We have countered his claims over and over and over. He merely claims that we are “shallow”, “naive”, and “ignorant”. Then he lies about how he has proven his case. No one at all has agreed with his case.
Then, of course, he whines when I return his insults. Read the threads from the beginning when we each have carefully explained why his sermons are erroneous. After pages and pages, we just give up explaining it to him, but remind him that he never proved anything and he is lying when he keeps claiming that he has.
And prismatic, the whole religion thing is so played out. I told you from the beginning that you’re just rehashing and reformulating the problem of evil here, and that your stipulations don’t change that fact, and somehow you’ve hilariously dragged james into a protracted debate and gotten him to show his ass a little. Funny, but still not a proof of an absence of a god. How can you not be bored with this? The entirety of the discourse on whether or not there’s a god is so old, so established, so complete, so inconclusive, so well known, so easily recited that it literally blows my mind that anyone would bother to take more than a few minutes talking about it.
Like when someone “proves” that a 3-omni god can’t exist, they’ve presumed certainty about what’s good and evil. That’s a hell of a feat in and of itself. On top of that they’ve only proven that a) they’ve constructed an impossible definition, or b) that 1 certain kind of god can’t exist.
…James will bully us all in his endeavour to make us believe otherwise… he takes all the joy out of things… maybe he’s a black hole, but on a planetary level.
James, you know that this post does not negate the problem that I pointed to, and you know just as well that I don’t need to know what angle of what argument you were making for my point to stand. Don’t even try this.
Quantities and functions of objects and relations between them doesn’t prove anything about anything outside the system in which they’re being considered. Godel knew this and so do you.
Let’s talk about symbols and referents on your side, and evidence contained in private mental states on his side. I mean, I technically think that you’re both wrong.
I am sure that you’re trying to get me to put something fourth, so that I can be at a rhetorical disadvantage as the one who’s forced to induct. You’re no Socrates James. I know these tricks.
Just tell me how you get from an abstract system to a concrete fact about the world without violating the distinction between symbols and referents.
You can draw all the diagrams that you want, and you can write out all the formulas in the world, and you can quantify everything under the sun and at the end of the day the proof as to whether there is or isn’t a god just simply doesn’t rest on those things.