Class Warfare Blog

August 27, 2019

The Cosmological and Ontological Arguments Unleashed

Let us start slowly, first with the Cosmological Argument. For those unfamiliar with this argument, here is a common version of it:

The Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God

  1. Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.
    2. The universe has a beginning of its existence.
    3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.
    4. Therefore, if the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is God.
    5. Therefore, God exists.

So as to not run afoul of what we know about cosmology, let us say that this “creator god” created the universe in the form of its incredibly dense form prior to the “Big Bang” event (the sudden expansion of the universe). So, this “universe seed” was created and it was unstable and will fly apart shortly . . . Bang! There it goes! A wait of only 14 or so billions years gives us the universe as we perceive it now. There, science and religion are compatible . . . uh, er . . . um . . . not really. The long wait is not an objection in this scenario as a being that can exist outside of space and time, could step outside of time at the Big Bang event and then step back in “now” and voila . . . no wait. There are, however, many actual objections to the injection of a “creator god” into this scenario, the simplest being “none is needed.” The only reason for injecting a creator god into this scenario is to establish that god’s bona fides as the creator of the universe. The physical situation does not need or even allow for such an injection.

In any case, some theistic apologists now claim the Big Bang event as their creator god’s creation of this universe. But, wait . . . there is more!

As is typical in apologetics, the left hand doesn’t tell the right hand what it is doing and thus creates problems . . . over there.

Now we switch over to the Ontological Argument. Again, for those who need a reminder, here is one version of it:

The Ontological Argument for the Existence of God

  1. By definition, God is a being than which none greater can be imagined.
    2. A being that necessarily exists in reality is greater than a being that does not necessarily exist.
    3. Thus, by definition, if God exists as an idea in the mind but does not necessarily exist in reality, then we can imagine something that is greater than God.
    4. But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God.
    5. Thus, if God exists in the mind as an idea, then God necessarily exists in reality.
    6. God exists in the mind as an idea.
    7. Therefore, God necessarily exists in reality.

Now by the logic of the Ontological Argument we can find that the Ontological Argument is bankrupt, basically beginning with “By definition, God is a being than which none greater can be imagined.” That this is a false premise has been pointed out by many. In essence, if you accept this premise as a basic fact, you have just defined a god into existence. (Does that make you a god, if you create one?) But the “god” being discussed isn’t just any old god, it is the Creator God™ whose name has changed a number of times since this argument was first made but is considered to be the god of the Abrahamic religions (if all of those might be lumped together). This is the One True God™ who did indeed create this universe. So, this is the one god who must be considered as “a being than which none greater can be imagined.” Think about this. If this god could create the universe seed which expanded and became “our universe,” He must be very powerful indeed. But if creating a universe seed is a sign of power, I can imagine a god that can create two such seeds at the same time. And if I can imagine that god, it must be greater than a god which can create only one at a time, no? So, that god must exist also, according to the logic of the Ontological Argument. There is no argument that the god who created the one universe seed, ours, is the same god as the one that can create two simultaneously, so a claim that it is the Abrahamic religion’s god that can create two simultaneously is pure speculation. The Abrahamic god may be just a baby god, playing in a creation sand box until he has honed his skills and can be taught by the greater gods how to create two universe seeds at the same time.

And, if there is a god that can create two such seeds, and there must be . . . according to the logic of this argument . . . then I can imagine a god that can create three such universe seeds simultaneously and that god has to be greater than the god who can create two universes and the kid god in the sandbox who can create only one. And can there be a limit here? If I can imagine that a god could create hundreds of universes simultaneously, why not thousands, billions, trillions, etc.? Soon we will be up to our asses in multiverses!

So, the “premise” that “by definition, God is a being than which none greater can be imagined” means, in all likelihood, that the deity that created this universe is not that god. This also means there is not just one god because there is no support of that idea either and we are now all polytheists. We certainly cannot take the word of the deity that created this universe that there is but one True God™, because it is clearly not that “god” by this definition. (His other comments seem more than a little boastful and one would expect a being of that power would show a little humility.)

So, clearly, monotheism is also bankrupt as are all of the religions worshiping a clearly inferior deity.

And, hey, I didn’t make the arguments. Blame the apologists.

