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

[BackAgain]

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.

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]

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]

Dude, you need to lay off the shrooms.

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

 

[Ringtone]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^
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]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^
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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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

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

With all due respect.

 

[Ringtone]

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

With all due respect.

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

 

[BackAgain]

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

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

 

[Indeependent]

How do you know that an infinite can not exist?

God is infinite.

 

[Indeependent]

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]

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.