Showing posts from April, 2014

New Argument (no name yet)


Working on another argument...I haven't came up with a name for it.

P1: Atheists don't believe in God is because of insufficient evidence.

P2: If you don't believe in things because there isn't enough evidence, then logically speaking you cannot believe in something that has Zero Evidence.

P3: There is absolutely Zero Evidence for atheism.

C: Atheists cannot believe their own position.

P1 (2): A position is worthless if its proponents cannot believe it.

C (2):   Atheism is worthless.

Defending the premises: This a deductive argument, so if all the premises are true then the conclusion must be accepted.

Premise 1 - This premise cannot be defeated because it's an absolute fact that one of the reasons atheists don't believe in God is that they claim there isn't sufficient evidence.  Even if they say there no evidence for God,  No evidence is still insufficient evidence.

Premise 2 - This is also a fact. Logically speaking it wouldn't m…

Hoofdzakelijk Arbitrair ARTICLE DESTROYED

I recently came across the following rebuttal where someone attempted to refute THE ELLIOTT ARGUMENT. A link to the original page can be seen here...

The article was so poor that I wasn't even going to respond to it, but I had some down time tonight and thought what the heck. The following is my refutation to his rebuttal, and as usual, we will respond to his work line for line, word for word.  All of his posts can be seen in //Black// my replies will be followed in BLUE.    

-God bless-

For those of you who are unfamiliar with TEA (The Elliott Argument)....Please click the following link...

//This blogpost is part of a series of three posts that contain a complete rebuttal of the Elliot argument, a refutation of the existence…

Lorin Gibbs: failures and tears

Mr. Gibbs, we just want to take this special opportunity to thank you for allowing us to make a complete mockery of you and publically annihilate your failing intellect. God Bless your little heart.

My final statement to Lorin went something like this..."Thank you for the victory!!...You kept repeating what doesn't come from Pure Nothingness, and that's fine, you can dance all you want. I quite enjoy tap...However, claiming time travel gets around the logical truth which I have presented, is simply untrue.  Unless of course you can demonstrate how one gets from a Pure Nothingness state to a state where things exist, without anything ever coming from Pure Nothingness. You cannot. There is no other way for me to say this to you, but It's quite sad and shocking that your logic and reasoning skills are so porous."

To get my readers up to speed:  Lorin was claiming that there was once Pure Nothingness, then things existed (including a time traveler and his ship), but th…