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



## Ringtone (Apr 5, 2022)

Question:  how do we know that God necessarily exists?

Short Answer:  because the imperatives of logic, mathematics, and metaphysics tell us that God necessarily exists.  The Cosmological Argument is bullet proof.

*The Cosmological Argument*​*1.  That which begins to exist must have a cause of its existence.*​*2.  The cosmos began to exist.*​*3.  The cosmos has a cause of its existence.*​
The thoughtless fail to grasp the cogency of the Cosmological Argument because (1) they fail to grasp the fundamental imperatives of existence itself _and_ because (2) they fail to grasp the minor, necessarily attending premises linking the major premises of the argument.  To grasp the latter especially requires the thought of an open and logical mind.  While the first major premise in the above is a given, one begins by observing the fundamental ontological imperatives of being:

*1.  Something does exist rather than nothing. *​*2.  Existence cannot arise from nonexistence.  Absurdity!*​*3.  Hence, something has always existed.*​​​We can now move on to regard the minor, necessarily attending premises linking the major premises of the argument.  Happy reading.

*2. The cosmos began to exist.*​
Argument based on the impossibility of an actual infinite.​​*2.11. *An actual infinite cannot exist.​​*2.12. *An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite.​​*2.13.* Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist.​​*AND*​
Argument based on the impossibility of the formation of an actual infinite by successive addition.​​*2.21. *A collection formed by successive addition cannot be actually infinite.​​*2.22. *The temporal series of past events is a collection formed by successive addition.​​*2.23. *Therefore, the temporal series of past events cannot be actually infinite.​​(In other words, an infinite regress of causality/temporality cannot be traversed to the present.  Absurdity!)​

​*3. The cosmos has a cause of its existence. *​
*3.1.* If the cause of the universe's existence were impersonal, it would be operationally mechanical.​
*3.2.* An operationally mechanical cause would be a material existent.​​*3.3.* The causal conditions for the effect of an operationally mechanical cause would be given from eternity.​
*3.4.* But a material existent is a contingent entity of continuous change and causality!​​*3.5.* An infinite temporal series of past causal events cannot be traversed to the present.​​*3.6.* Indeed, an actual infinite cannot exist.​​*3.7.* Hence, a temporal existent cannot have a beginningless past.​​*3.8. *Hence, time began to exist.​​*3.9. *A material existent is a temporal existent.​​*3.10. *Hence, materiality began to exist.​​*3.11. *The universe is a material existent.​​*3.12. *Hence, the universe began to exist.​​*3.13. *Hence, the cause of the universe's existence cannot be material (per 3.10.).​​*3.14. *Hence, the cause of the universe's existence cannot be operationally mechanical (per 3.2., 3.10.).​​*3.15. *Hence, the eternally self-subsistent cause of the universe's existence is wholly transcendent: timeless, immaterial and immutable (3.13.).​​*3.16. *The only kind of timeless entity that could cause the beginning of time sans any external, predetermining causal conditions would be a personal agent of free will (per 3.3., 3.14.).​​*3.17. *Hence, the eternally self-subsistent cause of the universe's existence is a personal agent of free will.​


*Broadly summarized*

The eternally self-subsistent cause cannot be natural (or material), as no continuously changing entity of causality can be beginningless. The latter would entail an infinite regress of causal events, which cannot go on in the past forever. There must be a first event, before which there is no change or event.  In short, given that an infinite regress of causal events is impossible, the material realm of being cannot be the eternally self-subsistent ground of existence. The eternally self-subsistent cause cannot be abstract either. An abstract object has no causal force, and, in any event, abstractions contingently exist in minds. Hence, the uncaused cause is a wholly transcendent, unembodied mind.​
​*Distinctively summarized*

By the nature of the case, the cause of the universe cannot have a beginning of its existence nor any prior cause. Nor can there have been any changes in this cause, either in its nature or operations, prior to the beginning of the universe. It just exists changelessly without beginning, and a finite time ago it brought the universe into existence.

Now this is exceedingly odd. The cause is in some sense eternal, and yet the effect which is produced is not eternal but began to exist a finite time ago. How can this be? If the necessary and sufficient conditions for the production of the effect are eternal, then why is not the effect eternal? How can all the causal conditions sufficient for the production of the effect be changelessly existent and yet the effect not also be existent along with the cause? How can the cause exist without the effect?

We know that the first event must have been caused. The question is: How can a first event come to exist if the cause of that event exists changelessly and eternally? Why is the effect not coeternal with its cause?

*Answer:  the only way for the cause to be timeless but for its effect to begin in time is for the cause to be a personal agent who freely chooses to bring about an effect without any antecedent determining conditions. *

Philosophers call this type of causation 'agent causation,' and because the agent is free, he can initiate new effects by freely bringing about conditions that were not previously present. Thus, a Creator could have freely brought the world into being at that moment. In this way, the Creator could exist changelessly and eternally but choose to create the world in time.  By exercising his causal power, he therefore brings it about that a world with a beginning comes to exist.  So the cause is eternal, but the effect is not. In this way, then, it is possible for the temporal universe to have come to exist from an eternal cause: through the free will of a personal Creator.​


----------



## Moonglow (Apr 5, 2022)

Then what is God's address and or phone number?


----------



## Innocynioc (Apr 5, 2022)

How do you know that an infinite can not exist?


----------



## jwoodie (Apr 5, 2022)

I agree that the Big Bang Theory is a de facto recognition of a causational force of the universe.  However, I doubt that force was anthropomorphic.


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 5, 2022)

Rather than bother with Goonblow’s drooling, let me ask this:

Taking the same lines of logic set forth in the OP, wouldn’t the same apply *to* God?  If He is the Creator, then where did He come from? Logically, He couldn’t have sprung out of nothing, either.

So, we either derive an endless series of Gods who create Gods, super Gods, etc., and we can never get to the Original Creator OR we have to admit that SOMETHING or SOME BEING had to have sprung forth from nothing.

A lot flows from that premise. But I lay no claim to rigorous studies in Philosoohy. The most honest and persuasive philosophers I’ve ever heard or read seem (to me) to share one trait: they share the intellectual honesty required to *admit* that some things are just not known and may not be knowable.


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 5, 2022)

Innocynioc said:


> How do you know that an infinite can not exist?


Not _an infinity_, by which you apparently mean _infinity_, which is merely the idea of a boundlessly large, indeterminable number or amount of something.  It's a mathematical concept that only exists in minds.  Only the potentially infinite actually exists outside of minds at any given moment.


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 5, 2022)

jwoodie said:


> I agree that the Big Bang Theory is a de facto recognition of a causational force of the universe.  However, I doubt that force was anthropomorphic.


The Big Bang Theory pertains to the beginning of the prevailing universe, not necessarily to the beginning of the cosmos at large.  Your observation regarding an anthropomorphic force makes no sense to me.  I do not follow.


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 5, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> Rather than bother with Goonblow’s drooling, let me ask this:
> 
> Taking the same lines of logic set forth in the OP, wouldn’t the same apply *to* God?  If He is the Creator, then where did He come from? Logically, He couldn’t have sprung out of nothing, either.
> 
> ...


What?!  Come on, BackAgain, you're smarter than that.

You don't seem to grasp that what you're actually arguing is that existence sprung from nonexistence, That's absurd.  Something has necessarily always existed.  Logic 101.

Once again the fundamental ontological imperatives of being:

*1. Something does exist rather than nothing. 
2. Existence cannot arise from nonexistence. Absurdity!
3. Hence, something has always existed.*

From there we see from the logical imperatives of the cosmological argument that the eternal ground of existence cannot be material/physical.

Virtually all the great philosophers have held that God must be precisely because the necessity of divinity is readily within the bounds of knowledge via the imperatives of logic.


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 5, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> What?!  Come on, BackAgain, you're smarter than that.
> 
> You don't seem to grasp that what you're actually arguing is that existence sprung from nonexistence, That's absurd.  Something has necessarily always existed.  Logic 101.
> 
> ...


Think it through.

1. *Something* _does_ exist. (I would say this one is undeniable.)

2. Existence cannot arise from non-existence. (A very Questionable premise.)
_______________________________________
*∴ something has always existed???*

We have a problem, Houston. It is almost impossible to accept a syllogism which  leads to a conclusion we recognize as an error.  As a consequence, we have to go back and consider the premises. See above. Premise 1 strikes me as unassailable. The Conclusion strikes me as likely erroneous. Therefore, I am forced to consider premise 2 as being dubious. 

It seems to me that something (at least one thing) *had* to have come from nothing. Why? Because of the proposition that “nothing can pre-exist itself.”  That is, for everything, there has to be some causation. (Akin to the scientific law that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed.) Yet, that rule seems to require the exception we refer to as the very beginning. What or what got the ball rolling?

Big Bang?  That little infinitesimal point which exploded the seeds of everything into existence?  Where did *that* come from?  Either it was *created* (let’s call the Creator “God”) or it is _the_ initial thing which _didn’t_ require causation. If God, however, is the entity that created matter/energy/time/space (via His Creation of the Big Bang?), then the question remains: *who or what created God?*

I suggest that the answer to the question of the 2nd Premise is that it is necessarily true that at least one thing must have come from nothing. For, otherwise, everything that exists violates the law that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed. 

What caused God? To simply declare that God “always” existed (without having first to have been created) kind of begs the question. Why is it that God is the one believed to have always existed rather than that matter/energy and quantum probability did?


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 6, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> Think it through.
> 
> 1. *Something* _does_ exist. (I would say this one is undeniable.)
> 
> ...


*So you're saying that it's sensible to believe that nonexistence can cause existence?  *

_crickets chirping_

Are you insane?


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 6, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> You're saying that existence can arise from nonexistence?  Logically, that's the entirety of your objection.
> 
> Are you insane?


You’re claiming that something (God) can exist without ever having first come into existence. No sense you make.

So no. I’m not insane. I’m just attacking the problem from a different perspective. But,  turn it around.  

If your view is that “something” (God) can exist without having first been created then *what excludes the alternative* that it was matter/energy/space/time which exists without having first been created?


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 6, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> *You’re claiming that something (God) can exist without ever having first come into existence. No sense you make.*
> 
> So no. I’m not insane. I’m just attacking the problem from a different perspective. But,  turn it around.
> 
> If your view is that “something” (God) can exist without having first been created then *what excludes the alternative* that it was matter/energy/space/time which exists without having first been created?


The only one claiming that something must come into existence in order to exist is you, dummy.

Once again, are you insane?

*The inescapable logical imperative of ontology*
Something _does_ exist rather than nothing.
Nonexistence cannot cause existence.  Absurdity!
Hence, something has necessarily always existed, i.e., DID NOT COME INTO EXISTENCE.


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 6, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> The only one claiming that something must come into existence in order to exist is you, dummy.
> 
> Once again, are you insane?
> 
> ...


If non existence cannot cause existence, then you ARE claiming that something must have come into existence *without* causation, stupid. Are you actually so utterly simplistic that you can’t follow along?   Or maybe *you’re* just “insane.” 🙄

If *anything* can exist without causation then why does it have to be GOD? The *import* of what you’re claiming (whether you see it or just simply wish to deny it) is that since something exists (let’s call it matter/energy), then matter/energy necessarily “always” existed.  <— That however doesn’t square with the scientific proposition that matter/energy cannot be either created or destroyed.  <— That requires a conclusion that *EITHER* matter/energy’s very existence is necessarily reliant on something that created it. <— Which is a contradiction of the prior premise *OR* if matter/energy does exist, then it MUST have “always existed.”<— and that is a contradiction of the proposition that something can exist without having first been created. It doesn’t answer the question. It actually begs the question. It evades the question. It is a non-answer that purports to “be” an answer.

Forget all your frustration and name calling. They aren’t persuasive. Just answer the question. You originally claimed, in essence,  that God must logically exist.  Your syllogism was that 1. Something does exist; 2. Non existence cannot “cause” existence, and; therefore “something” must have always existed. So: why is it that you demand the conclusion that the “something” must be God? *Why exactly (according to your logic) could the conclusion not be “the ‘something’ which has always existed is matter/energy”?*


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 6, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> If non existence cannot cause existence, then you ARE claiming that something must have come into existence *without* causation, stupid. Are you actually so utterly simplistic that you can’t follow along?   Or maybe *you’re* just “insane.” 🙄
> 
> If *anything* can exist without causation then why does it have to be GOD? The *import* of what you’re claiming (whether you see it or just simply wish to deny it) is that since something exists (let’s call it matter/energy), then matter/energy necessarily “always” existed.  <— That however doesn’t square with the scientific proposition that matter/energy cannot be either created or destroyed.  <— That requires a conclusion that *EITHER* matter/energy’s very existence is necessarily reliant on something that created it. <— Which is a contradiction of the prior premise *OR* if matter/energy does exist, then it MUST have “always existed.”<— and that is a contradiction of the proposition that something can exist without having first been created. It doesn’t answer the question. It actually begs the question. It evades the question. It is a non-answer that purports to “be” an answer.
> 
> Forget all your frustration and name calling. They aren’t persuasive. Just answer the question. You originally claimed, in essence,  that God must logically exist.  Your syllogism was that 1. Something does exist; 2. Non existence cannot “cause” existence, and; therefore “something” must have always existed. So: why is it that you demand the conclusion that the “something” must be God? *Why exactly (according to your logic) could the conclusion not be “the ‘something’ which has always existed is matter/energy”?*


Wrong again.

There is no imperative, scientific or otherwise, that matter/energy cannot come into existence.  Rather, there is no material/physical mechanism by which existing matter/energy could be destroyed, or by which new matter/energy could be created.


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 6, 2022)

jwoodie said:


> I agree that the Big Bang Theory is a de facto recognition of a causational force of the universe.  However, I doubt that force was anthropomorphic.


Perhaps you would explain what you mean by an anthropomorphic force.


----------



## jwoodie (Apr 6, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> Your observation regarding an anthropomorphic force makes no sense to me. I do not follow.


Sorry for the inductive leap.  My conclusion is that the Creator could not have been a human because it created humans, not vice versa.  If the universe(s) was created along an infinite time line, then the force that created it must have an infinite existence.  Some people describe this force as having human characteristics, while others ignore its existence altogether and believe that infinite human knowledge will someday explain everything.  Both are wrong, since human beings are have neither infinite existence nor infinite knowledge.


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 6, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> LOL!  Dummy, there is no imperative, scientific or otherwise, that matter/energy cannot come into existence.  Rather, there is no material/physical mechanism by which matter/energy could be destroyed or created.
> 
> You're either dumb as dirt, insane, or trolling.  Which is it?


A simple, clear and accurate answer to your stupid  final question: *you* are an arrogant nitwit. 👍

If matter/energy can’t be created as you contend, you’re left with the idiotic conclusion that it “always” existed.  It sounds as though you’re invoking magic. Since you seem unable to explain where the “stuff”came from, you declare that “ergo, it must have always existed.” But Aquinas disagrees:

_"There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible." — Summa Theologiae_ I.2.3

No thing (nothing) can be the cause of its own existence *because* for any one thing to *cause* a thing requires that it must exist already. But if a thing exists already, it (itself) can’t “be” created.  It already was. (Just as I couldn’t do anything in life before my own conception.)

Nevertheless, _you_ claim that “it” _always_ existed. It didn’t come into existence — it simply “_always_” did exist.  🙄

And you call me insane.  😂


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 6, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> A simple, clear and accurate answer to your stupid  final question: *you* are an arrogant nitwit. 👍
> 
> If matter/energy can’t be created as you contend, you’re left with the idiotic conclusion that it “always” existed.  It sounds as though you’re invoking magic. Since you seem unable to explain where the “stuff”came from, you declare that “ergo, it must have always existed.” But Aquinas disagrees:
> 
> ...


Are you a nutjob?  Are you on drugs?    

I didn't contend that matter/energy can't be created or destroyed.  That would be a scientifically indemonstrable contention entailing the metaphysical presupposition of ontological naturalism.

It's YOU who contends that matter/energy can't be created or destroyed.  

It's you who unwittingly begs the question and inexplicably attributed your dumbass belief to me—not once but twice!

Rather, the laws of thermodynamics hold that there is no natural mechanism by which matter/energy can be destroyed or created.

Let's review.  The first contention in bold below is yours.  I never made your false and foolish contention.  I made the second contention below.  Note the ≠ sign.   Thanks.

_*Matter/energy can't be created or destroyed*_​*≠ *​_*There is no natural mechanism by which matter/energy can be destroyed or created*_​


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 6, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> Are you a nutjob?  Are you on drugs?
> 
> I didn't contend that matter/energy can't be created or destroyed.  That would be a scientifically indemonstrable contention entailing the metaphysical presupposition of ontological naturalism.
> 
> ...


Studious way to miss the point. Bravo. 👏👏

Once again, I’ll try to educate you.

Once again: It is *because* you contend (as I noted) that matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed, you *have* to come up with some way to explain their existence.  Having no where else to go, you engage in faulty logic to “conclude” that matter/energy “must have” always and eternally existed. Therefore, you try to deny the Aquinas contention I quoted.

Let’s see if you can handle it, rather than merely avoiding it. Where did this stuff come from?  Your answer that it “must have” always existed is obviously insufficient since it violates the Aquinas observation that nothing can be the cause of its own existence.  So, Where did the stuff come from?

I suspect that you will merely continue to go round and round in circles. You know the concept. Like matter/energy around and around, forever and ever without any beginning or end. Great concept.

Question two: if all of the universe’s matter/energy can all exist without having been created, cool. Dispense with a Creator.
But, now tel me again how this _*establishes*_ the existence of God?


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 6, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> Studious way to miss the point. Bravo. 👏👏
> 
> Once again, I’ll try to educate you.
> 
> ...


Are you on shrooms?  LSD?  Weed?  

Like Aquinas, I'm a classical theist.  Aquinas and I wholeheartedly agree.  Logic 101.  Of course, any given thing *cannot* be the cause of it's own existence.  

*You write, "It is because you contend that matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed. . . . *

No.  I.  Don't!  I have never asserted that, you drooling 'tard.  Not once, not ever.

*You write, "you conclude that matter/energy must have always existed."*

No.  I.  Didn't!  I have never asserted that, you drooling 'tard.  Not once, not ever.


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 6, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> Are you on shrooms?  LSD?  Weed?
> 
> Like Aquinas, I'm a classical theist.  Aquinas and I wholeheartedly agree.  Logic 101.  Of course, any given thing *cannot* be the cause of it's own existence.
> 
> ...


Oh. Your mistake then.

If matter/energy need not have “always existed,” then it must have been created. Are you suddenly now saying that matter/energy could have come into existence *without* having been created?

Pick one story, you dilettante. Stick with it.


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 6, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> Oh. Your mistake then.
> 
> If matter/energy need not have “always existed,” then it must have been created. Are you suddenly now saying that matter/energy could have come into existence *without* having been created?
> 
> Pick one story, you dilettante. Stick with it.


Dude, you need to lay off the shrooms.


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 7, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> Dude, you need to lay off the shrooms.


You need to stop assuming you are smart. It’s clear that you aren’t.


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 7, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> You need to stop assuming you are smart. It’s clear that you aren’t.


Shut the hell up, you lunatic, you drooling 'tard of a mindless, toe-jam-funk-smellin' baboon, indeed, you bucktoothed, inbred hillbilly hayseed of a crazy-eye lookin' derp derp.    You have the IQ of a gnat.


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 7, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> Shut the hell up, you lunatic, you drooling 'tard of a mindless, toe-jam-funk-smellin' baboon, indeed, you bucktoothed, inbred hillbilly hayseed of a crazy-eye lookin' derp derp.    You have the IQ of a gnat.


So. We may conclude that you’re a lot of hot air and not actually familiar with the entire argument you began here.  Very happy for you that you’ve got your “answer” even though you can’t recognize that it isn’t truly an answer.

You could (theoretically) some day gain some wisdom, but it won’t begin until you grasp an elusive truth: the first step is recognizing what you don’t know. Get past you who. Even you could start by realizing THAT you don’t know.

“Ringtone?”  Dude, you’re phone isn’t even working.


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 7, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> So. We may conclude that you’re a lot of hot air and not actually familiar with the entire argument you began here.  Very happy for you that you’ve got your “answer” even though you can’t recognize that it isn’t truly an answer.
> 
> You could (theoretically) some day gain some wisdom, but it won’t begin until you grasp an elusive truth: the first step is recognizing what you don’t know. Get past you who. Even you could start by realizing THAT you don’t know.
> 
> “Ringtone?”  Dude, you’re phone isn’t even working.


You are a pathological liar and a moron.


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 7, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> You are a pathological liar and a moron.


I haven’t lied at all. Let’s clear that up for you, you imbecile. Disagreeing with you *isn’t* “lying.”

Also, you idiots have no ability to recognize morons. Your attempt to use labels is as poor as your grasp of how to discuss and debate.


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 7, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> I haven’t lied at all. Let’s clear that up for you, you imbecile. Disagreeing with you *isn’t* “lying.”
> 
> Also, you idiots have no ability to recognize morons. Your attempt to use labels is as poor as your grasp of how to discuss and debate.


On the contrary, I readily recognized you for a moron.  The height of your imbecility is breathtaking.  Indeed, your inability to grasp or make even the simplest of coherent arguments would be a thing of beauty if stupidity were a virtue.  Alas.

Now stop projecting your failings on others.  The first step toward healing in your case is to take responsibility for your insanely egregious irrationality and intellectual cowardice, m'kay? 

I know!  Try this.  See if you can explain how an infinite regress of causality/temporality could possibly be traversed to the present.


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 7, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> On the contrary, I readily recognized you for a moron.  The height of your imbecility is breathtaking.  Indeed, your inability to grasp or make even the simplest of coherent arguments would be a thing of beauty if stupidity were a virtue.  Alas.
> 
> Now stop projecting your failings on others.  The first step toward healing in your case is to take responsibility for your insanely egregious irrationality and intellectual cowardice, m'kay?
> 
> I know!  Try this.  See if you can explain how an infinite regress of causality/temporality could possibly be traversed to the present.


As I noted earlier: You are under the illusion that you are intelligent. You’re wrong. You are simply lying to yourself to get past your perfectly appropriate feelings of inadequacy.

As to your final “question,” you probably imagine that you asked something coherent. In fact, you did not. Let’s help you out.

Cause *precedes* effect.  No matter how far back you study the links in the chain of cause *then* effect, you will never find any example of an effect of something that caused that effect to be the cause of the thing that caused that effect.  [Little kids make bubbles in the bathtub when they fart in the bathtub. Little kids cause the farts that cause the bubbles. Bubbles *never* create the farts nor the kids.]

Aquinas was right. Nothing can exist prior to itself. So, if you contend that matter/energy “always” existed (akin to circle with no beginning and no end) you are absolutely contending that matter/energy (which exists) violates the rule that nothing CAN exist without first having to have been created. In other words, where did it come from.

Your answer is clearly an absurdity. It’s there because it was always there. If matter/energy can “be” something that exists without having been created — then it requires no Creator.  It follows that your argument (which you initially said proves the existence of God) actually dispenses with the necessity of a God.

You are massively worked-up over this because you *thought* you had discovered a compelling truth which could not be — in any logical manner — even questioned. Well, evidently not. Get over it.


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 7, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> As I noted earlier: You are under the illusion that you are intelligent. You’re wrong. You are simply lying to yourself to get past your perfectly appropriate feelings of inadequacy.
> 
> As to your final “question,” you probably imagine that you asked something coherent. In fact, you did not. Let’s help you out.
> 
> ...


_^^^^^^^^^^^^^_
The stupid is strong in this one.

_Zoom_ 

Right over your head!         

How could an infinite regress of causality/temporality possibly be traversed to the present?  Answer the question.  Your idiocy doesn't follow Aquinas' dictum.


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 7, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> _^^^^^^^^^^^^^_
> The stupid is strong in this one.
> 
> _Zoom_
> ...


You simply don’t even understand the subject matter.

Answer my question. I’ll even repeat it again for your clearly weak mind to have at hand:

Tell us again how the fact that matter/energy exists “without causation” [“because” it has “always existed”, as if that dispenses with the need for causation 🙄 and doesn’t simply beg the question] somehow proves the necessity of the existence of God?  I mean that was your initial claim.


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 7, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> You simply don’t even understand the subject matter.
> 
> Answer my question. I’ll even repeat it again for your clearly weak mind to have at hand:
> 
> Tell us again how the fact that matter/energy exists “without causation” [“because” it has “always existed”, as if that dispenses with the need for causation 🙄 and doesn’t simply beg the question] somehow proves the necessity of the existence of God?  I mean that was your initial claim.


You clueless moron.  The whole point regarding the impossibility of an infinite regress of causality/temporality is that matter/energy could *not* have always existed.

_Zoom_

Right over your head again.

Just like wheel that fell off your argument:


You are a drooling 'tard of a slack-jawed, slobbering syphilitic simpleton.   

Your brain fell the fuck out.


