Religious Questions of Logic

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
The usual suspects. The same tired arguments.

Dead End.

Iron, run now while you can, unless your boredom is stronger than your intellectual stamina.

Pat will rely upon the age old and hotly disputed cosmological argument to prove his creator. He will ignore the inherent flaws in the CA and challenge you to “disprove” something that cannot be disproven or proven, because we have incomplete knowledge.

Brother Chris will ultimately tell you, “because the Catholic Church says so”. Where the rubber meets the pavement, that’s the basic foundation of all his arguments.

The other guy, I forget his name, will be along any time now to tell you the bible is the LITERAL word of God and that you, Pat and BC and the rest of the Catholics (and Muslims and Jews, and everyone else) has it all wrong.

Did I miss anyone? :)[/quote]

Yep, I am predictable. Having an argument that people cannot prove wrong is a lot better than taking no stance, or relying an argument that is in fact wrong. You can’t prove it wrong, nobody ever has. Are you suggesting if I had a weaker argument I’d have a stronger case? Why would I change anything when it works.
You’re leveling meaningless criticisms. So I user the cosmology from the point of contingency, so what? Saying I am repeating it doesn’t make it suddenly less strong. So I fail to get your entire point.

OP said it’s illogical, I am pointing out that it’s the most logical thing in the world. You are floating in the middle saying fallaciously that it’s wrong or circular and providing no evidence. So what’s your point, really? [/quote]

sorry i didn’t give your post a full reading.

i’m not floating in the middle. the CA is perfectly “logical” but that doesn’t make it true. i’ve told you countless times “what’s wrong” with it, as have others throughout history. you’re well aware of the criticism. and you have no “evidence” the premise of the CA is correct. so let’s do this…everytime you challenge me to “prove the CA wrong”, i shall reply by challenging you to prove the premise of the CA is correct and provable.

other than that, i don’t have a point :slight_smile: and yes, it was meaningless criticism - i was just giving Iron a roadmap to what lies ahead. or amiwrong and you have a different argument this time around? :slight_smile:

82

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ironcross wrote:
Also Pat, you haven’t still haven’t answered any of the original questions regarding which option is more logical. I presented numerous logic gaps found in one religion and presented a logical explanation. [/quote]

You cannot get to those questions if you don’t either establish there is, or is not a God. If there isn’t a God, then the bible is just a collection of fiction and has arbitrary meanings as any piece of literature. If there is a God then we can discuss His nature and how scripture relates to what God necessarily must be to be consistent with all the ‘omni’ positions.

Those aren’t logical gaps, you just haven’t spent much time with them. We were discussing a lot of this the other day. The problem of evil, why God can do things man is forbidden to and shit like that. I sense you pulled a lot of these ideas for one of many atheist propaganda sites as a having read them myself, your criticisms are identical to those criticisms of scripture. [/quote]

this is a bit of intellectual dishonestly. There can be a God, and the bible can be utter fiction, just as christians claim other religions are wrong. because God did not land on earth, gather its citizens and hand over “the book” untouched by human hands, we cannot except upon blind faith, claim any authorship other than human to the bible. chain of custody my friend. when it comes to chain of custody, and actual identity of authorship, the bible is pretty muddied. hell, you got gospels named for authors that biblical scholars admit most likely didn’t author the passages they are credited with :)[/quote]

What? No it’s not. How is it dishonest to say that discussing the scriptures as a religious work with out God is menaingless? Nothing is more honest than that.

83

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]ironcross wrote:
Also Pat, you haven’t still haven’t answered any of the original questions regarding which option is more logical. I presented numerous logic gaps found in one religion and presented a logical explanation. [/quote]

Its pointless to argue with a dogmatic theist. Whether you are an atheist in a narrow or broad sense he is trying to portray that is claiming something came from nothing which is most certainly not the case. That is just a theist having an ill considered understanding of a non theists position. Plus even if we grant the cosmological argument to be true it proves nothing like the existence of a Christian god.
[/quote]
Correct, but you cannot get to the second point if you haven’t dealt with the first. If you do not at leact concede a Necessary Being’s existence, anything discussion beyond that point is meaningless. Arguing properties of something that does not exist is the most useless discussion that can be had.

