I posted it on /pol/ first, then posted it here. Or, you can assume I plagiarized OP and that the OP plagiarized me, considering he used the my argument (verbatim, mind you) which, until I posted it on the blockland forum, didn't exist.
It's not a coincidence that our rhetoric, diction, and source of knowledge are the same.
If you need to reference the first counterargument the OP makes, see
http://fuuka.worldathleticproject.org/pol/thread/21933780/#q21933780Maybe Lalam posted this on /b/ first, then here. Either way, I don't think the person who wrote this fully understands what a theory is.
Care to elaborate? Instead of just assuming someone's incorrect you should deliver a counter argument.
Thank god I wasn't the only one cringing at the OP.
He says, mathematically, god is "false." You cannot disprove something unless there is a counterexample/evidence of non-existence/logical flaw. God is paradoxical in nature, one cannot disprove or prove him/her/it.
You obviously don't understand what a paradox implies. Paradoxes are impossibilities. Beyond a value of nothing, it is the only way to prove something is impossible. It's like saying you can't disprove the absolute existence of my imaginary friend bill. Sure, the ideal exists in my head, but the actual entity does not. Is it impossible to disprove? No, it doesn't exist based on the fact that there's nothing suggesting it does exist. This isn't that difficult to figure out. I also never said that an ultimate or any individual deity is "false," I stated the texts of specific religions are inherently incorrect, and when a deity falls into those texts, they, too, are incorrect. Does this mean I'm saying a god can't exist? No, but it's silly to assume it does based on religious preferences that were made to adapt to personal preference, as polytheistic gods "existed" thousands of years before them.
Funny how most of /pol/ was more civil than the blockland forum.
i'm going to need to request a :fedora: emote so we can all deal with these threads easier
Coincidentally I address atheism in the OP. Thanks for only reading the second sentence.
