Message from @MKUltra

Discord ID: 363525316578246656


2017-09-30 03:15:35 UTC  

I see I thought we were arguing the acutal proof

2017-09-30 03:15:36 UTC  

Then let's return the the proof itself. What issues do you see with it? What do you find missing in the proof?

2017-09-30 03:16:00 UTC  

Or, better yet, what issue do you find with his central premises, and the conclusion drawn?

2017-09-30 03:16:08 UTC  

Seems irrelevant to use a source then argue immediately after that it technically isn't correct or applicable

2017-09-30 03:17:07 UTC  

I didn't use the source originaly, it was shown to me and presented as proof of the argument's validity. Which it isn't, that's my only point.

2017-09-30 03:17:43 UTC  

Fine, fine, the paper may not demonstrate the validity sufficiently for you. Have you said why you think the argument itself is invalid?

2017-09-30 03:17:59 UTC  

It was proven on a ATP but all the articles written on its proving were written by autistic fucking neckbeard atheists

2017-09-30 03:18:00 UTC  

Stop tiptoeing around and make a definitive statement

2017-09-30 03:18:16 UTC  

Yes, I said all that earlier.

2017-09-30 03:18:22 UTC  

Hurr Durr Prover doesn't prove it because it isn't my belief.

2017-09-30 03:19:03 UTC  

No, it doesn't prove it because it doesn't prove it. It's that simple.

2017-09-30 03:19:19 UTC  

>it doesn't prove it because it doesn't prove it
HAHAHAHHahhahahahahahahah

2017-09-30 03:19:20 UTC  

ahhahahaha

2017-09-30 03:19:21 UTC  

hahhahahah

2017-09-30 03:19:21 UTC  

ahh

2017-09-30 03:19:21 UTC  

ahaha

2017-09-30 03:19:22 UTC  

hah

2017-09-30 03:19:24 UTC  

Oh

2017-09-30 03:19:26 UTC  

boy

2017-09-30 03:19:28 UTC  

I don't really have the time to rehash the whole argument right now, but I breifly explained some of whats wrong with it.

2017-09-30 03:19:49 UTC  

You mean the stuff that I rebutted?

2017-09-30 03:19:59 UTC  

How does God defy logic?

2017-09-30 03:20:06 UTC  

yeah who cares about the provers. Thats just computers failing to handle the proof.

2017-09-30 03:20:20 UTC  

What material proof would you like to see?

2017-09-30 03:20:21 UTC  

>Failing to handle the proof

2017-09-30 03:20:36 UTC  

>computers can interpret if a god exists or not

2017-09-30 03:20:42 UTC  

>can't even handle 4chan servers

2017-09-30 03:20:44 UTC  

Choose one

2017-09-30 03:20:58 UTC  

Well according to him God is inherently illogical so we can't prove him with logic therefor we should all be atheists.

2017-09-30 03:21:03 UTC  

>Neckbead simplicity

2017-09-30 03:21:11 UTC  

It is logic gawdXD

2017-09-30 03:21:26 UTC  

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/359510066623283202/363525721575915520/absolutely_heretical.png

2017-09-30 03:21:32 UTC  

I said "likely". And you know that isn't the core of the argument.

2017-09-30 03:21:45 UTC  

God is likely illogical?

2017-09-30 03:21:54 UTC  

It was the 'arguement' that you put forward.

2017-09-30 03:21:55 UTC  

Based on what ?

2017-09-30 03:21:56 UTC  

Keep calling people names if it makes you feel better man, you just display your own immaturity.

2017-09-30 03:22:04 UTC  

Kek

2017-09-30 03:22:27 UTC  

Rin, I'm not calling names - try answering me? Or is calling out an ad hominem the best you can do?

2017-09-30 03:22:28 UTC  

>becomes rabid wolf

2017-09-30 03:22:36 UTC  

>Tells me I need to stop name calling
>Name calls