You cannot understand the second with out the first. You must know what a first cause must in order to understand how that is cross referenced against scripture.

Yes it is, for the “Principle of sufficient reason” is in play here. It doesn’t matter if the universe is eternal. However, there is not a shred of evidence to support that the universe is eternal at all anyhow. But even if it was, it’s not here based on it’s own self. That is circular reasoning.

Not me. Causation is not a temporally successive thing. You just don’t understand the argument. Time is bound to causation and not the other way around. Time is a function of cosmology.

It doesn’t matter like I said. An eternal existence is irrelevant to the question. That’s the whole point of the argument from contigency. Time is not a factor there. All that matters is that causes necessitate their effects. Whether this happens in or out of time is not relevant.

Further the argument doesn’t discuss where or how the said Prime Mover came to be. As a matter of fact it must be necessarily, not brought about, otherwise it’s not the Necessary Being.

84

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]ironcross wrote:
Also Pat, you haven’t still haven’t answered any of the original questions regarding which option is more logical. I presented numerous logic gaps found in one religion and presented a logical explanation. [/quote]

Its pointless to argue with a dogmatic theist. Whether you are an atheist in a narrow or broad sense he is trying to portray that is claiming something came from nothing which is most certainly not the case. That is just a theist having an ill considered understanding of a non theists position. Plus even if we grant the cosmological argument to be true it proves nothing like the existence of a Christian god.
[/quote]
Correct, but you cannot get to the second point if you haven’t dealt with the first. If you do not at leact concede a Necessary Being’s existence, anything discussion beyond that point is meaningless. Arguing properties of something that does not exist is the most useless discussion that can be had.

You cannot understand the second with out the first. You must know what a first cause must in order to understand how that is cross referenced against scripture.

Yes it is, for the “Principle of sufficient reason” is in play here. It doesn’t matter if the universe is eternal. However, there is not a shred of evidence to support that the universe is eternal at all anyhow. But even if it was, it’s not here based on it’s own self. That is circular reasoning.

Not me. Causation is not a temporally successive thing. You just don’t understand the argument. Time is bound to causation and not the other way around. Time is a function of cosmology.

It doesn’t matter like I said. An eternal existence is irrelevant to the question. That’s the whole point of the argument from contigency. Time is not a factor there. All that matters is that causes necessitate their effects. Whether this happens in or out of time is not relevant.

Further the argument doesn’t discuss where or how the said Prime Mover came to be. As a matter of fact it must be necessarily, not brought about, otherwise it’s not the Necessary Being.[/quote]

you’re doing the typical PWI cut and paste job. not doing this with you Pat. One day over a beer, good conversation. Here with you picking apart sentences making a reply impossible, no fun.

There IS emerging theories that this universe emerged from another, from another and yet more before that. There IS emerging theories on time rendering the concept of “time” meaningless. in fact, the removal of time, as we’ve discussed already, makes some very important calculations finally agree. We covered this before. Exhaustively.

I understand your argument perfectly, please stop implying I do not. You’re playing semantics and word games. You’re in love with nomenclature. I admire your tenacity though.

Have fun :slight_smile:

85

oh, and time is not bound to causation if there is no first cause. :wink:

eternity is not a measurement of “time”. and eternity does not require “causation”. “eternity” is probably more plausible at this point to explain the whole of existence rather than any theory about a big bang and this being the only universe that exists, or ever existed.

86

you do realize you confused eternal with “time” right? eternal is not a measurement of time. it just “is”. there is no time in an eternal universe, except on your watch, and your perception. so who misunderstands?

87

since this discussion comes again, I think i may play a little this time.

Do you realize that, according to the vast majority of post-kantian (and post-humian) epistemologies, causation is not an objective reality, whereas time is, at the very least, a fundamental dimension of our experience ?

If causation is not an objective reality we have no mean to prove the premises of the cosmological argument. This argument is therefore logically valid (as long as it’s not analyzed with propositional logic) but factually unprovable.

in other words :
It could be the right answer to the big “Why ?” question… if (and only if) we are actually able to ask meaningfully “why ?” about the Universe.
but this question itself could very well be meaningless.