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 7, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> You clueless moron.  The whole point regarding the impossibility of an infinite regress of causality/temporality is that matter/energy could *not* have always existed.
> 
> _Zoom_
> 
> ...


So, you lack the nadz to man up long enough to answer the question. As expected.

 If you ever find your balls, feel free to further expose your abject ignorance.  It’s amusing.


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 7, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> So, you lack the nadz to man up long enough to answer the question. As expected.
> 
> If you ever find your balls, feel free to further expose your abject ignorance.  It’s amusing.


^^^^^^^^^^^
Sociopath


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 7, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> ^^^^^^^^^^^
> Sociopath


You are a Pussy, a Coward and utterly Ball-less. Answer the question, you gutless wimp.

With all due respect. 😂


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 7, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> You are a Pussy, a Coward and utterly Ball-less. Answer the question, you gutless wimp.
> 
> With all due respect. 😂


^^^^^^^^^^^
Sociopath


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 7, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> ^^^^^^^^^^^
> Sociopath


You’re repeating yourself. And you’re still ducking the question. You pussy.


----------



## Indeependent (Apr 7, 2022)

Innocynioc said:


> How do you know that an infinite can not exist?


God is infinite.


----------



## Indeependent (Apr 7, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> You simply don’t even understand the subject matter.
> 
> Answer my question. I’ll even repeat it again for your clearly weak mind to have at hand:
> 
> Tell us again how the fact that matter/energy exists “without causation” [“because” it has “always existed”, as if that dispenses with the need for causation 🙄 and doesn’t simply beg the question] somehow proves the necessity of the existence of God?  I mean that was your initial claim.


God is not comprised of matter; we, in fact, are not capable of understanding God's essense.
A painting is not aware of it's painter.


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 7, 2022)

Indeependent said:


> God is not comprised of matter; we, in fact, are not capable of understanding God's essense.
> A painting is not aware of it's painter.


I don’t know what God consists of. But even so, if matter/energy exists without any causation, then God need not be “the” causation. So again, his thesis is that his little syllogism necessarily proves that God exists. But that conclusion obviously doesn’t follow from his premises.

I don’t claim that God does exist; nor do I claim that God doesn’t exist. In reality, I happen to believe in God. But that doesn’t answer my question. How does the syllogism in the OP show that God exists? (It doesn’t.)

If anything, it shows that there is no necessary implication that God exists.


----------



## Indeependent (Apr 7, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> I don’t know what God consists of. But even so, if matter/energy exists without any causation, then God need not be “the” causation. So again, his thesis is that his little syllogism necessarily proves that God exists. But that conclusion obviously doesn’t follow from his premises.
> 
> I don’t claim that God does exist; nor do I claim that God doesn’t exist. In reality, I happen to believe in God. But that doesn’t answer my question. How does the syllogism in the OP show that God exists? (It doesn’t.)
> 
> If anything, it shows that there is no necessary implication that God exists.


The Jewish point of view is that studying all realms of existence and FAITH is required for that step to be made.
Aristotle, for instance, who is regarded as a genius by Jews as way ahead of his time, could not get past the fact that God would have had to change, so to speak, *His* mind, in order to spontaneously create something from nothing.


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 7, 2022)

Indeependent said:


> God is infinite.


God is infinite qualitatively speaking.  When we say that God is infinite in classical theology, we mean that God's greatness is perfect and superlatively incomparable.

God is _not_ an actual infinite as that would pertain to a physical/material quantity, namely, a boundlessly large, indeterminable number or amount of something.  God is not a physical/material entity or quantity.  An actual infinite quantity does not and cannot exist as anything more but an idea in minds, i.e., an ever-growing amount of something, potentially infinite but never actually infinite.


----------



## Indeependent (Apr 7, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> God is infinite qualitatively speaking.  When we say that God is infinite in classical theology, we mean that God's greatness is perfect and superlatively incomparable.
> 
> God is _not_ an actual infinite as that would pertain to a physical/material quantity, namely, a boundlessly large, indeterminable number or amount of something.  God is not a physical/material entity or quantity.  An actual infinite quantity does not and cannot exist as anything more but an idea in minds, i.e., an ever-growing amount of something, potentially infinite but never actually infinite.


That is what I meant and you summed it up superbly.


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 7, 2022)

Indeependent said:


> The Jewish point of view is that studying all realms of existence and FAITH is required for that step to be made.
> Aristotle, for instance, who is regarded as a genius by Jews as way ahead of his time, could not get past the fact that God would have had to change, so to speak, *His* mind, in order to spontaneously create something from nothing.


Yes,  That's because to Aristotle's pagan mind a being ontologically preceding, having primacy over, and, thusly, being beyond spacetime was anathema.

BackAgain's problem is that he can't grasp or won't acknowledge the metaphysical potentialities of being long enough to distinguish the difference between _nothing_, as in the absence of material/physical being, and _nothingness_, as in nonexistence.


----------



## Indeependent (Apr 7, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> Yes,  That's because to Aristotle's pagan mind a being ontologically preceding, having primacy over, and, thusly, being beyond spacetime was anathema.
> 
> BackAgain's problem is that he can't grasp or won't acknowledge the metaphysical potentialities of being long enough to distinguish the difference between _nothing_, as in the absence of material/physical being, and _nothingness_, as in nonexistence.


I am incapable of grasping it but I can acknowledge it.
Rejoice in the fact that he is not being snarky.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Apr 7, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> Question:  how do we know that God necessarily exists?
> 
> Short Answer:  because the imperatives of logic, mathematics, and metaphysics tell us that God necessarily exists.  The Cosmological Argument is bullet proof.
> 
> ...


Wrong forum.  Reported so it can be moved.  This is Politics, not Religion


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 7, 2022)

Indeependent said:


> That is what I meant and you summed it up superbly.


Oh, I understood you to making the very same distinction.  I've read you before.  You know what you're about.  I wrote post #42 to set up post #44. 

BackAgain cannot grasp the necessity of being ontologically prior to and beyond the existence of physical/material being.  The closest that science can get to immaterial being is the apprehension of the ontologically prior existence of the laws of physics.   But of course laws would have no power of causation in and of themselves, let alone have any being in and of themselves, sans mind.

God exists.  God is an unembodied mind, an immaterial/spiritual being of willful power, i.e., a person of free will.


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 7, 2022)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> Wrong forum.  Reported so it can be moved.  This is Politics, not Religion


It's not in the Political Forum.  It's in the Philosophy Forum where it belongs.  The issue pertains to the metaphysics of being, i.e., ontology.  Strictly speaking, ontology is not a theological or religious issue.  Now send another message to the monitor and tell him/her to never mind and apologize for wasting his/her time.  Pay attention next time.


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 7, 2022)

Indeependent said:


> I am incapable of grasping it but I can acknowledge it.
> Rejoice in the fact that he is not being snarky.


He's been insufferably snarky to me over something he doesn't grasp.


----------



## Indeependent (Apr 7, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> He's been insufferably snarky to me over something he doesn't grasp.


He may not be ready.
On the other hand, he's not a *Liberal*.


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 7, 2022)

Indeependent said:


> He may not be ready.
> On the other hand, he's not a *Liberal*.


True.


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 8, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> He's been insufferably snarky to me over something he doesn't grasp.


You poor pathetic hypocritical twat. It’s obvious you have no handle on any of the nuances. Go get a tissue. Dab your eyes.


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 8, 2022)

Indeependent said:


> He may not be ready.
> On the other hand, he's not a *Liberal*.


I’m plenty ready; disagreement is a different thing. But Ringtone is unable or unwilling to answer a question. So, it’s more likely that *he* isn’t ready.

Once again, he says that matter/energy doesn’t require creation “because” it has “always existed.”  And I challenged him with a perfectly fair question:

If it doesn’t require something to create it in order to “exist,” then how does that “prove” the existence of God? That’s *his* initial claim. But, he apparently recognizes that he is incapable of answering the question.


----------



## Indeependent (Apr 8, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> I’m plenty ready; disagreement is a different thing. But Ringtone is unable or unwilling to answer a question. So, it’s more likely that *he* isn’t ready.
> 
> Once again, he says that matter/energy doesn’t require creation “because” it has “always existed.”  And I challenged him with a perfectly fair question:
> 
> If it doesn’t require something to create it in order to “exist,” then how does that “prove” the existence of God? That’s *his* initial claim. But, he apparently recognizes that he is incapable of answering the question.


It has not always existed.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Apr 8, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> It's not in the Political Forum.  It's in the Philosophy Forum where it belongs.  The issue pertains to the metaphysics of being, i.e., ontology.  Strictly speaking, ontology is not a theological or religious issue.  Now send another message to the monitor and tell him/her to never mind and apologize for wasting his/her time.  Pay attention next time.


When I pulled it up, it was in Politics because I would never read anything in the Philosophy forum.  I apologize!


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 8, 2022)

Indeependent said:


> It has not always existed.


I don’t know. But ringtone has claimed otherwise.  And the syllogism he points to concludes that it has to have always existed. On that basis he further argues that it is logically derived that God must exist.  

Other than his petty frustration when I argued some points which he expresses like a child, he refuses to answer the obvious question. If matter/energy wasn’t created, then how does his syllogism somehow “establish” proof that God does exist?

In any case, for reasons related to several lines of such philosophy, I happen to _believe_ in God, but I don’t claim that my belief is “fact.”  I acknowledge that, inasmuch as it is just a belief, I may not be correct.


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 8, 2022)

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> When I pulled it up, it was in Politics because I would never read anything in the Philosophy forum.  I apologize!


That's weird.


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 8, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> I’m plenty ready; disagreement is a different thing. But Ringtone is unable or unwilling to answer a question. So, it’s more likely that *he* isn’t ready.
> 
> Once again, he says that matter/energy doesn’t require creation “because” it has “always existed.”  And I challenged him with a perfectly fair question:
> 
> If it doesn’t require something to create it in order to “exist,” then how does that “prove” the existence of God? That’s *his* initial claim. But, he apparently recognizes that he is incapable of answering the question.


*Once again, he [Ringtone] says that matter/energy doesn’t require creation.*

Wrong!  That's not what I'm saying at all!


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 8, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> *Once again, he [Ringtone] says that matter/energy doesn’t require creation.,*
> 
> Wrong!  That's not what I'm saying at all!


No. Not wrong. Quite entirely correct. For your answer to *that* question was that it “always” existed.  You might not get it, but if it “always” existed, then it wasn’t created.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Apr 8, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> That's weird.


It was! I read it because I thought it was strange that it was in Politics.  Again, my apologies!


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 8, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> No. Not wrong. Quite entirely correct. For your answer to *that* question was that it “always” existed.  You might not get it, but if it “always” existed, then it wasn’t created.


I never said that matter/energy has always existed.  
I never said that matter/energy has always existed.  
I never said that matter/energy has always existed.  

I expressed the exact opposite regarding its existence.  
I expressed the exact opposite regarding its existence.   
I expressed the exact opposite regarding its existence.    

The whole point of the cosmological argument is that the universe (i.e., matter/energy or the spacetime continuum) could not have always existed and, therefore, began to exist in the finite past when it was created by God!

What I did say in the above is that *something* has always existed.
What I did say in the above is that *something* has always existed.
What I did say in the above is that *something* has always existed.

That eternal something is God the Creator!
That eternal something is God the Creator!
That eternal something is God the Creator!


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 8, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> I never said that matter/energy has always existed.
> I never said that matter/energy has always existed.
> I never said that matter/energy has always existed.
> 
> ...


That’s not what you said.
 I’ll remind you:

1. Something _does_ exist rather than nothing. 
2. Existence cannot arise from nonexistence. Absurdity!
3. Hence, something has *always existed*

Look closely at number 3.

Now, I’ll concede that —standing alone — that doesn’t mean that you intended to claim that matter/energy “always existed.” However, our discussion proceeded despite your persistent & petty resort to endless _ad hominem_. When I noted that matter/energy can be neither created nor destroyed, I asked basically where it came from. And you did point out that it always existed.

Additionally, I ask asked you *if* matter/energy can be neither created nor destroyed *then* to say that God “created” it denies that premise.  (If it *was* created then it *can be* created.)  

So I’ll also concede that (largely due to your contradictory _ad hominems_) it is possible that there resulted some miscommunication or misunderstanding.  (You started by claiming that I was “too smart” but ended up asserting that I was an idiot, a moronan imbecile and related notions. So, yeah. You were contradictory.) 

Bottom line: your otherwise tidy set of syllogisms still packed some problems that result in them not being as definitive as you claimed.  In terms of cosmology, let’s see what we agree on and where we may have some issues.

Can matter/energy be created?  I say that perhaps not in the present universe since I accept the scientific evidence that matter/energy can be neither created nor destroyed. So, to say that God created “all” (including matter/energy) is either a logical contradiction OR there is a suppressed premise.  Would it be fair of me to infer that your position is that God could “create” matter/energy in some pre-existent realm not bound by our recognized rules of science?

Also, if it wasn’t a different realm, but I was somehow correct that there must be at least one *exception* to the principle that matter/energy can be neither created nor destroyed, then maybe it is matter/energy that can come into existence without having first been “created.”  Or maybe it’s God that came into existence without having been created.

These questions aren’t the totality of the discussion we had before or the concerns raised.  Your answers (and anybody else’s answers sometimes lead to more questions. So, we can either agree to discuss this stuff on an adult level


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 8, 2022)

Indeependent said:


> It has not always existed.


Correct.  That's the whole point of the cosmological argument for God's existence.  The universe has not always existed and, therefore, had to be created by God.

So why did you reinforce BackAgain's confusion by giving his madness in post #56 a thumbs up?  The only thing that makes sense to me is that BackAgain initially interpreted my observation that _something has always existed_ to mean that _matter/energy has always existed.  _

We are now well-past the point of a mere misunderstanding.   There is no way to rationally justify BackAgain's confusion beyond this point. 

Also see post #61.


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 8, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> That’s not what you said.


You are a pathological liar and a sociopath.
You are a pathological liar and a sociopath.
You are a pathological liar and a sociopath.


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 8, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> You are a pathological liar and a sociopath.
> You are a pathological liar and a sociopath.
> You are a pathological liar and a sociopath.


Ok. So you hide behind the fact that you’re an asshole to slink away. You’re a gutless pussy and truly stupid. So, now gfy.


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 8, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> Are you on shrooms?  LSD?  Weed?
> 
> Like Aquinas, I'm a classical theist.  Aquinas and I wholeheartedly agree.  Logic 101.  Of course, any given thing *cannot* be the cause of it's own existence.
> 
> ...


Gfy. Apparently you didn’t understand that earlier, you piece of crap.


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 8, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> Gfy. Apparently you didn’t understand that earlier, you piece of crap.


You are a pathological liar and a sociopath.
You are a pathological liar and a sociopath.
You are a pathological liar and a sociopath.


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 8, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> That’s not what you said.
> I’ll remind you:
> 
> 1. Something _does_ exist rather than nothing.
> ...


I'm repeating myself because you're as obtuse as a pile of bricks.
I'm repeating myself because you're as obtuse as a pile of bricks.
I'm repeating myself because you're as obtuse as a pile of bricks.
You are a pathological liar and a sociopath.
You are a pathological liar and a sociopath.
You are a pathological liar and a sociopath.


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 8, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> I'm repeating myself because you're as obtuse as a pile of bricks.
> I'm repeating myself because you're as obtuse as a pile of bricks.
> I'm repeating myself because you're as obtuse as a pile of bricks.
> You are a pathological liar and a sociopath.
> ...


You remain a liar and quite stupid. You’re an idiot. You’re a coward, a real pussy. And of course, you’re a liar.

You remain a liar and quite stupid. You’re an idiot. You’re a coward, a real pussy. And of course, you’re a liar.

You remain a liar and quite stupid. You’re an idiot. You’re a coward, a real pussy. And of course, you’re a liar.

 Now again, gfy.


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 8, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> You remain a liar and quite stupid. You’re an idiot. You’re a coward, a real pussy. And of course, you’re a liar.
> 
> You remain a liar and quite stupid. You’re an idiot. You’re a coward, a real pussy. And of course, you’re a liar.
> 
> ...


You are on an exegetical thread regarding the cosmological argument for God's existence, which is predicated on the imperative that the universe could _not_ have always exited and, therefore, necessarily began to exist in the finite past claiming it proves the opposite.    

You are a pathological liar and a sociopath.
You are a pathological liar and a sociopath.
You are a pathological liar and a sociopath.


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 8, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> That’s not what you said.
> I’ll remind you:
> 
> 1. Something _does_ exist rather than nothing.
> ...


I missed this post.  I will try one last time.  One issue at a time.

I wrote:

1. Something _does_ exist rather than nothing.​2. Existence cannot arise from nonexistence. Absurdity!​*3. Hence, something has always existed.*​
You responded:

Look closely at number 3.​
Okay.  #3 reads, _*Hence, *_*something has always existed.
_________________*


Do you agree that #3 reads, _*Hence, *_*something has always existed.*

Yes or no?


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 8, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> You are on an exegetical thread regarding the cosmological argument for God's existence, which is predicated on the imperative that the universe could _not_ have always exited and, therefore, necessarily began to exist in the finite past claiming it proves the opposite.
> 
> You are a pathological liar and a sociopath.
> You are a pathological liar and a sociopath.
> You are a pathological liar and a sociopath.


You’re still an asshole and a lying cowardly pussy.
You’re still an asshole and a lying cowardly pussy.
You’re still an asshole and a lying cowardly pussy. 

I happen to agree that the universe had to come into creation. That requires that matter/energy/space/time also had to have all been *created*. So, you jerkoff, you’re still saying that matter/energy CAN have been created — which violates the scientific law holding that neither matter nor energy can be created or destroyed.

Why are you so enormously thick? Did you get your newborn baby head confused with a basketball at birth? You were dribbled too often? You’re a real douche and you don’t know anything close to what you think you know. You’re too dull to even contemplate questions.


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 8, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> I missed this post.  I will try one last time.  One issue at a time.
> 
> I wrote:
> 
> ...


I believe it does since I copied and pasted your OP quote.  So, imma gonna go with “yes.”


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 8, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> I believe it does since I copied and pasted your OP quote.  So, imma gonna go with “yes.”


Something has always existed
≠
Matter/energy have always existed​Those are two very different assertions!

You wrote:

Now, I’ll concede that —standing alone — that doesn’t mean that you intended to claim that matter/energy 'always existed.'​
Good!  Because I never said nor implied that matter/energy have always existed—not once, not ever.  I would never argue such a thing.

Now forget all about what you _think_ I intended, and let us simply examine what I did say, nothing more and nothing other.

At this point in the flow of the dialogue, you observed:

Matter/energy can be neither created nor destroyed.​
Correct?  Yes or no?

Now for the moment, forget about any additional questions you may have asked.


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 8, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> Something has always existed
> ≠
> Matter/energy have always existed​Those are two very different assertions!
> 
> ...


I see you want to be the director here. Lol. I tell ya what. I’ll play along. But I have a couple of preconditions. (Call me a co-director.) First: you’re going to have to try to just cut out the personal attacks.  That’s non negotiable. Second: these discussions sometimes raise related points. If I choose to take an off road once in a while, I will. And you’ll accept that with poise and grace (and in full compliance with the first precondition.)

Now, to get back to the actual discussion:  

Yes. I did, in fact, address the scientific principle that matter/energy can be neither created nor destroyed. In fact, I’ve repeated that several times. could you maybe speed this up?  I’m retired, but I don’t choose to waste my time doing this silly step by step process which won’t change the outcome anyway.


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 9, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> I see you want to be the director here. Lol. I tell ya what. I’ll play along. But I have a couple of preconditions. (Call me a co-director.) First: you’re going to have to try to just cut out the personal attacks.  That’s non negotiable. Second: these discussions sometimes raise related points. If I choose to take an off road once in a while, I will. And you’ll accept that with poise and grace (and in full compliance with the first precondition.)
> 
> Now, to get back to the actual discussion:
> 
> Yes. I did, in fact, address the scientific principle that matter/energy can be neither created nor destroyed. In fact, I’ve repeated that several times. could you maybe speed this up?  I’m retired, but I don’t choose to waste my time doing this silly step by step process which won’t change the outcome anyway.


Fine.  We've cleared the way to the final point in the line of logic anyway.  Though regarding it a _waste of time that won't change the outcome _would not seem to encourage the open mindedness of good faith, I'll do my best.  After all, I can only tell you what I've been telling you all along.

The First Law of Thermodynamics (a.k.a, the Law of Conservation) *would not ontologically precede or have primacy over the power and will of God the Creator!*

The First Law of Thermodynamics (a.k.a, the Law of Conservation) *would not ontologically precede or have primacy over the power and will of God the Creator!*

I'm repeating myself, for it is at this very point, over this very matter, that our line of communication keeps breaking down!  Seemingly, this is the point at which you react without regarding ontological order or context.

Nature (the spacetime continuum of matter and energy) is _not_ the Creator.  God is!  God created the universe and its contents _ex nihilo_!

The First Law of Thermodynamics holds that like mass (a body of matter), energy is always conserved:  that is to say, while it can be transferred from one place to another or transformed/converted from one form to another, it can neither be created nor destroyed *by any natural mechanism in the extant universe*.

God is the Creator of nature and the Author of the laws by which nature's processes are governed.  Nature is bound by the laws of physics, not God!


----------



## Indeependent (Apr 9, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> Correct.  That's the whole point of the cosmological argument for God's existence.  The universe has not always existed and, therefore, had to be created by God.
> 
> So why did you reinforce BackAgain's confusion by giving his madness in post #56 a thumbs up?  The only thing that makes sense to me is that BackAgain initially interpreted my observation that _something has always existed_ to mean that _matter/energy has always existed.  _
> 
> ...


Which post of yours addresses the issue?


----------



## Indeependent (Apr 9, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> Correct.  That's the whole point of the cosmological argument for God's existence.  The universe has not always existed and, therefore, had to be created by God.
> 
> So why did you reinforce BackAgain's confusion by giving his madness in post #56 a thumbs up?  The only thing that makes sense to me is that BackAgain initially interpreted my observation that _something has always existed_ to mean that _matter/energy has always existed.  _
> 
> ...


I read Post 42 and I see where you are coming from.
The issue that "God" did not create His creation with the ability to comprehend God in any manner whatsoever but the struggle to do so is certainly not a sign of inherent disrespect.


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 9, 2022)

Indeependent said:


> I read Post 42 and I see where you are coming from.
> The issue that "God" did not create His creation with the ability to comprehend God in any manner whatsoever but the struggle to do so is certainly not a sign of inherent disrespect.


I'm not sure I follow you.  I would say that God and His creation are readably apprehensible but not comprehendible.  That seems to be what you're saying.  I would agree.


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 9, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> Fine.  We've cleared the way to the final point in the line of logic anyway.  Though regarding it a _waste of time that won't change the outcome _would not seem to encourage the open mindedness of good faith, I'll do my best.  After all, I can only tell you what I've been telling you all along.


I have been very open minded. I have found you very close minded. But, time will tell.


Ringtone said:


> The First Law of Thermodynamics (a.k.a, the Law of Conservation) *would not ontologically precede or have primacy over the power and will of God the Creator!*


*You say this based on what, precisely?*


Ringtone said:


> The First Law of Thermodynamics (a.k.a, the Law of Conservation) *would not ontologically precede or have primacy over the power and will of God the Creator!*


*Yeah. You just claimed that. *


Ringtone said:


> I'm repeating myself, for it is at this very point, over this very matter, that our line of communication keeps breaking down!  Seemingly, this is the point at which you react without regarding ontological order or context.


You insist on using the phrase “ontological” like a touchstone. It doesn’t strengthen your argument. And again. No need to try to talk down to me. The object here is for you to speak (write) clearly.  For example, your use of “ontological order” is a packed term, but not one you choose (or have chosen) to define.


Ringtone said:


> Nature (the spacetime continuum of matter and energy) is _not_ the Creator.  God is!  God created the universe and its contents _ex nihilo_!


According to faith. But faith alone doesn’t prove a logical point. Indeed, it is a failure to utilize logic since it presumes the sought to be established conclusion as a premise. So, instead of just stating the conclusion as a premise, I am pressing you to properly support that premise


Ringtone said:


> The First Law of Thermodynamics holds that like mass (a body of matter), energy is always conserved:  that is to say, while it can be transferred from one place to another or transformed/converted from one form to another, it can neither be created nor destroyed *by any natural mechanism in the extant universe*.


Up to a point, I agree with that. But the highlighted part is *not* a stipulation of the first law of thermodynamics. It is something you have seen fit to add to it. If it’s a correct qualification of the 1st Law, then tell me your basis for that qualification. Can you?



Ringtone said:


> God is the Creator of nature and the Author of the laws by which nature's processes are governed.  Nature is bound by the laws of physics, not God!


Let’s say for the sake of discussion (preliminarily) that God created nature and the scientific laws. Then, yes. It would make abundant good sense to presume that nature is now bound by the laws of physics. It would also make good sense to say that God is not so bound.  But — and again, I’m asking a question not stating a premise — to merely state your belief that God created nature and the rules that bind nature is essentially to assume your conclusion as your premise in order to “derive” you conclusion.  You *said*, in your original statement (in effect) that your syllogisms “proved” the existence of God. My question is: “do your syllogisms do that?”

