The apologia of the cosmos. Evidence of God

[Elioenai26]

The onus is on you, not us. Come, now, this is elementary.

If that's the calibre of your argument, I'm happy we stopped where we did.

Taken from the scholarly peer reviewed article, Theistic Critiques of Athesim in the Abridged version in The Cambridge Companion to Atheism, pp. 69-85. Ed. M. Martin. Cambridge Companions to Philosophy. Cambridge University Press, 2007


"A fourth argument for the finitude of the past is also an inductive argument, appealing to thermodynamic properties of the universe.

According to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, processes taking place in a closed system tend toward states of higher entropy, as their energy is used up. Already in the nineteenth century scientists realized that the application of the Law to the universe as a whole (which, on naturalistic assumptions, is a gigantic closed system, since it is all there is) implied a grim eschatological conclusion: given sufficient time, the universe would eventually come to a state of equilibrium and suffer heat death. But this apparently firm projection raised an even deeper question: if, given sufficient time, the universe will suffer heat death, then why, if it has existed forever, is it not now in a state of heat death? The advent of relativity theory altered the shape of the eschatological scenario predicted on the basis of the Second Law but did not materially affect this fundamental question. Astrophysical evidence indicates overwhelmingly that the universe will expand forever. As it does, it will become increasingly cold, dark, dilute, and dead. Eventually the entire mass of the universe will be nothing but a cold, thin gas of elementary particles and radiation, growing ever more dilute as it expands into the infinite darkness, a universe in ruins.

But this raises the question: if in a finite amount of time the universe will achieve a cold, dark, dilute, and lifeless state, then why, if it has existed for infinite time, is it not now in a such a state? If one is to avoid the conclusion that the universe has not in fact existed forever, then one must find some scientifically plausible way to overturn the findings of physical cosmology so as to permit the universe to return to its youthful condition. But no realistic and plausible scenario is forthcoming. Most cosmologists agree with physicist P. C. W. Davies that whether we like it or not we seemed forced to conclude that the universe's low entropy condition was simply "put in" as an initial condition at the moment of creation."

​

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Taken from the scholarly peer reviewed article, "Time, Eternity, and Eschatology." In The Oxford Handbook on Eschatology, pp. 596-613. Ed. J. Walls. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. By permission of Oxford University Press, Inc.

"The advent of relativity theory and its application to cosmology altered the shape of the eschatological scenario predicted on the basis of the Second Law of Thermodynamics but did not materially affect the fundamental question. Assuming that there is no positive cosmological constant fueling the expansion of the universe, that expansion will decelerate over time. Two radically different eschatological scenarios then present themselves. If the density of the universe exceeds a certain critical value, then the internal pull of the universe's own gravity will eventually overcome the force of the expansion and the universe will collapse in upon itself in a fiery Big Crunch. There is no known physics that would permit the universe to bounce back to a new expansion prior to a final singularity or to pass through the singularity into a subsequent state. On the other hand, if the density of the universe is equal to or less than the critical value, then gravity will not overcome the force of the expansion and the universe will expand forever at a progressively slower rate. Because the volume of space constantly increases, the universe will never actually arrive at equilibrium, since there is always more room for entropy production. Nonetheless, the universe will become increasingly cold, dark, dilute, and dead.

Very recent discoveries provide strong evidence that there is effectually a positive cosmological constant which causes the cosmic expansion to accelerate rather than decelerate. Paradoxically, since the volume of space increases exponentially, allowing greater room for more entropy production, the universe actually grows further and further from an equilibrium state as time proceeds. But the acceleration only hastens the universe's disintegration into increasingly isolated material particles no longer causally connected with similarly marooned remnants of the cosmos.

Thus, the same pointed question raised by classical physics persists: why, if the universe has existed forever, is it not now in a cold, dark, dilute, and lifeless state? If one is to avoid the inference that the assumption on which the question is based—viz., that the universe has existed forever—is false, then one must find some scientifically plausible way to overturn the findings of physical eschatology so as to permit the universe to return to its youthful condition."

​

 

[Elioenai26]

Have what? Ignored my points, or countered them? Certainly not the latter.


I do. That doesn't mean I will actively look for flaws in my argumentation just because you tell me something is wrong with it


I know what I am talking about. If you can point out any errors in my thinking or in the evidence that I present, then do so, but don't refuse to talk about them while pretending they are there.


Thanks for linking to the posts! Oh, wait, you didn't. Neither did you point out what those unsubstantiated assertions are.

