[Ringtone]

143

So you're finally conceding that the First Law of Thermodynamics does not and cannot prohibit God the Creator from creating or destroying matter/energy?

A simple yes or no will due.

Thanks.

 

[BackAgain]

So you're finally conceding that the First Law of Thermodynamics does not and cannot prohibit God the Creator from creating or destroying matter/energy?

A simple yes or no will due.

Thanks.

143

 

[Ringtone]

143

So you're finally conceding that the First Law of Thermodynamics does not and cannot prohibit God the Creator from creating or destroying matter/energy?

A simple yes or no will due.

Thanks.

 

[Blues Man]

Unlike you I stick to the facts of the pertinent logical imperatives, while you witlessly spout absurdities like all things must have a cause as if it were the theist asserting your stupidity.

Moreover, you're the nature worrier, the magic whisperer. Nature did it! LMAO! Atheists are such silly asses.

I'm not a "worrier"

If you're going to impugn another person's intelligence you might want to proofread your posts so you don't look like an IDIOT.

FYI The word you wanted was warrior

And I'm not an atheist. This is you making stupid assumptions.

 

[BackAgain]

So you're finally conceding that the First Law of Thermodynamics does not and cannot prohibit God the Creator from creating or destroying matter/energy?

A simple yes or no will due.

Thanks.

143

 

[Ringtone]

I'm not a "worrier"

If you're going to impugn another person's intelligence you might want to proofread your posts so you don't look like an IDIOT.

FYI The word you wanted was warrior

And I'm not an atheist. This is you making stupid assumptions.

LOL!

The word I wanted is "worrier," not "warrior." Why would I call you a nature warrior? There would be nothing humorous or ironic about that.

If you're going to impugn another's intelligence, you might want to learn how to spell simple words like worrier and think first so you don't look like and IDIOT.

FYI: Atheists routinely call theists gawd worriers. I call atheists nature worriers. Get it now?

This is you making stupid assumptions when worrier is a word.

On the other hand, you say you're not an atheist. Yet you spout the same stupid shit that atheists routinely spout as you fail, apparently, to grasp the fact that the stupid shit you're spouting is a projection of what the atheist stupidly asserts, not the theist!

All things must have a cause for their existence?! What the beep!

I don't have to impugn the typical atheist or agnostic's intelligence. Agnostics and especially atheists are notoriously bad thinkers. They impugn their own intelligence. I just point out what flies right over their heads.

 

[Ringtone]

143

So you're finally conceding that the First Law of Thermodynamics does not and cannot prohibit God the Creator from creating or destroying matter/energy?

A simple yes or no will due.

Thanks.

 

[Blues Man]

LOL!

The word I wanted is "worrier," not "warrior." Why would I call you a nature warrior? There would be nothing humorous or ironic about that.

If you're going to impugn another's intelligence, you might want to learn how to spell simple words like worrier and think first so you don't look like and IDIOT.

FYI: Atheists routinely call theists gawd worriers. I call atheists nature worriers. Get it now?

This is you making stupid assumptions when worrier is a word.

On the other hand, you say you're not an atheist. Yet you spout the same stupid shit that atheists routinely spout as you fail, apparently, to grasp the fact that the stupid shit you're spouting is a projection of what the atheist stupidly asserts, not the theist!

All things must have a cause for their existence?! What the beep!

I don't have to impugn the typical atheist or agnostic's intelligence. Agnostics and especially atheists are notoriously bad thinkers. They impugn their own intelligence. I just point out what flies right over their heads.

I don't worry about nature so once again we see just how wrong you are in your assumptions.

What you don't seem to understand is that a random event can also be a cause

And wtf does it matter if gods exist or not? IF some supreme being created everything how does that change you life?

And IF that supreme being exists why is there any reason to worship it?

The fact is that it doesn't matter of gods exist or not