A question for believers, is God a gas?

[SnailyBoy]

Nope, still looks like you are finding this whole thing beyond your comprehension.

 

I think it may be time to draw a line as you will only go way off and dig yourself a bigger hole.

 

Nah, your argument is straight out of the presuppositional apologetics handbook.

 

Come back when the universe creating pixies have given you the ability to reason.

[Baz1]

Nah, your argument is straight out of the presuppositional apologetics handbook.

 

Come back when the universe creating pixies have given you the ability to reason.

 

I think most ppl reading to date will have worked out your modus operandi.

 

So really, I do not need to prove anything to you.

 

You have not accounted for your rational/reasoning faculties and ask me?

 

I already stated, under theism, I can account for this- you cannot under atheism.

 

You simply have failed to understand a lot of what I have been trying to say- the only thing you answered correct was the adding part (answer 3).

 

You try to hold this banner of science, but fail to understand the philosophy of science.

 

You have struggled to make differentiations.

 

So what I take from this, is simply you know very little of what you try to come over and prove to others.

Edited March 3, 2018 by Baz1

[SnailyBoy]

I think most ppl reading to date will have worked out your modus operandi.

 

So really, I do not need to prove anything to you.

 

You have not accounted for your rational/reasoning faculties and ask me?

 

I already stated, under theism, I can account for this- you cannot under atheism.

 

Yes, because you presuppose the existence of God.

[Baz1]

Yes, because you presuppose the existence of God.

 

No, another failure.

 

You really have no understanding do you.

 

I think this is where I depart- you have not done yourself any justice other than prove the irrationality of atheism- and I barely scratched the surface.

[Robin-H]

No, another failure.

 

You really have no understanding do you.

 

I think this is where I depart- you have not done yourself any justice other than prove the irrationality of atheism- and I barely scratched the surface.

 

Quite the contrary. It is those that are claiming that theism is rational that are making themselves look foolish.

[SnailyBoy]

No, another failure.

 

You really have no understanding do you.

 

I think this is where I depart- you have not done yourself any justice other than prove the irrationality of atheism- and I barely scratched the surface.

 

I understand totally.

 

This is your argument.

 

Premise 1 - God exists

 

Premise 2 - see premise 1

[Guest makapaka]

I understand totally.

 

This is your argument.

 

Premise 1 - God exists

 

Premise 2 - see premise 1

 

No it’s not - they’ve made plenty of valid points - as have I - which you ignore and then pose a question in response.

 

You display the arrogant trait that assumes our brains are capable of understanding the extent of the universe via formulae that our brains have devised.

[SnailyBoy]

No it’s not - they’ve made plenty of valid points - as have I - which you ignore and then pose a question in response.

 

You display the arrogant trait that assumes our brains are capable of understanding the extent of the universe via formulae that our brains have devised.

 

It's simple presupp apologetics.Look it up.

 

2nd point, Where have I assumed that?

[Guest makapaka]

It's simple presupp apologetics.Look it up.

 

2nd point, Where have I assumed that?

 

I don’t need to look it up ta.

 

You assume it by your arguments. You demand proof for what you can’t understand and state no proof is required for what you think you do.

[SnailyBoy]

I don’t need to look it up ta.

 

You assume it by your arguments. You demand proof for what you can’t understand and state no proof is required for what you think you do.

 

I'm not sure how

 

'You display the arrogant trait that assumes our brains are capable of understanding the extent of the universe via formulae that our brains have devised.'

=

'You assume it by your arguments. You demand proof for what you can’t understand and state no proof is required for what you think you do.'

 

-------------

 

Sorry, you're going to have to provide examples for that to fly.