I'll start with post 594:

That's not an opinion. I analyzed Quentin Smith's view on the topic, and if my analysis was wrong, you could have pointed it out.

That acausality is supported by quantum physics doesn't qualify as an opinion by a long stretch, either. I supported this claim by pointing out that a change of condition is an effect. You ignored this.


Not an opinion, either. It's an analysis of the source that you posted.


Here, I criticize your handling of sources. Only the last bit is an opinion, and it's hardly unsubstantiated.

My debunking of your faulty analysis of Hilbert's Hotel is based on the Wikipedia article. Not quoting it, because it was mostly quoted from Wikipedia in turn.


Apparently, you don't. I still haven't seen you defend this claim with any evidence whatsoever, so I assume that it's unsubstantiated.

At first, I wanted to defend posts 607 and 610, too, but considering that they are not so much about the topic, but rather about how you handle the topic, I don't see how this would make sense.


Wiccan Child already did. Of course you wouldn't know, considering you ignored all his posts.

Just because you say you are giving an analysis of something, does not mean that it is more than your unsubstantiated opinion!

Analysis, opinion etc. etc. does not change the fact that you have failed to supply any substantiation for said assertions. You have'nt because you can't, and so rely on these feeble analyses of yours to attempt to bolster a groundless position.

 

[The Engineer]

Just because you say you are giving an analysis of something, does not mean that it is more than your unsubstantiated opinion!

Analysis, opinion etc. etc. does not change the fact that you have failed to supply any substantiation for said assertions.

You have'nt because you can't, and so rely on these feeble analyses of yours to attempt to bolster a groundless position.

If you don't accept a logical analysis as evidence, you can stop debating right now. You make analyses, too. In fact, every human does. An analysis is not the same thing as an opinion. If it's logical, it may count as evidence. If it's not logical, you can point this out.

By the way, this time you didn't address any specific point, again. Don't you realize that it's hard to know what you are talking about when you respond to half a dozen paragraphs with a generalized statement?

 

[Elioenai26]

If you don't accept a logical analysis as evidence, you can stop debating right now. You make analyses, too. In fact, every human does. An analysis is not the same thing as an opinion. If it's logical, it may count as evidence. If it's not logical, you can point this out.

By the way, this time you didn't address any specific point, again. Don't you realize that it's hard to know what you are talking about when you respond to half a dozen paragraphs with a generalized statement?

You will have to give corroborating support, evidence, citations, references, etc. etc. to lend any credibility to your writings here.

I am not going to take your word for anything unless it is substantiated.

If you want to disengage discussion, feel free to do so. You will not be the first one.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Just because you say you are giving an analysis of something, does not mean that it is more than your unsubstantiated opinion!

Analysis, opinion etc. etc. does not change the fact that you have failed to supply any substantiation for said assertions. You have'nt because you can't, and so rely on these feeble analyses of yours to attempt to bolster a groundless position.

If that were true, it should be trivial to explain the error in your own words.

Taken from the scholarly peer reviewed article, Theistic Critiques of Athesim in the Abridged version in The Cambridge Companion to Atheism, pp. 69-85. Ed. M. Martin. Cambridge Companions to Philosophy. Cambridge University Press, 2007


"A fourth argument for the finitude of the past is also an inductive argument, appealing to thermodynamic properties of the universe.

According to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, processes taking place in a closed system tend toward states of higher entropy, as their energy is used up. Already in the nineteenth century scientists realized that the application of the Law to the universe as a whole (which, on naturalistic assumptions, is a gigantic closed system, since it is all there is) implied a grim eschatological conclusion: given sufficient time, the universe would eventually come to a state of equilibrium and suffer heat death. But this apparently firm projection raised an even deeper question: if, given sufficient time, the universe will suffer heat death, then why, if it has existed forever, is it not now in a state of heat death? The advent of relativity theory altered the shape of the eschatological scenario predicted on the basis of the Second Law but did not materially affect this fundamental question. Astrophysical evidence indicates overwhelmingly that the universe will expand forever. As it does, it will become increasingly cold, dark, dilute, and dead. Eventually the entire mass of the universe will be nothing but a cold, thin gas of elementary particles and radiation, growing ever more dilute as it expands into the infinite darkness, a universe in ruins.