I maintain that they _*don’t ,*_ because you cannot use the existence of God as a premise to craft a syllogism to prove the existence of that very God. Or, to be a bit more precise, you can’t do that and maintain that you’ve done so by any *valid* set of syllogisms. It is the fallacy of begging the question. 

I could continue, but this one is plenty long enough. I will (in the way I’ve asked you to proceed) similarly await your response.


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 9, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> I have been very open minded. I have found you very close minded. But, time will tell.
> 
> *You say this based on what, precisely?
> 
> ...


I just wanted to make sure.

It's official.  You're a drooling 'tard.


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 9, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> I just wanted to make sure.
> 
> It's official.  You're a drooling 'tard.


Good head fake. I almost bought that you could be mature. My mistake.


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 9, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> Good head fake. I almost bought that you could be mature. My mistake.


You drooling 'tard, if you can't see how irrationally insane and stupid your blather is, I cannot help you.  There's something wrong with your thinker.  It's broken, beyond repair but for God.


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 9, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> You drooling 'tard, if you can't see how irrationally insane and stupid your blather is, I cannot help you.  There's something wrong with your thinker.  It's broken, beyond repair but for God.


No need to be so obvious about turning tail and running away. We all see your _modus operandi_ is that of a cowardly pussy.   Too bad.


----------



## Indeependent (Apr 9, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> I'm not sure I follow you.  I would say that God and His creation are readably apprehensible but not comprehendible.  That seems to be what you're saying.  I would agree.


From the *Jewish* perspective, The Creator is neither, but contemplation of such is *not* an offense.


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 10, 2022)

Indeependent said:


> From the *Jewish* perspective, The Creator is neither, but contemplation of such is *not* an offense.


From the Jewish perspective?!  Jews and Christians share the very same fundamental perspective of classical theism regarding the essential attributes of God.  Indeed, the classical view is _universally_ apprehensible.  One cannot contemplate what one cannot apprehend.  What are you talking about?

On the other hand, no one can comprehend God but God.


----------



## Indeependent (Apr 10, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> From the Jewish perspective?!  Jews and Christians share the very same fundamental perspective of classical theism regarding the essential attributes of God.  Indeed, the classical view is _universally_ apprehensible.  One cannot contemplate what one cannot apprehend.  What in the world are you talking about?


You couldn't be further from the truth...
*GOD HAS NO INTRINSIC ATTRIBUTES!!!!*
*God has **manifestations** which are a reflection of how we as humans behave in a manner demanded by God.*

The NT considers *God* to be an emotionally, out of control, *bastard*, which is why He *needs* an *Empathetic SON*!
The sad fact is that anyone who actually studies Tanach, verse by verse, cannot possibly find the NT to be anything but a satire, not unlike Mad magazine.

I'm not saying this to be nasty as I have read the NT 6 times back in the late 90s and I didn't know if I should laugh or cry.

You can contemplate God's creation; you cannot contemplate God, but it isn't a sin for a non-Jew to attempt such.


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 10, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> I have been very open minded. I have found you very close minded. But, time will tell.
> 
> *You say this based on what, precisely?
> 
> ...


Look, everybody, the imbecile of imbeciles BackAgain finally conceded that (1) I never said that the universe has always existed and that (2) if the universe began to exist, it had to have been created by God . . . but not really because matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed, not even by God.  


This level of stupidity is stratospheric.

The drooling 'tard is strong in this one.


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 10, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> Look, everybody, the imbecile of imbeciles BackAgain finally conceded that (1) I never said that the universe has always existed and that (2) if the universe began to exist, it had to have been created by God . . . but not really because matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed, not even by God.


Still unable to control your immaturity and unwilling to answer questions.  It’s clear, you aren’t the philosopher you pose as. You aren’t even especially intelligent.

Your helter skelter continuing retreat is duly noted and quite obvious — as is the reason for  it. You’re humiliated. As you should be. 👍


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 10, 2022)

Indeependent said:


> You couldn't be further from the truth...
> *GOD HAS NO INTRINSIC ATTRIBUTES!!!!*
> *God has **manifestations** which are a reflection of how we as humans behave in a manner demanded by God.*
> 
> ...


I don't know why you're going off on some subjective theological tangent, but you're talking some bizarre batch of apples to my oranges.

I logically observed that one cannot contemplate that which one cannot apprehend.  _That_ is an objectively undeniable imperative!

I logically observed that one need not comprehend something in order to apprehend it.  _That_ is an objectively undeniable imperative!
Finally, I'm talking about God's attributes in the ontological sense of being.  The fundamental imperatives of logic and mathematics, and the first principles of ontology absolutely tell us what God's fundamental attributes are!  They are readily apprehensible.

*God the Creator is necessarily eternally self-subsistent, transcendent, immutable, immaterial, timeless, and incomparably great (omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent). Moreover, He would necessarily be the very embodiment of logic, goodness, beauty, and truth.  All of the above emboldened would necessarily be His constitutional attributes!*​


----------



## Indeependent (Apr 10, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> I don't know why you're going off on some subjective theological tangent, but you're talking some bizarre batch of apples to my oranges.
> 
> I logically observed that one cannot contemplate that which one cannot apprehend.  _That_ is an objectively undeniable imperative!
> 
> ...


I misunderstood you.


----------



## Blues Man (Apr 11, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> Question:  how do we know that God necessarily exists?
> 
> Short Answer:  because the imperatives of logic, mathematics, and metaphysics tell us that God necessarily exists.  The Cosmological Argument is bullet proof.
> 
> ...


What caused gods to exist ( if they exist)?


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 11, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> What caused gods to exist ( if they exist)?


Troll Alert!


----------



## cnm (Apr 11, 2022)

_https://plato.stanford.edu › entries › cosmological-argument_​
_The cosmological argument is less a particular argument than an argument type. It uses a general pattern of argumentation (logos) that makes an inference from particular alleged facts about the universe (cosmos) to the existence of a unique being, generally identified with or referred to as God._​


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 11, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> Still unable to control your immaturity and unwilling to answer questions.  It’s clear, you aren’t the philosopher you pose as. You aren’t even especially intelligent.
> 
> Your helter skelter continuing retreat is duly noted and quite obvious — as is the reason for  it. You’re humiliated. As you should be. 👍


You literally argued that God the Creator of the Universe could not have created the Universe after all because matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed by any natural mechanism.

You are the moron of morons!  The drooliest 'tard of drooling 'tards.


----------



## cnm (Apr 11, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> *God the Creator is necessarily eternally self-subsistent, transcendent, immutable, immaterial, timeless, and incomparably great (omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent). Moreover, He would necessarily be the very embodiment of logic, goodness, beauty, and truth. All of the above emboldened would necessarily be His constitutional attributes!*


So why would he




?


----------



## cnm (Apr 11, 2022)

cnm said:


> _The cosmological argument is less a particular argument than an argument type. It uses a general pattern of argumentation (logos) that makes an inference from particular alleged facts about the universe (cosmos) to the existence of a unique being, generally identified with or referred to as God._


Ringtone's cosmological argument is the god of gaps. We don't know so god done it.


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 11, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> You literally argued that God the Creator of the Universe could not have created the Universe after all because matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed by any natural mechanism.
> 
> You are the moron of morons!  The drooliest 'tard of drooling 'tards.


As usual, your ability to comprehend is shown to be lacking. What I _did_ say, you poor pathetic utter retard, was that “*if*” matter/energy can be neither created nor destroyed, then the existence of God as the creator violates that law. In fact, what I also said was that it appears that something or some entity HAD to have come into existence without having been “created.” Either matter/energy or God.

All of which amounts to you still running from the question like the devil is trying to butt-fuck you. Remember, your fleeing doesn’t hide it. Your OP still claims “proof” that God exists — but one of your _premises_ is that God exists.  Your entire “proof” [sic] rests on a  fallacious argument.

I still invite you to correct that mistake, if you can. But you’re a pussy, so you won’t try.  And that’s just as well, because there is no answer to it capable of being “found” in your “argument.”  A dope you were and a dope you remain.


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 11, 2022)

cnm said:


> _https://plato.stanford.edu › entries › cosmological-argument_​
> _The cosmological argument is less a particular argument than an argument type. It uses a general pattern of argumentation (logos) that makes an inference from particular alleged facts about the universe (cosmos) to the existence of a unique being, generally identified with or referred to as God._​


More essentially, the cosmological argument presupposes that the Universe does in fact exist and, via the logically incontrovertible imperatives of ontology, proves that God must be.


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 11, 2022)

cnm said:


> Ringtone's cosmological argument is the god of gaps. We don't know so god done it.


Who is this _we_, and what don't they know exactly?  Precisely what is the logical gap in the argument.


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 11, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> As usual, your ability to comprehend is shown to be lacking. What I _did_ say, you poor pathetic utter retard, was that “*if*” matter/energy can be neither created nor destroyed, then the existence of God as the creator violates that law. In fact, what I also said was that it appears that something or some entity HAD to have come into existence without having been “created.” Either matter/energy or God.
> 
> All of which amounts to you still running from the question like the devil is trying to butt-fuck you. Remember, your fleeing doesn’t hide it. Your OP still claims “proof” that God exists — but one of your _premises_ is that God exists.  Your entire “proof” [sic] rests on a  fallacious argument.
> 
> I still invite you to correct that mistake, if you can. But you’re a pussy, so you won’t try.  And that’s just as well, because there is no answer to it capable of being “found” in your “argument.”  A dope you were and a dope you remain.


Nonsense.

BackAgain literally argued that God the Creator of the Universe could not have created the Universe because matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed by any natural mechanism. BackAgain is the drooliest 'tard of drooling 'tards.


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 11, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> Nonsense.
> 
> BackAgain literally argued that God the Creator of the Universe could not have created the Universe because matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed by any natural mechanism. BackAgain is the drooliest 'tard of drooling 'tards.


Bullshit.  The the compulsive liar, ringtonedeaf, has to lie some more because he has no other argument to make. Meanwhile, the pussy still runs away from trying to defend his fallacy based “argument.”  

I may have to rename my cat to “ringtone,” to highlight what a pussy he is.


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 11, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> Bullshit.  The the compulsive liar, ringtonedeaf, has to lie some more because he has no other argument to make. Meanwhile, the pussy still runs away from trying to defend his fallacy based “argument.”
> 
> I may have to rename my cat to “ringtone,” to highlight what a pussy he is.


Stop blaming me for being the drooliest 'tard of drooling 'tards.


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 11, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> Stop blaming me for being the drooliest 'tard of drooling 'tards.


I don’t blame you for your retardation. I merely note it.

I do blame you for you cowardice and for your ignorance about the basics of logic. Ignorance can be cured, not that you have the balls to start that process. Your cowardice could be cured, to if you could find your balls.

But your retardation ain’t your fault.


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 11, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> I don’t blame you for your retardation. I merely note it.
> 
> I do blame you for you cowardice and for your ignorance about the basics of logic. Ignorance can be cured, not that you have the balls to start that process. Your cowardice could be cured, to if you could find your balls.
> 
> But your retardation ain’t your fault.


BackAgain literally argued that God the Creator of the Universe could not have created the Universe because matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed by any natural mechanism. BackAgain is the drooliest 'tard of drooling 'tards.


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 11, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> BackAgain literally argued that God the Creator of the Universe could not have created the Universe because matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed by any natural mechanism. BackAgain is the drooliest 'tard of drooling 'tards.


Ringtone literally thinks that repeating ^ his lie isn’t obvious; and he still runs like a complete pussy from even attempting to defend his own fallacy based argument.


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 11, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> Ringtone literally thinks that repeating ^ his lie isn’t obvious; and he still runs like a complete pussy from even attempting to defend his own fallacy based argument.


BackAgain is the imbecile of imbeciles who argued that God the Creator of the Universe could not have created the Universe because matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed.  If that isn't stupid enough, he also argues that adding his unspoken caveat, namely, _by a natural mechanism_, a distinction that makes absolutely no difference, constitutionally changes the absurdity of his argument. 

BackAgain is the drooliest 'tard of drooling 'tards.


----------



## Indeependent (Apr 11, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> BackAgain is the imbecile of imbeciles who argued that God the Creator of the Universe could not have created the Universe because matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed.  If that isn't stupid enough, he also argues that adding his unspoken caveat, namely, _by a natural mechanism_, a distinction that makes absolutely no difference, constitutionally changes the absurdity of his argument.
> 
> BackAgain is the drooliest 'tard of drooling 'tards.


This is getting tiring...
Which Post?


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 11, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> BackAgain is the imbecile of imbeciles who argued that God the Creator of the Universe could not have created the Universe because matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed.  If that isn't stupid enough, he also argues that adding his unspoken caveat, namely, _by a natural mechanism_, a distinction that makes absolutely no difference, constitutionally changes the absurdity of his argument.
> 
> BackAgain is the drooliest 'tard of drooling 'tards.


Apparently, like the old Hitler theory, it is ringtool’s belief that the endless repetition of an exposed lie will somehow make people believe it. 

More importantly, ringtool can’t find his balls and therefore is far too much of a pussy to admit that his fallacy-based OP claim is logically unsupported. His “proof” doesn’t exist.  

He remains a craven coward a posturing poseur pussy and a tragic retard.


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 11, 2022)

Indeependent said:


> This is getting tiring...
> Which Post?


What's tiresome is that BackAgain incessantly talks out of both sides of his mouth and is too stupid to grasp the self-evident.  Let's see the answer we get from him to the question I pose in Post #110 below.


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 11, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> Apparently, like the old Hitler theory, it is ringtool’s belief that the endless repetition of an exposed lie will somehow make people believe it.
> 
> More importantly, ringtool can’t find his balls and therefore is far too much of a pussy to admit that his fallacy-based OP claim is logically unsupported. His “proof” doesn’t exist.
> 
> He remains a craven coward a posturing poseur pussy and a tragic retard.


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

Yes or no?


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 11, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> So you're conceding that the First Law of Thermodynamics _does not and cannot prohibit_ God the Creator from creating or destroying matter/energy?
> 
> Yes or no?


You first, you massive pussy.

Are *you* conceding that your OP “proof” of the existence of God is actually premised on a fallacy.  Man up for once, since you’ve already proved yourself not to honor what you have said in this very thread. 

Yes or no.


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 11, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> What's tiresome is that BackAgain incessantly talks out of both sides of his mouth and is too stupid to grasp the self-evident.  Let's see the answer we get from him to the question I pose in Post #110 below.


You also evaded Indeependent’s question. I don’t want you to labor under the delusion that your evasions and ongoing cowardice isn’t noticed.  It is.


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 11, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> You first, you massive pussy.
> 
> Are *you* conceding that your OP “proof” of the existence of God is actually premised on a fallacy.  Man up for once, since you’ve already proved yourself not to honor what you have said in this very thread.
> 
> Yes or no.


So now you're claiming that the cosmological argument is premised on a fallacy?    

Please tell us all about this fallacy.


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 11, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> Apparently, like the old Hitler theory, it is ringtool’s belief that the endless repetition of an exposed lie will somehow make people believe it.
> 
> More importantly, ringtool can’t find his balls and therefore is far too much of a pussy to admit that his fallacy-based OP claim is logically unsupported. His “proof” doesn’t exist.
> 
> He remains a craven coward a posturing poseur pussy and a tragic retard.


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 (Apr 11, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> You also evaded Indeependent’s question. I don’t want you to labor under the delusion that your evasions and ongoing cowardice isn’t noticed.  It is.


Nope!  I'm going to give him the opportunity to observe in real time from here on out what I've been dealing with.  

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._


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 11, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> 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.


In fact, anyone with a brain would have seen that I elected not to answer your question one way or the other. So, once again, obviously, lying comes too easily for you.  

Again, First, try answering my question: Have you resigned yourself to having to acknowledge that your OP claim is based on a fallacy? Yes or no.

And you’re also still ducking Indeependent’s question.


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 11, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> Nope!  I'm going to give him the opportunity to observe in real time from here on out what I've been dealing with.
> 
> 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._


No. You’re just evading as always. Your cover story is lame. You remain a pussy and a liar.


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 11, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> In fact, anyone with a brain would have seen that I elected not to answer your question one way or the other. So, once again, obviously, lying comes too easily for you.
> 
> Again, First, try answering my question: Have you resigned yourself to having to acknowledge that your OP claim is based on a fallacy? Yes or no.
> 
> And you’re also still ducking Indeependent’s question.


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._


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 11, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> 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._


You need to answer my question.  And stop ducking Indeependent’s question, you pussy.


----------



## cnm (Apr 11, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> via the logically incontrovertible imperatives of ontology,


Circular arguments are imperative, there's no doubt of that.


----------



## cnm (Apr 11, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> Who is this _we_, and what don't they know exactly?  Precisely what is the logical gap in the argument.


Humanity. How the world was created. God.


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 11, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> You need to answer my question.  And stop ducking Indeependent’s question, you pussy.


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._


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 11, 2022)

cnm said:


> Circular arguments are imperative, there's no doubt of that.


Circular arguments are imperative?  What the hell are you talking about, donkey?


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 11, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> 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._


Zzz.   You need to answer my question, first. And stop ducking Indeependent’s question, you pussy


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 11, 2022)

cnm said:


> Humanity. How the world was created. God.


You might as well have said _goo goo g’joob_.

Gesundheit.


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 11, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> Zzz.   You need to answer my question, first. And stop ducking Indeependent’s question, you pussy


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._


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 11, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> 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._


You need to answer my question, first. And stop ducking Indeependent’s question, you pussy.


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 11, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> You need to answer my question, first. And stop ducking Indeependent’s question, you pussy.


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.


----------



## cnm (Apr 12, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> Circular arguments are imperative?


Yes, in your case. They are urgent and necessary.


----------



## cnm (Apr 12, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> You might as well have said _goo goo g’joob_.


It is true you would have comprehended that reply to your own question as easily as the one you received.


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 12, 2022)

cnm said:


> It is true you would have comprehended that reply to your own question as easily as the one you received.


You're an idiot making baby talk about nothing every time you open your yap.


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 12, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> 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.


You need to answer my question, first. And stop ducking Indeependent’s question, you pussy.


----------



## Colin norris (Apr 12, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> Question:  how do we know that God necessarily exists?
> 
> Short Answer:  because the imperatives of logic, mathematics, and metaphysics tell us that God necessarily exists.  The Cosmological Argument is bullet proof.
> 
> ...


Very well plagiarised. 
Its a shame its the same tired old bullshit about being guilty and embarrassed because you know its all crap and lies. 

Get down to some basic evidence and I'll debate you anything.


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 12, 2022)

Colin norris said:


> Very well plagiarised.
> Its a shame its the same tired old bullshit about being guilty and embarrassed because you know its all crap and lies.
> 
> Get down to some basic evidence and I'll debate you anything.


Oh, look, another syphilitic moron chimes in only to tell us that he has absolutely nothing to add.  What a friggin' 'tard.


----------



## Blues Man (Apr 12, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> Troll Alert!


You said everything has a cause didn't you?

So what is the cause of the existence of a god?


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 12, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> You said everything has a cause didn't you?
> 
> So what is the cause of the existence of a god?



*Blues Man:  You said everything has a cause didn't you?*​
No.  I've never said any such stupid thing in my life, and the cosmological argument asserts no such stupid thing.


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 12, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> You need to answer my question, first. And stop ducking Indeependent’s question, you pussy.


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.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 12, 2022)

Useless pap. Masturbatory exercise performed by college sophomores. Not taken seriously by any true intellectual or any educated person without preconceived  notions of gods.


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 12, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> Oh, look, another syphilitic moron chimes in only to tell us that he has absolutely nothing to add.  What a friggin' 'tard.


At least cockring is now admitting that he’s a syphilitic moron.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 12, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> 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?


"Because, magic!"

Very childish.


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 12, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> At least cockring is now admitting that he’s a syphilitic moron.


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 (Apr 12, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> 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.


Zzz.  Zzzzz.  So you’re finally owning up to being a pussy. You haven’t answered my question. Nor Indeependent’s. You get no answer to your question until you find your missing balls, sack up and answer.


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 12, 2022)

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 (Apr 12, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> 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.







__





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

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?  "Because, magic!"  Very childish.



					www.usmessageboard.com


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 12, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> __
> 
> 
> 
> ...


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 (Apr 12, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> 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.







__





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

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?  "Because, magic!"  Very childish.



					www.usmessageboard.com


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 12, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> __
> 
> 
> 
> ...


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 (Apr 12, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> 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.







__





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

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?  "Because, magic!"  Very childish.



					www.usmessageboard.com


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 13, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> __
> 
> 
> 
> ...


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 (Apr 13, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> *So you're saying that it's sensible to believe that nonexistence can cause existence?  *
> 
> _crickets chirping_
> 
> Are you insane?





Ringtone said:


> 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.







__





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

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?  "Because, magic!"  Very childish.



					www.usmessageboard.com


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 13, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> You need to answer my question, first. And stop ducking Indeependent’s question, you pussy.


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.


----------



## Blues Man (Apr 13, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> *Blues Man:  You said everything has a cause didn't you?*​
> No.  I've never said any such stupid thing in my life, and the cosmological argument asserts no such stupid thing.



Whatever.

Just more mystical nonsense huh?


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 13, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> 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.


Post 143.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 13, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> Whatever.
> 
> Just more mystical nonsense huh?


Correct.

"Nothing can come from nothing, except my sky daddy"

"Everything has a beginning, except my sky daddy"


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 13, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> Whatever.
> 
> Just more mystical nonsense huh?


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?


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 13, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> Post 143.


Post #152.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 13, 2022)

Notice the circular fallacy.

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

...to argue for an eternal god creator.


Truly embarrassing pap.


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 13, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> Post #152.


143


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 13, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> 143


LOL!


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 13, 2022)

Indont


Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Notice the circular fallacy.
> 
> Assuming an eternal God creator as a first premise...
> 
> ...


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


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 13, 2022)

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 (Apr 13, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> 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 (Apr 13, 2022)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> 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 (Apr 14, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> 143


Post #152.


----------



## Blues Man (Apr 14, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> 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 (Apr 14, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> LOL!  I'm surrounded by morons.
> 
> The cosmological argument does not presuppose God's existence, you drooling tards'.
> 
> ...


143


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 14, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> Post #152.


143


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 14, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> 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 (Apr 14, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> 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 (Apr 14, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> 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 (Apr 14, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> 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 (Apr 15, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> 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 (Apr 15, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> 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 (Apr 15, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> 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 (Apr 15, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> 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 (Apr 15, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> 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 (Apr 15, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


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 (Apr 16, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> 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 (Apr 16, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


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


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 16, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> 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 (Apr 16, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> 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
> 
> ...


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

_Zoom_  Right over.

You write:  *"What you don't seem to understand is that a random event can also be a cause."

Correction:  *All events _are_ causes, random or not, and the ultimate cause of the Universe's existence would necessarily be _agent causation!_  There's nothing you can teach me about the science/philosophy of causation.


----------



## Blues Man (Apr 17, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> You write:  *"I don't worry about nature so once again we see just how wrong you are in your assumptions."*
> 
> _Zoom_  Right over.
> 
> ...



IDGAF about you or your gods.

For all we know your agent of causation is a pimply faced kid running a computer simulation.

Ontological mathematics reduces all reality as we know it to nothing by sinusoidal waves so in reality we could be nothing but a thought in someone else's head.

And who cares what the cause of the universe is really?

How does it change anything about your existence?

What I see you doing is making up a cause ( gods)  to explain what we can never know.


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 17, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> IDGAF about you or your gods.
> 
> For all we know your agent of causation is a pimply faced kid running a computer simulation.
> 
> ...


And maybe you're a slavering simpleton of a slack-jawed silly ass spouting a stream of stupidity.


----------



## Blues Man (Apr 17, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> And maybe you're a slavering simpleton of a slack-jawed silly ass spouting a stream of stupidity.


Yeah juvenile name calling is good for your arguments.  Keep it up.


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 17, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> Yeah juvenile name calling is good for your arguments.  Keep it up.


Like your incoherent "argument" is supposed to be taken seriously as you inexplicably eschew the _a priori_ reason and logic of ontological mathematics?


----------



## Blues Man (Apr 18, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> Like your incoherent "argument" is supposed to be taken seriously as you inexplicably eschew the _a priori_ reason and logic of ontological mathematics?



According to ontological mathematics we are all gods because reality is nothing but sinusoidal waves and therefore our very thoughts are all acts of creation


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 19, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> According to ontological mathematics we are all gods because reality is nothing but sinusoidal waves and therefore our very thoughts are all acts of creation


According to the cultists or purists of ontological mathematics.  But the fundamental imperative of ontological mathematics is that mind and _a priori_ reasoning and/or logic necessarily precede and have primacy over material being and scientific knowledge.   Either way, it would not impinge on the necessity of an absolute beginning in time or that of a first uncaused cause.


