You really couldnt make it up… oh wait…
3 Likes
So you have the ability to understand that which is unknown. How in the hell did you come to the conclusion that this God thing you speak of has no beginning or end. Please share your evidence. Exactly how do you justify your ‘UNDERSTANDING,’ outside an ignorant unsubstantiated guess.
2 Likes
Then perhaps he can reconcile that assertion with this earlier one he made:
Ooopsy, CONTRADICTION a game for 4 or more people…be prepared to be amazed and perplexed… 
Or how about this one:
- Where did this deity come from?
@Sherlock-Holmes [I don’t know]
3 Likes
Sheldon That blatant straw man fallacy is another lie, it’s bizarre you turn into such a crybaby when your lies are pointed out, but keep lying so blatantly, quote a single post of mine ever making that claim or admit you just told a brazen lie?
Bumpity bump, more duplicity never revisited after the lie was challenged, I shan’t even feign surprise at how quickly he moves away from such lies.
Here’s the full text you are quoting from, emphasis added by me:
The universe is the subject, the thing whose existence was being discussed, let me make it more explicit:
My remark is sound, we were at that time discussing the nature of explanations for the universe and I said - which I fully stand by - that we cannot presume the universe exists as part of our explanation for the universe’s existence.
I was not discussing the origin of God, go back and check if you’re still perplexed.
Yes I saw the claim, and you then contradicted with a special pleading fallacy for your deity, claiming it had always existed, also contradicting two previous claims:
Leaving aside these are strident assumptions unsupported by any objective evidence, or rational argument, you seem to be contradicting yourself all over the place, and not just on this either.
A dubious assertion, since you have no idea what existed before the big bang, and of course you are using it as an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, no natural explanation = god using inexplicable and unevidenced supernatural powers, and a false dichotomy fallacy either your belief or a straw man you think you can easily knock over.
This has been explained enough times now, to make it odd to say the least that you persist with the same logical fallacies.
Oh I think that’s an extremely disingenuous and dubious claim, given where you are and what your clear agenda is. You may not have specifically mentione dit there, but to deny that’s where this nonsense is heading seems an unlikely assertion.
All that aside though, you still made yet again several obvious contradictions, and used several logical fallacies in your arguments. You can’t have it all ways, demanding explanations science doesn’t currently have or leaping to conclusions based on that gap in our knowledge, and at the same time have no explanation at all for your core claim a god did it all. Lets remind ourselves how that went:
Imagine science were offering an explanation of the big bang comparable to that nonsense:
- How is TBB possible?
Science [Which part are you struggling with?] - Where did TBB come from?
Science [I don’t know] - How is the power of TBB possible?
Science [Why is anything possible] - Where does power for TBB come from?
Science [From outside the universe] - How did TBB create the universe.
Science [By the use of will]
The irony is palpable…especially when you assert that
Then claim a deity has always existed and always will.
1 Like
It doesn’t matter what you think, I was not discussing God, read it again:
See, I was not discussing God, now please stop trolling and baiting and either participate honestly or I will have no choice but to ignore your posts.
That’s not for you to say, and I already explained why the assertion was still dubious even though you hadn’t specifically mentioned a deity as an alternative there, because you have elsewhere, you can’t just wave it away, and pretend it hasn’t happened.
I don’t agree, you didn’t mention a deity specifically but throughout this discourse this is precisely the false dichotomy you have used.
Oh please, I leave that to you.
brilliant, irony?
2 Likes
Except that even the vrey existence of this entity is merely asserted, and within the pages of a pre-scientific mythology littered with absurdities at that. So anyone who wants to peddle assertions about this entity has a serious problem from the very start.
And, of course, the same people who blithely peddle assertions of this sort, are the first to whinge and bleat, the moment suggests we cut out the unnecessary and merely asserted middleman, and postulate that relevant material entities and interactions have always existed.
Already dealt with this blatant and duplicitous strawman caricature of actual scientific postulates repeatedly.
What part of “cosmological physicists postulates that testable natural processes were responsible” do you keep pretending you were never told?
This is fatuous apologetic excrement. If you think that taking account of something that is readily observable is a “presumption”, then it’s no wonder you’re a mythology fanboy.
Any chance you’ll run out of miasmatic garbage to post here?
1 Like
Where does Sherlock get off asserting there is a god? We have seen no evidence of this yet. I can point to a thousand failed gods and even more Demi-gods, demons, angels, spirits, and supernatural and bullshit. He does not get to simply assert a God into existence.
1 Like
You really need to start sticking the word compelling or objective in front of the word evidence, or @Sherlock-Holmes is going to leap all over that claim, again.
Agreed, and not having or being able to conceive of an explanation for something, is not a rational reason to assert a deity did it. This is both a false dichotomy and an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.
1 Like
Wait, I’ve been gone…did he finally fucking define this so-called god he claims to believe in?
I noticed his obsession with the Emperor’s clothes and it seems ridiculously apparent that he is the emperor, draped with an imaginary cloak of a belief in a thing he is either unable, or unwilling, to define and yet persists in demanding others identify and define his attire…and explain how they identify the evidence for the invisible garments.
Edit: I have been receiving treatments for irony overload and my right hand is twitching uncontrollably.
1 Like
Of course not! It’s just an amorphous before the beginning of the universe (never mind the cosmos) beyond time and space, first cause, non-evidenced existent without existent sort of asserted thing.
4 Likes
The latin translation Cog is, ‘Maximus Bollocksius’.
Uh, not to be a dickicus or anything but I think it should be “Bollocksius Maximus” 
1 Like
And it keeps leaking? What in the hell is up with that?
Take it over to the Lounge. This is the Debate room. Thx!
Good idea…there’s a tile floor in there…
So there can be no explanation for any deity then.
If it were sound then it must also applied to any claim a deity exists. yet we see you keep positing a deity as a cause, what caused the deity, then you go immediately to a special pleading fallacy and claim that deity always existed, then the rational inference is why can’t the universe have always existed, then you go back and insist it must have a cause, and so and so on, on an endless contradictory circle.
5 Likes
Ha ha ha ha … It’s like a comedy of errors… over and over and over again.
6 Likes