But this raises the question: if in a finite amount of time the universe will achieve a cold, dark, dilute, and lifeless state, then why, if it has existed for infinite time, is it not now in a such a state? If one is to avoid the conclusion that the universe has not in fact existed forever, then one must find some scientifically plausible way to overturn the findings of physical cosmology so as to permit the universe to return to its youthful condition. But no realistic and plausible scenario is forthcoming. Most cosmologists agree with physicist P. C. W. Davies that whether we like it or not we seemed forced to conclude that the universe's low entropy condition was simply "put in" as an initial condition at the moment of creation."

The error here is simple:

"[T]he application of the Law to the universe as a whole... which, on naturalistic assumptions, is a gigantic closed system, since it is all there is..."

This is simply incorrect. The fallacy is one of equivocation, namely between the observable universe (that which we see) and the universe-as-a-whole (that which is).

Equating the former with the latter, and then applying the Second Law, is erroneous on two counts: equivocation and misapplication of the law. That is, the Law doesn't apply here - it only applies in situations where its premises hold, and they don't hold here. Hence, their conclusions are unsound.

​

Taken from the scholarly peer reviewed article, "Time, Eternity, and Eschatology." In The Oxford Handbook on Eschatology, pp. 596-613. Ed. J. Walls. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. By permission of Oxford University Press, Inc.

"The advent of relativity theory and its application to cosmology altered the shape of the eschatological scenario predicted on the basis of the Second Law of Thermodynamics but did not materially affect the fundamental question. Assuming that there is no positive cosmological constant fueling the expansion of the universe, that expansion will decelerate over time. Two radically different eschatological scenarios then present themselves. If the density of the universe exceeds a certain critical value, then the internal pull of the universe's own gravity will eventually overcome the force of the expansion and the universe will collapse in upon itself in a fiery Big Crunch. There is no known physics that would permit the universe to bounce back to a new expansion prior to a final singularity or to pass through the singularity into a subsequent state. On the other hand, if the density of the universe is equal to or less than the critical value, then gravity will not overcome the force of the expansion and the universe will expand forever at a progressively slower rate. Because the volume of space constantly increases, the universe will never actually arrive at equilibrium, since there is always more room for entropy production. Nonetheless, the universe will become increasingly cold, dark, dilute, and dead.

Very recent discoveries provide strong evidence that there is effectually a positive cosmological constant which causes the cosmic expansion to accelerate rather than decelerate. Paradoxically, since the volume of space increases exponentially, allowing greater room for more entropy production, the universe actually grows further and further from an equilibrium state as time proceeds. But the acceleration only hastens the universe's disintegration into increasingly isolated material particles no longer causally connected with similarly marooned remnants of the cosmos.

Thus, the same pointed question raised by classical physics persists: why, if the universe has existed forever, is it not now in a cold, dark, dilute, and lifeless state? If one is to avoid the inference that the assumption on which the question is based—viz., that the universe has existed forever—is false, then one must find some scientifically plausible way to overturn the findings of physical eschatology so as to permit the universe to return to its youthful condition."

And since we have already done so (namely, energetic flux from anything outside the universe), the point is moot.

Again, you don't seem to understand how thermodynamics works, as evidenced by your inability to critique our own clarifications. That your sources are scholarly does not make them infallible, as can be easily demonstrated.

Again, you don't seem to be able to critically analyse your own sources. You're not a physicist, that much is evident. But you're not a philosopher either, as evidenced by your single-minded use of argumenta ad verecundiam.

In other words: your sources are wrong. They're not primary data from peer-reviewed journals, they're armchair speculation using common misconceptions about rather complex physical theories, and both I and The Engineer have written extensively as to why they're wrong.

If I were to cite Hitchens when he lamented about the wickedness of God, would you keel over there and then, or would you be able to comprehend that having a source =/= proven an argument? Debating the veracity of sources is an important facet of debating any topic, you understand?

 

[Elioenai26]

The error here is simple:

"[T]he application of the Law to the universe as a whole... which, on naturalistic assumptions, is a gigantic closed system, since it is all there is..."

This is simply incorrect. The fallacy is one of equivocation, namely between the observable universe (that which we see) and the universe-as-a-whole (that which is).

Equating the former with the latter, and then applying the Second Law, is erroneous on two counts: equivocation and misapplication of the law. That is, the Law doesn't apply here - it only applies in situations where its premises hold, and they don't hold here. Hence, their conclusions are unsound.