 

57 Comments »

  1. This whole ontological argument is a collection of assumptions that already presume the existence of God and a universal belief in one.
    For example, (4) – yes, we can always imagine something greater than God by imagining a, let’s call it God 2.0, who did everything faster (in 1 day and not 6), or in larger quantities (as in your example), or killing fewer innocent people (the Flood, Sodom and Gomorrah), or healing more sick people, than God.
    The above argument also applies to the point (2) – if God is real and his deeds are known, a greater imaginary being can always be invented.
    (6) God exists in mind as an idea, but only in the mind of those who are already aware of the idea. But a lot of people aren’t or weren’t, and the church and its followers do, in fact, recognize that, because the whole idea of missionary movement was to put that idea of God into the heads of people who didn’t yet have that idea. At best, (6) is subjective and therefore conclusion (7) devolves into something like “God is real but only if you believe God is real, and therefore God is real”.
    And I think you’ve covered (1).

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by List of X — August 27, 2019 @ 12:39 pm | Reply

    • It is somewhat amazing what stands in for actual thinking in this realm. There were and there are serious thinkers trying make an argument that the belief in a god id rational, but somehow that desire trumps strict honesty and good practice standards.

      On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 12:39 PM Class Warfare Blog wrote:

      >

      Like

      Comment by Steve Ruis — August 27, 2019 @ 12:44 pm | Reply

  2. There is one way you can fit the Monad into our current understanding of cosmology that is not self-contradicting, not logically incompatible, and even suggested in a few creation myths. The exploding God. In this scenario, the Monad (God) becomes conscious. There is nothing but it. Absolutely nothing. It is, of course, aseitic and therefore it could not even explain it’s own sudden existence. It just is. It is, but there’s one thing it cannot do: it cannot stop existing. it cannot not be. Curiosity is a stubborn power, so it tries to do this one thing it cannot do. BB.

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by john zande — August 27, 2019 @ 2:12 pm | Reply

    • Yes, of course, there are many ways to include some kind of deity here there and everywhere, but the problem is that the situations don’t *require *their insertion into the discussion. We can make their presence logical, compatible, etc. but not required.

      (And, yes, I know you know this, I am preaching to the choir. :o)

      On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 2:12 PM Class Warfare Blog wrote:

      >

      Like

      Comment by Steve Ruis — August 28, 2019 @ 11:45 am | Reply

      • Exactly, which is why I always ask the theist to explain why the universe itself cannot be aseitic. After a 100-comment-evasive-song-and-dance-routine, even Branyan had to conceded the universe itself could be aseitic. Having arrived at that understanding, a thinking person would generally then conclude, “OK, adding a god only complicates this picture, so theism is probably wrong.”

        Like

        Comment by john zande — August 28, 2019 @ 11:57 am | Reply

        • You have more stamina than do I. I do agree with you, of course … well I did after I looked up “aseitic.”

          On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 11:57 AM Class Warfare Blog wrote:

          >

          Liked by 1 person

          Comment by Steve Ruis — August 28, 2019 @ 12:17 pm | Reply

          • 🙂

            You’re not alone. Most Christian apologists aren’t even aware of this fundamental Christian teaching.

            Like

            Comment by john zande — August 28, 2019 @ 12:22 pm | Reply

            • Well, these are the people who claim that Jesus is immortal but died on the cross to forgive our sins. Immortal … died … uh, hello?

              Liked by 1 person

              Comment by Steve Ruis — August 28, 2019 @ 12:25 pm | Reply

          • The universe couldn’t have been aseitic before it began. That’s the little tidbit of logic that Zande ignores as he takes his victory lap.

            I know these minor details aren’t important to you but I wanted to mention it in case sometime in the future you start caring about coherency.

            Like

            Comment by John Branyan — August 28, 2019 @ 12:28 pm | Reply

            • Began? There is no evidence that the universe began aka “had a beginning.” The conjecture of the Big Bang is that the entire universe was very dense a long time ago, but it fully existed in a dense state … then it began to expand. So, what we are aware of so is the universe in a dense state and in an expanded state and many of the events in between, but we have no evidence of the beginning of this universe. Too many people think of the Big Bang as being like a hand grenade blowing up in a field. On the contrary, that “universe seed” was all of matter, energy, and space-time of this universe, just compressed into a very dense state. There was nothing else: no energy, no matter, no space, no time. All of that existed in the “seed.” Ordinary physics gets us to an understanding up to a point a fraction of a second into the expansion. Prior to that our theories are insufficient. Apparently we need a quantum theory of gravity which we do not yet have.

