traders who are deeply religious

[trainr]

Quote from cooldude:

I forgot how old you are. Did you say you are 17? I honestly don't remember, but I thought that was what you said.

What? With all your :and all you can do is guessing? Are you suffering from Alzheimer already?
Poor soul!
:eek:
Another question as an answer.

(Sigh) At least you're consistent.

I won't ask another question, considering the labyrinth that exposes.

I'll just assume you're 17. And you have some kind of questionable website.

Feel free to refute that.

 

[trainr]

Quote from Stu:
quoting 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 isn’t 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.

(... if you’re saying there’s no apparent contradiction, then what are you arguing?)

Actually, you’ve made no change in the original concepts or their meaning, and the contradiction remains mistaken. You’ve just willfully ignored the additional context to make it seem like I’ve limited my argument to your little box.

Okay, here’s the simple stuff you’re missing again (not really sure why I bother – too much benefit of the doubt, really).

There are 2 thoughts expressed here:
1. A God you imagine (conceive) isn’t a universe-creating God.
2. If the universe-creating God exists and reveals himself, he isn’t imaginary, he is real. I no longer have to imagine him; I can know him by his impartation of knowledge.
3. We can imagine all kinds of Gods, or we can know a real God.

You have some real or imaginary difficulty with points # 2 and 3 above, evidenced by the fact that you ignore them.

I’ve already spelled this out – to you, specifically – once.

I sincerely believe you are being willful.

The alternative is that you are nowhere near being up to the challenge of the debate. I don't see a third alternative.

 

[trader28]

This is so pointless Trainr, if you believe then it should be strong enough for all this to be water off a ducks back, the more you debate, argue and justify... the more we think you protest a little too much

 

[cooldude]

Quote from trader28:

This is so pointless Trainr, if you believe then it should be strong enough for all this to be water off a ducks back, the more you debate, argue and justify... the more we think you protest a little too much

He doesn't want to see, he can't see it that way.
He protests and argues gazing fixedly at his own navel as someone
hypnotized by his ..My IQ is "up there". Up there because he doesn't have a clue as to where!
He protests that people don't respond to his 'questions' while, all the time,
he is practicing self serving monologues.
Having that IQ that is up there must be hard on him. It even makes him see ghosts where there aren't any, like : "And you have some kind of questionable website."
What website?
:eek:

Poor soul!

 

[trainr]

Quote from cooldude:(nothing worth repeating)

*plonk* (ignore filter activated)

 

[trainr]

Quote from stu:
Quoting 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?

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".

There is no logic there, no thinking at all. Adding the phrase “from observation” is meaningless – contrary to your belief of sinister intent by me -- because, as you know, there is no way to observe nothing. What you’re admitting is that there is no observable cause. And, if you were honest, you’d extend that thought to the known problem with trying to prove absence: “absence of proof does not constitute proof of absence.”

Let me rephrase that last sentence to one you’re more likely to understand (one can hope): Absence of proof-of-cause for positron pairs does not constitute proof of absence-of-cause of positron pairs.

You have therefore failed to prove – by observation, or any other means – that positron pairs are uncaused.

By the same token, there was no observable cause for spontaneous generation, polio, the common cold, and thousands of other things, at least not until they found one. And this lack of proof may have existed for – not just your paltry 50-year claim for positron pairs – thousands of years.

Are you saying we should reject the causes of spontaneous generation, polio, the common cold et al?

NOTE A: Argument rejected from logical fallacy. Hardly worth responding to.

The form of this entire debate is something like this:
Me: positional statement
You: rebuttal statement
Me: invalidation of your rebuttal statement
You: invalidation of rebuttal doesn’t prove your position
Me: your inability to rebut allows my position to remain until such time as you can

For now, my original position stands. You have no valid rebuttal, no valid argument.

 

[cooldude]

Quote from trainr:

Quote from cooldude: (nothing worth repeating)

*plonk* (ignore filter activated)

So he chooses to 'ignore' when his " ...My IQ is "up there" " can't cope with.

Poor soul!
:eek:

Now here may be something worth spending your IQ time:
Oh smart one, how do you square a circle?

 

[trainr]

Cooldude and others who have been *plonk*-ed and are trying to respond to my posts.

I can't see your responses. I receive an email telling me you have replied but can't see it -- that's the point of having a killfile.

How do you communicate with me?

You don't.

I'll remove you from the killfile in a month to see if you have decided to contribute.

The possible reason you're there:
1) the majority of your posts were ad hominem, or personal attacks;
2) your arguments never extended beyond "because aberrancy exists, therefore christians are aberrant."
3) you were incomprehensible.

 

[trader28]

Quote from trainr:


1) the majority of your posts were ad hominem, or personal attacks;
2) your arguments never extended beyond "because aberrancy exists, therefore christians are aberrant."
3) you were incomprehensible.

4) the ignore function is how I deal with biblical inconsistencies

 

[rcj]

Mercy !!!

Wont be long before this all ends in "Ignore Hell" !!

... rj