Arguments for God's Existence

[leroy]

[
If you are too thick to read, then you shouldn't be engaging with people who write their ideas down. If you want to be taken seriously, read what people write. Perhaps then you might garner a glimmer of a clue. Protip - try pages 4-20

quote a single argument related to the KCA that was ignored

 

[Deleted member 619]

That is because you in your mind have a different understanding of the meaning of the words cause, uncaused, nothing etc.



I agree using your straw man understanding of the term cause, WLC don't justified his premise.

This is complete and total bollocks. The only one here with strawman understanding is you.

Kraig is entirely unambiguous about what he means when he talks about cause, not least because he's had some formal education in philosophy, and is employing notions of cause handed down to us from Aristotle, and which come in four distinct flavours, namely efficient, material, proximate and final, none of which have anything whatsoever to do with 'from nothing'.

Indeed, in the case of the two premises of the Kalam fallacy, he actually flips between ex nihilo and ex materia. Kraig has written millions of words on this subject, and in none of them does his usage reflect yours.

You're just making shit up and hoping nobody will notice. Unfortunately, some of us have also done some study of philosophy.

You're lying again.

 

[Sparhafoc]

the main reason I know that you didn't read the article is not because it is unlikely to find someone that can read so many word s and answer with a reply in 12 minutes

Ahh the good old reset, go back to a previous Russian Doll where you discount my argument based on some arbitrary rule set you just made up... and you expect everyone here - everyone you are routinely hostile and shitty towards - to buy into that fatuous effluence?

Just who do you think you're kidding?

the main reason I know that you didn't read it is because your you reply had absolutely nothing to do with the KCA

Aside from defeating it - or at least your ability to support the KCA.


You are incapable of holding an honest discussion.

 

[Sparhafoc]

even if every single word where true, that wouldn't do anything to refute the idea that the universe had a cause. None of your original objections have anything to do on whether if the universe had a cause or not

As I've patently and patiently explained to you dozens of times. I do not need to 'refute' anything. All I need to do is show that a premise is flawed, and then it is up to the claimant to defend against the null hypothesis by substantiating any perceived flaw.

If you are incapable of doing this, then the simple fact is that you do not understand how logic works, and as such, the notion that you are forwarding a logical argument is terminally undermined.

As such, all of the criticism made about you, your understanding, and what could be laughably termed your arguments, by several members here repeatedly indicates that you possess a delusional sense of self worth, and you cannot bear it that we don't genuflect to your inanities.

Stroll on. This is going to go on just as long as you need it to.

 

[Sparhafoc]

b) and I don't know, I wont tell you what evidence would convince me that the premises are credible,I will offer no justification for my skepticism, and I will reject by default any premise that doesn't define the words according to my own personal preferences

"a" represents SC and "b" represents you.

The rest are your typical LIES where you ignore thousands of words written by me which you simply dismissed at the time, and so consequently believe you can pretend don't exist now. You are a liar, LEROY.

How very LEROY. 25 pages to finally get LEROY to admit he was talking out of his arse, but rather than hold up his hand and admit his repeated ad nauseum error, LEROY simply manufactures another LIE to get people chasing their tails.

If you are too thick to read, then you shouldn't be engaging with people who write their ideas down. If you want to be taken seriously, read what people write. Perhaps then you might garner a glimmer of a clue. Protip - try pages 4-20

quote a single argument related to the KCA that was ignored

It shows what a joker you are that you were so intent on manufacturing technicalities for 10 pages of effluent that you conveniently ignored all the numerous posts substantiating my criticism of your claim each time you tried to wriggle out of it.

And here you are 25 pages later claiming that I never substantiated my position. How very convenient for you, LEROY. Almost as if you'd planned it.

What you will do is go back through the pages where you were shitting on the table of discourse and find where I have written directly to you with the answer to the questions you are only now bothering to raise.

You are obliged to do the minimal part in this conversation, namely reading what is written. Can't do that? You lose far more than a debate with a stranger on the internet.

 

[leroy]

That is because you in your mind have a different understanding of the meaning of the words cause, uncaused, nothing etc.



I agree using your straw man understanding of the term cause, WLC don't justified his premise.

This is complete and total bollocks. The only one here with strawman understanding is you.

Kraig is entirely unambiguous about what he means when he talks about cause, not least because he's had some formal education in philosophy, and is employing notions of cause handed down to us from Aristotle, and which come in four distinct flavours, namely efficient, material, proximate and final, none of which have anything whatsoever to do with 'from nothing'.