              On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 12:29 PM Class Warfare Blog wrote:

              >

              Liked by 1 person

              Comment by Steve Ruis — August 28, 2019 @ 12:39 pm | Reply

              • “Apparently we need a quantum theory of gravity which we do not yet have.”
                Good ol’ “quantum theory” of the gaps. As long as we don’t call it faith, you’re comfortable with it.

                The “evidence” for the universe beginning is the the Big Bang. An eternal universe was the assumption prior to the 1980’s. Your origins theories are sound if we ignore centuries of scientific discoveries. The “universe seed” is just repackaged steady state theory.

                Like

                Comment by John Branyan — August 28, 2019 @ 12:52 pm | Reply

            • It didn’t “begin.”

              Brute fact.

              Clear now?

              Like

              Comment by john zande — August 28, 2019 @ 12:46 pm | Reply

  3. Both of these arguments are just – just silly. My old first year logic professor would have booted me out of class if I’d tried to present something like either of these. The ontological argument can be boiled down to one statement – god exists because I think he exists. That’s really what all that verbiage distills down to. The cosmological argument is based on false premises and… Oh, hell, why bother going on. Everyone here knows what I mean. Steve’s described the situation perfectly.

    Liked by 3 people

    Comment by grouchyfarmer — August 27, 2019 @ 5:49 pm | Reply

    • As a philosophy buff, I find the quality of these arguments dismal at best and yet they are trotted out as being of some importance. I recently read a fine book “The Non-Existence of God” by Nicholas Everitt who dissected all of these arguments and found them more than wanting. He did an excruciatingly exacting analysis of all of these arguments and, well the book title kind of tells all. One would think that all of these arguments would be dead and buried at this point but a new generation of apologists rediscover them and “share” their magnificence with a new generation of believers, thus turning them into zombie ideas, ideas that just won’t stay dead.

      On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 5:49 PM Class Warfare Blog wrote:

      >

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Steve Ruis — August 28, 2019 @ 11:42 am | Reply

  4. “Anyone, theist or atheist, who thinks that “purposes” exist anywhere but in our imaginations is sadly poorly informed.” – Steve (“Philosophy Buff”) Ruis

    Can you explain why a “philosophy buff” continues to bother with philosophy? Either you don’t believe the universe is purposeless or you don’t understand your own stated position.

    Like

    Comment by John Branyan — August 28, 2019 @ 12:25 pm | Reply

  5. You misstate the cosmological argument which in its original forms never assumed the universe had a beginning. A better formulation would be something like: since the universe is contingent (i.e. could possibly not exist) it must be caused by something else which is non-contingent. Causation here is not necessarily priority in time but more along the lines of Aristotelian causation: that which sustains the object in existence. It is a question of why something and not nothing. The concept of God here is of unlimited existence who lends existence to things.
    As for the ontological argument not even Anselm himself took it very seriously.

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by dpmonahan — August 29, 2019 @ 8:47 am | Reply

    • There are a great many “versions” of this argument, mostly made by apologists. I did not make up that version, I just copied it. And, yes, it is not a good argument, no matter how you state it (using technical terms such as contingent is offputting for lay audiences) but *Saint *Anselm achieved sainthood for his defense of the faith, if I am not mistaken. And his opinion of the argument doesn’t hold any sway over modern apologists, who seem to grasp any tool at hand, whether appropriate for the job or not.

      On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 8:47 AM Class Warfare Blog wrote:

      >

      Like

      Comment by Steve Ruis — August 29, 2019 @ 8:54 am | Reply

    • A ‘contingent’ universe is a MASSIVE presupposition, so your articulation of the argument fails before it even gets out of the gates.

      Like

      Comment by john zande — August 29, 2019 @ 10:46 am | Reply

      • No kidding. I’m summarizing not writing a book.

        Liked by 1 person

        Comment by dpmonahan — August 29, 2019 @ 10:56 am | Reply

        • Fair enough. You seemed, however, to imply that asserting the massive presupposition (of an artificial universe) somehow made the argument work.

          Like

          Comment by john zande — August 29, 2019 @ 11:03 am | Reply

          • Contingent does not equal artificial.

            Like

            Comment by dpmonahan — August 29, 2019 @ 11:08 am | Reply

            • It most certainly does when we add aseity. It’s an *artificial* creation.