BTW, this argument is not a theistic argument. This argument does imply that something (distinct from the rest of the universe) is the causative principle of the Universe.
something.
Not someone.

88

[quote]kamui wrote:
since this discussion comes again, I think i may play a little this time.
[/quote]
I very much welcome that…

Whether objective or subjective, it is still a reality even if not applicable to what we would typically associate the causal realities. Causation as linear and direct thing doesn’t have to be established. Just that A exists and it exists because of something else, whether we know what that something else is or not doesn’t matter, it’s still causal or contingent.

No deductive arguments are functionally provable really. We can establish the existence of causation. The nothing exists as a function of itself but a function of something else. Now while the Kantian model does use existence or causation, it still follows a cosmological form in that morality rolls up to an ultimate moral good.
I think the proposition that causes and effect can only be established as correlation, we can still posit that an existing thing isn’t able to do so because it just is. That’s why I like contingency because it looks as causation and a function and not as a series necessarily.

I don’t think it’s meaningless, it’s just not answerable. But the usefulness of seeking the answer to that questions helps answer small questions along the way.

I agree with limiting the scope with what the argument actually argues which is a non-contigent thing on which all other contingencies are ultimately based. As I said before, God can only be inferenced that ‘He’ is one in the same. That connection cannot be established deductively because you already have to know something about God to make the connection.

89

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]ironcross wrote:
Also Pat, you haven’t still haven’t answered any of the original questions regarding which option is more logical. I presented numerous logic gaps found in one religion and presented a logical explanation. [/quote]

Its pointless to argue with a dogmatic theist. Whether you are an atheist in a narrow or broad sense he is trying to portray that is claiming something came from nothing which is most certainly not the case. That is just a theist having an ill considered understanding of a non theists position. Plus even if we grant the cosmological argument to be true it proves nothing like the existence of a Christian god.
[/quote]
Correct, but you cannot get to the second point if you haven’t dealt with the first. If you do not at leact concede a Necessary Being’s existence, anything discussion beyond that point is meaningless. Arguing properties of something that does not exist is the most useless discussion that can be had.

You cannot understand the second with out the first. You must know what a first cause must in order to understand how that is cross referenced against scripture.

Yes it is, for the “Principle of sufficient reason” is in play here. It doesn’t matter if the universe is eternal. However, there is not a shred of evidence to support that the universe is eternal at all anyhow. But even if it was, it’s not here based on it’s own self. That is circular reasoning.

Not me. Causation is not a temporally successive thing. You just don’t understand the argument. Time is bound to causation and not the other way around. Time is a function of cosmology.

It doesn’t matter like I said. An eternal existence is irrelevant to the question. That’s the whole point of the argument from contigency. Time is not a factor there. All that matters is that causes necessitate their effects. Whether this happens in or out of time is not relevant.

Further the argument doesn’t discuss where or how the said Prime Mover came to be. As a matter of fact it must be necessarily, not brought about, otherwise it’s not the Necessary Being.[/quote]

you’re doing the typical PWI cut and paste job. not doing this with you Pat. One day over a beer, good conversation. Here with you picking apart sentences making a reply impossible, no fun.

[/quote]

What? I copied nothing. I don’t know what you are talking about.

Time is irrelevant to the argument. If ‘A’ exists because of ‘B’, it does not posit that ‘A’ first, then ‘B’. It can simultaneously exist, I don’t really know why you are hung up on thinking that I am worried about time. I mentioned nothing of the sort and time is not a factor, at all.
It doesn’t matter if the universe is eternal, if it’s a mutitverse, if it’s an accordion universe theory, etc. None of them are germane to cosmology. As a matter of fact, some aspect of the universe is perpetually eternal, that doesn’t mean they are functions of themselves.

[quote]
I understand your argument perfectly, please stop implying I do not. You’re playing semantics and word games. You’re in love with nomenclature. I admire your tenacity though.

Have fun :)[/quote]

Well your getting it wrong, if you understand it, then you are deliberately misrepresenting it and what it actually says.

90

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
you do realize you confused eternal with “time” right? eternal is not a measurement of time. it just “is”. there is no time in an eternal universe, except on your watch, and your perception. so who misunderstands?[/quote]

Time is a function of space. If there is physical matter in space than time is a function of that in a relative sense.
Conceptually time itself can be eternal.

