Message from @Hector
Discord ID: 635540230237323274
3. Your third assumption is that religions are strictly men guessing. Going back to point 2., you assume there is not an interaction between God and man.
Saved
<:smugooze:398100987866251265>
😏
hektor so you have no proof either, thanks for making my point in other words
omnipotent omnipresence is indistinguishable from randomness
Your argument was that all religions are unlikely correct. I point why that argument is invalid.
So how did I prove your point?
I just think your argument is bogus. I am looking for a debate rn. Bored out of my mind.
it goes for all religions that they are very unlikely to be true
hektor
your syllogism is self referentially incoherent
: 0
this is basic logic
Tell me why?
u srs?
your premises refute your conclusion
it isn't valid
because neither can prove their starting point: god
your premises refute your conclusion because it does not follow
it's a non sequitur
I was not proving God.
its just sall self referential lore
i cant get more simple than that you idiot
google search non sequitur dot com
it does not follow
with unknown beginning state
I just was saying that the logic he was using was not strong.
you have been BTFO'd bro
I know what a non sequitur is.
delete your acc
self
referentially
incoherent
@Nerthulas can you explain his post instead of reactions?
if you don't believe in god you're a fag