Indeed, in the case of the two premises of the Kalam fallacy, he actually flips between ex nihilo and ex materia. Kraig has written millions of words on this subject, and in none of them does his usage reflect yours.

You're just making shit up and hoping nobody will notice. Unfortunately, some of us have also done some study of philosophy.

You're lying again.

nope.....



with "uncaused" WLC means from nothing (so do I)

for the whole universe to come into being without a cause is to come into being from nothing

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/popular-articles-the-kalam-cosmological-argument#ixzz4pNUGo4Cy

And with "nothing" it is meant this

something that is nonexistent.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/nothing?s=t



BTW, if you what to get in to detail, both in the conclusion and in premise 1, he is talking about efficient causes, he is not flipping definitions.

I

n formulating the kalam cosmological argument, I intended to speak of what Aristotle called efficient causes. Aristotle distinguished between efficient causes and material causes. An efficient cause is what brings an effect into being, what produces an effect in existence

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/media/objections-so-bad-i-couldnt-have-made-them-up#ixzz4pNX7iN8f

now whether if I am using the most obvious and common definitions for these terms is a minor detail, the relevant thing is that YOU and Sparhafoc have a different understanding on what this words are.


so any criticism by definition is based on a straw man.

 

[leroy]

b) and I don't know, I wont tell you what evidence would convince me that the premises are credible,I will offer no justification for my skepticism, and I will reject by default any premise that doesn't define the words according to my own personal preferences

"a" represents SC and "b" represents you.

The rest are your typical LIES where you ignore thousands of words written by me which you simply dismissed at the time, and so consequently believe you can pretend don't exist now. You are a liar, LEROY.

How very LEROY. 25 pages to finally get LEROY to admit he was talking out of his arse, but rather than hold up his hand and admit his repeated ad nauseum error, LEROY simply manufactures another LIE to get people chasing their tails.

If you are too thick to read, then you shouldn't be engaging with people who write their ideas down. If you want to be taken seriously, read what people write. Perhaps then you might garner a glimmer of a clue. Protip - try pages 4-20

quote a single argument related to the KCA that was ignored

It shows what a joker you are that you were so intent on manufacturing technicalities for 10 pages of effluent that you conveniently ignored all the numerous posts substantiating my criticism of your claim each time you tried to wriggle out of it.

And here you are 25 pages later claiming that I never substantiated my position. How very convenient for you, LEROY. Almost as if you'd planned it.

What you will do is go back through the pages where you were shitting on the table of discourse and find where I have written directly to you with the answer to the questions you are only now bothering to raise.

You are obliged to do the minimal part in this conversation, namely reading what is written. Can't do that? You lose far more than a debate with a stranger on the internet.

I see, so you are unable to quote a single example

 

[MarsCydonia]

I see, so you are unable to quote a single example

I see Leroy is up to his old tactic: "Ignore pages and pages of criticism then ask "What have I ignored"?" to have us repeat pages and pages of things Leroy ran from. Well, I did not count all of the criticism Leroy has run from but if I had to ballpark a number it would be... All of them.

I can name several:
#1 Leroy never answered how, since he demands we accept his "Leroy's inductive logic", is sound especially when he blatantly applies it abritrarily as demonstrated
#2 Leroy never addressed how he conflates "caused from nothing" and "causeless"
#3 Leroy ran from demonstrating nothing (1'), using "Leroy's inductive logic", he should reject nothing (1') without a "good reason" which he has yet to provide.

And there are examples #4, #5, #6, etc. because Leroy runs from all of them.

 

[Sparhafoc]

I see, so you are unable to quote a single example

I see you are trolling as you always do.

If you can't read what I've already written - it's you who looks the complete fucking eejit, especially in a thread where you've repeatedly misrepresented what I've written. Shows the mettle of the man hiding behind the LEROY.

 

[Sparhafoc]

I see Leroy is up to his old tactic: "Ignore pages and pages of criticism then ask "What have I ignored"?" to have us repeat pages and pages of things Leroy ran from. Well, I did not count all of the criticism Leroy has run from but if I had to ballpark a number it would be... All of them..

It's not just that - it's that LEROY hasn't even got the balls to openly claim that I didn't support my position - all he can do is weasel his way through a sentence implying I didn't so he can get other people to jump at his command, chasing their tails, and hopefully forgetting that LEROY's supine, with his bare arse red raw from the serial spanking his idiocy provokes.

As it stands, I can safely say that LEROY is, yet again, LYING through his teeth because that's the only way he can interact here - by bullshitting.