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 20, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> 143


The First Law of Thermodynamics _does not and could not prohibit_ God the Creator from creating or destroying matter/energy.

Put a thumbs up on this post and we'll call it a day.

Thanks.


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 20, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> The First Law of Thermodynamics _does not and could not prohibit_ God the Creator from creating or destroying matter/energy.
> 
> Put a thumbs up on this post and we'll call it a day.
> 
> Thanks.


143


----------



## Blues Man (Apr 20, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> According to the cultists or purists of ontological mathematics.  But the fundamental imperative of ontological mathematics is that mind and _a priori_ reasoning and/or logic necessarily precede and have primacy over material being and scientific knowledge.   Either way, it would not impinge on the necessity of an absolute beginning in time or that of a first uncaused cause.


And where is that mind assumed to be the mind of a supreme being?

Like I said according to OM anyone capable of thought is a god


----------



## Blues Man (Apr 20, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> The First Law of Thermodynamics _does not and could not prohibit_ God the Creator from creating or destroying matter/energy.
> 
> Put a thumbs up on this post and we'll call it a day.
> 
> Thanks.


Matter and energy are the same thing.


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 20, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> Matter and energy are the same thing.


Yes, we know that.


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 20, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> And where is that mind assumed to be the mind of a supreme being?
> 
> Like I said according to OM anyone capable of thought is a god


There is no _assumed_.   Stop with the stupid shit.  Finite minds do not and cannot account for their own existence!

The fundamental imperatives of logic and mathematics, and the first principles of ontology manifestly evince God's existence.  The Kalam Cosmological Argument entails the pertinent imperatives and principles, and the OP of this thread summarizes the matter.  Read it.  Study it.  Think.


----------



## Blues Man (Apr 20, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> There is no _assumed_.
> 
> The fundamental imperatives of logic and mathematics, and the first principles of ontology manifestly evince God's existence.  The Kalam Cosmological Argument entails the pertinent imperatives and principles, and the OP of this thread summarizes the matter.  Read it.  Study it.  Think.


No they don't.

If we are talking about OM it just assumes the existence of another mind capable of thought


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 20, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> 143


The First Law of Thermodynamics _does not and could not prohibit_ God the Creator from creating or destroying matter/energy.

Put a thumbs up on this post and we'll call it a day.

Thanks.


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 20, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> No they don't.
> 
> If we are talking about OM it just assumes the existence of another mind capable of thought


Yes.  They.  Do.  
Read.  Study.  Think.


----------



## Blues Man (Apr 20, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> Yes they do.  Read.  Study.  Think.


No they don't.


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 20, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> No they don't.


Yes. They. Do.


----------



## Blues Man (Apr 20, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> Yes. They. Do.


No. They. Don't.


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 20, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> No. They. Don't.


Yes. They. Do.


----------



## Blues Man (Apr 20, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> Yes. They. Do.











						How does the ontological argument support the existence of God?
					

How does the ontological argument support the existence of God? What are the divisions of ontological argument? Why should I study ontological argument?



					www.compellingtruth.org
				




In short, the ontological argument does not conclusively _prove_ the existence of God,


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 20, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> How does the ontological argument support the existence of God?
> 
> 
> How does the ontological argument support the existence of God? What are the divisions of ontological argument? Why should I study ontological argument?
> ...





How would you know?  You've demonstrated again and again that you can't think straight from one moment to the next.

This thread is _not_ about any ontological argument, of which there are five kinds:  conceptual, modal, definitional, Meinongian, and experiential.  A logical proof of the ontological argument is in the eye of the thinker, as it were.  In any event, this thread is about the Kalam Ontological Argument.


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 20, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> The First Law of Thermodynamics _does not and could not prohibit_ God the Creator from creating or destroying matter/energy.
> 
> Put a thumbs up on this post and we'll call it a day.
> 
> Thanks.


143


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 20, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> How would you know?  You've demonstrated again and again that you can't think straight from one moment to the next.
> 
> This thread is _not_ about any ontological argument, of which there are five kinds:  conceptual, modal, definitional, Meinongian, and experiential.  A logical proof of the ontological argument is in the eye of the thinker, as it were.  In any event, this thread is about the Kalam Ontological Argument.


Edit

Now you got me doing it.  LOL

The above should read *Kalam Cosmological Argument*.


----------



## Blues Man (Apr 20, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> How would you know?  You've demonstrated again and again that you can't think straight from one moment to the next.
> 
> This thread is _not_ about any ontological argument, of which there are five kinds:  conceptual, modal, definitional, Meinongian, and experiential.  A logical proof of the ontological argument is in the eye of the thinker, as it were.  In any event, this thread is about the Kalam Ontological Argument.


tomato tomahto



Many critics dismiss the kalam argument for failing to do what it never attempts: conclusively prove the existence of the God of Christianity.









						Arguments Against the Kalam Cosmological Argument
					

If you are anything like me, and the vast majority of the country, you are now no doubt stuck at home for the foreseeable future while we ride out this pandemic. If you are also anything like me this has you thinking about philosophy, apologetics, and the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Come on...




					www.cambridgeskeptics.org.uk
				




Now I am sure you will all have immediately noticed that the conclusion of the Kalam Cosmological Argument is not “_the cause of the universe is an eternal, uncaused, timeless, spaceless, changeless, immaterial, enormously powerful, personal being who created the universe out of absolutely nothing_”.


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 20, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> tomato tomahto
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well, the critique you posted is riddled with the tiresome and sophomoric objections routinely raised by the new atheists of postmodernism who incessantly lose sight of the underlying principles of ontology or the attending, fundamental imperatives of logic and mathematics.  I say _tiresome_ because the argument is bullet proof.  Those of us who have studied it in depth, from every angle, those of us who have deconstructed and reformulated it in our own terms, note these fallacious objections at a glance!

BackAgain*, for *example, keeps raising the same questions . . . all the while failing to recognize that my response answers those very *questions and disembowels their underlying objections.*​
The argument incontrovertibly proves the existence of God, i.e., the divinity of classical theism.  I would think it's silly to dismiss any extensive line of logic, especially regarding divinity, because additional revelation from God is required to discern which of the arguably five expressions of classical theism, if any, is true.  And, yes, there's only five:  Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Christianity, Islam, and Deism.  The argument falsifies the materialistic divinities of paganism.

I have no respect for the contrived counterarguments that arise from the minds of those who don't strive to objectively and correctly understand it on its own terms first, then attempt to relentlessly tear it to pieces.  Good luck with that.  I have incessantly tried to falsify it for more than a decade to no avail.


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 21, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> tomato tomahto
> 
> 
> 
> ...


As for this:

Now I am sure you will all have immediately noticed that the conclusion of the Kalam Cosmological Argument is not “_the cause of the universe is an eternal, uncaused, timeless, spaceless, changeless, immaterial, enormously powerful, personal being who created the universe out of absolutely nothing_”.​
_Sigh_

READ THE ENTIRE FIRST POST OF THE THREAD!  PAY ATTENTION!

Excerpt: 

The thoughtless fail to grasp the cogency of the Cosmological Argument because (1)* they fail to grasp the fundamental imperatives of existence itself and because (2) they fail to grasp the minor, necessarily attending premises linking the major premises of the argument. *To grasp the latter especially requires the thought of an open and logical mind. While the first major premise in the above is a given, one begins by observing the fundamental ontological imperatives of being:​​*1. Something does exist rather than nothing. *​*2. Existence cannot arise from nonexistence. Absurdity!*​*3. Hence, something has always existed.*​​We can now move on to regard the minor, necessarily attending premises linking the major premises of the argument.​​​


----------



## Blues Man (Apr 21, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> Well, the critique you posted is riddled with the tiresome and sophomoric objections routinely raised by the new atheists of postmodernism who incessantly lose sight of the underlying principles of ontology or the attending, fundamental imperatives of logic and mathematics.  I say _tiresome_ because the argument is bullet proof.  Those of us who have studied it in depth, from every angle, those of us who have deconstructed and reformulated it in our own terms, note these fallacious objections at a glance!
> 
> BackAgain*, for *example, keeps raising the same questions . . . all the while failing to recognize that my response answers those very *questions and disembowels their underlying objections.*​
> The argument incontrovertibly proves the existence of God, i.e., the divinity of classical theism.  I would think it's silly to dismiss any extensive line of logic, especially regarding divinity, because additional revelation from God is required to discern which of the arguably five expressions of classical theism, if any, is true.  And, yes, there's only five:  Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Christianity, Islam, and Deism.  The argument falsifies the materialistic divinities of paganism.
> ...


That 3 line "argument" you are touting is hardly proof of anything


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 21, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> That 3 line "argument" you are touting is hardly proof of anything


What's that supposed to mean?

Are you saying that something _doesn't_ exist?



That existence could arise from nonexistence?



That something has _not_ necessarily always existed?


----------



## Blues Man (Apr 21, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> What's that supposed to mean?
> 
> Are you saying that something _doesn't_ exist?
> 
> ...


Does not prove god.


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 21, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> Does not prove god.




Logical proofs are constructed from fundamental axioms that necessarily follow.   

*The universal imperative of being/existence:*​*1. Something does exist rather than nothing. *​*2. Existence cannot arise from nonexistence. *​*3. Hence, something has always existed.*​
These three statements as a whole constitute a syllogistic argument comprised of incontrovertible axioms whose conclusion necessarily follows.  Collectively, the three assertions above also constitute the universal imperative of being/existence, an apriority that underscores the manifest veracity of the first major premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument.​
*1.  That which begins to exist must have a cause for its existence.*​*2.  The Universe (i.e., the material world) began to exist.*​​
*Question:  *have you ever asked yourself how or thought about why the second premise necessarily comes to the fore? Have you ever regarded its justification?
​​


----------



## Blues Man (Apr 21, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> Logical proofs are constructed from fundamental axioms that necessarily follow.
> 
> *The universal imperative of being/existence:*​*1. Something does exist rather than nothing. *​*2. Existence cannot arise from nonexistence. *​*3. Hence, something has always existed.*​
> These three statements as a whole constitute a syllogistic argument comprised of incontrovertible axioms whose conclusion necessarily follows.  Collectively, the three assertions above also constitute the universal imperative of being/existence, an apriority that underscores the manifest veracity of the first major premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument.​
> ...


None of that proves the existence of the god in the bible or any god for that matter.

Like I said that argument does not exclude the possibility that we are all just part of some computer simulation running on an alien hard drive


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 21, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> None of that proves the existence of the god in the bible or any god for that matter.
> 
> Like I said that argument does not exclude the possibility that we are all just part of some computer simulation running on an alien hard drive


Dude!  That's not the whole of the argument!  What the hell is wrong with you?  We are in the midst of the argument, and you keep stupidly saying "that doesn't prove God's existence."

_Derp  Derp
_____________

Once again:

*The universal imperative of being/existence:*​*1. Something does exist rather than nothing. *​*2. Existence cannot arise from nonexistence. *​*3. Hence, something has always existed.*​
These three statements as a whole constitute a syllogistic argument comprised of incontrovertible axioms whose conclusion necessarily follows. Collectively, the three assertions above also constitute the universal imperative of being/existence, an apriority that underscores the manifest veracity of the first major premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument.​
*1. That which begins to exist must have a cause for its existence.*​
The argument has been proved up to this point, ya dumbass!  We have not reached the final conclusion of the argument yet, ya dumbass!


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 21, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> None of that proves the existence of the god in the bible or any god for that matter.
> 
> Like I said that argument does not exclude the possibility that we are all just part of some computer simulation running on an alien hard drive


You're more clueless than this dumbass!





__





						Abortionist Argument: Read My Poster
					

I'm guessing she's still convinced she held her own 😄



					www.usmessageboard.com


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 21, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> None of that proves the existence of the god in the bible or any god for that matter.
> 
> Like I said that argument does not exclude the possibility that we are all just part of some computer simulation running on an alien hard drive


You're intellectually lazy and stupid!


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 21, 2022)

Examine ringtonedeaf’s OP closely. You will see that he posits (AS a premise) the existence of a CREATOR. Then, he utilizes _that_ premise in a string forming a purported syllogism. And he uses his syllogism as “proof” of the existence of the Creator.

But, he can’t quite grasp how he’s committed the fallacy of begging the question.  😂


----------



## Blues Man (Apr 21, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> Dude!  That's not the whole of the argument!  What the hell is wrong with you?  We are in the midst of the argument, and you keep stupidly saying "that doesn't prove God's existence."
> 
> _Derp  Derp
> _____________
> ...




And It's what the cause is that is not proven.

This is just another version of the ontological argument for the existence of a god that has been since the eleventh century.

And it has never been a convincing argument for the existence of a god.


----------



## Blues Man (Apr 21, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> Examine ringtonedeaf’s OP closely. You will see that he posits (AS a premise) the existence of a CREATOR. Then, he utilizes _that_ premise in a string forming a purported syllogism. And he uses his syllogism as “proof” of the existence of the Creator.
> 
> But, he can’t quite grasp how he’s committed the fallacy of begging the question.  😂


You have to assume there is a god for this argument to prove there is a god.


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 21, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> You have to assume there is a god for this argument to prove there is a god.


He doesn’t recognize it. But it’s true. He has employed a fallacy. 

For anything to exist, there must be a Creator. 
Lots of things exist.
——————————
Therefore, everything must be caused by the Creator.


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 21, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> None of that proves the existence of the god in the bible or any god for that matter.
> 
> Like I said that argument does not exclude the possibility that we are all just part of some computer simulation running on an alien hard drive


Hey, dumbass, your premature baby talk doesn't refute the argument!

Hey, dumbass, your premature baby talk doesn't refute the argument!

Hey, dumbass, your premature baby talk doesn't refute the argument!

Hey, dumbass, your premature baby talk doesn't refute the argument!


----------



## Blues Man (Apr 21, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> He doesn’t recognize it. But it’s true. He has employed a fallacy.
> 
> For anything to exist, there must be a Creator.
> Lots of things exist.
> ...





Ringtone said:


> Hey, dumbass, your premature baby talk doesn't refute the argument!
> 
> Hey, dumbass, your premature baby talk doesn't refute the argument!
> 
> ...


Says the guy acting like a baby


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 21, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> You have to assume there is a god for this argument to prove there is a god.


Why is that, dumbass?


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 21, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> Says the guy acting like a baby


Says the guy who's a dumbass.


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 21, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> Says the guy acting like a baby


It may not be an act.


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 21, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> That 3 line "argument" you are touting is hardly proof of anything


Hey, dumbass, that doesn't address the argument, let alone refute it.
Hey, dumbass, that doesn't address the argument, let alone refute it.
Hey, dumbass, that doesn't address the argument, let alone refute it.


----------



## Blues Man (Apr 21, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> Why is that, dumbass?





Ringtone said:


> Says the guy who's a dumbass.


says the guy who name calls like a child


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 21, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> It may not be an act.


Hey, dumbass, how could the laws of thermodynamics trump God's power?


----------



## Blues Man (Apr 21, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> Hey, dumbass, that doesn't address the argument, let alone refute it.
> Hey, dumbass, that doesn't address the argument, let alone refute it.
> Hey, dumbass, that doesn't address the argument, let alone refute it.


Get back to me when you grow up


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 21, 2022)

> Blues Man said:
> That 3 line "argument" you are touting is hardly proof of anything


Hey, dumbass, that doesn't address the argument, let alone refute it.


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 21, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> Get back to me when you grow up


Hey, dumbass, that doesn't address the argument, let alone refute it.


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 21, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> As for this:
> 
> Now I am sure you will all have immediately noticed that the conclusion of the Kalam Cosmological Argument is not “_the cause of the universe is an eternal, uncaused, timeless, spaceless, changeless, immaterial, enormously powerful, personal being who created the universe out of absolutely nothing_”.​
> _Sigh_
> ...


1. If “existence cannot arise from nonexistence” (“absurdity!”) then for something to exist, it *had* to have *been* created.

2. Matter and energy can be neither created or destroyed. 

Matter/energy exist. So, it *had* to have been created. (Premise 1).  But if matter/energy *had* to have been created, then that constitutes a *denial* of Premise 2.

A fallacy of contradictory premises isn’t always readily apparent. Here, upon any reasonable consideration, it is readily apparent however.


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 21, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> Hey, dumbass, how could the laws of thermodynamics trump God's power?


Hey shit for brains: you *assume* God’s power *as* a premise.


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 21, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> Hey shit for brains: you *assume* God’s power *as* a premise.


A premise for what, dumbass?  By the way, see my new signature, dumbass.


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 21, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> 1. If “existence cannot arise from nonexistence” (“absurdity!”) then for something to exist, it *had* to have *been* created.
> 
> 2. Matter and energy can be neither created or destroyed.
> 
> ...


What a total dumbass, you are.


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 21, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> Get back to me when you grow up


Go fuck yourself, dumbass.


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 21, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> A premise for what, dumbass?  By the way, see my new signature, dumbass.


Shitforbrains:  you assume the existence of God for your OP claim constitutes a proof of God’s existence.  Damn, you’re stupid.


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 21, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> What a total dumbass, you are.


Yes. You are indeed retarded. And a gutless retard at that.


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 21, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> 1. If “existence cannot arise from nonexistence” (“absurdity!”) then for something to exist, it *had* to have *been* created.
> 
> 2. Matter and energy can be neither created or destroyed.
> 
> ...


What a total moron!


----------



## Orangecat (Apr 21, 2022)

Moonglow said:


> Then what is God's address and or phone number?


1 Heaven Place, Cloud City, Heaven, 11111.
God doesn't have a phone. He still uses a pager.


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 21, 2022)

Orangecat said:


> 1 Heaven Place, Cloud City, Heaven, 11111.
> God doesn't have a phone. He still uses a pager.


Hey, Orangecat, we don't exist according to BackAgain.  I'm pretty sure I exist.  Do you exist?


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 21, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> What a total moron!


It would be easier for you to just acknowledge that you’re clueless. But sure, you are indeed a moron. Thanks for acknowledging that much.


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 21, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> Hey, Orangecat, we don't exist according to BackAgain.  I'm pretty sure I exist.  Do you exist?


Wrong yet again, retard. I exist and I never said otherwise. You are ponderously stupid.

I have also updated my signature as you recommended. Enjoy.


----------



## Orangecat (Apr 21, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> Hey, Orangecat, we don't exist according to BackAgain.  I'm pretty sure I exist.  Do you exist?


I can’t say. I’m not a biologist.


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 21, 2022)

Orangecat said:


> I can’t say. I’m not a biologist.


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 21, 2022)

Innocynioc said:


> How do you know that an infinite can not exist?


Excellent question.


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 21, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> Wrong yet again, retard. I exist and I never said otherwise. You are ponderously stupid.
> 
> I have also updated my signature as you recommended. Enjoy.


No, dumbass, you're the one arguing that everything has to be created and nothing can be created at the same time.

What a total dumbass.


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 21, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> Excellent question.


Hey, dumbass, precisely how much is an actual infinite number of something?


----------



## Orangecat (Apr 21, 2022)

No need to get angry when we’re all just guessing about the mysteries of existence.


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 21, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> No, dumbass, you're the one arguing that everything has to be created and nothing can be created at the same time.
> 
> What a total dumbass.


No you dishonest shit for brains. I’m simply noting *your* inconsistencies. Deal with them. You own them.


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 21, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> Hey, dumbass, precisely how much is an actual infinite number of something?


See? You massive shitforbrains? You ask retarded questions.


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 21, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> It would be easier for you to just acknowledge that you’re clueless. But sure, you are indeed a moron. Thanks for acknowledging that much.


You silly ass!


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 21, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> You silly ass!


You are just an asshole. That’s all.


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 21, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> No you dishonest shit for brains. I’m simply noting *your* inconsistencies. Deal with them. You own them.


Answer the question, bitch!  What is an actual infinite number of something?


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 21, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> Answer the question, bitch!  What is an actual infinite number of something?


Eat another pile of dog shit, assbreath. 

You don’t answer questions. You don’t get any answered.  Except I did correctly note that your question was retarded.


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 21, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> 1. If “existence cannot arise from nonexistence” (“absurdity!”) then for something to exist, it *had* to have *been* created.
> 
> 2. Matter and energy can be neither created or destroyed.
> 
> ...


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
What is this moron talking about?


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 21, 2022)

These questions go out to ringtonedeaf a/k/a Ringtone.

*Do you agree that matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed?*  (A simple yes or no _would_ suffice, although you don’t really answer questions and even if you try, you like to obfuscate.)

*If you agree that matter/energy can be neither created nor destroyed, then where did it all come from?

If you say it came from God, the Creator, then you are indeed saying that matter/energy CAN be created. Or do you deny that?*

It’s ok, you flaming retard. I realize that you have neither the intelligence nor the integrity to just honestly answer straightforward questions*. *

BONUS question 1, which you will also duck: 

Do you *admit* or do you *deny* that your OP “argument” (which you claim constitutes “proof” of the existence of God) has, as one of its *premises*, that God exists?

BONUS question 2, which you are also likely going to duck:

Putting aside your retarded question about quantifying infinity, are you able and willing to explain in straightforward terms why “infinity” is impossible?  If you are willing to try, please do so.


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 21, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> What is this moron talking about?


Why talk about yourself in the third person?


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 21, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> Eat another pile of dog shit, assbreath.
> 
> You don’t answer questions. You don’t get any answered.  Except I did correctly note that your question was retarded.


You syphilitic moron of a mindless retard.


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 21, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> You syphilitic moron of a mindless retard.


As ^ predicted. You remain far too gutless and stupid to ever man-up (much less offer an honest answer).


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 21, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> These questions go out to ringtonedeaf a/k/a Ringtone.
> 
> *Do you agree that matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed?*  (A simple yes or no _would_ suffice, although you don’t really answer questions and even if you — try you like to obfuscate.)
> 
> ...


You batshit crazy 'tard!


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 21, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> You batshit crazy 'tard!


You cowardly dishonest retarded pussy. 

257 !


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 21, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> You cowardly dishonest retarded pussy.
> 
> 257 !


*You* *toe-jam-funk-smelin' sociopath!*


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 21, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> *You* *toe-jam-funk-smelin' sociopath!*


When you’ve got nuthin’ that’s ^ what you go to, ringtonedeaf.

Meanwhile:  257


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 21, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> When you’ve got nuthin’ that’s ^ what you go to, ringtonedeaf.
> 
> Meanwhile:  257


I have no idea what the hell you're talking about, you silly ass.

I don't know if you're saying that there _is_ a natural mechanism by
 which matter/energy can be created or destroyed, or saying that there is _no_ natural mechanism by which matter/energy can be created or destroyed.

You imbecile.  You lunatic.  You droolin' tard.  Indeed, you pathological liar, you sociopath.


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 21, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> I have no idea what the hell you're talking about, you silly ass.
> 
> I don't know if you're saying that there _is_ a natural mechanism by
> which matter/energy can be created or destroyed, or saying that there is _no_ natural mechanism by which matter/energy can be created or destroyed.
> ...


Stop guessing. Sack up. Answer the questions.

257.


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 21, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> Stop guessing. Sack up. Answer the questions.
> 
> 257.


You crazy bitch!   You raving lunatic!

I've already told you that there is no known natural mechanism by which matter/energy can be created or destroyed.


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 21, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> You crazy bitch!   You raving lunatic!
> 
> I've already told you that there is no known natural mechanism by which matter/energy can be created or destroyed.


You stupid fucking retarded vainglorious twat. I’m glad you grasp at least that much. And because there is no natural mechanism for it, you conjure up a supernatural Creator. Don’t misunderstand as you so often do.

I happen to agree that creation is, definitionally,  “supernatural.”  I happen to see evidence (albeit subject to interpretation) of a design in that supernatural creation.  Accordingly, I happen to believe in God.

Where *you* go off the path, however, is where you substitute “proof” for “belief.” You do know, I’m guessing, that non religious believers have what they consider a kind of mathematical “proof” that the creation could happen based on some alleged insight into “quantum mechanics.”  (Which is also, definitionally, “supernatural” — which lots of those proponents don’t care to acknowledge.)

Men and women vastly more intellectual and insightful than you have addressed this entire discussion long before you started aping their logic. The problem is, you don’t recognize the limitations. Many of them are ok with acknowledging that, so far, we don’t really “know.”  You rail against that. You twit.


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 22, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> You stupid fucking retarded vainglorious twat. I’m glad you grasp at least that much. And because there is no natural mechanism for it, you conjure up a supernatural Creator. Don’t misunderstand as you so often do.
> 
> I happen to agree that creation is, definitionally,  “supernatural.”  I happen to see evidence (albeit subject to interpretation) of a design in that supernatural creation.  Accordingly, I happen to believe in God.
> 
> ...


You crazy bitch, claiming that I lack insight is not the same thing as demonstrating that alleged lack of insight.  Your bald allegations are the cheap and easy blather of a droolin' tard.