91

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
oh, and time is not bound to causation if there is no first cause. :wink:

eternity is not a measurement of “time”. and eternity does not require “causation”. “eternity” is probably more plausible at this point to explain the whole of existence rather than any theory about a big bang and this being the only universe that exists, or ever existed. [/quote]

How is eternity not a function of causation? Try to even explain that with out making a circular argument.
I keep repeating it until you get it, time is irrelevant to the argument. First Cause does not have to be understood a temporal, it can be understood and merely necessary. We can call it, Prime Mover, Necessary Being, the force what ever, it still is what it is.

92

[quote]
Whether objective or subjective, it is still a reality even if not applicable to what we would typically associate the causal realities. Causation as linear and direct thing doesn’t have to be established. Just that A exists and it exists because of something else, whether we know what that something else is or not.[/quote]

“still a reality” is debatable. Still a necessity of our minds, probably.

i’m not saying that “nothing caused the Universe” is a valid conclusion. But “something created the Universe” is an useless (even if valid) conclusion if we can not know what this thing is.

the necessary existence of this thing doesn’t imply that this thing is actually knowable.

Actually, you could infer something of the concept of necessary being. So it would not be absolutely unknowable. But you could only infer 1 of the traditionnal attributes of God (omnipotence), not the two others (omniscience and omnibenevolence).

If anything, the cosmological argument give you a Spinozist God. Which is arguably a god at all.

[quote]No deductive arguments are functionally provable really. We can establish the existence of causation. The nothing exists as a function of itself but a function of something else. Now while the Kantian model does use existence or causation, it still follows a cosmological form in that morality rolls up to an ultimate moral good.
I think the proposition that causes and effect can only be established as correlation, we can still posit that an existing thing isn’t able to do so because it just is. That’s why I like contingency because it looks as causation and a function and not as a series necessarily. [/quote]

we can only establish the intellectual necessity and validity of causation. Not its existence.
And in any case, the cosmological argument is only valid if the cosmos is a “thing”, like all other things. If it’s not, causality doesn’t apply. and the cosmological argument doesn’t “work”.

93

[quote]kamui wrote:<<<v If anything, the cosmological argument give you a Spinozist God. Which is arguably a god at all. >>>[/quote]VERY VERY GOOD!!!You can hold me over til Elder Forlife gets back.

94

[quote]kamui wrote:

A epistomological necessity, is arguably a necessity nonetheless. Would you agree that if something cannot exist in concept, then it most certainly could not exist in reality? I mean exist in concept it any 'mind’or metaphysical existence, not necessarily a human mind per se.

I don’t think it’s useless, by default, if true we already know something about it. Namely, ‘it’ must exist, it must exist with out reason and it can bring forth with out being effected which would indicate something of a ‘will’ being involved. Further, because of the scope of the argument, there can only be one of these things.

I agree. But I think it can be knowable, just not a function of deduction but of things far less reliable.

Correct. But the reason I think the inference is so strong is that there can be only one thing that exists with these attributes. So if God is omnipotent and the Necessary Being is omnipotent, then it’s very likely they are one in the same. Unfortunately you have to already know God is omnipotent to know that so there in lies it’s weakness.

Correct, it doesn’t tell you what God is, just that said thing exists uncaused and causes. But like I said since only one thing can have this attribute overlaying a God concept on this being is a valid thing.

Correct, but causation in the sense that everyone thing is a function of another is a real logical necessity, this applies in metaphysics as well as in physical bodies. That doesn’t mean we can identify causal relations, but that nothing is sufficient for explaining it’s own self. It’s system is a high level existence. I am interested in what you mean by the cosmos being a ‘thing’, could you elaborate? I would argue that any existence has a property of ‘thingness’.

95

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ironcross wrote:
Which makes more sense:

-that an all knowing, all powerful, and supremely loving, perfect being would bring into existance children which he knew before creating them, due to being all knowing, would not choose him with their free will and then would be pillaged, raped, destroyed, and burn in hell for eternity, or that a culture back in the day made a religion that justified their rape, pillage, and taking over of their neighbor’s lands?