I cannot take your word for this. As it stands, it is simply your unsubstantiated assertion Wiccan. You provide no corroborating support, no references from peer reviewed articles, no citations. Nothing but your own unfounded and might I say quite baseless views. Your most recent posts are essentially strawmen at best, at worst, they are unsubstantiated opinion.

And since we have already done so (namely, energetic flux from anything outside the universe), the point is moot.

Outside the universe? This is quite unintelligible, but not unexpected coming from someone who posits that a "self-creating physicality" is plausible!

Again, you don't seem to understand how thermodynamics works, as evidenced by your inability to critique our own clarifications. That your sources are scholarly does not make them infallible, as can be easily demonstrated.

I have provided sources and references and peer reviewed articles, citations, and expert testimony. You have provided nothing but your own opinion couched in incoherent baseless assertions. I suggest you re-examine your approach.

Again, you don't seem to be able to critically analyse your own sources. You're not a physicist, that much is evident. But you're not a philosopher either, as evidenced by your single-minded use of argumenta ad verecundiam.

No one needs to be a physicist to know that the universe is running out of usable energy! Nor does anyone have to be a theoretical physicist to know that traversing an actual infinite number of days is impossible!

The argument from authority (argumentum ad verecundiam) can take several forms. As a statistical syllogism, the argument will have the following basic structure:

Most of what authority A has to say on subject matter S is correct.A says P about subject matter S.Therefore, P is correct.The strength of this authoritative argument depends upon two factors:

1. The authority is a legitimate expert on the subject.
2. There exists consensus among legitimate experts in the subject matter under discussion.

The two factors — legitimate expertise and expert consensus — can be incorporated to the structure of the statistical syllogism, in which case, the argument from authority can be structured thus:
X holds that A is true.X is a legitimate expert on the subject matter.The consensus of subject-matter experts agrees with X.Therefore, there exists a presumption that A is true.

As you can see from the above, Wiccan, I have no where in any of my posts appealed to any authority in a syllogistic argument for the KCA. Nor have I asserted that because x has said y about z, that z is necessarily true.

Stop with the strawmen please.

In other words: your sources are wrong. They're not primary data from peer-reviewed journals, they're armchair speculation using common misconceptions about rather complex physical theories, and both I and The Engineer have written extensively as to why they're wrong.

So says the man who has provided no good reason to believe anything he says.

If I were to cite Hitchens when he lamented about the wickedness of God, would you keel over there and then, or would you be able to comprehend that having a source =/= proven an argument? Debating the veracity of sources is an important facet of debating any topic, you understand?

Cite who you will. I have never once objected to anyone's references or citations in any of their arguments. Never. I personally do not care what you use or how you use it. Hitchens was publicly shown to be inept at debate several times, so if you use his arguments, you might do well to refine them and make sure they are applicable to the discussion. And good luck with that!

 

[The Engineer]

You will have to give corroborating support, evidence, citations, references, etc. etc. to lend any credibility to your writings here.

Premises must be supported with evidence, conclusions just need to be derived from the premises in a logical way.

For the most part, I showed you that your premises are either not supported by your evidence, or that you didn't draw logical conclusions from them. For both things, evidence is not needed.

I am not going to take your word for anything unless it is substantiated.

You sound like a parrot, you know that?

 

[Elioenai26]

For the most part, I showed you that your premises are either not supported by your evidence, or that you didn't draw logical conclusions from them. For both things, evidence is not needed.

Then I can simply dismiss your conclusion!

I think I shall let your old pal Chris explain why:

"What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof."
- Christopher Hitchens

​

 

[Davian]

As the second law of thermodynamics has been brought up, I took a look back to the OP....

...
Again we need not appeal to any religious text. We can discover what some of this First Cause's characteristics would be by looking at the evidence.


1. Self-existent, timeless, nonspatial, and immaterial (since the First Cause is responsible for creating time, space, and matter, this Cause must be outside of them. This Cause must be without limits i.e infinite.

Why "must" it be infinite?

2. Unimaginably powerful, to create the entire universe out of nothing.

How much power was required?

Is this 'first cause' of yours subject to the second law of thermodynamics, or do you apply special pleading?

3. Supremely intelligent to design the universe with such precision.

Compared to what?

4. Personal in order to choose to convert a state of nothingness into the time-space material universe. (an impersonal force has no capacity to make choices)

How does this 'timeless' thing make a 'choice'? Tell me how that works.

These are the exact attributes of the theistic God.

If a theistic god is something fabricated from the imagination of men, you can give it whatever attributes you want. This is unfalsifiable... it does not have scientific significance.