              Like

              Comment by john zande — August 29, 2019 @ 11:35 am | Reply

              • No. A tree is both contingent and natural.
                If the material universe is created we can call only call it artificial in an analogous way, since God did not sit down and fashion it the way an artisan would make an artifact. Creation is a different sort of making.
                It would be like saying a child is artificial because it is made by its parents – you are equivocating the word “make”.

                Like

                Comment by dpmonahan — August 29, 2019 @ 11:52 am | Reply

                • You don’t seem to understand aseity.

                  If the creator is aseitic, which is basic Christian theology, then that means ours in an artificial world; a synthetic construct that was deliberately created some 13.8 billion years ago, entirely separate from the Creator. A “constructed” world is a false world. It is an unnatural contrivance; a petri dish quarantined from the actual world (all that which is the aseitic creator), and we know this because this world is sealed between the three things an aseitic being could never directly experience, but could impose on an artificial scape: a beginning, a middle, and an end.

                  So, unless you want to argue Yhwh has a beginning, a middle and end, then you’re just going to have to accept that the contingent universe is an artificial construct.

                  Like

                  Comment by john zande — August 29, 2019 @ 12:29 pm | Reply

                  • So in your specific vocabulary created = constructed = fake = unnatural? That is a lot of equivocation: you equate the divine act of creation with the work of a human artisan (different categories of making), you call all constructed things artifical (so much for birds nests and bee hives) and you say that constructed things are somehow “false” when they are not, they are just as real as any other material thing.
                    A long line of sophisms.

                    Like

                    Comment by dpmonahan — August 29, 2019 @ 1:07 pm | Reply

                    • Again, you don’t understand aseity.

                      An aseitic being has neither the capacity to grow, nor the means to leak and spread out into something new, for that would contradict the very definition of aseity. An aseitic being cannot “spill out,” and even if it could somehow increase its size (its being) then any ‘new space’ would simply be part of the maximally good/aseitic being, indistinguishable, and that is inconsistent with our world which is material, finite, and evolving.

                      It’s really not complicated.

                      Like

                      Comment by john zande — August 29, 2019 @ 1:54 pm

                    • You seem to think of God as a giant tapioca pudding. The creator and his creation are really distinct: the material world is not made of bits of God’s substance, that would be pantheism.

                      Like

                      Comment by dpmonahan — August 29, 2019 @ 2:25 pm

                    • One of the reasons Zande likes the word “aseitic” is he can screw around with the definition. He can say it means, “neither the capacity to grow, nor the means to leak and spread out into something new”. That’s what religious people do with the word “God”.

                      Like

                      Comment by John Branyan — August 29, 2019 @ 2:33 pm

                    • Again, aseity is basic Christian theology.

                      Baffling as to why you seem so angry at the idea.

                      What’s your problem with it?

                      Like

                      Comment by john zande — August 29, 2019 @ 5:02 pm

                    • I’m only presenting the god as specified in Christian theology, and yes, there is a distinction between the creator and the creation. For some odd reason, you seem to have been objecting to that. Now you appear to be agreeing. A contingent world is an artificial world. That’s. What. I’ve. Been. Saying.

                      Like

                      Comment by john zande — August 29, 2019 @ 4:53 pm

                    • “An aseitic being has neither the capacity to grow, nor the means to leak and spread out into something new… and even if it could somehow increase its size (its being) then any ‘new space’ would simply be part of the maximally good/aseitic being”
                      This is a critique of pantheism, as if God were the underlying material of the universe.
                      What creatures share with God is not their substance but their actuality: creation is God who is pure act granting actuality to something that potentially exists. The “act” is not the stuff of which creatures are made but the difference between real and potential, or between something and nothing. A creature is not God because it is limited by its essence.

                      Like

                      Comment by dpmonahan — August 30, 2019 @ 9:24 am

                    • No, you’ve got it wrong again. I’m not entirely sure you guys even know what it is you’re arguing against.

                      God is NOT the universe.

                      An aseitic being cannot have a little island of different stuff (our evolving universe, for example) inside it. That’s simply incompatible with aseity.

                      Like

                      Comment by john zande — August 30, 2019 @ 9:40 am

                    • Zande is a master constructor of straw men. He follows a predicable argumentation process.

                      1. Assert (Premise A) is an indispensable aspect of your theism.
                      2. Ignore your assertions that (Premise B) is your actual theism.
                      3. Accuse you of being afraid to discuss (Premise A).
                      4. Ignore any objections you raise regarding (Premise A).
                      5. Affirm your objections to (Premise A) as proof that you don’t understand it.

