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

[Ringtone]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.