 

[Davian]

Then I can simply dismiss your conclusion!

I think I shall let your old pal Chris explain why:

"What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof."
- Christopher Hitchens

​

Suffice it to say, no argument or belief of mine is empirically verifiable.
...

An interesting way to kill your own thread.

 

[The Engineer]

Then I can simply dismiss your conclusion!

I think I shall let your old pal Chris explain why:

"What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof."
- Christopher Hitchens

​

No, you can't, and nowhere have I stated that you can.

Premises must be supported with evidence. To show that your premises are not supported by evidence, I can either (a) falsify your evidence, or (b) show that your premises do not logically infer from your evidence.

Conclusions don't have to be supported with evidence, but by your premises. To falsify your conclusion, I can either (a) attack your premises or (b) show that it doesn't logically infer from your premises.

I attacked your premises by showing that they do not logically infer from your evidence, and for this, I don't need evidence.

Now that you have apparently killed the debate about the KCA for good, can we go back to the dualism? You still haven't correctly responded to my posts about dualism.

 

[Elioenai26]

As the second law of thermodynamics has been brought up, I took a look back to the OP....

Why "must" it be infinite?

No finite entity has the power to create a material entity from nothing. We find no instances, apart from the instance of creation of the universe, of material things beginning to exist without material causes. For a material thing to come into being without a material cause requires an efficient cause of infinite power. In addition, several of the necessary properties of said cause indirectly argue that the cause must be infinite. Namely, the cause's timelessness, immateriality, and non-spatiality, all can be summed up under the qualitative superlative encompassing adjective "infinite".

How much power was required?

When power is mentioned in this context, the primary connotation is ability, or potentiality regarding it's causal capacity. In other words, this cause must be at least powerful enough to be able to cause all of space-time and matter to come into existence literally out of nothing, from no prior antecedent materially condtioned state of affairs.

Is this 'first cause' of yours subject to the second law of thermodynamics, or do you apply special pleading?

Since the first cause exists independently and transcendant beyond space-time and matter, it is not a natural/material entity and therefore is not subject to the second law. This is not special pleading for the simple fact that there are two arguments, namely the metaphysical principle that something cannot come into being from nothing uncaused, and two, the claim that the universe came into existence at some point in the finite past. These two arguments demand that they be best explained by the existence of a transcendant cause of the universe, which by definition, would be exempt from the laws of nature. Reasons are given in support of these two arguments.

Compared to what?

Compared to a finite entity.

How does this 'timeless' thing make a 'choice'? Tell me how that works.

The personhood of the first cause is implied in several ways. One is that the origin of an effect with a beginning (the universe) must be a cause without a beginning (the first cause). The beginning of the universe was the effect of a first cause. By the nature the first cause, it cannot have a beginning of its existence or any prior cause. The cause exists changelessly without beginning, and a finite time ago it brought the universe into existence.

Now to answer your question Davian, the cause is in a true sense eternal and yet the effect that it produced is not eternal but began to exist a finite time ago. How is this possible? If the sufficient conditions for the effect are eternal, then why isn’t the effect also eternal? How can a first event come to exist if the cause of that event exists changelessly and eternally? How can the cause exist without its effect?

Al Ghazali, the Muslim philosopher who propounded the Kalam during the Middle Ages reasoned that the only way to explain this sufficiently and rationally is to say that the cause of the universe’s beginning is a personal agent who freely chooses to create a universe in time.

Philosophers call this type of causation “agent causation,” and because the agent is free, he can initiate new effects by freely bringing about conditions that were not previously present.

From the above, it follows that the first cause could have, a finite time ago, freely brought the universe into being at a particular instance. In this way, the cause could exist changelessly and eternally but choose to create the world in time.

Note* - By “choose” one need not imply that the Creator changes his mind about the decision to create, but that he freely and eternally intends to create a world with a beginning.) By exercising his causal power, he therefore brings it about that a world with a beginning comes to exist. So the cause is eternal, but the effect is not. In this way, then, it is possible for the temporal universe to have come to exist from an eternal cause: through the free will of a personal Creator.

If a theistic god is something fabricated from the imagination of men, you can give it whatever attributes you want. This is unfalsifiable... it does not have scientific significance.

This is a strawman argument as well as a false dilemma because it is built upon the unsubstantiated assumption that God is only a fabrication from the imagination of men or nothing else, which simply cannot be proven. The obvious other option you have left out is that God actually exists, and if He does, He exists, and is what He is, despite what attributes people may assign to Him.

