Sea sancuary
In reply to this post by Metacrock
I followed a weblink to copious amounts of copy and paste. Ug.
As with all my arguments it's a rational warrant for belief, not proof of God's existence.
Mind if I just skip ahead and grant that? Since we don't know everything about the formation of the universe, there is room for a divine possibility and therefore it is rationally justifiable to hold such a view.
Of course I maintain there is also plenty of room for a non-divine possibility to it is rationally justifiable to hold that view as well.
SS again:
Originally posted by Metacrock
ahahahahaa you are so ignoorant! you bee to school? what grade are you IN ? you are in highschool right? man you need to learn a thing or two.
the things you saw on that page were written by me. that is what we call "research." it's was in debate is known as 'evidence." it' s documentation. that means we prove our opinion by quoting experts and studies and people who know. we show where we got the quotea so you can look up and know tis' not a lie. this is what one is supposed to do in dabet. it' not cuttin and apsting little child it is actually donig waht accacmeics do, its' documenting.
If your writing is academic scholarship, I must confess my unfamiliarity.
Lao Tsu
Spellchecker's are free.
Lao again:
Originally posted by TheologicalDisc
It's funny how I said atheism is inherently immature and it is even more funny how both atheists Amen'd the guys post that acts like he doesn't know what that sentence means.
Freaking clueless, thy name is Metacrock, and TD is thy prophet.
Lao Tsu again:
Excuse me for putting your post through a spellchecker. It's a built-in feature on Firefox and those red underlines were a bit much to read through. You really should try it sometime. Even LilPix does it now. As it is, you're forcing your readers to repeatedly stop short in order to translate your posts before moving on. I'm not sure what to recommend to make your grammar more parsable.
again
Originally posted by Metacrock
I am not doubting that he's a Ph.D. student.
Originally posted by Metacrock
The people who claimed they were Ph.D. students ...
Originally posted by Metacrock
so typical.
Unwitting irony award winner.
lao Tsu again
In response to the question, "What part of 'unwitting irony' does Metacrock not understand?" we observe the answer is "both." That's a useful summary of this thread. Certainly, most of the comments you've received in this thread have been somewhat oblique, but that's a fairly natural reaction when engaged with one who doesn't appear to be firing on all cylinders.
You do realize your blog post is unintelligible, don't you? Even stepping in lightly one finds you've created a quagmire. The outline is garbled (A, B, C, D, IV, 1, 2, 3 ...). Quotes are chopped off — what did Polyakov say? How much of A was quoted from Davies? Why is Koons cited "again"? References are footnoted out of order when they're footnoted at all.
again"
You've got Davies characterized as a "believer." You don't seem to realize the "Mind of God" derives from a description of the long-sought "Theory of Everything" by another well-known atheist physicist, Stephen Hawking. This derivation is incomplete as well, as Hawking was merely rephrasing Einstein. Yes, physicists use religious language. It doesn't make them religious adherents.
I did nto say Davies was a Chrsiain, I never said that. He is a believer, he's a theist. He's been one since the wrote the mind of God. try research next time..
to that bit of mindless bs philosophical pop sycle says:
Game. Set. Match
o yea, what an astrounding aray of brilliant arguments. O that just showed me didn't it? you have' all the old saws and popular truisms on your side, no need to do any thinking is there? you don't need tought when you are cool, Doooooooode!
Philosophickle
In reply to this post by Metacrock
who could match wits with those guys?
No comments:
Post a Comment