SultanOfSurreal wrote:so are you saying god just ate some mexican food that didn't agree with him one night and shat adam and eve out the next morning
SultanOfSurreal wrote:ohhhh i get it
he jerked us off into existence, right
Wow. You are a dirty, potty-mouthed "intellectual lightweight" whose ignorance truly knows no bounds.
I was prepared for this, though, as such ignorant behavior and inability to think rationally or to debate like an adult is par for the course, for the atheist.
huh? the ancient egyptians didn't think it was vulgar
Even though SoS has utilized deep ignorance in order to defeat himself, the one and only *nearly* accurate paraphrase that he managed to post does bring up an interesting point -- that a "source" is very different from a "creator."
For example, leafy green vegetables are an excellent source of iron. However, this by no means implies that leafy green vegetables "created" iron -- two entirely different concepts. Similarly, my computer screen is my source for information from this website, but it does NOT logically follow that my computer screen "created" this website -- in fact, it did not.
Similarly, God is indeed the source for all other life, for all personal characteristics, and for all love in existence. This fact, however, makes no reference to the concept of "creation," nor does it logically follow from this fact that God "created" any of these things.
It is most interesting to note that this concept of "creation," which is obviously first and foremost in the self-proclaimed atheist's mind, is a red herring that precludes the atheist's apprehension of certain facts about God, regarding His being the factual source for all personal characteristics in existence. The fact that it is first and foremost in his mind also betrays the fact that he is, despite all his desperate and convoluted protestations to the contrary, a creationist at heart.
Regarding the atheist's inability to apprehend certain facts about God's position as the source for existence, it is impossible for any entity to be the source for any quality unless it possesses that quality itself. No food that contains no iron, for example, can possibly be a source of iron. Similarly, no entity that contains no personal characteristics, no love, and no life of its own, three qualities that the atheist believes the universe lacked at some point, could possibly be the source of such qualities in any other entity, regardless of how comparatively small or large that entity is.
The atheist believes that the universe is the source, however, and that belief is 100% illogical.
KLOBBER's Highest Score: 3642 (General)
KLOBBER's Highest place on scoreboard: #15 (fifteen) out of 20,000+ players.
KLOBBER wrote: Similarly, no entity that contains no personal characteristics, no love, and no life of its own, three qualities that the atheist believes the universe lacked at some point, could possibly be the source of such qualities in any other entity, regardless of how comparatively small or large that entity is.
KLOBBER wrote: Similarly, no entity that contains no personal characteristics, no love, and no life of its own, three qualities that the atheist believes the universe lacked at some point, could possibly be the source of such qualities in any other entity, regardless of how comparatively small or large that entity is.
yeah this is cartesian dualism
Wrong. Cartesian Dualism posits that the mind is a non-physical substance, and I not only have not posited such, but I have clearly stated the contrary.
My above-quoted statement makes no reference to the mind, to the concept of non-physicality, to dualism, or to Rene Descartes.
You are engaging in constant straw-man fallacies.
You are a Cartesian Dualist, aren't you? There would be no other reason for you to repeatedly and independently attempt to insert that philosophy into this conversation, as none of my posts have anything to do with it whatsoever.
By the way, your hero Descartes was wrong -- the mind is indeed material, but whether or not the mind is material or physical or non-material or non-physical has absolutely nothing to do with the factual points in my OP and their logical conclusion.
The whole question is just another one of your many straw-man fallacies.
To exit the muck and mire of SoS's foolish straw-man mess, simply refer to my crystal-clear OP.
Last edited by KLOBBER on Sun May 31, 2009 3:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
KLOBBER's Highest Score: 3642 (General)
KLOBBER's Highest place on scoreboard: #15 (fifteen) out of 20,000+ players.
KLOBBER wrote: Similarly, no entity that contains no personal characteristics, no love, and no life of its own, three qualities that the atheist believes the universe lacked at some point, could possibly be the source of such qualities in any other entity, regardless of how comparatively small or large that entity is.
yeah this is cartesian dualism
Wrong. Cartesian Dualism posits that the mind is a non-physical substance, and I not only have not posited such, but I have clearly stated the contrary.
My above-quoted statement makes no reference to the mind, to the concept of non-physicality, to dualism, or to Rene Descartes.
You are engaging in constant straw-man fallacies.
You are a Cartesian Dualist, aren't you? There would be no other reason for you to repeatedly and independently attempt to insert that philosophy into this conversation, as none of my posts have anything to do with it whatsoever.
In fact, Descartes was wrong -- the mind is indeed material, but whether or not the mind is material or physical or non-material or non-physical has absolutely nothing to do with the factual points in my OP and their logical conclusion.
The whole question is just another one of your many straw-man fallacies.
To exit the muck and mire of SoS's foolish straw-man mess, simply refer to my crystal-clear OP.
you are literally the dumbest human being to ever live
When faced with calm, cool, collected facts in an adult human debate, with which his opinion happens to be in disagreement, the atheist typically displays childish anger and insults, rather than attempting to offer a valid refutation.
SoS exemplifies this principle very well in this thread.
Sultan, we were so close - where did it all go wrong fella? What did you expect to happen. Remember, KLOBBER has the facts, you only have opinions, how could you hope to win? Better stick to fishsticks my son, fishsticks.
Because the atheist proved himself to be incapable of apprehending the 8 points in the previous thread, I have simplified it for him, and presented a similar set of facts, this time distilled into 2 points.
As an unbiased party, I am faced with the following two contradictory world-views:
1. The Theists understand that God is the Original Archetype, or source, for all observable phenomena, He is infinitely complete with eternal life of His own, and He possesses both personal and impersonal characteristics, as well as love, eternally. This is a logically sound account for life, for love, and for both personal and impersonal observable phenomena.
2. The atheist believes that God is not the original personal archetype. Instead, the atheist attributes this role, using varying semantic constructs, to "the universe." Unfortunately, the universe that the atheist claims supposedly gave rise to life, love, and personal characteristics was, according to the atheist, supposedly devoid of all these phenomena at some unspecified time that he theorizes is prior to the hypothetical advent of such phenomena. The atheist's claim is logically unsound when it comes to accounting for clearly observable life, clearly observable love, and clearly observable personal phenomena.
Therefore, the Theists' world-view is logically superior to that of the atheist, and any truly unbiased and logically savvy party must necessarily accept this fact. Lack of scriptural or logical refutation shows acceptance by any and all who post in this thread.