 

[Elioenai26]

I attacked your premises by showing that they do not logically infer from your evidence, and for this, I don't need evidence.

Once again, you have claimed to show how the premises of the Kalam do not logically follow from the corroborating evidence, and yet you say you do not need evidence to do so!!!

How did you show it then, if you did so without evidence?????

Once again, and this is the last time I will reply to these types of nonsensical posts:

You cannot just make an assertion and expect anyone to accept it without some type of substantiation.

If I were to take your attitude, then I could simply say: "God exists, and for this I do not need any evidence!!!"

Surely you would not take my word for this would you? You would surely demand evidence, as you and your fellow atheists so often times demand: "Where's the evidence! Where's the evidence!"

 

[Elioenai26]

An interesting way to kill your own thread.

That was me sans bow, waving good bye to his groundless assertion that he has shown the premises are either not supported by evidence, or that I didn't draw logical conclusions from them.

Why wave goodbye? Because they can be easily dismissed because they were accompanied by no proof, no evidence!

Thanks Mr. Hitchens!!

 

[The Engineer]

Once again, you have claimed to show how the premises of the Kalam do not logically follow from the corroborating evidence, and yet you say you do not need evidence to do so!!!

That's correct. I don't need evidence to see whether your premises infer from your evidence, just logic.

How did you show it then, if you did so without evidence?????

Answered above.

Once again, and this is the last time I will reply to these types of nonsensical posts:

You cannot just make an assertion and expect anyone to accept it without some type of substantiation.

You really love this word, substantiation, don't you?

I didn't make assertions, I drew logical conclusions from your evidence, and I found that your premises do not infer from them. If my logic was flawed, you could have just told me how, but instead, you keep telling me about how I have no evidence for my claims, even though the specific claims I made do not need evidence, just logic.

If I were to take your attitude, then I could simply say: "God exists, and for this I do not need any evidence!!!"

That's not my attitude. Positive claims need to be backed up by evidence, but I didn't make any such claims, I merely applied logic to your claims.

Surely you would not take my word for this would you? You would surely demand evidence, as you and your fellow atheists so often times demand: "Where's the evidence! Where's the evidence!"

Because it's a positive claim.

If I told you that the sky was blue, therefore the universe was very big, you would not need evidence to point out that this conclusion isn't logical. So stop talking all this nonsense about evidence, as you don't seem to know how this works.

 

[Elioenai26]

That's correct. I don't need evidence to see whether your premises infer from your evidence, just logic.

Answered above.

You really love this word, substantiation, don't you?

I didn't make assertions, I drew logical conclusions from your evidence, and I found that your premises do not infer from them. If my logic was flawed, you could have just told me how, but instead, you keep telling me about how I have no evidence for my claims, even though the specific claims I made do not need evidence, just logic.

That's not my attitude. Positive claims need to be backed up by evidence, but I didn't make any such claims, I merely applied logic to your claims.

Because it's a positive claim.

If I told you that the sky was blue, therefore the universe was very big, you would not need evidence to point out that this conclusion isn't logical. So stop talking all this nonsense about evidence, as you don't seem to know how this works.

You're a funny guy Engineer, I really do like reading some of these posts of yours.

Sometimes I wonder if you are intentionally trying to be funny, I just get such a kick out of dialoguing with you!!

 

[The Engineer]

You're a funny guy Engineer, I really do like reading some of these posts of yours.

Sometimes I wonder if you are intentionally trying to be funny, I just get such a kick out of dialoguing with you!!

If you're incapable of understanding even the basic tenets of logic, then that's your problem, not mine.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

An interesting way to kill your own thread.

Indeed. First, I thought he was genuinely interested in debate. Then it was amusing to see him rail against the obvious. Now he's simply inflammatory to me and my friends on CF. This earned him a place on my coveted ignore list .

 

[Elioenai26]

If you're incapable of understanding even the basic tenets of logic, then that's your problem, not mine.

Cheer up Engineer!

You should enjoy what you do in life!

 

[The Engineer]

Indeed. First, I thought he was genuinely interested in debate. Then it was amusing to see him rail against the obvious. Now he's simply inflammatory to me and my friends on CF. This earned him a place on my coveted ignore list .

Yeah, I guess putting him on ignore is the way to go. I mean, he's not even trying anymore.

Too bad I didn't get to debate dualism with him.