-that an all knowing, all powerful, perfect being needs imperfect beings to serve him and sing his praises for eternity, or that a culture back in the day wasn’t sure what would happen when they died, and being welcomed into the presence of a perfect being and surrounded by all their buddies for eternity sounded good?

  • that people don’t know how to interpret the Bible, or that interpretation changes with the needs/beliefs of the culture you live in?

  • that religious stories are literally real or that they are a venue to pass down cultural knowledge of food preparation, work habits, sexual activity, and social activities which have helped the culture survive?

  • that any imperfection can even indirectly result from a perfect being, or that the religion’s human creators had terrible logic skills?[/quote]

Oh brother, another know it all atheist.

Which makes more sense some thing from something or something from nothing? Because if you are atheist you must necessarily believe that something can come from nothing.

This has been discussed like a trillion times it always boils down to the above and nothing else. It always ends up with some atheistic tortured logic where square pegs fit into round holes because they cannot accept that logically something cannot come from nothing. Simply because nothing literally does not exist and what does not exist has no properties, particularly creative properties…

I may just sit back and watch people sodomize very basic simple logic… [/quote]

and here we go with the circular cosmological argument. i leave here for months and you still sing the same tune every time someone puts a quarter in the jukebox. this place is utterly boring, although i did enjoy our prior thread…for a little while. [/quote]

I don’t see a gun to your head. The argument isn’t circular. If you believe it’s circular it means you don’t understand the argument. It’s a linear argument and perfectly deductively sound.
And I am hopelessly predictable because I don’t need anything else. We can take an ontological position, but you need to know your metaphysics well to understand it.[/quote]

We did this for pages before and it was a stalemate. Brighter men than both of us have done it and reached a similar result. Hell, there was a TV program on recently where a panel of theologist and scientists debated the whole CA and related issues. You cannot prove your premise. And therefore, there is nothing “perfect” about it, other than it’s a perfectly deductive conclusion from an imperfect or unknown/unknowable premise.

I’m not doing this with you again. I respect your intellectual prowess and have even grown to “like” you. I’m bored with it and we exhausted it the last time. Obviously, you have more stamina than I b/c you’re about to do it again. Enjoy :slight_smile:
[/quote]

You go right to the 'Appeal to authority fallacy"…Smarter men… Who gives a shit? It’s not about who the smartest person in the world it’s about correct or incorrect. It’s about validity or non-validity.

I understand. I have been tired of discussing it before and will get tired again. But I am very interested in Kamui’s take so I want keep it going with him at least.

96

i will offer two suggestions here :

  1. The universe is the summation of all things, but not a thing itself.
    To be a thing, it would need to be finite and/or definite. And it could very well be infinite (if not in time and space, in informations) and/or indefinite.

which would means that, strictly speaking, the universe doesn’t “exist”. Individual things would exists. But there would be no “global” thing. Globalization itself being an abstraction, an intellectual process.

some ontologies allow this. Radical nominalism, Daoism, Deleuze’s immanentism, for example.

  1. we could argue that the very concept of “thing” is not accurate.
    there is no “thing” but facts.
    See the early works of Wittgenstein, for example.

If we start with this premise, i’m not sure the universe would qualify as a fact, and, even if it qualify, the cosmological argument would still need to be quite heavily reformulated.
One funny consequence is that God (the uncaused cause) would not be a being, but a fact. Potentially NOT eternal.

actually, if the universe is not a concrete and real thing, but only a summation of things, the uncaused cause doesn’t need to be transcendant. It just need (logically) to be different of all other individual things. The uncaused cause would have no other specifity that its “uncausedness”.
Just another cause, just another thing, which happened to be the first (logically, if not temporally).

97

partial sorry

98

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
oh, and time is not bound to causation if there is no first cause. :wink:

eternity is not a measurement of “time”. and eternity does not require “causation”. “eternity” is probably more plausible at this point to explain the whole of existence rather than any theory about a big bang and this being the only universe that exists, or ever existed. [/quote]

How is eternity not a function of causation? Try to even explain that with out making a circular argument.
I keep repeating it until you get it, time is irrelevant to the argument. First Cause does not have to be understood a temporal, it can be understood and merely necessary. We can call it, Prime Mover, Necessary Being, the force what ever, it still is what it is.[/quote]

I’ll keep repeating it until you get it. Eternal does not require a first cause, prime mover, necessary being or optimus prime for that matter. Eternal, like most advanced physics is pretty much beyond your mind’s ability to “grok”. And I’ll repeat again, eternal is not “time”. There is no proof of any “beginning”.

