Message from @Polak
Discord ID: 363525389886291968
Or, better yet, what issue do you find with his central premises, and the conclusion drawn?
Seems irrelevant to use a source then argue immediately after that it technically isn't correct or applicable
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.
Fine, fine, the paper may not demonstrate the validity sufficiently for you. Have you said why you think the argument itself is invalid?
It was proven on a ATP but all the articles written on its proving were written by autistic fucking neckbeard atheists
Stop tiptoeing around and make a definitive statement
Yes, I said all that earlier.
Hurr Durr Prover doesn't prove it because it isn't my belief.
No, it doesn't prove it because it doesn't prove it. It's that simple.
>it doesn't prove it because it doesn't prove it
HAHAHAHHahhahahahahahahah
ahhahahaha
hahhahahah
ahh
ahaha
hah
Oh
boy
I don't really have the time to rehash the whole argument right now, but I breifly explained some of whats wrong with it.
You mean the stuff that I rebutted?
How does God defy logic?
What material proof would you like to see?
>Failing to handle the proof
>computers can interpret if a god exists or not
>can't even handle 4chan servers
Choose one
Well according to him God is inherently illogical so we can't prove him with logic therefor we should all be atheists.
>Neckbead simplicity
It is logic gawdXD
I said "likely". And you know that isn't the core of the argument.
God is likely illogical?
It was the 'arguement' that you put forward.
Based on what ?
Keep calling people names if it makes you feel better man, you just display your own immaturity.
Kek
Rin, I'm not calling names - try answering me? Or is calling out an ad hominem the best you can do?
>becomes rabid wolf
>Tells me I need to stop name calling
>Name calls
>Ad hominem
That is only if reason is not used concurrently
Making the observation that you are immature isn't name calling.