I've forgotten more about the pertinent physics, cosmology, mathematics, logic, and metaphysics than the likes of you could ever grasp in a lifetime.

You foolishly write:

Where *you* go off the path, however, is where you substitute 'proof' for 'belief.'​
What a silly ass you are.  You stupidly write the above as if any given belief could not also be a logical or mathematical proof/axiom, indeed, as if, in the parlance of epistemology, a justified true belief of apriority were not an objectively demonstrable imperative of logic, mathematics or ontology.

The above is just another example of the stupid shit that routinely falls out of your mouth due to your glaringly obvious lack of thought and learning.  But, of course, the ultimate problem in these instances of stupidity goes to the arrogance of your ignorance.

I offered to help you understand the KCA's line of logical proofs via the Socratic method, but, no, instead of allowing the discourse to play out, you characterized the method as a means of nefariously controlling the conversation.

But looky here, I finally drug the very concession out of you that you have been loath to make.  As I have been saying all along, *there is no known natural mechanism by which matter/energy can be created or destroyed. * It was over this very point that the discourse broke down for a second time.

Are you done with all the hysteria now?  Are you ready to move on now?


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 22, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> You are just an asshole. That’s all.


Oh, by the way, nitwit, given that you read minds, a talent I don't have, perhaps you can tell us precisely what question *Innocynioc* is asking here:


> Innocynioc said:​How do you know that an infinite can not exist?​



You said it was an excellent question, so presumably you can tell me if he's referring to *(1)* the qualitative infinity of theology, *(2)* the quantitative infinity of mathematics, or *(3)* the actually infinite-potentially infinite dichotomy of ontology.

I never said anything about the existence or nonexistence of "an infinite."  I have no idea what he's talking about.  I don't think he knows what he's talking about either.  But you obviously understand what appears to be a meaningless question about something *Innocyioc* doesn't understand because you obviously read minds.

_crickets chirping_


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 22, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> Excellent question.


Hey, you slack-jawed zombie of a slavering, catatonic empty space, what excellent question would that be precisely?



Mind reader.


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 22, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> Stop guessing. Sack up. Answer the questions.


You don't know dick about the philosophy and mathematics of infinity, do you?  What a total phony ass.   

"Excellent question," he says, as if he reads minds, as if he were referring to a definitively intelligible question about infinity in the first place.   

What a total blowhard.


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 22, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> You crazy bitch, claiming that I lack insight is not the same thing as demonstrating that alleged lack of insight.  Your bald allegations are the cheap and easy blather of a droolin' tard.
> 
> I've forgotten more about the pertinent physics, cosmology, mathematics, logic, and metaphysics than the likes of you could ever grasp in a lifetime.
> 
> ...


Summary:  your proof wasn’t a proof. It really would have been simpler to admit your error. But I’ll be happy to continue to educate you, any time. No need to thank me. Puncturing your thin-skinned ego is reward enough. 👍


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 22, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> Summary:  your proof wasn’t a proof. It really would have been simpler to admit your error. But I’ll be happy to continue to educate you, any time. No need to thank me. Puncturing your thin-skinned ego is reward enough. 👍


You syphilitic moron of a doddering dope, you'll be happy to educate me?


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 22, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> Oh, by the way, nitwit, given that you read minds, a talent I don't have, perhaps you can tell us precisely what question *Innocynioc* is asking here:
> 
> 
> You said it was an excellent question, so presumably you can tell me if he's referring to *(1)* the qualitative infinity of theology, *(2)* the quantitative infinity of mathematics, or *(3)* the actually infinite-potentially infinite dichotomy of ontology.
> ...


You’re the asshole who made the asinine claim that an infinite can’t exist.  Of course it can.  It does in fact.  So, again, there’s no need to quibble. You’re ignorance is like a laser light on a dark night.

You are too dim-witted to grasp the import of what you’re claiming.  But just because you don’t understand something doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 22, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> Hey, you slack-jawed zombie of a slavering, catatonic empty space, what excellent question would that be precisely?
> 
> 
> 
> Mind reader.


Hey you bombastic self aggrandizing drooling shit pile of filthy diseased tragic retardation:  you just asked another question so stupid even _you_ should feel ashamed of having “asked” it.


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 22, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> You don't know dick about the philosophy and mathematics of infinity, do you?  What a total phony ass.
> 
> "Excellent question," he says, as if he reads minds, as if he were referring to a definitively intelligible question about infinity in the first place.
> 
> What a total blowhard.


Your ego is on display.  So is your incredibly thin skin. Careful, you retard. You’re so thin skinned high blood pressure could cause you to sweat blood. But yes. You are a blowhard.


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 22, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> You’re the asshole who made the asinine claim that an infinite can’t exist.  Of course it can.  It does in fact.  So, again, there’s no need to quibble. You’re ignorance is like a laser light on a dark night.
> 
> You are too dim-witted to grasp the import of what you’re claiming.  But just because you don’t understand something doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.


You silly-ass bitch of a toothless, senile shit stain.   

*Innocynioc *asked me why *an infinite can't exist*, but I _never_ said that an infinite can't exist in the first place!

Forget about the question.  The phrase in and of itself is grammatically nonsensical, essentially meaningless.

An infinite ____________ doesn't exist?!  An infinite ____________ does exist?!

Either way, it's gibberish!

The word _infinite_ is being used as an adjective!  The noun is missing.  That's the whole point, you phony-ass bitch of a stinking whore.

_Infinite_ is virtually always an adjective routinely preceded by the definite article _an_ and followed by the noun phrase _collection of_ _something_ or _number of something_*:*

_an _(definite article) _*+*_ _infinite _(adjective) _*+*_ _collection/number of stars _(noun phrase).​​_He beheld what seemed to be an infinite collection/number of stars_.​​In the relatively rare instances in which the word _infinite_ is used as a noun, a philosophical or mathematical distinction or qualification is being made.

What _I_ talked about was *an actual (adjective) infinite (noun)*, _not_ an infinite.

*An actual infinite* (or an actual infinity) only exists in minds as a mathematical concept!  It does not and cannot exist as a concrete reality _outside_ of minds.

Once again, saying that *an infinite* does or doesn't exist, as you stupidly did, is grammatically nonsensical in the first place.

I was talking about *an actual infinite*.


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 22, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> Summary:  your proof wasn’t a proof. It really would have been simpler to admit your error. But I’ll be happy to continue to educate you, any time. No need to thank me. Puncturing your thin-skinned ego is reward enough. 👍


Shut the hell up, you lying sack of putrid pus percolating up from the plague-infested depths in which penis-packing pissants like you pander and pimp your perverted, pansy-ass selves.


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 22, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> Shut the hell up, you lying sack of putrid pus percolating up from the plague-infested depths in which penis-packing pissants like you pander and pimp your perverted, pansy-ass selves.


Pussy scumbag asshole says ^? 

It’s ok. I realize that you have belatedly discovered that you are indeed a dope. It will suffice.

Go ahead. Give us another sterling syllogism using a conclusion as a premise and claim that it’s a “proof” of the conclusion.  😂🤣


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 22, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> Pussy scumbag asshole says ^?
> 
> It’s ok. I realize that you have belatedly discovered that you are indeed a dope. It will suffice.
> 
> Go ahead. Give us another sterling syllogism using a conclusion as a premise and claim that it’s a “proof” of the conclusion.  😂🤣


You silly-ass bitch of a toothless, senile shit stain. 

*Innocynioc *asked me why *an infinite can't exist*, but I _never_ said that an infinite can't exist in the first place!

Forget about the question. The phrase in and of itself is grammatically nonsensical, essentially meaningless.

An infinite ____________ doesn't exist?! An infinite ____________ does exist?!

Either way, it's gibberish!

The word _infinite_ is being used as an adjective! The noun is missing. That's the whole point, you phony-ass bitch of a stinking whore.

_Infinite_ is virtually always an adjective routinely preceded by the definite article _an_ and followed by the noun phrase _collection of_ _something_ or _number of something_*:*

_an _(definite article) _*+*_ _infinite _(adjective) _*+*_ _collection/number of stars _(noun phrase).

_He beheld what seemed to be an infinite collection/number of stars_.

In the relatively rare instances in which the word _infinite_ is used as a noun, a philosophical or mathematical distinction or qualification is being made.

What _I_ talked about was *an actual (adjective) infinite (noun)*, _not_ an infinite.

*An actual infinite* (or an actual infinity) only exists in minds as a mathematical concept! It does not and cannot exist as a concrete reality _outside_ of minds.

Once again, saying that *an infinite* does or doesn't exist, as you stupidly did, is grammatically nonsensical in the first place.


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 22, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> You silly-ass bitch of a toothless, senile shit stain.
> 
> *Innocynioc *asked me why *an infinite can't exist*, but I _never_ said that an infinite can't exist in the first place!
> 
> ...


Dear hapless helpless hopeless hump retard:

Infinity does exist. An infinite does exist. Your attempt at word play is amateur hour material.

if we conceptualize a point in space, we have to imagine it as vanishingly small. Now out another “point” a full light year away. Now draw an imaginary line between those two points. We can describe the length of that line as being a light year in length. But we could never define how many individual points fall in between the original two. Why not? Because there are an infinite number. And between *any* two of the other points in that line? Yup. Another infinite number of points.

And in the end?  So what?  An infinite number will be eternally beyond counting. It doesn’t change any argument. None whatsoever. If I say that there are an infinite number of infinite points, I’d be right. But that wouldn’t be a limit. It would barely scratch the surface of the concept. That doesn’t make the concept an absurdity.

Anyway, you simpleton, when you attempt to make a desired conclusion one of your premises, you have engaged in a fallacy. *That* doesn’t change, either. You should embrace your inner stupid.  And your entire stupid. It’s all you have, stupid.


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 22, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> Dear hapless helpless hopeless hump retard:
> 
> Infinity does exist. An infinite does exist. Your attempt at word play is amateur hour material.
> 
> ...


Get this post through you thick skull, you pretentious, drooling 'tard of a bloviating, punk-ass fraud!

The only word-playing whore around here is _you._

You write:

Infinity does exist.​
I never said it didn't exist, bitch.  Of course it exists, bitch.  Infinity exists as an idea of a boundlessly large, indeterminable number or amount of something, bitch.  Countable and uncountable infinities exist too, bitch.  But infinity is not a real number.  It's an imaginary number that exists as a concept in minds only.

You write:

An infinite does exist.​
No, you stupid bitch, you're necessarily using _infinite_ is an adjective in that sentence, not as a noun, bitch.  Your statement is grammatically nonsensical.  It's gibberish.

As for the rest of your bullshit, just cut to the chase and reference *the principle of the boundless points of infinite division.*  Stop boring me with irrelevant bullshit that I absorbed years ago.

In any event, the Kalam Cosmological Argument ultimately goes to *the absurdity of an infinite regress of causality/temporality *and to *the distinction between actual infinities and potential infinities.  *The philosophy and mathematics of infinity in general are only peripherally pertinent to the Argument.


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 22, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> You pretentious, drooling 'tard of a bloviating, punk-ass fraud!
> 
> The only word-playing whore around here is _you._
> 
> ...


An infinite does exist, you imbecile. The depth of your retardation is infinite. I’m sorry you can’t grasp anything on this topic in which you erroneously consider yourself an expert.

And most crucially, your fallacy based syllogism isn’t a proof. Your ignorance is very funny to the rest of us. Please keep posting. 🤣😂


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 22, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> Dear hapless helpless hopeless hump retard:
> 
> Infinity does exist. An infinite does exist. Your attempt at word play is amateur hour material.
> 
> ...


Get this post through you thick skull, you pretentious, drooling 'tard of a bloviating, punk-ass fraud!

The only word-playing whore around here is _you._

You write:

Infinity does exist.​
I never said it didn't exist, bitch.  Of course it exists, bitch.  Infinity exists as an idea of a boundlessly large, indeterminable number or amount of something, bitch.  Countable and uncountable infinities exist too, bitch.  But infinity is not a real number.  It's an imaginary number that exists as a concept in minds only.

You write:

An infinite does exist.​
No, you stupid bitch, you're necessarily using _infinite_ is an adjective in that sentence, not as a noun, bitch.  Your statement is grammatically nonsensical.  It's gibberish.

As for the rest of your bullshit, just cut to the chase and reference *the principle of the boundless points of infinite division.*  Stop boring me with irrelevant bullshit that I absorbed years ago.

In any event, the Kalam Cosmological Argument ultimately goes to *the absurdity of an infinite regress of causality/temporality *and to *the distinction between actual infinities and potential infinities.  *The philosophy and mathematics of infinity in general are only peripherally pertinent to the Argument.


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 22, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> An infinite does exist, you imbecile. The depth of your retardation is infinite. I’m sorry you can’t grasp anything on this topic in which you erroneously consider yourself an expert.
> 
> And most crucially, your fallacy based syllogism isn’t a proof. Your ignorance is very funny to the rest of us. Please keep posting. 🤣😂


Get this post through you thick skull, you pretentious, drooling 'tard of a bloviating, punk-ass fraud!

The only word-playing whore around here is _you._

You write:

Infinity does exist.​
I never said it didn't exist, bitch.  Of course it exists, bitch.  Infinity exists as an idea of a boundlessly large, indeterminable number or amount of something, bitch.  Countable and uncountable infinities exist too, bitch.  But infinity is not a real number.  It's an imaginary number that exists as a concept in minds only.

You write:

An infinite does exist.​
No, you stupid bitch, you're necessarily using _infinite_ is an adjective in that sentence, not as a noun, bitch.  Your statement is grammatically nonsensical.  It's gibberish.

As for the rest of your bullshit, just cut to the chase and reference *the principle of the boundless points of infinite division.*  Stop boring me with irrelevant bullshit that I absorbed years ago.

In any event, the Kalam Cosmological Argument ultimately goes to *the absurdity of an infinite regress of causality/temporality *and to *the distinction between actual infinities and potential infinities.  *The philosophy and mathematics of infinity in general are only peripherally pertinent to the Argument.


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 22, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> An infinite does exist, you imbecile. The depth of your retardation is infinite. I’m sorry you can’t grasp anything on this topic in which you erroneously consider yourself an expert.
> 
> And most crucially, your fallacy based syllogism isn’t a proof. Your ignorance is very funny to the rest of us. Please keep posting. 🤣😂



Get this post through you thick skull, you pretentious, drooling 'tard of a bloviating, punk-ass fraud!

The only word-playing whore around here is _you._

You write:

Infinity does exist.​
I never said it didn't exist, bitch.  Of course it exists, bitch.  Infinity exists as an idea of a boundlessly large, indeterminable number or amount of something, bitch.  Countable and uncountable infinities exist too, bitch.  But infinity is not a real number.  It's an imaginary number that exists as a concept in minds only.

You write:

An infinite does exist.​
No, you stupid bitch, you're necessarily using _infinite_ is an adjective in that sentence, not as a noun, bitch.  Your statement is grammatically nonsensical.  It's gibberish.


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 22, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> An infinite does exist, you imbecile. The depth of your retardation is infinite. I’m sorry you can’t grasp anything on this topic in which you erroneously consider yourself an expert.
> 
> And most crucially, your fallacy based syllogism isn’t a proof. Your ignorance is very funny to the rest of us. Please keep posting. 🤣😂


Get this post through you thick skull, you pretentious, drooling 'tard of a bloviating, punk-ass fraud!

The only word-playing whore around here is _you._

You write:

Infinity does exist.​
I never said it didn't exist, bitch.  Of course it exists, bitch.  Infinity exists as an idea of a boundlessly large, indeterminable number or amount of something, bitch.  Countable and uncountable infinities exist too, bitch.  But infinity is not a real number.  It's an imaginary number that exists as a concept in minds only.

You write:

An infinite does exist.​
No, you stupid bitch, you're necessarily using _infinite_ is an adjective in that sentence, not as a noun, bitch.  Your statement is grammatically nonsensical.  It's gibberish.


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 22, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> An infinite does exist, you imbecile. The depth of your retardation is infinite. I’m sorry you can’t grasp anything on this topic in which you erroneously consider yourself an expert.
> 
> And most crucially, your fallacy based syllogism isn’t a proof. Your ignorance is very funny to the rest of us. Please keep posting. 🤣😂


You write:

An infinite does exist.​
No, you stupid bitch, you're necessarily using _infinite_ is an adjective in that sentence, not as a noun, bitch. Your statement is grammatically nonsensical. It's gibberish.


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 22, 2022)

Ringtonedeaf: 

You are slobbering so much now, your socks are getting wet.  Go change your outfit including your diapers. 

You are infinitely stupid and outrageously shallow.

Also, I’m trying to help you. So listen up, little one. It is a fallacy to use one’s desired conclusion as a premise.  Inasmuch as you’ve done so, it is simplistic, bombastic and erroneous to declare (as you nevertheless have)  that you have provided “proof.”  You really haven’t. You remain a retard. 

No go look up some more words in a dictionary and try to come up with an _ad hominem_ of *any* value. Good luck 👍!

EDITED TO ANNOY AND VEX AND PERPLEX the infinitely shallow Ringtone:

Infinite is an adjective BUT is *also* a noun.




> noun That which is infinite; boundless space or duration; infinity; boundlessness.
> noun _(Math.)_ An infinite quantity or magnitude.
> noun An infinity; an incalculable or very great number.



— https://www.wordnik.com/words/infinite


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 22, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> Ringtonedeaf:
> 
> You are slobbering so much now, your socks are getting wet.  Go change your outfit including your diapers.
> 
> ...


Get this post through you thick skull, you pretentious, drooling 'tard of a bloviating, punk-ass fraud!

The only word-playing whore around here is _you._

You write:

Infinity does exist.​
I never said it didn't exist, bitch. Of course it exists, bitch. Infinity exists as an idea of a boundlessly large, indeterminable number or amount of something, bitch. Countable and uncountable infinities exist too, bitch. But infinity is not a real number. It's an imaginary number that exists as a concept in minds only.

You write:

An infinite does exist.​
No, you stupid bitch, you're necessarily using _infinite_ is an adjective in that sentence, not as a noun, bitch. Your statement is grammatically nonsensical. It's gibberish.


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 22, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> Get this post through you thick skull, you pretentious, drooling 'tard of a bloviating, punk-ass fraud!
> 
> The only word-playing whore around here is _you._
> 
> ...


Mindlessly repeating yourself again?  In your case, of course, that’s redundant.

You appear to have missed the most salient point.  Try to pay attention this time, you bombastic brittle brainless bitch:

I’m trying to help you. So listen up, little one. It is a fallacy to use one’s desired conclusion as a premise. Inasmuch as you’ve done so, it is simplistic, bombastic and erroneous to declare (as you nevertheless have) that you have provided “proof.” You really haven’t. You remain a retard.


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 22, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> Ringtonedeaf:
> 
> You are slobbering so much now, your socks are getting wet.  Go change your outfit including your diapers.
> 
> ...


You mindlessly write:

Infinite is an adjective BUT is *also* a noun.​
Yes, dumbass, just like I told you, it can also be used as a noun.

So why do you keep using it as an adjective in grammatically nonsensical sentences without subjects?

Oh, wait!  That's right.  You're lying ass was making you look stupid when you were pretending not to understand.


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 22, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> Mindlessly repeating yourself again?  In your case, of course, that’s redundant.
> 
> You appear to have missed the most salient point.  Try to pay attention this time, you bombastic brittle brainless bitch:
> 
> I’m trying to help you. So listen up, little one. It is a fallacy to use one’s desired conclusion as a premise. Inasmuch as you’ve done so, it is simplistic, bombastic and erroneous to declare (as you nevertheless have) that you have provided “proof.” You really haven’t. You remain a retard.


You write:

Infinite is an adjective BUT is *also* a noun.​
Yes, dumbass, just like I told you, it can also be used as a noun.

So why do you keep using it as an adjective in grammatically nonsensical sentences without subjects?

Oh, wait!  That's right.  You're lying ass was making you look stupid when you were pretending not to understand.


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 22, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> You mindlessly write:
> 
> Infinite is an adjective BUT is *also* a noun.​
> Yes, dumbass, just like I told you, it can also be used as a noun.
> ...


I didn’t, you  retard. I used it as a noun. You erroneously _interpreted_ it as an adjective either because you’re very stupid or because you like to engage in misdirection as a method to deflect the observations that you’re quite simple minded, shallow, thin-skinned and petty.
🤣😂


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 22, 2022)

Useless, embarrassingly bad arguments like this these are funny, in that they are only viewed as having any value by people who already assume the truth of the arguments' conclusions.

It's just public matsturbation, really.


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 22, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> I didn’t, you  retard. I used it as a noun. You erroneously _interpreted_ it as an adjective either because you’re very stupid or because you like to engage in misdirection as a method to deflect the observations that you’re quite simple minded, shallow, thin-skinned and petty.
> 🤣😂


You toothless, flea-ridden hag of a bitch-ass dog with the vile breath of a rotting whore, I didn't misread anything.  You stupidly miswrote a sentence in which you used an indefinite article with the word _infinite. _ That grammatical structure renders it an adjective. 

One does not say _an infinite exists_; rather, one says _infinity exists_ or _the infinite exists_.

Just how stupid are you?


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 22, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> I didn’t, you  retard. I used it as a noun. You erroneously _interpreted_ it as an adjective either because you’re very stupid or because you like to engage in misdirection as a method to deflect the observations that you’re quite simple minded, shallow, thin-skinned and petty.
> 🤣😂


But the real issue is not your grammatical slip.  I wouldn't have even mentioned it, but for the fact of your lying-ass-dog bullshit that equated infinity with _*an actual infinite*_.  I never said that infinity doesn't exist.   _Infinity_ and _an actual infinite_ (or actual infinity) are not the same thing.


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 22, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> You toothless, flea-ridden hag of a bitch-ass dog with the vile breath of a rotting whore, I didn't misread anything.  You stupidly miswrote a sentence in which you used an indefinite article with the word _infinite. _ That grammatical structure renders it an adjective.
> 
> One does not say _an infinite exists_; rather, one says _infinity exists_ or _the infinite exists_.
> 
> Just how stupid are you?


You dishonest diseased rotting twat of a dead whore:  now you lie. I was correct. You were wrong. You can’t admit it because you are not only fundamentally stupid, but quite entirely dishonest.  Have a nice evening, you ass rash.


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 22, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> But the real issue is not your grammatical slip.  I wouldn't have even mentioned it, but for the fact of your lying-ass-dog bullshit that equated infinity with _*an actual infinite*_.  I never said that infinity doesn't exist.   _Infinity_ and _an actual infinite_ (or actual infinity) are not the same thing.


You are now trying (and failing) to cover your mistake. It’s ok to admit that you’re a miserably ignorant dishonest shit for brain motherfucker. We all see it anyway. 👍


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 22, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> You are now trying (and failing) to cover your mistake. It’s ok to admit that you’re a miserably ignorant dishonest shit for brain motherfucker. We all see it anyway. 👍


You toothless, flea-ridden hag of a bitch-ass dog with the vile breath of a rotting whore, I didn't misread anything. You stupidly miswrote a sentence in which you used an indefinite article with the word _infinite. _That grammatical structure renders it an adjective.

One does not say _an infinite exists_; rather, one says _infinity exists_ or _the infinite exists_.

Just how stupid are you?


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 22, 2022)

299


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 22, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> 299


You toothless, flea-ridden hag of a bitch-ass dog with the vile breath of a rotting whore, I didn't misread anything. You stupidly miswrote a sentence in which you used an indefinite article with the word _infinite. _That grammatical structure renders it an adjective.

One does not say _an infinite exists_; rather, one says _infinity exists_ or _the infinite exists_.

Just how stupid are you?


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 22, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> You toothless, flea-ridden hag of a bitch-ass dog with the vile breath of a rotting whore, I didn't misread anything. You stupidly miswrote a sentence in which you used an indefinite article with the word _infinite. _That grammatical structure renders it an adjective.
> 
> One does not say _an infinite exists_; rather, one says _infinity exists_ or _the infinite exists_.
> 
> Just how stupid are you?


299


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 22, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> You toothless, flea-ridden hag of a bitch-ass dog with the vile breath of a rotting whore, I didn't misread anything. You stupidly miswrote a sentence in which you used an indefinite article with the word _infinite. _That grammatical structure renders it an adjective.
> 
> One does not say _an infinite exists_; rather, one says _infinity exists_ or _the infinite exists_.
> 
> Just how stupid are you?


I understand your frustration. It must be very unfulfilling to be clinging to useless arguments that are running jokes among educated people. 

Also, you think you are smarter than you are. Doubly frustrating for you, no doubt.


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 23, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> 299


You toothless, flea-ridden hag of a bitch-ass dog with the vile breath of a rotting whore, I didn't misread anything. You stupidly miswrote a sentence in which you used an indefinite article with the word _infinite. _That grammatical structure renders it an adjective.

One does not say _an infinite exists_; rather, one says _infinity exists_ or _the infinite exists_.
________________________

BTW, the funniest thing about your goof is that you mindlessly adopted the other poster's ungrammatical expression (_an infinite, _indefinite article *+* adjective construction) for _infinity_ because you too don't know the difference between _infinity_ and _actual infinity_.