                      Your replies are exactly correct which is why Zande is insisting, “you’ve got it wrong again.” He’s a theist who desperately wants to be an atheist. His “aseitic universe” is God and knowing that drives him nuts.

                      Like

                      Comment by John Branyan — August 31, 2019 @ 10:37 am

                    • Can you point out where I have alluded to pantheism… the charge DP seemed somewhat oddly determined to level? Odd, considering I have been saying the exact opposite.

                      Looking forward to your reply….

                      Like

                      Comment by john zande — August 31, 2019 @ 10:47 am

                    • Can’t, huh?

                      This is actually quite funny. You’re raging against basic Christian theology. You’re so frantic to fight, to disagree, that you’re blindly attacking your own theology.

                      That’s hilarious.

                      Finally, you got a laugh out me, Branyan.

                      And again, the only reason aseity was raised was because DP couldn’t grasp why creation would be called an “artificial” construct. He seems to understand now. God is NOT the universe. Mel Wild went to extraordinary lengths to state exactly this point. And I agreed with him.

                      Do you agree, or are you arguing for pantheism?

                      Branyan, do you believe Yhwh is a pantheistic creator? Is that why you don’t like basic Christian theology of asiety?

                      Like

                      Comment by john zande — August 31, 2019 @ 11:16 am

    • Misstating the arguments for theism is crucial to defeating those arguments. To my knowledge, Steve hasn’t actually responded to any of the arguments from classical theology but I have witnessed him utterly demolishing dozens of philosophical straw men. I’ve always found the Ontological Argument to be a great cure for insomnia. The only things more likely to induce a coma are arguments against it.

      Zande is a theist who has successfully hoodwinked the atheists into believing he’s one of them. Every now and then he says stuff like “The universe is aseitic” and “The universe is artificial” because atheists never ask what that means. An aseitic universe isn’t much different from most people’s concept of “God”. But, like every good fundamentalist, Zande won’t tolerate any religious views other than his own.

      Like

      Comment by John Branyan — August 29, 2019 @ 1:10 pm | Reply

      • I don’t like the word “aseity” it seems reductive.
        Obviously the material world does not exist a-se in every respect or change would be impossible, but you can argue that matter at its most primal level just “is”, has always been there and always will. I guess that makes you a pantheist or materialist based on your mood.

        Liked by 1 person

        Comment by dpmonahan — August 29, 2019 @ 1:24 pm | Reply

        • I don’t like the word “aseity”

          Then by all means take that up with Christian theologians.

          If you’re a Christian, then I’m sorry, but Yhwh is said to be aseitic.

          Feel free to change your religion, if you want.

          Like

          Comment by john zande — August 29, 2019 @ 1:57 pm | Reply

        • I don’t like the word “aseity” either because nobody ever uses it. I had to look it up the first time Zande lobbed it into a conversation and I feel like it’s wasting space in my brain that could be used for more important things.

          Materialism/Pantheism requires a tremendous amount of faith in “matter”. Using rationality and consciousness to deny the existence of transcendent reality seems, to me anyway, to be self-contradicting. All but the most stubborn atheists will admit there are some immaterial (metaphysical) forces at work in the universe.

          Like

          Comment by John Branyan — August 29, 2019 @ 2:20 pm | Reply

          • I’ve seen “self existing” and similar phrases in early 20th century documents, I think it might come from Suarez or Leibniz or someone like that. You don’t find it in ancient or medieval sources and I don’t think it is used that much today.

            Like

            Comment by dpmonahan — August 29, 2019 @ 2:30 pm | Reply

            • Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry.

              https://carm.org/what-is-the-aseity-of-god

              Liked by 1 person

              Comment by john zande — August 29, 2019 @ 5:00 pm | Reply

              • This is where you end up when you make up silly beings with silly powers. This is how you get the combination of “Jesus is immortal” and “Jesus died for our sins.” The fine-tuning apologists come in with layer after layer of “detail” (also made up) to make it all “work” when in actuality they are just creating an intellectual fog that ordinary believers won’t drive into or through. They just feel that “all of that has been explained” or “it is part of the mystery” and “that old time religion is good enough for me.”

