No, but you saying that a belief in God is invalid because it is invalid is an example of a tautology, and you keep repeating it. Imbecile.
But that's not what I said. Is this another strawman, or could this just be yet another example of you
believing you're right, just because you believe you're right?
No, when you state that the concept of God is invalid because the logic is invalid is circular.
I never said the concept of god was invalid, Sis. You're lying again.
[EDIT: It appears that I got caught using
your term (concept) in my response to you. In doing so, I misspoke. Apologies. The "lie" accusation is hereby retracted.
The "concept" of god(s) is clearly not invalid. The assertions of their verifiable and logically valid existence however, remains invalid until such validity is produced.]
God as am abstract concept can only be valid or invalid logically as there is no other way to invalidate the concept of God.
I never said the concept of god was invalid.
So your statement simplifies down to 'the concept of God is invalid because the concept of God is invalid.'
No. It doesn't. Your strawman has failed.
You know this but you still bloviate to infinity with your lies, and hypocrital posturing as though the Truth matters to you and you just want to discuss the topic. Total bullshit. You are a troll and a poseur and the lowest form of human being.
Yet despite having EVERY OPPORTUNITY to demonstrate I've lied, you fail to do so. It's just hilarious, to watch you struggle with your lack of intellectual integrity.
Providing a list of fallacies is not a rebutal, dumbfuck. You also have to show *why* the referenced argument falls into those fallacies.
But since you are a moron and a fraud you have no trouble with your miniscule conscience when you throw this shit up to see what sticks.
All right Pumpkin, I'll hold your chubby little hand.
"First cause." Special-Pleading Appeal to Ignorance. If Aquinas and Aristotle can claim that this "Creator" of theirs does not require a first cause, I can claim the same for the universe without having to fabricate a universe from my imagination.
"God(s)." Question-Begging Appeal to Ignorance. When Aquinas and Aristotle imbue their first-cause with creativity to claim all of "creation" is evidence of a creator; that the grand majesty of the universe must necessarily be created by some greater majesty, they are just putting their conclusion ("creator") in premises ("creation" "created").
If you had ever shown how one of your claimed fallacies apply you would have a point. But since all you have done is link to their definition, you demonstrate and refute nothing. Well, you do demonstrate that you are a lying idiot, but other than that nothing.
Looks like you just got refuted again.
I pointed out the rationality of the concept of God by illustrating how Greek philosophers came to a belief in an Eternal Creator despite no appeal to a revalation or religious authority, in fact, they disagreeed with the religious authorities of their day.
So, again, you lie.
Oh? Your appeal to authorities who didn't appeal to authority. Gotcha.
This whole thread where you claim I have made no assertion supported by any evidence when the OP does exactly that.
No. I said:
Despite EVERY OPPORTUNITY to demonstrate this belief of yours is no superstition, you have failed to do so. Hence, you're still a liar.
You have in no way produced evidence that the reality of god(s) is in any way rational because Socrates said so, Aristotle said so, or Aquinas said so. You're just saying it's rational because you believe it to be so, and nothing else.
I might go to hell, but I doubt it would bother me that much. Gehena is a punishment not so much because of the possibly allegorical fires, but because it is full of assholes like you.
You'll regret saying that, because I'm bringing the beer.
Nope.
You are a disgrace to the human species...a ******* fraud, liar, hypocrit and probably a gerbil molester.
You have clearly been thoroughly beaten, Sis. Put on a fresh diaper, and take a nap.
Nite, nite, Pumpkin.
Beaten? lolol, I dont care if I am beaten. I have lost many arguements in my life, but guess what, ass hat?
This is another one? Pretty good guess, right?
They benefited me when I lost them because they provoked me to dig deeper and think more on what I had once thought true. Sometimes I remained with my original opinion, sometimes I changed my mind, but it was never about me 'beating' the other guy. It was about me learning and growing as a person.
It was probably an accident, but this is the only sensible thing you've posted in this thread so far. You should keep doing more of it rather than the other shit you're posting.
I know you cant grasp that notion, as it would require you to shed some of your galactic ego first, lol.
Your statement about beating me in this thread is about as strong a proof that you are all ego -driven bullshit rhetorical nonsense here and nothing more.
The one with an ego problem is you, who keeps asserting your unsubstantiated opinions and judgments about me as fact of reality--to be accepted as fact of reality just because you say it is so.
Your pretense at being honest, trying to exchange thoughts, searching for Truth, these things that are normal part of useful discussion is no more than an act on your part. You just gave yourself away, *****.
ROFLMAO
Really? Despite every opportunity you've had to demonstrate the validity of your accusation, you fail to do so; and you have substantiated every accusation regarding your dishonesty in the process. How's that working out for you, Sis?
