Search results

Not so nice absurd reasoning you have there..... But then your argument for God , for faith, as can be seen quite clearly, relies entirely on a rhetoric of absurd reasoning. You can't force concepts onto people however much you believe or wish you could. Your suggestion that every...

There are those who find no reason to have any faith in God, so they have reason to have no faith. Consequently non God is as meaningless as God is.

I already explained but face it, you just don't like any arguments that require no Creator God as part of them The Origin of a Universe by Natural Selection. That has a nice ring to it. Fecund universe have no hang ups with fine tuning.

There are those who find no reason to have any faith in God. 3 sides to the same coin.

There is no evidence of a Creator, unless the Creator is a quantum burp.

I'd argue... "Too late. bigarrow won already" . Then notice the anger a theist displays in calling me a liar for being honest . Dictatorially demanding I have faith, telling me I do, insisting I have it. Only because to a bigot like that 'It seems clear there is faith' .

Scientific models say no such thing. And before you start posting more misleading nonsense like you did with Christian de Duve earlier, the Anthropic Principle is in essence not a scientific model either. The universe apparently isn't set up just right for life. Most of it is empty and...

Hitchens? Kinda like me? You mean honest? Well yes ok. So there could be a God could there? Like there could be a Tooth Fairy. So you think there's good reason to be believe in the Tooth Fairy? God and Tooth Fairies don't even make it to need of proof. They both produce enough...

The dishonest insist there is faith where non exists. So why is it you are so emotional and worked up about the fact that I don't have faith, that you need to insist I do? You do realize the Reformation has taken place and the Age of Enlightenment also? Rational reasonable people...

Hitchens has often stated he finds no valid reason or moral argument to think why God should exist. So there isn't even the necessity of any requirement to make the claim God doesn’t exist.

Why not stop all the ducking and diving and address the refutation you were given.

There would be no honesty and no honest discussion, in admitting to faith where there is non. And having faith is quite clearly not making you at all impartial.

Like I said , belligerently ignorant and no credibility. It's not an insult, it's what you are being like. You asked for a response and have just been shown why the ridiculous claim you made is completely invalid. So what do you do rather than address it? You run off to make some more...

Here's why your "top mind" is not making anything like an argument for intelligent design as you proclaim he is... “If you equate the probability of the birth of a bacteria cell to chance assembly of its atoms, eternity will not suffice to produce one… Faced with the enormous sum of...

The response was to dodge it . The reason was because they change. Like William Lane Craig's own version regularly does. So rather than query that, the fallacy apparently must be in Hitchen's position.. Thus goes the reasoning of a faither.

That’s a very strange idea. The OP of the thread is about theists screaming how there is a God. Do you expect that should go unchallenged without ANY questions ?

If your point was to demonstrate the essential fallacy of Hitchen's position, you completely failed. Just winging about it as you have instead of reasoning through it, does not demonstrate any fallacy in it.

....fairies. "unrefutably".

I do know. So now that I'm being intellectually honest, shall I leave it at that. Will you?

You can't comprehend something, therefore you comprehend something else you can't comprehend !?