                Like

                Comment by Steve Ruis — August 30, 2019 @ 9:11 am | Reply

                • Oh, aseity (basic Christian theology going all the way back to Augustine) is fraught with so many logical problems that it’s surprising the likes of William Lane Craig still try to make it work today. But that’s not the point here. It was raised to simply show DP that if they present an aseitic being (which Christianity insists upon) then our world (creation) is an artificial construct… and that’s a MASSIVE presupposition, repeated so often by apologists that they’ve forgotten it’s a presupposition.

                  Like

                  Comment by john zande — August 30, 2019 @ 9:37 am | Reply

                • Can you actually explain John Zande’s concept of aseity or are you just agreeing with him because he claims to be an atheist and you like atheism?

                  Like

                  Comment by John Branyan — August 31, 2019 @ 10:50 am | Reply

            • Self existing is one aspect of the nature of God. Zande’s argument is that “aseity” IS God. He linked to carm.org and apparently, didn’t bother to actually read the article (or if he did, he doesn’t understand it). Aseity can’t be the whole story. His argument is like saying, “We have evidence that silicone exists, therefore microchips are inevitable.”

              Eternally existing matter does explain the low entropy in the universe (in fact, that makes it MORE mysterious). Eternally existing matter does not explain the rise of rationality and consciousness. Eternally existing matter does not explain the consciousness we are experiencing AT THIS MOMENT. The hierarchical chain of causation that enables our sentience is a matter of faith, not science.

              Like

              Comment by John Branyan — August 29, 2019 @ 9:00 pm | Reply

              • …should read: “Eternally existing matter does NOT explain the low entropy…”

                Like

                Comment by John Branyan — August 29, 2019 @ 9:02 pm | Reply

              • You seem to have missed the point that aseity (again, basic Christian theology going all the way back to Augustine) was only raised to explain to DP why we must consider ours an artificial world. Seems he never had to *think* about it that way, but now that he has, he agrees.

                But feel free to continue with this conversation with yourself…

                Like

                Comment by john zande — August 30, 2019 @ 5:33 am | Reply

          • I feel like it’s wasting space in my brain that could be used for more important things. HA! I’m not touching that one with a 20-foot pole!

            Like

            Comment by Nan — September 1, 2019 @ 1:19 pm | Reply

            • HA! You would need a much longer pole to touch any part of this conversation!

              Like

              Comment by John Branyan — September 1, 2019 @ 2:37 pm | Reply

              • That’s an uncalled for comment, John. I heckle you, but I don’t — knowingly — insult your level of intelligence.

                Like

                Comment by Nan — September 1, 2019 @ 2:53 pm | Reply

                • I’m prepared to handle both heckles and insults. Fire away, Nan.

                  Like

                  Comment by John Branyan — September 1, 2019 @ 3:00 pm | Reply

                  • *SIGH* You missed my point entirely. Have a nice holiday.

                    Like

                    Comment by Nan — September 1, 2019 @ 3:03 pm | Reply

                    • *SIGH* No. I get your point.
                      You intended your comment as a harmless joke. I was supposed to understand that you were just heckling. It was meant in good fun. Just a couple of old pals kidding around.

                      Can you think of anything you might have said to me in the past that might make me think you don’t like me very much?

                      (I’m not anticipating an answer. You have a nice holiday too.)

                      Like

                      Comment by John Branyan — September 1, 2019 @ 3:31 pm

                    • John, I don’t dislike you. I don’t even know you. But I do like to heckle you. 😀 Thanks for the holiday wish.

                      Like

                      Comment by Nan — September 1, 2019 @ 4:06 pm

                    • So “BrainYawn” is not meant as an insult? That’s a neutral term for somebody you don’t even know?

                      Like I said, Nan, I can handle your insults. I’m a comedian, remember? I’ve gone toe to toe with dozens of hecklers and emerged unscathed.

                      I give as good as I get. So if you can’t handle my “heckling” I suggest you not draw first blood.

                      Like

                      Comment by John Branyan — September 1, 2019 @ 4:36 pm

  6. I find both arguments fallacious upon their premise. You can’t always assume x because of y. Well you could but you’d be a dingbat.

    Therefore, if the universe has a cause of its existence (x) then that cause is God (y)

    Thus, if God exists in the mind as an idea (x) then God necessarily exists in reality. (y)

    You can’t fucking do that until you show your goddamn work. I’ll wait.

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by shelldigger — August 31, 2019 @ 11:47 am | Reply


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: