I busted a nut after watching this video. Real talk.

[BOSS KTULU]

"Logic" that you can't even articulate and explain.

you're asking me to explain something that simply isn't present in the vid

it just isnt there

like god

 

[BEAM]

you're asking me to explain something that simply isn't present in the vid

it just isnt there

like god

"What you're arguing now is that since YOU are unable to understand it, it must be wrong. This is hilarious." - You

End of discussion.

/Thread.

 

[BOSS KTULU]

/Thread.

i dont understand why niggas get petty and resort to this

im just gonna post again

ima hafta watch this video again tho, because maybe it is all silliness and there really is a magical man in the sky making the earth shake when gays get married

 

[notme]

Solar systems usually have elliptical, planar orbits as opposed to a spherical orbit, like atoms. If the two were truly similar--in that regard--the formation of matter would be much different.

So they're not really alike.

Man cannot create true matter. So how can he define the parameters of its creation. It is that very arrogance that will be the end of mankind

 

[Punisher__]

lol...............

 

[BEAM]

i dont understand why niggas get petty and resort to this

im just gonna post again

ima hafta watch this video again tho, because maybe it is all silliness and there really is a magical man in the sky making the earth shake when gays get married

Maybe my mistake with you has been my assuming that you actually are kinda smart.

At least smart enough to actually discuss the things you support.

You know, you tried to finda reason to debunk my belief in an intelligent designer.

I caught a flaw in his humor /logic. Maybe he simply slipped up the semantics there, but eitherway, it happened.

There being a designer doesn't have to co-incide with all that we've attributed to it via religion.

All that I attribute to this Being is initiation.

In an attempt to understand your thinking against that, I watched the entirety of your supplied justification for thatthinking, and found a flaw.

It's simple.

He said that knowledge without application, or the ability to test it, is usless.

He explained dark matter and how it substitutes for the understanding of "nothing".

He then went on to say that "nothing" can emit radiation, and then produce matter, thusly concluding that the Universe did not need a creator.

If you don't see the multiple flaws there, then you didn't watch the video even as closely as I did.

I've tried with you, BOSS. I've even started calingyou BOSS, instead of KTULU.

You fail me every time.

Bluntly, you're a disappointment to what you believe. I'm sorry.

I've been a fool for engaging you repeatedly. Ah well, now I know.

 

[Punisher__]

BEAM reminds me of that one poster who used to stay going back and forth with KTULU in the R&R. Demandred or some shit like that.

Not trying to criticize because I think BEAM >>> Demandred, I just think it's funny.

 

[BOSS KTULU]

this nigga has tried to end the convo ten times already

dafakadamadda is i havent found what you're talking about in the video and youve repeatedly admitted that maybe it wasnt there and you're mistaken

so ima watch this shit and see what the deal is

All that I attribute to this Being is initiation.

for no reason, as we've discussed before

your argument for god is based on the rejection of logic, rendering anything you say in that argument meaningless

 

[Punisher__]

And this is like my 100th platinum thread.

I'd like to thank everyone who contributed and made this thread a success.

 

[BEAM]

this nigga has tried to end the convo ten times already

dafakadamadda is i havent found what you're talking about in the video and youve repeatedly admitted that maybe it wasnt there and you're mistaken

so ima watch this shit and see what the deal is

for no reason, as we've discussed before

your argument for god is based on the rejection of logic, rendering anything you say in that argument meaningless

No, I've simply entertained the possibility. Never admitted to having been wrong. Of course I think I'm right, since I've furthered my point this far with you.

And yeah, we are where we've been before.

Me willing to admit that I don't necessarily have proof of what I believe, and you denying the fact that you lack proof for what you believe as well.

Theman didn't disprove God, if anything, he proposed a possibility for the Universe to expound upon nothing naturally; the same nothing he explained as being dark matter earlier.

Your source fails.

Deal with it.

And logic tells me to stop arguing with you, but the temptation to combat arrogant stupidity is too strong.

