I've done it! I've finally done it! I have proven that God did not create the universe. Here is my syllogism:

a) God consists entirely of Plasmodium 5.

b) Plasmodium 5 did not form until 28 years AFTER the universe was generated.

c) Therefor, God could not possibly have created the universe. He wasn't even born yet.

mahn, even I can tell you're a false profit.

Everyone in any credible Circle knows its Plasmavisionium 5.1-0h

Not to mention, it was 82 gigawatts AFTER the universe was gyrated.

And God wasn't born, silly one. He was gizmoed.

Infidel.
(or if you prefer, Infantile? not to imply that latter puts you in the company of The Profit CT)

Monumental troll failure!! Back to first year undergraduate reading! [Although for some that might be too late!]

There was nothing 'logical' to respond to so what was anyone left with. I don't know what you mean by 'logic'? I guess you mean irrationality?

No, I am calling you an atheist now! Why not? I might mean by it something very different from how you, subjectively, are taking it and therefore you cannot make any assumptions that the two are the same.

Well, you and RoR certainly seem to be hand in hand quite often on my threads. That's all I was pointing out.

PS. I genuinely would stop calling you an atheist but you've given me nothing better than 'empirical' which, btw, you failed to define - I'm still awaiting... I think it's time for that Talking Heads song to play out loud...

Won't sumwon pleez teach Itwo some englitch?

Jeeeese

- NonE

luv's back? Zat have sumpthin' to do with spoonin'? Yoo hoo. Oh Stef man...

And there was me silly enough to think any of the three big atheists [from now on I'll refer to them in short as The A-Team] would offer us any philosophical or scientific evidence or support for their lovely little syllogism?!?! Instead I'm the one getting accused of dodging? Go figure!! Nice load of rhetoric though - you almost misted the board up enough for us to forget that you havn't cited one reason to accept either of the first two premises. Try again!!! [If you can.]

PS. Bear with me on A-Team analogy. I'm yet to decide who's who. One things for sure the A-Team never hit anyone with their bullets which seems relevant. We just need a fourth! Get thinking guys!! "If no one else can help. Maybe you can hire THE A-TEAM. Duh, duh, duh,duh...

In CT's first thread, I think I mentioned that I've noticed debates on theism tend to degenerate in petty semantic disputes... maybe I should become a prophet of sorts... [passes around collection plate]

I'll simply make the point that "god," (or "theos," "deus," "bog," "Gott," etc.) is not necessarily a meaningless word.

The contention has been made that it is a meaningless word, and thus theism cannot be true since it is inherently and unavoidably meaningless. I see no evidence that it is inherently impossible to define God-- I've tried to do so myself with something along the lines of "a sentient intelligence containing all the information in the universe."

Sure, this definition may not be the same as many or most theists' definition-- but the concepts are what's important-- so let's just try get back to the meaning behind words rather than the words themselves.