He's made it perfectly clear to all reading that the mental gymnastics of the last 25 pages was really an extended obfuscation so he can pretend his silly half-baked regurgitation of apologetic dreck didn't get spanked..


Page 1, prediction confirmed:

Again, LEROY, the thing getting in the way of discussion with you is the vast, bloated, pus-ridden hubris which infects all your interactions here.

All of this song and dance is about LEROY being repeatedly unable to acknowledge his errors. LEROY mistakes himself for the god he supposedly worships.

 

[leroy]

I see, so you are unable to quote a single example

I see you are trolling as you always do.

If you can't read what I've already written - it's you who looks the complete fucking eejit, especially in a thread where you've repeatedly misrepresented what I've written. Shows the mettle of the man hiding behind the LEROY.

If I have ignored any relevant point and you what me to address it, please quote it.

 

[leroy]

I see, so you are unable to quote a single example

I see Leroy is up to his old tactic: "Ignore pages and pages of criticism then ask "What have I ignored"?" to have us repeat pages and pages of things Leroy ran from. Well, I did not count all of the criticism Leroy has run from but if I had to ballpark a number it would be... All of them.

I can name several:
#1 Leroy never answered how, since he demands we accept his "Leroy's inductive logic", is sound especially when he blatantly applies it abritrarily as demonstrated
#2 Leroy never addressed how he conflates "caused from nothing" and "causeless"
#3 Leroy ran from demonstrating nothing (1'), using "Leroy's inductive logic", he should reject nothing (1') without a "good reason" which he has yet to provide.

And there are examples #4, #5, #6, etc. because Leroy runs from all of them.

1 yes I did comment on it, and I explained why isn't an arbitrary exception, besides it is irrelevant, no matter how I answer to that, none of the answers that I could make would refute nor support the idea that the universe has a cause.

2 I am using "caused from nothing" and "causeless" interchangeably,

3 yes I did provided 3 reasons as for why the idea of "nothing" producing "something" is absurd, or at least implausible.


1,3 where not ignored, you may or may not like my answers, but I didn't ignore that

2 is just a semantic game, I made very clear what I mean by those terms,

 

[MarsCydonia]

Oh Leroy, his dihonest derpity is always so entertaining :lol:

1 yes I did comment on it, and I explained why isn't an arbitrary exception, besides it is irrelevant, no matter how I answer to that, none of the answers that I could make would refute nor support the idea that the universe has a cause.

A. Comment and answer are two different things.
B. Leroy has not explained why it isn't an arbitrary exception. Asserting something as fact and explaining it soundly are two different things.
C. Oh the old "It's irrelevant excuse" to run away... But Leroy's wrong. If Leroy could demonstrate that "Leroy's inductive logic" is sound and not completely shit, it would support that the conclusion he "reached" is sound rather than "Because Leroy derpily wants it to be true".

2 I am using "caused from nothing" and "causeless" interchangeably,

And has Leroy ran from repeatedly, that notion is completely shit. I guess Leroy expects me to repeat myself here?
"The idea that god was caused from nothing is absurd, or at least implausible" since causeless and caused from nothing is interchangeable :lol:

Leroy may use them interchangeably but they're not. If they were, Leroy should at least resolve the issue above to demontrate they are.

3 yes I did provided 3 reasons as for why the idea of "nothing" producing "something" is absurd, or at least implausible.

Completely irrelevant to the point. Try reading it again.

1,3 where not ignored, you may or may not like my answers, but I didn't ignore that

2 is just a semantic game, I made very clear what I mean by those terms,

So Leroy ran from 1 and 3 again and tried to old "it's just a semantic game" excuse with 2 but as we can see, when words can mean whatever, problems Leroy will need to run from arise :lol:

And since Leroy likes to play / complain about semantics, "ignored" is used in the sense of "did not legitimately answer" rather than "commented on"

 

[leroy]

Oh

A. Comment and answer are two different things.
B. Leroy has not explained why it isn't an arbitrary exception. Asserting something as fact and explaining it soundly are two different things.
C. Oh the old "It's irrelevant excuse" to run away... But Leroy's wrong. If Leroy could demonstrate that "Leroy's inductive logic" is sound and not completely shit, it would support that the conclusion he "reached" is sound rather than "Because Leroy derpily wants it to be true".

:

A) however the fact that I commented proves that I didn't ignore it, therefore your original accusation is false, regardless if I answered to your satisfaction or not

B) It is not an arbitrary exception, the reason I am excluding God from the principle of causation is because I don't believe that God came in to existence. (he has always existed) and as I said before, if you what to know how would I justify that assertion open a new thread because any answer and any discussion that we might have on that would be irrelevant to the KCA

C) Yes it is truly irrelevant, even if you show that I failed to justify my exception, that would have nothing to do with whether if the universe had a cause or not.