What happens to your theories if we remove “beginning”. Answer.

99

Since I do like Wittgenstein this is my take on some of his thoughts…obviously its better to get it from the work since its likely my reading of it isn’t completely accurate… Wittgenstein thinks that religious utterances aren’t putative facts. Religious utterances are to be understood to reveal the speakers “form of life.” To have a form of life is to accept a language game; the believer accepts a game where there is talk of God, creation, Heaven, and so on, which a non believer does not accept. Such games are to be only understood on their own terms. We can’t try to assimilate them to other sorts of language games. To see how a particular game in this case religion works we need to examine how believers use the language. So when we do this examination a believer uses religious utterances for many things…show significance, express reason for action, express attitudes and others, but not to state facts in an ordinary sense. So when a believer makes a religious assertion and a nonbeliever denies the same, they aren’t contradicting one another, the nonbeliever is just not choosing to use the game or form of life of the believer.

Couple quotes of his that would support that this is his view:

"Suppose that someone believed in the Last Judgement, and I don’t, does this mean that I believe the opposite to him, just that there won’t be such a thing? I would say: “not at all, or not always.”
Suppose I say that the body will rot, and another says “No particles will rejoin in a thousand years, and there will be a Resurrection of you.” If some said: “Wittgenstein , do you believe in this?” I’d say: “No.” “Do you contradict the man?” I’d say “No.”

That bit to show he doesn’t see the positions as inherently contradictory. The next is a little more complicated and I don’t necessarily 100 percent buy into it because at the very least the believer thinks he’s been contradicted in religious debate by a non believer, but its an interesting view in my opinion.

“Suppose you had two people, and one of them, when he had to decide which course to take, thought of retribution, and the other did not. One person might, for instance, be inclined to take everything that happened to him as a reward or punishment, and another person doesn’t think of his at all.
If he is ill, he may think: “What have I done to deserve this?” This is one way of thinking of retribution. Another way is, he thinks in a general way whenever he is ashamed of himself: “This will be punished.”
Take two people, one of whom talks of his behavior and of what happens to him in terms of retribution,k the other does not. These people think entirely differently. Yet, so far, you can’t say they believe different things.
Suppose someone is ill and he says: “This is punishment,” and I say: “If I’m ill, I don’t think of punishment at all.” If you say: “Do you believe the opposite?” --you can call it believing the opposite, but it is entirely different from what we would normally call believing the opposite.
I think differently, in a different way. I say different things to myself. I have different pictures.”

To Wittgenstein the believer and non believer have totally different ways of thinking that are not opposite.

On whether god is eternal or everlasting. God being eternal means he is outside of time, everlasting part of and subject to it. William Kneale is credited with the idea that much of Christian theology was influenced by the classical greek philosophers and not necessarily scripture, God being eternal being one of these concepts. Plato alludes to an eternal being existing as the highest form of reality the other philosophers followed early Christian theologians worked within this milieu of Hellenic thought and thus fateful choices were made this being one of them.

So if god is eternal this causes problems because biblical writers portray God as an agent, not some passive entity within reality. They also present him as acting within human history. So if god isn’t part of time the bibles becomes at best a long series of metaphors, at worse a long series of lies. More specifically the bible portrays God as a redeeming God a God that changes. This is paraphrased from Wolterstorff’s introduction to God Everlasting not some of the critiques of the bible that use it because I have access to his essay and I think the rest of the work is fairly interesting and a very clever way to get around these problems. I thin he was a professor at Yale when he wrote it. The work is beyond me paraphrasing , but its not particularly long and it has a lot to say about time, god, worship and scripture. It also shows the work of a very thoughtful theologian who does see the problems with some of the accepted beliefs and presents an argument to counter some of them instead of dropping a one line trite phrase and thinking they’ve proven something.

100

[quote]pat wrote:
one of many atheist propaganda sites[/quote]

lol