 

[dpresidential]

Pun...you don't make your threads platinum...WE DO! lol

 

[BOSS KTULU]

The man didn't disprove God

explain what you think it would take to disprove something you've made so vague as to be unapproachable even by logic?

your demand for "proof that god does not exist" is based on a faulty understanding of how positive and negative assertions work

but again, since you say logic has no place here, none of the letters and words we're typing mean anything at all to you

 

[BEAM]

explain what you think it would take to disprove something you've made so vague as to be unapproachable even by logic?

your demand for "proof that god does not exist" is based on a faulty understanding of how positive and negative assertions work

but again, since you say logic has no place here, none of the letters and words we're typing mean anything at all to you

I've never said that logic has no place here.

Now you're just modifying my argument to make yours seem sensible for every on else who's just joining us.

I'ver already told you, I've found a way to acknowledge a Supreme Being, that being what we percieve to be existence.

I would have to understand said Supreme being in order to discenr what it would take to disprove it.

All I've done is suggest that there are things beyond logic / understanding.

But you have an issue with that.

You want reasons why, but I only have the capacity to believe or even acknowledge the "what".

You want absence of evidence to be evidence of absence. Only arrogance would lead one to such a conclusion.

Your positionis no more solid than mine.

The ONLY reason I continually engage with you is because you fail to realize this, and it's annoying.

 

[Punisher__]

Pun...you don't make your threads platinum...WE DO! lol

*double plat push*

What you think? Can we make it?

 

[BEAM]

*double plat push*

What you think? Can we make it?

Nah, i won't be arguing with him that long.

We're approaching the point where he cracks.

We'll be done here soon.

 

[BOSS KTULU]

I've found a way to acknowledge a Supreme Being, that being what we percieve to be existence.

this is different than what you said before where you said god is the creator/initiator of the universe

now you're saying god is the title of existence itself

which is just changing the well-known definition of god so it fits something that isn't controversial

if its just existence itself, why call it a "supreme being" when you know the connotations that term carries?

not only is there an absence of evidence for god, but also all the arguments for god's existence collapse on themselves by demanding exemptions from their own rules (ie: everything has to start somehwere, except god, he's special) or they are patently absurd (ie: existence itself is god)

 

[BOSS KTULU]

Nah, i won't be arguing with him that long.
We're approaching the point where he cracks.
We'll be done here soon.

ask these niggas how long ive been arguing about this on the IC

they had to create subforums to shield believers from me

 

[BEAM]

this is different than what you said before where you said god is the creator/initiator of the universe

now you're saying god is the title of existence itself

which is just changing the well-known definition of god so it fits something that isn't controversial

if its just existence itself, why call it a "supreme being" when you know the connotations that term carries?

not only is there an absence of evidence for god, but also all the arguments for god's existence collapse on themselves by demanding exemptions from their own rules (ie: everything has to start somehwere, except god, he's special) or they are patently absurd (ie: existence itself is god)

No, no.

I haven't changed anything.

I attribute the intiation of all things, and thusly existence, to an Intelligent Designer.

Period.

Sure, I have no proof that definitively suggests such, only my understangin of design, and how our understandgin of the universe appliesto that.

But a parallel to my lack of "factual" reason to belive, is the fact that there is no "factual" proof that suggests that what I believe is wrong.

Neither of us is right, neither of us is wrong.

Now please, go give your woman some time.

I'm sure she's getting jealous of me.

 

[BEAM]

ask these niggas how long ive been arguing about this on the IC

they had to create subforums to shield believers from me

You may have faired well against religious believers, but you've obviously met your match here.

What you thought you were going to be able to act a fool forever?

lol

 

[BOSS KTULU]

But a parallel to my lack of "factual" reason to belive, is the fact that there is no "factual" proof that suggests that what I believe is wrong.

"Your honor, there's no proof this nig ger whistled at that white woman... but there's no proof he DIDN'T whistle at her either."

"Your right prosecutor, both sides are equal. We can assume he did it despite the complete lack of evidence."

Do you see why this isn't acceptable?