LMAO!


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 23, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> You toothless, flea-ridden hag of a bitch-ass dog with the vile breath of a rotting whore, I didn't misread anything. You stupidly miswrote a sentence in which you used an indefinite article with the word _infinite. _That grammatical structure renders it an adjective.
> 
> One does not say _an infinite exists_; rather, one says _infinity exists_ or _the infinite exists_.
> ________________________
> ...


You are so wrong and so vainglorious. Please keep posting. More proof is enjoyable.

Oh. Also, 299.


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 23, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> 299


BTW, the funniest thing about your goof is that you mindlessly adopted the other poster's ungrammatical expression (_an infinite, _indefinite article *+* adjective construction) for _infinity_ because you too don't know the difference between _infinity_ and _actual infinity_.

LMAO!


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 23, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> 299


BTW, the funniest thing about your goof is that you mindlessly adopted the other poster's ungrammatical expression (_an infinite, _indefinite article *+* adjective construction) for _infinity_ because you too don't know the difference between _infinity_ and _actual infinity_.

LMAO!


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 23, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> BTW, the funniest thing about your goof is that you mindlessly adopted the other poster's ungrammatical expression (_an infinite, _indefinite article *+* adjective construction) for _infinity_ because you too don't know the difference between _infinity_ and _actual infinity_.
> 
> LMAO!


Lol. You are infinitely stupid. Please keep posting. The more proof, the funnier you get.


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 23, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> 299


BTW, the funniest thing about your goof is that you mindlessly adopted the other poster's ungrammatical expression (_an infinite, _indefinite article *+* adjective construction) for _infinity_ because you too don't know the difference between _infinity_ and _actual infinity_.

LMAO!


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 23, 2022)

299


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 23, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> BTW, the funniest thing about your goof is that you mindlessly adopted the other poster's ungrammatical expression (_an infinite, _indefinite article *+* adjective construction) for _infinity_ because you too don't know the difference between _infinity_ and _actual infinity_.
> 
> LMAO!


More. Don’t stop. And larger fonts, bitch. Highlight your ignorance. Hilarity ensues!  

299.


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 23, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> 299


Hey, you dumbass, lying whore, did you note what I did there?  I forensically isolated the crux of your ignorance as you mindlessly adopted the other poster's ungrammatical expression.  I progressively magnified it.

Like the other poster, you stupidly thought I was talking about _infinity_ proper when I was talking about _actual infinity_!

            

Like him, you don't know the difference either!


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 23, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> Hey, you dumbass, lying whore, did you note what I did there?  I forensically isolated the crux of your ignorance as you mindlessly adopted the other poster's ungrammatical expression.  I progressively magnified it.
> 
> Like the other poster, you stupidly thought I was talking about _infinity_ proper when I was talking about _actual infinity_!
> 
> ...


I noticed you made a bigger fool of yourself. I doubt you noticed.
299


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 23, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> 299


Hey, you dumbass, lying whore, did you note what I did there? I forensically isolated the crux of your ignorance as you mindlessly adopted the other poster's ungrammatical expression. I progressively magnified it.

Like the other poster, you stupidly thought I was talking about _infinity_ proper when I was talking about _actual infinity_!

            

Like him, you don't know the difference either!


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 23, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> 299


Hey, you dumbass, lying whore, did you note what I did there? I forensically isolated the crux of your ignorance as you mindlessly adopted the other poster's ungrammatical expression. I progressively magnified it.

Like the other poster, you stupidly thought I was talking about _infinity_ proper when I was talking about _actual infinity_!

            

Like him, you don't know the difference either!


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 23, 2022)

299


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 23, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> 299


Hey, you dumbass, lying whore, did you note what I did there? I forensically isolated the crux of your ignorance as you mindlessly adopted the other poster's ungrammatical expression. I progressively magnified it.

Like the other poster, you stupidly thought I was talking about _infinity_ proper when I was talking about _actual infinity_!

            

Like him, you don't know the difference either!


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 23, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> Hey, you dumbass, lying whore, did you note what I did there? I forensically isolated the crux of your ignorance as you mindlessly adopted the other poster's ungrammatical expression. I progressively magnified it.
> 
> Like the other poster, you stupidly thought I was talking about _infinity_ proper when I was talking about _actual infinity_!
> 
> ...


299.


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 23, 2022)

What’s the difference between Ringtone and infinitely massive asshole?

ok ok. Trick question. It is the same thing.

299.


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 23, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> 299


Hey, just between you and me, dumbass, when did you say _oops, I unwittingly gave my ignorance away_ to yourself and Google *actual infinity vs. potential infinity* and finally learn the difference between *infinity *proper and *actual infinity*?

The obvious fact of your lies and stupidity is hilarious.  


Hey, asshole, have you ever heard the expression, _the liar always tells on himself_?


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 23, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> What’s the difference between Ringtone and infinitely massive asshole?
> 
> ok ok. Trick question. It is the same thing.
> 
> 299.


Forensics, you filthy liar!


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 23, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> Hey, just between you and me, dumbass, when did you say _oops, I unwittingly gave my ignorance away_ to yourself and Google *actual infinity vs. potential infinity* and finally learn the difference between *infinity *proper and *actual infinity*?
> 
> The obvious fact of your lies and stupidity is hilarious.
> 
> ...


Hey, retard. . Admit your fail. Acknowledge that you confused a fallacy for a valid syllogism. 🤣😂Then, we’ll talk. Until then, you’re nothing but a laughingstock. 😂🤣


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 23, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> 299


Hey, just between you and me, dumbass, when did you say _oops, I unwittingly gave my ignorance away_ to yourself and Google *actual infinity vs. potential infinity* and finally learn the difference between *infinity *proper and *actual infinity*?

The obvious fact of your lies and stupidity is hilarious.


Hey, asshole, have you ever heard the expression, _the liar always tells on himself_?


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 23, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> Forensics, you filthy liar!


Your fail is never ending. You remain a laughingstock. And one of the funniest parts is — you imagine you’re smart!


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 23, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> Hey, just between you and me, dumbass, when did you say _oops, I unwittingly gave my ignorance away_ to yourself and Google *actual infinity vs. potential infinity* and finally learn the difference between *infinity *proper and *actual infinity*?
> 
> The obvious fact of your lies and stupidity is hilarious.
> 
> ...


You’ve told on yourself. We all see it.


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 23, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> 299


Hey, you know what else is hilarious?

You could have saved yourself two paragraphs of bloviation by simply referencing Aristotle's dictum i_nfinitum actu non datur _(i.e.,_ there is only a potential infinity, not an actual infinity_)_, _per the principle of the boundless points of infinite division.

But you really don't know dick about the terms and the historical development of the philosophy and mathematics of infinity, do you, beginning with the difference between_ infinity proper_ and _actual infinity_?

LMFAO!

You pretentious phony ass!


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 23, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> Hey, you know what else is hilarious?
> 
> You could have saved yourself two paragraphs of bloviation by simply referencing Aristotle's dictum i_nfinitum actu non datur _(i.e.,_ there is only a potential infinity, not an actual infinity_)_, _per the principle of the boundless points of infinite division.
> 
> ...


You could save yourself enormous humiliation by admitting that you’re wrong. Infinitely wrong.

299.


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 23, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> You could save yourself enormous humiliation by admitting that you’re wrong. Infinitely wrong.
> 
> 299.











						The Kalam Cosmological Argument - Cosmic Skeptic Refuted
					

The Kalam Cosmological Argument:Cosmic Skeptic Refutedby David Thompson(See Cosmic Skeptic's video Cosmic Skeptic at the ACSJ:




					www.yumpu.com
				




Click on document to magnify or change view mode.

I'm the author, dumbass.  There's nothing you can teach me about the KCA, let alone about the pertinent science from quantum physics or the pertinent science from physics in general.  Also, there's nothing you can teach me about the pertinent mathematics and philosophy of infinity.  By the way, the article includes an extensive exegesis on the mathematics and philosophy of infinity.

You don't fly anywhere near the altitude of my intellect and learning.


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 23, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> The Kalam Cosmological Argument - Cosmic Skeptic Refuted
> 
> 
> The Kalam Cosmological Argument:Cosmic Skeptic Refutedby David Thompson(See Cosmic Skeptic's video Cosmic Skeptic at the ACSJ:
> ...


299, you idiot


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 23, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> The Kalam Cosmological Argument - Cosmic Skeptic Refuted
> 
> 
> The Kalam Cosmological Argument:Cosmic Skeptic Refutedby David Thompson(See Cosmic Skeptic's video Cosmic Skeptic at the ACSJ:
> ...


Nobody could fly near the height of your ego. That’s for sure.

Meanwhile, before I try to wade through your lengthy paper, Davey, I’d still like to have you defend using the Creator as a premise to reach the conclusion that the Creator necessarily exists. In short, 299.

In the interim, congratulations on your ego.


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 24, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> Nobody could fly near the height of your ego. That’s for sure.
> 
> Meanwhile, before I try to wade through your lengthy paper, Davey, I’d still like to have you defend using the Creator as a premise to reach the conclusion that the Creator necessarily exists. In short, 299.
> 
> In the interim, congratulations on your ego.


You're claiming that a classic, centuries-old deductive argument that manifestly moves from the general to the specific—indeed, an argument that's necessarily predicated on the first principles of apriority regarding existence—is circular?!

When did you make this incredible discovery about the fundamental imperatives of an argument that no other celebrated mind has ever made in the history of philosophical letters?!

You're claiming to have overtured the linear integrity of a classic argument developed by the likes of Aristotle, Avicenna, Philoponus, Al-Kindi, and Aquinas no less?!

Over the centuries, unknown scores of humans, both great and small, have failed to see what you see?!

Excuse me, I need a brief moment to laugh my ass off at your stupidity, indeed, a moment to laugh uproariously over the dizzying heights at which your delusional *ego *dances.

                 

You demented, dumpster-breath dweeb of a delusional, doddering old fool, indeed, you senile, disease-ridden, dimwitted, derp-derp squawking dumbass of a drooling dope.

                 

*See Post #330.*


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 24, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> You're claiming that a classic, centuries-old deductive argument that manifestly moves from the general to the specific—indeed, an argument that's necessarily predicated on the first principles of apriority regarding existence—is circular?!
> 
> When did you make this incredible discovery about the fundamental imperatives of an argument that no other celebrated mind has ever made in the history of philosophical letters?!
> 
> ...


No lad. I’m saying that you’ve engaged in a fallacy.

Your claim was that it was “proof” of God.
But your syllogism uses God as a premise.
It is not my fault that you can’t admit the fallacy. (You’re a pussy for a blowhard.)

👍


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 24, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> No lad. I’m saying that you’ve engaged in a fallacy.
> 
> Your claim was that it was “proof” of God.
> But your syllogism uses God as a premise.
> ...


What syllogism are you talking about, moron?


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 24, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> What syllogism are you talking about, moron?


You really *are* a moron.


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 24, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> You really *are* a moron.


That's what I thought, bitch.  You can't demonstrate your ridiculous allegation.  I, a learned logician, have never made a circular argument in life!  

You lying-ass, two-bit-punk shit stain of a toothless, goat-humping inbred.


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 24, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> That's what I thought, bitch.  You can't demonstrate your ridiculous allegation.  I, a learned logician, have never made a circular argument in life!
> 
> You lying-ass, two-bit-punk shit stain of a toothless, goat-humping inbred.


Lol.

A “learned logician” wouldn’t include a desired conclusion *as* one of his premises.   This explains why your massive vanity wouldn’t allow you to answer the question earlier.


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 24, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> Lol.
> 
> A “learned logician” wouldn’t include a desired conclusion *as* one of his premises.   This explains why your massive vanity wouldn’t allow you to answer the question earlier.


A circular argument entails presupposing or embedding the conclusion in the premise.  Correct!  But you're repeating yourself.

Let's have your example where I supposedly did that, retard.

Please include an objectively coherent argument explaining precisely why your cited example is circular.

_crickets chirping._


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 24, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> A circular argument entails presupposing or embedding the conclusion in the premise.  Correct!  But you're repeating yourself.
> 
> Let's have your example where I supposedly did that, retard.
> 
> ...


It was *your* argument that is fallacious, stupid. Try to keep up.


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 24, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> It was *your* argument that is fallacious, stupid. Try to keep up.


_crickets chirping_


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 24, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> _crickets chirping_


You don’t want to discuss your inclusion of your proposed conclusion as one of your premises?  It’s ok. You’re free to evade. You usually do.


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 24, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> You don’t want to discuss your inclusion of your proposed conclusion as one of your premises?  It’s ok. You’re free to evade. You usually do.


I have no idea what you're talking about, you idiot.


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 24, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> I have no idea what you're talking about, you idiot.


Yes you do, you vainglorious scumbag dolt.


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 24, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> Yes you do, you vainglorious scumbag dolt.


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 24, 2022)

Ringtone said:


>


Yes. You are indeed cuckoo.


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 25, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> 299, you idiot


This is me:









						The Kalam Cosmological Argument - Cosmic Skeptic Refuted
					

The Kalam Cosmological Argument:Cosmic Skeptic Refutedby David Thompson(See Cosmic Skeptic's video Cosmic Skeptic at the ACSJ:




					www.yumpu.com
				




This is you: 

You're claiming that a classic, centuries-old deductive argument that manifestly moves from the general to the specific—indeed, an argument that's necessarily predicated on the first principles of apriority regarding existence—is circular?!​​When did you make this incredible discovery about the fundamental imperatives of an argument that no other celebrated mind has ever made in the history of philosophical letters?​​You're claiming to have overtured the linear integrity of a classic argument developed by the likes of Aristotle, Avicenna, Philoponus, Al-Kindi, and Aquinas no less?​​Over the centuries, unknown scores of humans, both great and small, have failed to see what you see?​​Excuse me, I need a brief moment to laugh my ass off at your stupidity, indeed, a moment to laugh uproariously over the dizzying heights at which your delusional *ego *dances.​​                 ​​You demented, dumpster-breath dweeb of a delusional, doddering old fool, indeed, you senile, disease-ridden, dimwitted, derp-derp squawking dumbass of a drooling dope.​​                 ​


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 25, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> This is me:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


See how stupid you are?  You wrote “this is me” where you had written the material. So far so good.

Then, as per your standard stupidity, you wrote “This is you” but posted more of your own blather.

Bottom line:  you’re  a moron. And, using a conclusion as a premise remains a fallacy.


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 25, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> See how stupid you are?  You wrote “this is me” where you had written the material. So far so good.
> 
> Then, as per your standard stupidity, you wrote “This is you” but posted more of your own blather.
> 
> Bottom line:  you’re  a moron. And, using a conclusion as a premise remains a fallacy.


Nonsense!

This is me:

*








						The Kalam Cosmological Argument - Cosmic Skeptic Refuted
					

The Kalam Cosmological Argument:Cosmic Skeptic Refutedby David Thompson(See Cosmic Skeptic's video Cosmic Skeptic at the ACSJ:




					www.yumpu.com
				



*​​I am the brilliant, highly learned logician who wrote the above.​


This is you, the grammatically challenge doofus who wrote _an infinite _[indefinite article + adjective construction]_ exists_:

You're claiming that a classic, centuries-old deductive argument that manifestly moves from the general to the specific—indeed, an argument that's necessarily predicated on the first principles of apriority regarding existence—is circular?!​​When did you make this incredible discovery about the fundamental imperatives of an argument that no other celebrated mind has ever made in the history of philosophical letters?​​You're claiming to have overtured the linear integrity of a classic argument developed by the likes of Aristotle, Avicenna, Philoponus, Al-Kindi, and Aquinas no less?​​Over the centuries, unknown scores of humans, both great and small, have failed to see what you see?​​Excuse me, I need a brief moment to laugh my ass off at your stupidity, indeed, a moment to laugh uproariously over the dizzying heights at which your delusional *ego *dances.​​                 ​​You demented, dumpster-breath dweeb of a delusional, doddering old fool, indeed, you senile, disease-ridden, dimwitted, derp-derp squawking dumbass of a drooling dope.​​                 ​


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 25, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> Nonsense!
> 
> This is me:
> 
> ...


Once again, you’re too retarded to even admit that you aren’t quoting me. You’re quoting your own silly assessment.

Damn, kid. For a brilliant logician you certainly are stupid.


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 25, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> Once again, you’re too retarded to even admit that you aren’t quoting me. You’re quoting your own silly assessment.
> 
> Damn, kid. For a brilliant logician you certainly are stupid.


You obtuse silly ass of a drooling imbecile, the point is that _you_ are the one who claimed that the KCA is circular.  Are you such a literalist dumbass that you can't follow the gist of the inference?

You are a lying bitch-ass doofus.   The KCA is not circular.

In other words, I'm smart, and you're stupid.


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 25, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> You obtuse silly ass of a drooling imbecile, the point is that _you_ are the one who claimed that the KCA is circular.  Are you such a literalist dumbass that you can't follow the gist of the inference?
> 
> You are a lying bitch-ass doofus.   The KCA is not circular.
> 
> In other words, I'm smart, and you're stupid.


Actually, I said that your OP contained the desired conclusion as a premise. So, I properly referred to it as the fallacy of “begging the question.”

I also criticized your error of maintaining that a fallacy constitutes “proof.”


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 25, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> Actually, I said that your OP contained the desired conclusion as a premise. So, I properly referred to it as the fallacy of “begging the question.”
> 
> I also criticized your error of maintaining that a fallacy constitutes “proof.”


You drooling 'trad! 

The above is at least the fifth time now that you have claimed that I made a circular argument.  _Circular reasoning, begging the question, embedding the conclusion in the premise_ are all referents to the same logical fallacy, dumbass.  I got you the first time.

The OP is an exegesis of the KCA.  If you are not talking about the KCA, then what the hell are you talking about?  

*I am not a mind reader, dumbass. * 

You have _not_ cited the text of this supposed fallacy, let alone objectively demonstrated that whatever the hell you're alluding to is circular in the first place. 

Where's the beef, dumbass?


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 25, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> You drooling '*trad*!
> 
> The above is at least the fifth time now that you have claimed that I made a circular argument.  _Circular reasoning, begging the question, embedding the conclusion in the premise_ are all referents to the same logical fallacy, dumbass.  I got you the first time.
> 
> ...


What’s a ‘trad?

Also, no. The names of the fallacies are different for a few different reasons. Similarity is not the same as “the same.”

Now, back to it. You are guilty of using your desired conclusion as your premise. This is fallacious.

For a logician of your self-described status, that’s a pretty basic error by you. Stop trying to deflect. Accept your error and move on.


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 25, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> What’s a ‘trad?
> 
> Also, no. The names of the fallacies are different for a few different reasons. Similarity is not the same as “the same.”
> 
> ...


Shut the hell up, you lying bitch.  We're talking about the Fallacy of Presumption, the most common iteration of which is _begging the question_, a.k.a. as _circular reasoning or embedding the conclusion in the premise_!









						Logical Fallacies: Begging the Question
					

Begging the Question is the most basic and classic example of a Fallacy of Presumption. Discover an explanation of the phenomenon plus see examples.




					www.thoughtco.com
				




You claim now for at least the sixth time:

You are guilty of using your desired conclusion as your premise. This is fallacious.​
The OP is an exegesis of the KCA. If you are not talking about the KCA, then what the hell are you talking about?

*I am not a mind reader, dumbass.*

You have _not_ cited the text of this supposed fallacy, let alone objectively demonstrated that whatever the hell you're alluding to is circular in the first place.

Where's the beef, dumbass?


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 25, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> What’s a ‘trad?
> 
> Also, no. The names of the fallacies are different for a few different reasons. Similarity is not the same as “the same.”
> 
> ...


Where is the beef, bitch?


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 25, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> What’s a ‘trad?
> 
> Also, no. The names of the fallacies are different for a few different reasons. Similarity is not the same as “the same.”
> 
> ...


Where is the beef, bitch?


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 25, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> Shut the hell up, you lying bitch.  We're talking about the Fallacy of Presumption, the most common iteration of which is _begging the question_, a.k.a. as _circular reasoning or embedding the conclusion in the premise_!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Suck another bag of dicks, you doofus. You assumed your desired conclusion as your premise.  Your fallacy, as I correctly noted, is known as “begging the question.”

Here:  I shall educate you a bit:
Begging the Question vs Circular Reasoning Fallacy​The Circular Reasoning fallacy is often used interchangeably with Begging the Question.

The slight distinction is the number of terms used. Fallacy Begging the Question is:



> premise A assumes A is true, so A is true.


With Circular Reasoning:



> premise A proves B and B proves A.


— Begging the Question - Definition and Examples

You’re welcome.

Extra generous advice just for my vainglorious pal, Ringtone :

You would be well advised to demonstrate less concern for the particular name of the fallacy you’re guilty of committing than for correcting it.

Again. You’re welcome.


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 25, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> Suck another bag of dicks, you doofus. You assumed your desired conclusion as your premise.  Your fallacy, as I correctly noted, is known as “begging the question.”
> 
> Here:  I shall educate you a bit:
> Begging the Question vs Circular Reasoning Fallacy​The Circular Reasoning fallacy is often used interchangeably with Begging the Question.
> ...


Again, stop lying, dumbass.



			https://www.thoughtco.com/begging-the-question-petitio-principii-250337:
		


*Begging the question is the most basic and classic example of a Fallacy of Presumption because it directly presumes the conclusion which is at question in the first place. This can also be known as a "Circular Argument" - because the conclusion essentially appears both at the beginning and the end of the argument, it creates an endless circle, never accomplishing anything of substance.*​


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 25, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> Suck another bag of dicks, you doofus. You assumed your desired conclusion as your premise.  Your fallacy, as I correctly noted, is known as “begging the question.”
> 
> Here:  I shall educate you a bit:
> Begging the Question vs Circular Reasoning Fallacy​The Circular Reasoning fallacy is often used interchangeably with Begging the Question.
> ...


Again, stop lying, dumbass.



			https://www.thoughtco.com/begging-the-question-petitio-principii-250337:
		


*Begging the question is the most basic and classic example of a Fallacy of Presumption because it directly presumes the conclusion which is at question in the first place. This can also be known as a "Circular Argument" - because the conclusion essentially appears both at the beginning and the end of the argument, it creates an endless circle, never accomplishing anything of substance.*​


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 25, 2022)

You write:

You are guilty of using your desired conclusion as your premise. This is fallacious.​

Where is the copied and pasted citation from my post and an argument demonstrating your claim is true, bitch!


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 25, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> Again, stop lying, dumbass.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Hey shit for brains: disagreeing with you isn’t lying. Damn, but you’re stupid. You remain wrong. You have assumed your conclusion as a premise. Thus, as you know, you have committed the fallacy of begging the question.

Your dishonest denials won’t change that fact.

And, once again, you bloviating bitch, your erroneous attempt to label your fallacy is less important than the fallacy you committed, itself.


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 25, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> Hey shot for brains: disagreeing with you isn’t lying. Damn, but you’re stupid. You remain wrong. You have assumed your conclusion as a premise. Thus, as you know, you have committed the fallacy of begging the question.
> 
> Your dishonest denials won’t change that fact.
> 
> And, once again, you bloviating bitch, your erroneous attempt to label your fallacy is less important than the fallacy you committed, itself.


It most certainly is lying when your bullshit is falsified.


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 25, 2022)

*Falsified!*

Logical Fallacies: Begging the Question:

*Begging the question is the most basic and classic example of a Fallacy of Presumption because it directly presumes the conclusion which is at question in the first place. This can also be known as a "Circular Argument" - because the conclusion essentially appears both at the beginning and the end of the argument, it creates an endless circle, never accomplishing anything of substance.*


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 25, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> Hey shot for brains: disagreeing with you isn’t lying. Damn, but you’re stupid. You remain wrong. You have assumed your conclusion as a premise. Thus, as you know, you have committed the fallacy of begging the question.
> 
> Your dishonest denials won’t change that fact.
> 
> And, once again, you bloviating bitch, your erroneous attempt to label your fallacy is less important than the fallacy you committed, itself.


*Falsified!*

*Logical Fallacies: Begging the Question**:*

*Begging the question is the most basic and classic example of a Fallacy of Presumption because it directly presumes the conclusion which is at question in the first place. This can also be known as a "Circular Argument" - because the conclusion essentially appears both at the beginning and the end of the argument, it creates an endless circle, never accomplishing anything of substance.*


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 25, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> You write:
> 
> You are guilty of using your desired conclusion as your premise. This is fallacious.​
> 
> Where is the copied and pasted citation from my post and an argument demonstrating your claim is true, bitch!


Ah, my little pet retard. You’ve finally gotten around to asking a reasonable question.

Before I provide you with the answer to you dull question, it would behoove you to figure it out for yourself.  Why?  Because it is believed that we learn best that which we discover on our own. Now then, I’ve been generous enough to share the nature of your error with you on numerous occasions.

