Chit-Chat » Putting Internet Atheist in their place » 7/25/2015 7:56 am |
@Alexander
Okay first of all how well do you know quantum field theory, because I've been thinking of an argument that would show how a quantum vacuum creating our universe would ultimately be contingent rather than necessary.
Chit-Chat » Putting Internet Atheist in their place » 7/24/2015 9:17 am |
@Alexander,
Since your studying physics is it okay if I ask you a question about some physics.
Chit-Chat » Putting Internet Atheist in their place » 7/23/2015 3:36 pm |
But guys seriously is Ben Yachov active on this forum. I've seen what he does to gnu trolls on Dr. Feser's blog, and he really needs to call the atheist experience to shut them up for good.
Chit-Chat » Putting Internet Atheist in their place » 7/23/2015 8:42 am |
@Daniel heres a video of the idiots experience "discussing" the first way. It seems despite having zero knowledge on the metaphysics behind the argument and not reading what Aquinas or Aristotle said, they "refuted" it in 4 minutes. Try not to let their ignorance kill your brain cells. www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8JO6nJfKTo
Chit-Chat » Putting Internet Atheist in their place » 7/22/2015 7:00 pm |
Hey this is an idea I posted awhile ago on a different thread, but I think it might be more fitting here.
Is anyone else here tired of internet gnu atheist shouting their mouths off on religion and arguments for God when they know nothing about it. I'm talking about fucktards like Jacyln Glenn, Mr. Repzion, the king of douches the Amazing Atheist(his video "criticizing" Aquinas is just him swimming in his ignorance), and every one's favourite ragtag bunch of gnu trash, those tools from the Atheist Experience. Seriously all these clowns think that who made God is a good objection to the cosmological argument. In fact in the AA's video he thought the First way was the Kalam! Are you serious? And in one video the idiots from the AE compared the ontological argument to arguing for a unicorn! They did not mention modality, necessity, contingency or all the stuff essential to the argument. Noo, all it takes is a dumb analogy, and the argument is refuted for these clowns. What really pisses me off is people actually think their experts on the topic, and are spreading their ignorance. A friend of mine at school showed me a quote on the dumbass experience members said about evil, and he thought it was the greatest thing ever, when in reality it showed no evidence of said dumbass studying God and evil, especially the classical theist approach. It was just an appeal to emotion. These gnus are ignorant of the serious philosophy behind God's existence, yet they take it upon themselves to "refute" them without learning the metaphysics such as act and potency behind them. And their fans think that their truly experts on the topic, and more ignorance is spread. Sorry if this is a long rant, but these guys need their smug asses handed to them. I propose that Ben Yachov calls the Atheist Experience, and destroys them verbally without any mercy to end their stupidity once and for all. Afterwords I say we all gang up on the rest of the gnu's videos, and expose them for the frauds they
Theoretical Philosophy » Moved a few questions » 7/14/2015 3:29 pm |
So in beings such as ourselves that are composed of parts other parts move each other so were not really self actualized. Does that mean the first part that moves when I get up to walk is my legs which moves everything else. If so does my leg also need something to move it if it was the first part that moved all my other parts? What could it be?
In regards to the gravity objection and others here is a link to them. I'm not sure if these objections are good as they are made by those clowns on The Atheist experience. wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Unmoved_mover
Theoretical Philosophy » Moved a few questions » 7/14/2015 2:20 pm |
Hello again.
1. In regards to the claim whatever is changed is changed by another I've heard atheist claim that gravity refutes this.
2. Would humans and animals also refute this claim as when I get up to walk I don't think something that is already walking makes me walk.
3. I've also heard some atheist say that a quantum vacuum actualizes itself in the same way that humans in the example I states above and it does not need something outside of it to actualize itself.
Sorry if these are really basic questions, but I'm having a pretty hard time understanding this notion.
PS is Ben Yachov on this forum because I would like to ask him if he ever considered calling the Atheist Experience as they are really ignorant of the philosophy behind the existence of God, evil, and other issues yet they keep talking about these issues and the arguments for God as if their experts on it and always make the unicorn comparision. I would love to see Ben school them, and put them in their place.
Theoretical Philosophy » Moved a few questions » 7/11/2015 2:10 pm |
If Aquinas did how is God ultimately the ultimate necessary being and all derive necessity from Him? Sorry if I'm asking too many questions, I really want to fully understand classical theism and the reasons it gives for God instead of straw man versions that most people know as I've heard when fully understood these reasons are irrefutable despite popular opinion as a Gnu would tell you.
Theoretical Philosophy » Moved a few questions » 7/10/2015 11:40 pm |
I don't endorse, but I don't know how to refute it.
Theoretical Philosophy » Moved a few questions » 7/10/2015 11:39 pm |
A skeptics version of their argument goes like this: ''=12.1599998474121pxIf the universe is consequence of the laws and the laws exist platonically, then the universe is necessary, according to this theory it can happen and anything that can happen will happen. ''