And has Leroy ran from repeatedly, that notion is completely shit. I guess Leroy expects me to repeat myself here?
"The idea that god was caused from nothing is absurd, or at least implausible" since causeless and caused from nothing is interchangeable

granted that would be absurd, that is why I am not arguing that God came form nothing.

Completely irrelevant to the point. Try reading it again.

well then I have no idea what you meant.


....

but the main point is that these comments where not ignored, it is just that I failed o answer to your satisfaction, so please ether show an argument that I have ignored or apologize for your false accusation.

 

[MarsCydonia]

And Leroy derpily strikes again! :lol:

A) however the fact that I commented proves that I didn't ignore it, therefore your original accusation is false, regardless if I answered to your satisfaction or not

I think I can speak for anyone over an I.Q. of 3 here when I point out to Leroy, again, that there is a difference between commenting a criticism and answering a criticism.

Why does Leroy play these semantic games?
And since Leroy likes to play / complain about semantics, "ignored" is used in the sense of "did not legitimately answer" rather than "commented on"
I clarified what I meant :lol:

It's not about if "Leroy answered to my satisfaction", it's if Leroy answered at all. And we all know that Leroy is too gutless to actually answer. He just provided us examples that we will see shortly.

B) It is not an arbitrary exception, the reason I am excluding God from the principle of causation is because I don't believe that God came in to existence. (he has always existed) and as I said before, if you what to know how would I justify that assertion open a new thread because any answer and any discussion that we might have on that would be irrelevant to the KCA

Example #1: Leroy makes an exception because he asserts this exception and proclaims "I'm not going to demonstrate the soundness of my logic about causation here! Start another thread!"
Because, as we all know, causation is irrelevant to the KCA :lol:

So here we have the first example of Leroy running away answering the criticism that "Leroy's inductive logic" isn't sound but arbitrary.

C) Yes it is truly irrelevant, even if you show that I failed to justify my exception, that would have nothing to do with whether if the universe had a cause or not.

Example #2: so let's recap the history at this point:
- Leroy proclaims that his logic is irrelevant to how he came to conclusion that the universe has a cause.
- Hence the criticism that it isn't irrelevant, to justify the universe has a cause, you need to demonstrate that this conclusion was soundly reached.
- Leroy repeats his proclamation his logic is irrelevant to how he came to conclusion that the universe has a cause, completely ignoring the criticism.

You have to wonder why Keroy kept using "Leroy's inductive logic" as support for the premises, it's irrelevant :lol:

Example #2 but this one may be isn't Leroy running away from the criticism has Leroy being too dumb to grasp the relevance.
I wish Leroy could clarify here: is it cowardice or is it stupidity?

So hopefully, Leroy gets it now but if we apply "Leroy's inductive logic", since every observations and experiments show that Leroy is too dumb to get it, it is reasonable/probable/necessarily true that Leroy will not get it:
It isn't about if the universe had a cause or not, it's about if Leroy can demonstrate the premises of the KCA to be true. "Leroy's shitty inductive logic" isn't cutting it.

And has Leroy ran from repeatedly, that notion is completely shit. I guess Leroy expects me to repeat myself here?
"The idea that god was caused from nothing is absurd, or at least implausible" since causeless and caused from nothing is interchangeable

granted that would be absurd, that is why I am not arguing that God came form nothing.

:lol:
Too bad Leroy didn't get it right away. So if god being "caused from nothing" is absurd, then god must have been caused by something.

Or is there another possibility? (Let's see if Leroy gets it now...)

Completely irrelevant to the point. Try reading it again.

well then I have no idea what you meant.

[sarcasm]I'm shocked.[/sarcasm]Try researching the Kalam cosmological argument and come back once you understand it.

Wait, what am I saying. If it didn't happen 32 pages in, it won't happen in the next 32 pages either.

So let's see if I can dumb this down yet another time for Leroy.

Let's see if I can dumb down William Lane Craig for Leroy, a lot down :lol:
"Before god created the universe at the big bang, there was literally nothing, no space, no time, nothing (1')". Is that dumbed down enough for you Leroy?

Demonstrate there ever was such a state of nothing (1')

Well, I pretty much just copy-pasted something I previously wrote.

but the main point is that these comments where not ignored, it is just that I failed o answer to your satisfaction, so please ether show an argument that I have ignored or apologize for your false accusation.