Let’s see how well the master logician can solve this not difficult mystery. Here are some sterling helpful hints:

 I made reference to your boastful desired conclusion. Do you recall what you, yourself, claimed?

Can you figure out where you posited that desired conclusion *as* a premise?

Come on, masterful logician. Thrill us all with your acumen.


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 25, 2022)

You write:

You are guilty of using your desired conclusion as your premise. This is fallacious.​

*Where is the copied and pasted citation from my post and your argument demonstrating your claim is true, bitch!*


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 25, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> Where is the beef, bitch?


You are the bitch.  We weren’t discussing beef, you idiot.


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 25, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> Ah, my little pet retard. You’ve finally gotten around to asking a reasonable question.
> 
> Before I provide you with the answer to you dull question, it would behoove you to figure it out for yourself.  Why?  Because it is believed that we learn best that which we discover on our own. Now then, I’ve been generous enough to share the nature of your error with you on numerous occasions.
> 
> ...


You claimed it's in the OP, bitch!  Copy and paste the text of it from the OP, bitch!  That's your claim, bitch!


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 25, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> You are the bitch.  We weren’t discussing beef, you idiot.


*You claimed it's in the OP, bitch! Copy and paste the text of it from the OP, bitch! That's your claim, bitch!*


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 25, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> You are the bitch.  We weren’t discussing beef, you idiot.


*You claimed it's in the OP, bitch! Copy and paste the text of it from the OP, bitch! That's your claim, bitch!*


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 25, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> You are the bitch.  We weren’t discussing beef, you idiot.


*You claimed it's in the OP, bitch! Copy and paste the text of it from the OP, bitch! That's your claim, bitch!*


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 25, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> You claimed it's in the OP, bitch!  Copy and paste the text of it from the OP, bitch!  That's your claim, bitch!


Listen scumbag. I already told you:  now do a little work. As I said, I want you to identify where you committed the fallacy. For a master logician and given all the clues, it should be easy. Hop to it, my bitch.


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 25, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> *You claimed it's in the OP, bitch! Copy and paste the text of it from the OP, bitch! That's your claim, bitch!*


*Maybe you are just stupid. I’ve carefully instructed you several times. I’ll try again:

I want you to rummage around in your OP. Find the instance of you making your boastful desired conclusion one of the premises. 

Do you understand, my little bitch? Get to it, you craven cowardly pussy. *


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 25, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> You are the bitch.  We weren’t discussing beef, you idiot.


You bloviating, pretentious bitch of a stinking street whore, the varying forms of the Fallacy of Presumption (begging the question, circular reasoning/argument, embedded conclusion) are not relevant!  There is nothing you can teach me about logic.  

This is what is relevant. . . .

You write:

You are guilty of using your desired conclusion as your premise. This is fallacious.​
Where is the copied and pasted citation from my post and your argument demonstrating that your claim is true?


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 25, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> Maybe you _are_ just stupid. I’ve carefully instructed you several times. I’ll try again:
> 
> I want _you_ to rummage around in your OP. Find the instance of you making your boastful desired conclusion one of the premises.
> 
> Do you understand, my little bitch? Get to it, you craven cowardly pussy.


*I drink your milkshake, bitch.  I drink it up!
      *


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 25, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> *Maybe you are just stupid. I’ve carefully instructed you several times. I’ll try again:*
> 
> *I want you to rummage around in your OP. Find the instance of you making your boastful desired conclusion one of the premises. *
> 
> *Do you understand, my little bitch? Get to it, you craven cowardly pussy. *


*Drainage, you silly ass.  Drainage!

       *


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 25, 2022)




----------



## BackAgain (Apr 25, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> You write:
> 
> You are guilty of using your desired conclusion as your premise. This is fallacious.​
> 
> Where is the copied and pasted citation from my post and an argument demonstrating your claim is true, bitch!


You’re off in deflection land, my little bitch. 👍

You haven’t even tried to answer my question.

Is it now your claim that you have not posited your desired conclusion as a premise?


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 25, 2022)

Somebody wake me if and when my little bitch, the vainglorious self-proclaimed logician, Ringtone ever finds his balls sufficiently to man up and answer the question.

I know Ringtone lies. I’m not expecting much. We had an agreement earlier on how to proceed, and he elected to violate it within about 3 or 4 additional posts.  So, I’m not expecting a professional reply. Hell, I’m not even expecting an honest answer from him. Just something beyond his present petty avoidance.


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 25, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> Somebody wake me if and when my little bitch, the vainglorious self-proclaimed logician, Ringtone ever finds his balls sufficiently to man up and answer the question.
> 
> I know Ringtone lies. I’m not expecting much. We had an agreement earlier on how to proceed, and he elected to violate it within about 3 or 4 additional posts.  So, I’m not expecting a professional reply. Hell, I’m not even expecting an honest answer from him. Just something beyond his present petty avoidance.


The only one deflecting is you, bitch!

Once again, you bloviating, pretentious bitch of a stinking street whore, the varying forms of the Fallacy of Presumption (begging the question, circular reasoning/argument, embedded conclusion) are not relevant! There is nothing you can teach me about logic.

This is what is relevant. . . .

You write:

You are guilty of using your desired conclusion as your premise. This is fallacious.​
Where is the copied and pasted citation from my post and your argument demonstrating that your claim is true?

What don't you understand about _I don't read minds, and I have no idea what the hell you're talking about_?


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 25, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> Somebody wake me if and when my little bitch, the vainglorious self-proclaimed logician, Ringtone ever finds his balls sufficiently to man up and answer the question.
> 
> I know Ringtone lies. I’m not expecting much. We had an agreement earlier on how to proceed, and he elected to violate it within about 3 or 4 additional posts.  So, I’m not expecting a professional reply. Hell, I’m not even expecting an honest answer from him. Just something beyond his present petty avoidance.


Where is the copied and pasted citation from my post and your argument demonstrating that your claim is true?

Where is the copied and pasted citation from my post and your argument demonstrating that your claim is true?

Where is the copied and pasted citation from my post and your argument demonstrating that your claim is true?

Put up or shut up!

Put up or shut up!

Put up or shut up!


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 25, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> The only one deflecting is you, bitch!
> 
> Once again, you bloviating, pretentious bitch of a stinking street whore, the varying forms of the Fallacy of Presumption (begging the question, circular reasoning/argument, embedded conclusion) are not relevant! There is nothing you can teach me about logic.
> 
> ...


So, your bad temper aside, let’s just get real for a moment.

Simple question. Is it your claim that you offered a conclusion which was not one of the premises?  Yes or no?


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 25, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> Where is the copied and pasted citation from my post and your argument demonstrating that your claim is true?
> 
> Where is the copied and pasted citation from my post and your argument demonstrating that your claim is true?
> 
> ...


You haven’t answered my question yet.  Put that up. I’ll be happy to provide you with the evidence once you do so. I told you before:  you don’t get to dictate. You want answers?  Cool. Then start offering some. And do as you had previously agreed:.  Cease with your _ad hominems_ rest.


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 25, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> So, your bad temper aside, let’s just get real for a moment.
> 
> Simple question. Is it your claim that you offered a conclusion which was not one of the premises?  Yes or no?


What conclusion and what premises are you talking about?


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 25, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> You haven’t answered my question yet.  Put that up. I’ll be happy to provide you with the evidence once you do so. I told you before:  you don’t get to dictate. You want answers?  Cool. Then start offering some. And do as you had previously agreed:.  Cease with your _ad hominems_ rest.


You write:

You are guilty of using your desired conclusion as your premise. This is fallacious.​
Where is the copied and pasted citation from my post and your argument demonstrating that your claim is true in the first place?

What don't you understand about _I don't read minds, and I have no idea what the hell you're talking about_?


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 25, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> What conclusion and what premises are you talking about?


I haven’t seen your answer yet.


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 25, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> You write:
> 
> You are guilty of using your desired conclusion as your premise. This is fallacious.​
> Where is the copied and pasted citation from my post and your argument demonstrating that your claim is true in the first place?
> ...


You may recall, I told you before:  I don’t accept your right to dictate terms. Answer
My question, first. It is a non-negotiable pre-condition.


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 25, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> You may recall, I told you before:  I don’t accept your right to dictate terms. Answer
> My question, first. It is a non-negotiable pre-condition.


I have no idea what premises or conclusions you're talking about.


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 25, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> I have no idea what premises or conclusions you're talking about.


I asked the question and you certainly know your own conclusion. Did you or did you not make use of your conclusion as one of the premises, master logician?


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 25, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> I asked the question and you certainly know your own conclusion. Did you or did you not make use of your conclusion as one of the premises, master logician?


You lunatic!   

The answer is I have no idea what conclusion or premises you could possibly be talking about.  How could I?  To the best of my knowledge, I have never begged the question in my life.

Now you can either cite the text from the thread in which I did or you can't.

It's your bald, unsupported claim, not mine.


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 25, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> You lunatic!
> 
> The answer is I have no idea what conclusion or premises you could possibly be talking about.  How could I?  Just how stupid are you?  To the best of my knowledge, I have never begged the question in my life.
> 
> ...


How many conclusions did your OP come to?  Focus on just that. I know you know what your own conclusion was. Therefore, it has to be clear (even to you) whether or not you used it as a premise.


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 25, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> How many conclusions did your OP come to?  Focus on just that. I know you know what your own conclusion was. Therefore, it has to be clear (even to you) whether or not you used it as a premise.


You lame-brained, limp-wristed, ass-licking lunatic of a feeble-minded freak wallowing in a putrid puddle of soiled panties!    

The answer is I have no idea what conclusion or premises you could possibly be talking about. How could I? To the best of my knowledge, I have never begged the question in my life.

Now you can either cite the text from the thread in which I did or you can't.

It's your bald, unsupported claim, not mine.


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 25, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> You lame-brained, limp-wristed, ass-licking lunatic of a feeble-minded freak wallowing in a putrid puddle of soiled panties!
> 
> The answer is I have no idea what conclusion or premises you could possibly be talking about. How could I? To the best of my knowledge, I have never begged the question in my life.
> 
> ...


You may be dishonest but you’re also not remotely convincing.

I’m going to assist you just because it assists in exposing you as the fraud you are:

YOU wrote: 
“Question: how do we know that God necessarily exists?
Short Answer:  . . . because the imperatives of logic, mathematics, and metaphysics tell us that God necessarily exists. The Cosmological Argument is bullet proof.”

I’m gonna go out in a limb here. You (not being particularly reliable) may deny it, but let’s call that your clearly stated conclusion. Now, let’s simplify it. “Therefore, God exists.”

Now, man up. Is it your claim, at this point, that none of your premises include the existence of God?


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 25, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> You lame-brained, limp-wristed, ass-licking lunatic of a feeble-minded freak wallowing in a putrid puddle of soiled panties!
> 
> The answer is I have no idea what conclusion or premises you could possibly be talking about. How could I? To the best of my knowledge, I have never begged the question in my life.
> 
> ...


Yeah. Sure. Of course. You’re  a genius.


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 25, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> Yeah. Sure. Of course. You’re  a genius.


I know.


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 25, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> I know.


And  you’re also still a coward. But of course _that_ you’ll deny.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 25, 2022)

Yes, let's review:

These laughable arguments are still fodder for college sophomores when the professor wants to teach them what bad philosophy and illogic looks like.

That isn't going to change, no matter how many freakish nutters flog them to death on message boards.


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 25, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> You may be dishonest but you’re also not remotely convincing.
> 
> I’m going to assist you just because it assists in exposing you as the fraud you are:
> 
> ...


Exactly!

God reveals his existence via the fundamental imperatives of logic and mathematics, and the first principles of ontology and epistemology.  The Kalam Cosmological Argument is predicated on these _a priori_ axioms.  The Argument is bulletproof.


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 25, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> Exactly!
> 
> God reveals his existence via the fundamental imperatives of logic and mathematics, and the first principles of ontology and epistemology.  The Kalam Cosmological Argument is predicated on these _a priori_ axioms.  The Argument is bulletproof.


Zzz. So. Maybe now that you know what your own conclusion is, you can admit or deny that you used the existence of God as a premise.


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 25, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> Zzz. So. Maybe now that you know what your own conclusion is, you can admit or deny that you used the existence of God as a premise.


False.


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 25, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> False.


Finally. You ceased pretending that you didn’t recognize your own conclusion and you stopped evading and deflecting with obvious dishonesty. Then, you managed to step right up and deny what you’d done.  🙄

But I predicted you’d deny this, too. Now I’ll show that you (and that argument) do posit the conclusion as a premise — actually 2 premises):




> 3.15. Hence, the eternally self-subsistent cause of the universe's existence is wholly transcendent: timeless, immaterial and immutable (3.13.).
> 
> 3.16. The only kind of timeless entity that could cause the beginning of time sans any external, predetermining causal conditions would be a personal agent of free will (per 3.3., 3.14.).


Both 3.15 and 3.16 reference “God.” Admit it. Deny it. Doesn’t matter. They do. And that’s why your “proof” is a fallacious argument. You’ve assumed your conclusion as a premise (twice).


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 25, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> False.


Finally. You ceased pretending that you didn’t recognize your own conclusion and you stopped evading and deflecting with obvious dishonesty. Then, you managed to step right up and deny what you’d done.  🙄

But I predicted you’d deny this, too.


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 26, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> Finally. You ceased pretending that you didn’t recognize your own conclusion and you stopped evading and deflecting with obvious dishonesty. Then, you managed to step right up and deny what you’d done.  🙄
> 
> But I predicted you’d deny this, too. Now I’ll show that you (and that argument) do posit the conclusion as a premise — actually 2 premises):
> 
> ...


The psychology of those who talk themselves out of the obvious and necessary, as if God, for example, _wouldn't_ reveal his existence via the imperatives of logic, mathematics, and metaphysics never ceases to amaze . . .  even though I fully understand what drives it.

You totally disregard the actuality of the argument.  The fundamental attributes of divinity are universally self-evident per the _a priori_ imperatives (or axioms) of human consciousness.  In fact, the Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA) is nothing more than an exegesis of these fundamental attributes, which are axiomatically apparent to the human mind when it regards the problem of existence.  

In general, _a priori_ imperatives are necessarily true to the human mind as the negation of them yields absurdities, i.e., self-negating or inherently contradictory assertions that necessarily prove the positive (or the opposite) is true.  In other words, they cannot be rationally thought of as being false without denying the viability of any given rational or mathematical imperative itself.  

It is the preceding sub-premises of the second major premise that tells us that the Universe (or physical world) necessarily began to exist in the finite past.   

It is the preceding sub-premises of the third major premise that linearly establish why the eternal existent cannot be material or operationally mechanical.  These imperatives are logically established _before_ *3.15 and 3.16*!  Hence, the eternal existent must be wholly transcendent (*3.15*), and this transcendent entity must be a personal agent of free will (*3.16.*).  The KCA is wholly linear, not circular.


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 26, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> The psychology of those who talk themselves out of the obvious and necessary, as if God, for example, _wouldn't_ reveal his existence via the imperatives of logic, mathematics, and metaphysics never ceases to amaze . . .  even though I fully understand what drives it.
> 
> You totally disregard the actuality of the argument.  The fundamental attributes of divinity are universally self-evident per the _a priori_ imperatives (or axioms) of human consciousness.  In fact, the Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA) is nothing more than an exegesis of these fundamental attributes, which are axiomatically apparent to the human mind when it regards the problem of existence.
> 
> ...


That’s ^ a very round about way of denying that which is evident.  KCA does suffer from the fallacy of begging the question. It is also an argument that requires that one accept as true premises which themselves are not established or necessarily true. 

You went off on a tangent when you were asked a straightforward question.  Re: 2.11. You were asked why an actual infinite cannot exist. (You chose to pontificate about the meaning of infinite vs infinity.) But back to the point, you did not choose to answer why an actual infinite cannot exist.

But we can go back even earlier. KCA posits: 1. “That which begins to exist must have a cause of its existence.” Why is that? Matter/energy does exist. Presumably at some point it began to exist. So the claim that there “must be a cause for it@ presumes something, doesn’t it? It presumes that matter/energy *can* be created. But we also maintain that matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed.  So, which is it? Tell us from observation and logic, which one is wrong. How do you support that answer?

Don’t misunderstand. Your answer of_ a priori_ “imperatives” is simply a way of offering a premise which you cannot support by observation. For instance: How can you know that an “actual infinite cannot exist?@ That’s a statement of belief. It is an assumption which can’t be proved or disproved.

Declaring  that something is an “absurdity” doesn’t answer the question, either.

You like the KCA. I get that. It has some appeal. But despite your claim to the contrary, it does have some premises that are actually statements of the ultimate conclusion. It is largely based on that fallacy. It also has other logical flaws as I’ve noted. And many scholars have also discussed those flaws. Those aren’t an exhaustive list, either.

Despite all of your irrelevant insertion of _ad hominem_ nonsense, when you tried to stick to the topic, I found your comments interesting. And it did lead me back to reviewing the entire philosophical conversation in greater depth than I’d ever gone before. So, I enjoyed the topic and some of the discussion.

I don’t find the KCA to prove the existence of God and so of course I don’t agree that it’s bullet proof. On the other hand, I still end up in the same place.

It seems absurd to me that our universe can *operate* according to laws of physics (which can largely be discovered and supported) *but* all of the matter/energy/time/space which those laws address came around by way of some huge cosmic quantum burp with no design behind them. My view is not one grounded in such fine syllogisms. I’m ok with that. I have no problem with the notion that the universe is far tooo mysterious a creation to ever be fully grasped by the human mind.


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 26, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> *That’s ^ a very round about way of denying that which is evident.  KCA does suffer from the fallacy of begging the question. It is also an argument that requires that one accept as true premises which themselves are not established or necessarily true.*
> 
> You went off on a tangent when you were asked a straightforward question.  Re: 2.11. You were asked why an actual infinite cannot exist. (You chose to pontificate about the meaning of infinite vs infinity.) But back to the point, you did not choose to answer why an actual infinite cannot exist.
> 
> ...



I note that you habitually avoid dealing with one point at a time.

You write:

*That’s ^ a very round about way of denying that which is evident.  KCA does suffer from the fallacy of begging the question. It is also an argument that requires that one accept as true premises which themselves are not established or necessarily true.*​​The above is yet another bald, unsubstantiated claim.  I need not take it seriously.


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 26, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> I note that you habitually avoid dealing with one point at a time.
> 
> You write:
> 
> *That’s ^ a very round about way of denying that which is evident.  KCA does suffer from the fallacy of begging the question. It is also an argument that requires that one accept as true premises which themselves are not established or necessarily true.*​​The above is yet another bald, unsubstantiated claim.  I need not take it seriously.


I note that your note is false. I did mention a few different facets of why I reject the KCA. But my claim is not even remotely unsubstantiated. Indeed, you chose to ignore what I pointed out earlier. Specifically, that your KCA premises 3.15 and 3.16 *do* reference God.  

So, in fact, there is no need to take your argument seriously.


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 26, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> I note that your note is false. I did mention a few different facets of why I reject the KCA. But my claim is not even remotely unsubstantiated. Indeed, you chose to ignore what I pointed out earlier. Specifically, that your KCA premises 3.15 and 3.16 *do* reference God.
> 
> So, in fact, there is no need to take your argument seriously.


To save time, I'm going to subject your thoughtless prose to the Socratic method.  

You write:  

I note that your note is false.​
Ringtone:  Why is it false?

BackAgain:  I did mention a few different facets of why I reject the KCA. But my claim is not even remotely unsubstantiated. Indeed, you chose to ignore what I pointed out earlier. Specifically, that your KCA premises 3.15 and 3.16 *do* reference God. 

Ringtone:  Your claim that my post didn't address your objection regarding sub-premises 3.15 and 3.16 is bullshit!  All I need do is copy and paste my counter, which, in fact, you ignored!

But let us put that aside for the moment  

Why do you incessantly misread things and waste my time?  I didn't quote the entirety of *Post #405.*   Hello!  I quoted only the following portion of that post:

*That’s ^ a very round about way of denying that which is evident. KCA does suffer from the fallacy of begging the question. It is also an argument that requires that one accept as true premises which themselves are not established or necessarily true.*​
And then I said, regarding that portion and only that portion of your post:  

The above is yet another bald, unsubstantiated claim. I need not take it seriously.​​In other words, you're repeating yourself again.  Cut to the chase and stick to one point at a time.  Careless reading and raising multiple objections at a time leads to miscommunications and slopy argumentation.

We are currently on this point in the discourse:  

It is the preceding sub-premises of the second major premise that tells us that the Universe (or physical world) necessarily began to exist in the finite past.​​It is the preceding sub-premises of the third major premise that linearly establish why the eternal existent cannot be material or operationally mechanical. These imperatives are logically established _before_ *3.15 and 3.16*! Hence, the eternal existent must be wholly transcendent (*3.15*), and this transcendent entity must be a personal agent of free will (*3.16.*). The KCA is wholly linear, not circular.​​


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 26, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> To save time, I'm going to subject your thoughtless prose to the Socratic method.
> 
> You write:
> 
> ...


Your efforts to convert my very thoughtful prose into what you mislabel the Socratic method are neither helpful nor responsive.

And you didn’t save time. Your dishonesty is a waste of time.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 26, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> The psychology of those who talk themselves out of the obvious and necessary


It's so "obvious and necessary", you have not a shred of evidence and the only argument you have is a running joke in university philosophy departments. Heh heh...


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 26, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> Your efforts to convert my very thoughtful prose into what you mislabel the Socratic method are neither helpful nor responsive.
> 
> And you didn’t save time. Your dishonesty is a waste of time.


Whatever you say, sociopath.  

My refutation of *Post #402* stands and stays unanswered:

You totally disregard the actuality of the argument. The fundamental attributes of divinity are universally self-evident per the _a priori_ imperatives (or axioms) of human consciousness. In fact, the Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA) is nothing more than an exegesis of these fundamental attributes, which are axiomatically apparent to the human mind when it regards the problem of existence.​​In general, _a priori_ imperatives are necessarily true to the human mind as the negation of them yields absurdities, i.e., self-negating or inherently contradictory assertions that necessarily prove the positive (or the opposite) is true. In other words, they cannot be rationally thought of as being false without denying the viability of any given rational or mathematical imperative itself.​​It is the preceding sub-premises of the second major premise that tells us that the Universe (or physical world) necessarily began to exist in the finite past.​​It is the preceding sub-premises of the third major premise that linearly establish why the eternal existent cannot be material or operationally mechanical. These imperatives are logically established _before_ *3.15 *and* 3.16*! Hence, the eternal existent must be wholly transcendent (*3.15*), and this transcendent entity must be a personal agent of free will (*3.16.*). The KCA is wholly linear, not circular.​​*Your objection is falsified.  You are refuted!*​


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 26, 2022)

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
It stands and stays unanswered!


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 26, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> Whatever you say, sociopath.
> 
> My refutation of *Post #402* stands and stays unanswered:
> 
> You totally disregard the actuality of the argument. The fundamental attributes of divinity are universally self-evident per the _a priori_ imperatives (or axioms) of human consciousness. In fact, the Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA) is nothing more than an exegesis of these fundamental attributes, which are axiomatically apparent to the human mind when it regards the problem of existence.​​In general, _a priori_ imperatives are necessarily true to the human mind as the negation of them yields absurdities, i.e., self-negating or inherently contradictory assertions that necessarily prove the positive (or the opposite) is true. In other words, they cannot be rationally thought of as being false without denying the viability of any given rational or mathematical imperative itself.​​It is the preceding sub-premises of the second major premise that tells us that the Universe (or physical world) necessarily began to exist in the finite past.​​It is the preceding sub-premises of the third major premise that linearly establish why the eternal existent cannot be material or operationally mechanical. These imperatives are logically established _before_ *3.15 *and* 3.16*! Hence, the eternal existent must be wholly transcendent (*3.15*), and this transcendent entity must be a personal agent of free will (*3.16.*). The KCA is wholly linear, not circular.​​*Your objection is falsified.  You are refuted!*​


_A priori_ means you have no basis by which to support your premise. Nothing more. So, you remain a worthless vainglorious gutted trout. Your attempt at falsification is of no value.


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 27, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> _A priori_ means you have no basis by which to support your premise. Nothing more. So, you remain a worthless vainglorious gutted trout. Your attempt at falsification is of no value.


False!

That which is _a priori_ is derived from incontrovertible reasoning or logic.  It is knowledge derived from deduction rather than from observation or experience.  Its purest form proceeds from the incontrovertible axioms of logic, mathematics, and metaphysics.

You talk like a relativist, indeed, like a leftist loon, denying the reality of universally objective truth.


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 27, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> False!
> 
> That which is _a priori_ is derived from incontrovertible reasoning or logic.  It is knowledge derived from deduction rather than from observation or experience.  Its purest form proceeds from the incontrovertible axioms of logic, mathematics, and metaphysics.
> 
> You talk like a relativist, indeed, like a leftist loon, denying the reality of universally objective truth.


False!  


