Quote from trainr:
This is what I actually said. Notice the apparent and mistaken contradiction -- something which you're supposedly much too careful to allow -- goes up in smoke:
Any God of which you can conceive isnât a God who is big enough to create the universe. .......
followed by this....
"In the non-abstract, we can conceive of something called God."
Your contradiction is not apparent nor mistaken.
You might do better if you remember you wrote these things . Therefore they are recorded.
More demonstration of you not being able to stand by the things you say and the way in which you will try to deceitfully avoid your mistakes, pretending you didn't make any.
What's next, a proclamation that the God others concieve of isn't big enough, but guess what.... yours is ??
Quote from trainr:
If you weren't explicit, you implied it. Why do you introduce the concept of positron pairs unless you are trying to convince people that there are things -- in this case positron pairs -- that have no cause?
I think you're just playing games. Are positron pairs caused or uncaused?
I have asked you on a number of occasions now, what is it you don't understand? Are you being purposely obtuse as well as deceitful in the way you handle responses made to your statements?
Look, I'll try again, what don't you understand about this....
You said ...
"Any non-eternal thing requires a sufficient and adequate cause; from observation"
Now, that statement of yours is simply wrong and here is the reason why I say so...."Positron Pairs are non-eternal and require no sufficient and adequate cause, from observation.".
There is the reason I mentioned Positron Pairs. It is known and has been for at least 50 years that Positron Pairs are non-eternal and require no " sufficient and adequate cause, from observation".
So to avoid that fact you act deceitfully, first altering my statement by ignorantly editing it leaving out your requirement "from observation", you then put it against a statement of yours which I was not using it to respond to . As if that weren't enough, you suggest implied meaning is sufficient to base your own conclusions on . By sidetracking, you then demand proof Positron Pairs are uncaused. No longer the observation they are uncaused will do for you , which your own statement declares is necessary.
The only way you seem to think you can confirm what you say is right, is by confusing yourself and thereby believing you have confused everyone into thinking you are right.
Quote from trainr:
Then you are agreeing with me.
My question: how does agreeing with me ("an eternal anything would not require ... " a cause (God)) contradict "An eternal truth â or an eternal God â requires no cause; self-evident"?
For the time being, you are agreeing with me, whether you think so or not. You don't have an argument.
More confusion on your behalf.
You obviously have mistaken the thing you dug for yourself and so enthusiastically jumped into as agreement rather than a hole.
Let me explain it more simply for you...
Your argument has no point to it.
It is tautological.
It was you who indicated tautological was not useful. Then you make tautological statements. The response I gave was intended to show your tautology, and does not show agreement. Get it? No??...duh??
Quote from trainr:
Expand on this. Show me how God requires non-existence to create the universe. I assume it's easy to do considering the lengths you go to proclaim how obvious it is. Go ahead, dumb it down for me.
I tell you what.. stop your deceit, I could have a go at it for you.
I should warn you though, the dumbing down you request would make it more complicated than is necessary.
Quote from trainr:
Does ad hominem attacks indicate you are able to think? If so, you are.
Would you like another attempt to construct that sentence in English.
Quote from trainr:
If instead, as I suspect, it is a reflection of the paucity of argument, you are nearly done.
More deceit more confusion
Still, inventing ad hominem attacks where there are non is one way for you to capitulate I guess. But it is deceitful.