But the main point that Leroy again failed to understand isn't that he ignored the comments, its that he ignored answering the criticism within. That is Leroy's M.O.: Repeat the bullshit assertion that was critiqued in guise of actually answering the criticism.

So there is no false accusation here. As I've previously explained to Leroy, if being called a dishonest cowardly moron hurts his feelings, then he can stop being dishonest and cowardly (I doubt he can do much about being a moron :lol

32 pages in and Leroy will still not realize that he completely failed to make a case for the KCA. Dozens of pages more of derpity to come.

 

[IBSpify]

I couldn't be bothered to slog through all 32 pages of this tripe, but I've always disliked the KCA because it doesn't even argue their position, to my understanding Leroy i arguing for the Christian god, but even if we grant every single aspect of the KCA he still doesn't get there, not even close, we could just as well use the KCA to conclude Cthulu

 

[Sparhafoc]

If I have ignored any relevant point and you what me to address it, please quote it.

Go back and read, troll.

I will not do your legwork for you, obvious troll.

Can't be arsed to look, transparent troll?

Fine, you are wrong.

Next time, try reading what people write in this written discussion forum instead of knee-jerking and emoting your way past all those words.

 

[Sparhafoc]

http://leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?p=181397#p181397

Go on LEROY - assert in a single post, with no clutter and misdirection, that I presented ZERO justification for taking position C.

GO ON. WRITE IT DOWN so I can show you a liar again.

I won't just show you a liar - I will show how you repeatedly ignored my position, constantly telling me what I was allowed to say rather than addressing what I did say.

You rely on people to not be bothered to go back through the morass you created to show you are talking out of your arse... but you still stupidly don't get the fact that I will go back and cite posts showing your bullshit, and I will take great pleasure in doing it because people like you are not interested in honest discourse and consequently deserve to be shown up.

LEROY the gutless wonder.

Jelly nailed to the brick partition.

 

[Sparhafoc]

1 yes I did comment on it, and I explained why isn't an arbitrary exception, besides it is irrelevant, no matter how I answer to that, none of the answers that I could make would refute nor support the idea that the universe has a cause.

Thanks for playing - that's what we said.

Secondly, not an arbitrary exception at all which is why you repeatedly refuse to answer questions that would establish even to your paucity of comprehension the fact that the forces INSIDE the universe are not the forces OUTSIDE the universe. Can't grasp that? It's your problem, your lack of comprehension. Learn from those with superior understanding to you.

2 I am using "caused from nothing" and "causeless" interchangeably,

In English we have two words there. That should give you a clue about the actual use of terminology.

Regardless, people already educated you about this 20+ pages ago, whereupon you suddenly changed direction mid-argument and opted for a rigorous definition that no one agrees to.

No one cares if you mean ex nihilio, because causeless actually is sine causa - if the latter is inconvenient for your argument: tough titties - get a better argument.

3 yes I did provided 3 reasons as for why the idea of "nothing" producing "something" is absurd, or at least implausible.

No, you didn't. Firstly, the ex nihilio element is a strawman. My position is neither A nor B - yet you keep trying to pretend my argument is B because you have some precanned responses to B. Secondly, you have already been shown wrong. Thirdly, you are wiggling - trying to retrofit semantics into your previous arguments where such definitions were clearly lacking.

If you were a person who had exhibited honesty and was an upstanding and caring member of this community - there's no doubt that people would allow you yo revise your previous arguments in light of what you know now.

But given your routine shitty, lying, troll behavior, ain't no one going to let you wiggle out of your errors.

We're going to do this for the next 25 pages, LEROY.

And the next 25 pages.

And the next 25 pages... and so on and so on.... just as long as you need it to continue, LEROY.


1,3 where not ignored, you may or may not like my answers, but I didn't ignore that

2 is just a semantic game, I made very clear what I mean by those terms,[/quote]

 

[Sparhafoc]

But the main point that Leroy again failed to understand isn't that he ignored the comments, its that he ignored answering the criticism within. That is Leroy's M.O.: Repeat the bullshit assertion that was critiqued in guise of actually answering the criticism.

So there is no false accusation here. As I've previously explained to Leroy, if being called a dishonest cowardly moron hurts his feelings, then he can stop being dishonest and cowardly (I doubt he can do much about being a moron :lol

32 pages in and Leroy will still not realize that he completely failed to make a case for the KCA. Dozens of pages more of derpity to come.

Yep. The merry-go-round continues, powered by arguments from ignorance and poverty of comprehension.