> adjective Proceeding from a known *or assumed* cause to a necessarily related effect; deductive.
> adjective Derived by or designating the process of reasoning without reference to particular facts or experience.
> adjective Knowable without appeal to particular experience.
> adjective *Made before or without examination; not supported by factual study.*



— https://www.wordnik.com/words/a priori

You and many like you make an appeal to logic which is normally a great way to proceed. HOWEVER, as you just demonstrated, you are more than capable of overstating your case. Your “a priori” premises do *not* simply assume things which are axiomatic. You make *claims* that some of them are axiomatic, but such claims are disputable.

1.1. The KCA claim “That which begins to exist must have a cause of its existence” seems to be true on a surface level. But *you*, yourself, *don’t* acknowledge it’s truth so how “axiomatic” could it be in reality?  *EXAMPLE*: On the one hand you will insist that matter/energy had to have been *created* since they do exist. But, on the other hand, you will claim that matter/energy *cannot* be created or destroyed. You can’t have it both ways unless you insist on the right to posit both “A” and “~A” as premises. Another *EXAMPLE*: God. You say not only that God exists (you even make *that* your ultimate conclusion and call it “proved”). But — you also *deny* that God had to have been created. (But that is a denial of the very first premise.)

In both examples, the allegedly “axiomatic” nature of your initial premise is falsified.

And by the way, I generally do agree with the 1st premise. I just deny that’s it is truly axiomatic.

Similarly, our Declaration of Independence said something axiomatic which I also accept as true:  it claimed that certain truths are “self evident.”  Maybe. Maybe not. I happen to buy that premise. But my belief doesn’t necessarily make it so.  

Must God have a cause of His Own existence?  If not, the mere fact of existence obviously doesn’t require that a thing had to have been created. A fluctuation of quanta could have theoretically (maybe) brought forth all the needed ingredients for a Big Bang.


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 27, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> False!
> 
> 
> — https://www.wordnik.com/words/a priori
> ...


You write:

On the one hand you will insist that matter/energy had to have been *created* since they do exist. But, on the other hand, you will claim that matter/energy *cannot* be created or destroyed.​
False, on both counts!  You do not properly grasp the principle of existence or the Second Law of Thermodynamics.  You just keep repeating the same false, nonsensical premises again and again.  The false premises are yours, not mine.  

It _doesn't_ necessarily follow that matter/energy had to be created _because_ it exists.  Rather, matter/energy is a finite substance of temporality.   It had to be created _because_ it couldn't have always existed.

I never claimed that matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed in the first place!  Rather, *there is no known natural mechanism by which matter/energy can be created or destroyed.*

I could lead you through the KCA from structural premise to premise via the Socratic method.


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 27, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> You write:
> 
> On the one hand you will insist that matter/energy had to have been *created* since they do exist. But, on the other hand, you will claim that matter/energy *cannot* be created or destroyed.​
> False, on both counts!  You do not properly grasp the principle of existence or the Second Law of Thermodynamics.  You just keep repeating the same false, nonsensical premises again and again.  The false premises are yours, not mine.
> ...


You probably don’t realize that you’re  babbling.

it is either true that matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed OR it’s not true. But when you find it expedient, because your bullet proof formulation doesn’t satisfy a variety of logical and scientific preconditions, like a liberal, you adjust by changing the meaning of words or by specifying new “conditions” under which your axioms are axiomaric

So, now, you (referring to the logic of others which you support) come up with notions like “temporality.” Ah. Matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed EXCEPT when it *can*. When it has to have been.  Once again, your axioms aren’t so axiomatic. 

There *is* (as far as I can determine) *no* *known natural mechanism by which matter/energy can be created or destroyed. *So, for your axioms to be axiomatic, you have to make an allowance for a prior state (time before time, space before space, etc.) which constitutes an exception. In that mystical realm, things can exist or come into existence without being created.  Cool. So, what exactly prevents matter/energy/time/space itself being the thing(s) that can exist without having to have been created? 

You theoretically might have the ability to establish the KCA step by step via the Socratic method. *But so far*, you have more explaining to do than the KCA itself seems capable of accounting for. Yet, despite your own certitude, you haven’t proved your case. And,it remains true that I have an open mind. This doesn’t preclude asking _questions_. It just means that, so far, your explanation seems to have several holes in it. So, show me.


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 28, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> You probably don’t realize that you’re  babbling.
> 
> it is either true that matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed OR it’s not true. But when you find it expedient, because your bullet proof formulation doesn’t satisfy a variety of logical and scientific preconditions, like a liberal, you adjust by changing the meaning of words or by specifying new “conditions” under which your axioms are axiomaric
> 
> ...


Actually, the alternate expression of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which alludes to the Thomistic principle of causative primacy (something cannot be the cause of it's own existence), would simply be *there is no natural mechanism by which matter/energy can be created or destroyed.   *The term _*known*_ gratuitously confounds both the philosophical and scientific reality of the matter.

Good eye!

*There is no natural mechanism by which matter/energy can be created or destroyed.*


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 28, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> Actually, the alternate expression of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which alludes to the Thomistic principle of causative primacy, would simply be *there is no natural mechanism by which matter/energy can be created or destroyed.*
> 
> Good eye!



ah huh. So, lacking any known natural mechanism, in order to explain the existence of matter/energy, one is compelled to appeal to a supernatural explanation. (Where supernatural does not mean “magical;” but instead literally means an explanation above (beyond) known science. Such an explanation might be a Creator of infinite and timeless capacity, like our conception of God. Alternatively, it might be found in a “law” of theoretical quantum physics where the known rules of science simply don’t apply. Either way, we don’t know and we can’t prove it.


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 28, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> ah huh. So, lacking any known natural mechanism, in order to explain the existence of matter/energy, one is compelled to appeal to a supernatural explanation. (Where supernatural does not mean “magical;” but instead literally means an explanation above (beyond) known science. Such an explanation might be a Creator of infinite and timeless capacity, like our conception of God. Alternatively, it might be found in a “law” of theoretical quantum physics where the known rules of science simply don’t apply. Either way, we don’t know and we can’t prove it.


Wait a minute!  What are you going on about now?  I see what you were hinting at.  You're right.

Once again:

Actually, the alternate expression of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which alludes to the Thomistic principle of causative primacy (something cannot be the cause of it's own existence), would simply be *there is no natural mechanism by which matter/energy can be created or destroyed. *The term _*known*_ gratuitously confounds both the philosophical and scientific reality of the matter.​​Good eye!​​Hence, simply, *there is no natural mechanism by which matter/energy can be created or destroyed.*​
Thinking and writing about logical arguments is especially hard.  One should always avoid gratuitous words, as they readily serve to imply or express things not intended.


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 28, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> Wait a minute!  What are you going on about now?  I see what you were hinting at.  You're right.
> 
> Once again:
> 
> ...


I offered known to be fair. I allow for the possibility only. But my comment works either way. Let’s say that there is (definitively) NO such mechanism. What follows?  Simply that matter cannot be created or destroyed.

And yet, it exists. So, if it wasn’t created …. Where’d it come from?  If it came from God, presumably he may have created it. But we get back to that violation of the premise problem. 

It seems as though you think that maybe I’m just being quarrelsome.  That’s not my intent. I’m genuinely asking questions. I’m more than willing to consider each and every proposed answer. But if they don’t scratch that itch, I’ll say so. If the answer raises another (maybe tangentially related) question, I’ll ask that too.
Not to be vexatious. But to see if I can get a clear handle on it.


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 28, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> I offered known to be fair. I allow for the possibility only. But my comment works either way. Let’s say that there is (definitively) NO such mechanism. What follows?  Simply that matter cannot be created or destroyed.
> 
> And yet, it exists. So, if it wasn’t created …. Where’d it come from?  If it came from God, presumably he may have created it. But we get back to that violation of the premise problem.
> 
> ...


No.  Think carefully!

What I thought you were hinting at is correct!   Including the word _known_ absolutely confounds the matter.

There are two parts to the Second Law of Thermodynamics:

1.  Energy and matter are two forms of the same thing that can be transferred from one location to another or converted from one form to another.​​2.  Matter/energy is always conserved, i.e., matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed.​​*There is no known natural mechanism by which matter/energy may be created or destroyed. *​
Wrong!

That expression implies that there might/could be an _unknown_ natural mechanism by which matter/energy could be created or destroyed.  That's absurd!  Such a mechanism _does not_ and _could not_ exist in the first place!  Such a mechanism would be a violation of the philosophical principle of causative primacy, which is _a priori_ predicated on the principle of existence (or the principle of eternality), _and_ a violation of the scientific principle of conservation within open, closed, and isolated systems.

Hence, while *there is no natural mechanism by which matter/energy may be created or destroyed* is fine, t*here is no known natural mechanism by which matter/energy may be created or destroyed* is problematical.  

Ultimately, however, what you don't seem to understand is the ontological parameters of the open, closed, and isolated systems of the universe.  The scientific Laws of Thermodynamics only apply to them, not to the purview of philosophical imperatives, which ontologically and _a priori_ precede and have primacy over the laws of nature.  It is understood that the laws of nature only pertain to the systems within the universe.

I also wrote a study on the Laws of Thermodynamics that might be helpful in understanding why they would only apply to nature (i.e., the physical/material world):









						Thermodynamics and the Entropy of the Curse
					

THERMODYNAMICSBy David Thompson (Ctrl-Left Click on links or copy and paste links to URL-browser window.)Thermodynamics may be defined as




					www.yumpu.com
				


​*Click on document to magnify.*​


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 28, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> No.  Think carefully!
> 
> What I thought you were hinting at is correct!   Including the word _known_ absolutely confounds the matter.
> 
> ...


Yes. There are indeed things which we don’t yet know which could control.  Just because you label something as “absurd” doesn’t make it so. But you’re spinning wheels here, anyway. Because, as I noted, I’m quite content to stipulate that there is absolutely no mechanism of any kind by which matter/energy can be created or destroyed. As I said before, that doesn’t help you case.

So let’s dispense with terms like “imperatives,” like_ a priori_, which you ASSUME have primacy over the laws of nature. Why?  Because your assumptions may not be correct. I’ll reiterate what I said before about one disputed premise:




> It is *either true *that matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed *OR* it’s *not true*. But when you find it expedient, because your bullet proof formulation doesn’t satisfy a variety of logical and scientific preconditions, like a liberal, you adjust by changing the meaning of words or by specifying new “conditions” under which your axioms are axiomaric
> 
> So, now, you (referring to the logic of others which you support) come up with notions like “temporality.” Ah. Matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed *EXCEPT* when it *can*. When it has to have been. Once again, your axioms aren’t so axiomatic.


I understand the claim you make about the nature of your initial premises. But your claims about their nature don’t appear to be supported.

Accordingly, I restate what you’ve said:  There are rules of logic and rules of science that apply forever and always *except where they don’t.* Your _a priori_ reasoning gives you an ability to “grant” yourself exceptions. Convenient, but not supported and not logically persuasive.


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 28, 2022)

BTW, in the above I've been referring to the First Law of Thermodynamics as the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Brain fart!

The First Law, regarding the transfer/transformation_ and_ the conservation of energy therein, is what I've been discussing.

The Second Law goes to *the principle of entropy* and the Third Law goes to *the principle of absolute zero*.  

I trust you knew what I meant.


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 28, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> Yes. There are indeed things which we don’t yet know which could control.  Just because you label something as “absurd” doesn’t make it so. But you’re spinning wheels here, anyway. Because, as I noted, I’m quite content to stipulate that there is absolutely no mechanism of any kind by which matter/energy can be created or destroyed. As I said before, that doesn’t help you case.
> 
> So let’s dispense with terms like “imperatives,” like_ a priori_, which you ASSUME have primacy over the laws of nature. Why?  Because your assumptions may not be correct. I’ll reiterate what I said before about one disputed premise:
> 
> ...


You're talking relativist nonsense again.

_A priori_ imperatives are necessarily true as the negation of them yields absurdities, i.e., *self-negating or inherently contradictory assertions* that necessarily prove the positive (or the opposite) is true. In other words, *they cannot be rationally thought of as being false.*

Your objection is falsified.  You are refuted.


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 28, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> You're talking relativist nonsense again.
> 
> _A priori_ imperatives are necessarily true as the negation of them yields absurdities, i.e., *self-negating or inherently contradictory assertions* that necessarily prove the positive (or the opposite) is true. In other words, *they cannot be rationally thought of as being false.*
> 
> Your objection is falsified.  You are refuted.


Wrong. Your claim about the negation of an unestablished premise yielding an “absurdity “ is just your silly way of claiming that your assumption is “true” without having to demonstrate it. Therefore my objection hasn’t been falsified at all. Your refutation is what has failed.

It’s evident why you can’t answer my questions. Quite clear in fact.

It’s ok. If you can’t defend your claim, you don’t have to feel embarrassed. Your claim is simply overstated. That’s all.

The KCA first premise, which you claim is “a priori,” has to be subject to the test you hold out  as supporting it. That is: the negation has to yield an absurdity.  So, let’s try.

KCA premise 1 is: “That which begins to exist must have a cause of its existence.”  The negation of that can be stated as “for something to begin to exist it need not have a cause for its existence.”  You would be constrained to declare that an absurdity.  Why is it allegedly “absurd?” It can’t be absurd. Again, you yourself hold that to be true.

For, although we know that matter/energy does exist, you do agree with the laws of thermodynamics. That is: matter/energy cannot be created. Yet if it exists, it has to have been created. (Your quibble there is that it could have come into existence via a supernatural creation not constrained by the laws of thermodynamics.) Therefore, as I noted, you hold an a priori premise as self evidently and necessarily true *EXCEPT* for some inexplicable state of the cosmos before space/time/matter/energy.

So, exactly how would it be held to be an “absurdity” to say that something can exist without the necessity of having been created (having a cause of its existence). If GOD is the force of creation of that which can’t be created or destroyed, moreover, then where did GOd come from?  Presumably, from that time before time and space before space. But that too constitutes an example of the very thing you claim is an absurdity.

No sir. The problem isn’t my incomplete understanding of your argument (which is probably a given); the real problem is that *your* argument requires acceptance of internal contradictions.

In short, akin to a work of fiction, your argument requires the suspension of disbelief. “That which begins to exist must have a cause of its existence.” — has to be accepted at face value even though the premise itself requires its own negation *because* it simply *fails* to provide many explanation of how the basic building blocks of everything could have had any cause for their existence.


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 28, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> ) Therefore, as I noted, you hold an a priori premise as self evidently and necessarily true *EXCEPT* for some inexplicable state of the cosmos before space/time/matter/energy.
> 
> So, exactly how would it be held to be an “absurdity” to say that something can exist without the necessity of having been created (having a cause of its existence). If GOD is the force of creation of that which can’t be created or destroyed, moreover, then where did GOd come from?  Presumably, from that time before time and space before space. But that too constitutes an example of the very thing you claim is an absurdity.
> 
> ...


You're making baby talk again—goo-goo-ga-ga.  Just like you don't understand the ontological parameters of thermodynamics, you don't understand what the logical negation of an _a priori _imperative is.  Your objections are increasingly juvenile and tiresome.  To logically negate an imperative is to assert that the opposite of what it asserts or something other than what it asserts is true, i.e., to contradict or deny its veracity.

The universal principle of negation*:*
​_A priori_ imperatives are necessarily true as the negation of them yields absurdities, i.e., *self-negating or inherently contradictory assertions* that necessarily prove the positive (or the opposite) or something else is true. In other words, *they cannot be rationally thought of as being false.*​
This incontrovertible principle is predicated on the three fundamental laws of logic*:*  (1) the law of identity and its exegetical extensions, (2) the law of noncontradiction, and (3) the law of the excluded middle.

The negation of the first premise is clearly an absurdity!  Things that begin to exist _do not_ just pop into existence without causes. 

As for the rest of your nonsense. . . .

(1) the laws of thermodynamics ONLY APPLY TO THE ISOLATED SYSTEM OF THE UNIVERSE!  Your claim or insinuation that they pertain to anything beyond the ontological parameters of the Universe is scientifically false.

(2)  The KCA is in no way, shape, or form contingent on knowledge about the laws of thermodynamics, let alone on knowledge about their ontological parameters.  Even if your pseudoscientific gibberish regarding their ontological parameters were true, the KCA was formulated centuries before the exegesis of the laws of thermodynamics and the Big Bang Theory.

Stop being stupid.

Earlier, I only observed in passing that logically the God of creation wouldn't be constrained by the laws of physics.  I never once appealed to that observation as a contingent aspect of the KCA itself.  As you keep mindlessly insisting, there is no premature appeal in the KCA to God's existence, to a supernatural being unconstrained by the laws of physics, in the first place!

The historical developers of the cosmological argument Aristotle_,_ Philoponus, Avicenna, Al-Ghazali, Al-Kindi, and Aquinas didn't know anything about the pertinent laws of physics.

Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuh!

Their observations, expounded in the sub-premises of the second major premise, about why the Universe could not be the eternal existent are purely logical and mathematical, and entail absolutely no assertion about the identity or the attributes of the eternal existent.

It's the exegesis of the third premise that culminates with the divulsion of the eternal existent's identity.

The KCA is logically linear throughout, not circular.  It's solely informed by logical, mathematical, and metaphysical imperatives throughout, not by presumptive or scientific imperatives.

Your objections are falsified.  You are refuted.


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 28, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> You're making baby talk again—goo-goo-ga-ga.  Just like you don't understand the ontological parameters of thermodynamics, you don't understand what the logical negation of an _a priori _imperative is.  Your objections are increasingly juvenile and tiresome.  The logical negation of an imperative is to assert that the opposite of what it asserts or something other than what it asserts is true, i.e., to contradict or deny its veracity.
> 
> The universal principle of negation*:*
> ​_A priori_ imperatives are necessarily true as the negation of them yields absurdities, i.e., *self-negating or inherently contradictory assertions* that necessarily prove the positive (or the opposite) or something else is true. In other words, *they cannot be rationally thought of as being false.*​
> ...


I keep trying to patient with you. But nothing stops you from being perpetually an arrogant twat. If only you were half as smart as you erroneously imagine yourself to be.

Too bad. You suck as a teacher. That’s usually a good clue that you don’t really understand the subject matter. You babble a great deal. But I now recognize that you are actually just a blowhard. I’m done with you. Adios, you jerkoff.


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 28, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> I keep trying to patient with you. But nothing stops you from being perpetually an arrogant twat. If only you were half as smart as you erroneously imagine yourself to be.
> 
> Too bad. You suck as a teacher. That’s usually a good clue that you don’t really understand the subject matter. You babble a great deal. But I now recognize that you are actually just a blowhard. I’m done with you. Adios, you jerkoff.


You're making baby talk again—goo-goo-ga-ga. Just like you don't understand the ontological parameters of thermodynamics, you don't understand what the logical negation of an _a priori _imperative is. Your objections are increasingly juvenile and tiresome. To logically negate an imperative is to assert that the opposite of what it asserts or something other than what it asserts is true, i.e., to contradict or deny its veracity.

The universal principle of negation*:*

_A priori_ imperatives are necessarily true as the negation of them yields absurdities, i.e., *self-negating or inherently contradictory assertions* that necessarily prove the positive (or the opposite) or something else is true. In other words, *they cannot be rationally thought of as being false.*​
This incontrovertible principle is predicated on the three fundamental laws of logic*:* (1) the law of identity and its exegetical extensions, (2) the law of noncontradiction, and (3) the law of the excluded middle.

The negation of the first premise is clearly an absurdity! Things that begin to exist _do not_ just pop into existence without causes. 

As for the rest of your nonsense. . . .

(1) the laws of thermodynamics ONLY APPLY TO THE ISOLATED SYSTEM OF THE UNIVERSE! Your claim or insinuation that they pertain to anything beyond the ontological parameters of the Universe is scientifically false.

(2) The KCA is in no way, shape, or form contingent on knowledge about the laws of thermodynamics, let alone on knowledge about their ontological parameters. Even if your pseudoscientific gibberish regarding their ontological parameters were true, the KCA was formulated centuries before the exegesis of the laws of thermodynamics and the Big Bang Theory.

Stop being stupid.

Earlier, I only observed in passing that logically the God of creation wouldn't be constrained by the laws of physics. I never once appealed to that observation as a contingent aspect of the KCA itself. As you keep mindlessly insisting, there is no premature appeal in the KCA to God's existence, to a supernatural being unconstrained by the laws of physics, in the first place!

The historical developers of the cosmological argument Aristotle_,_ Philoponus, Avicenna, Al-Ghazali, Al-Kindi, and Aquinas didn't know anything about the pertinent laws of physics.

Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuh!

Their observations, expounded in the sub-premises of the second major premise, about why the Universe could not be the eternal existent are purely logical and mathematical, and entail absolutely no assertion about the identity or the attributes of the eternal existent.

It's the exegesis of the third premise that culminates with the divulsion of the eternal existent's identity.

The KCA is logically linear throughout, not circular. It's informed by logical, mathematical, and metaphysical imperatives throughout, not by presumptive or scientific imperatives.

Your objections are falsified. You are refuted.


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 28, 2022)

I had hoped that ringtone could get past his own arrogance so that we could have an actually productive conversation. It is clearly impossible for him to control his arrogance. So, he has been sent to the Ignore Zone with a few other useless blood clots like him. But the other hacks I’ve sent to the Ignore Zone, I believe, are simply libtarded. Ringtone is (I believe) the first more or less conservative I’ve ever found it necessary to discard.


----------



## Ringtone (Apr 29, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> View attachment 637825
> I had hoped that ringtone could get past his own arrogance so that we could have an actually productive conversation. It is clearly impossible for him to control his arrogance. So, he has been sent to the Ignore Zone with a few other useless blood clots like him. But the other hacks I’ve sent to the Ignore Zone, I believe, are simply libtarded. Ringtone is (I believe) the first more or less conservative I’ve ever found it necessary to discard.


You said _useless blood clots_.

     

Starting with the first premise, if you would only carefully examine the KCA with me via the Socratic method, whereby we establish an objectively correct and mutual understanding of things one principle and concept at a time you might finally see that it's your objections that are premature and only serve to confound the actualities of the argument.  

But you refuse to do that.


----------



## RoccoR (May 16, 2022)

RE:  It's time to review, once again, the cosmological argument for God's existence
※→  _et al_,

*(PREFACE)*

The current discussion seems to smear the insights to the various arguments all over the wall.

*(COMMENT)*

I am a bit confused.  Using a classical _Thomistic _cosmological argument (inspired by Thomas Aquinas from Aristoten teaching) one might be able to say that these arguments are Metaphysical in nature. 

The question becomes:  What is the question?




_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## Ringtone (May 16, 2022)

RoccoR said:


> RE:  It's time to review, once again, the cosmological argument for God's existence
> ※→  _et al_,
> 
> *(PREFACE)*
> ...


The Kalam Cosmological Argument is not classically Thomistic.  Its origin precedes Aquinas by centuries.  It _is_ metaphysical by nature.

You write:  "The question becomes:  What is the question?"

What does that mean?


----------



## RoccoR (May 17, 2022)

RE: It's time to review, once again, the cosmological argument for God's existence
SUBTOPIC:
※→ Ringtone,  _et al_,



Ringtone said:


> The Kalam Cosmological Argument is not classically Thomistic.  Its origin precedes Aquinas by centuries.  It _is_ metaphysical by nature.


*(COMMENT)*

Yes, I think I did mention "[inspired by Thomas Aquinas from _*Aristoten*_ teaching)( (384 – 322 BC)]."  Not very much of much of the original Aristotelian manuscripts have survived through the last 23 Centuries.  Aristotle studied under Plato (428 - 348 BC).  Platonian material and thinking centered on a much narrower view of the world science and philosophy.  Where as Aristotle's field of view was much wider then the Metaphysics of questions discussed before the common era.  Plato (Aristotle's teacher) was more abstract in Metaphysical concepts.  Aristotle ultimately chose a path supprted by common sense and empirical evidence.



Ringtone said:


> You write:  "The question becomes:  What is the question?"
> 
> What does that mean?


*(COMMENT)*

Yes, what is the question as it relates to the topic:  Cosmological Argument for God's Existence.  That is to say:

What do we review relative to an 
*"undefined Entity" *
shut as the
* Supreme Being.*​
◈. Is there a hard fact in evidence for a Supreme Being?​◈. Can you review our knowledge of the unknown?​◈. Are we sure there is only one deity?​




_Most Respectfully,_
R


----------



## Ringtone (May 17, 2022)

RoccoR said:


> RE: It's time to review, once again, the cosmological argument for God's existence
> SUBTOPIC:
> ※→ Ringtone,  _et al_,
> 
> ...


You still don't seem to grasp the historical realities of the matter. 

The Kalam Cosmological Argument was developed by the Muslim philosophers Avicenna, Al-Kind, and Al-Ghazali, and by the early Christian empiricist Philoponus.

As for the rest of your post, the _a priori_ imperatives of logic and mathematics, and the first principles of metaphysics tell us that (1) God does necessarily exists and (2) what the universal code of morality is.

Your questions have already been answered.


----------

