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

[Ringtone]

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.

You batshit crazy 'tard!

 

[BackAgain]

You batshit crazy 'tard!

You cowardly dishonest retarded pussy.

257 !

 

[Ringtone]

You cowardly dishonest retarded pussy.

257 !

You toe-jam-funk-smelin' sociopath!

 

[BackAgain]

You toe-jam-funk-smelin' sociopath!

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

Meanwhile: 257

 

[Ringtone]

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]

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.

Stop guessing. Sack up. Answer the questions.

257.

 

[Ringtone]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

Excellent question.

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



Mind reader.

 

[Ringtone]

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]

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?

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]

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]

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.

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.