No 1; invent a worldview that entails having an ultimate thingy that everything derives from. No 2; say it's your Christian god. No 3; ask what their ultimate thingy is in their worldview They don't have one, you win! Genius!!!!!!!!
What gets me is this equivocation between "thingy" and person- an individual (well, three) with personality, emotions, a throne, a human form, a personal name, etc. How does the ground of all being get to be a "he"? Why not a "she"? Or, more reasonably, an "it"?
Now Darth , to use his own terminology , is switching to local atheism and atheism according to his own definition is the denial of all gods . This is typical Darth at his most disingenuous .
@@midlander4 A fallacy fallacy is when you argue that a conclusion is false for no reason other than someone used a fallacy to try to support it. I did no such thing.
@@midlander4 It isn't a fallacy fallacy to simply argue that your interlocutor committed a fallacy. That's just the correct response when a fallacy is used against you, to invalidate it.
What pisses atheist off is that darth claims to do an internal critique, but then says that atheist can not ground intelligibility if not done with his god (external critique). Then he claims, but fails miserably that someone can't be agnostic when he uses, again, an external critique, even though the agnostic don't know if they are denying the existence of god, because which god is being denied? Romans 1 does not apply to non-Christian believers, and is a non sequiter for the discussion.
When doing an internal critique on an atheist, there's no mention of God. Your system is temporarily granted and you then fail to explain how the pre-conditions for intelligibility are justified. Because you've got nothing with the attributes needed to justify them. This really isn't that hard to understand.
@lightbeforethetunnel except you're attempting to plug in god. Here's the thing there is no Atheist world view, that is a Van til/Banshee made up thing. 2nd you have been debunked so many times, especially since you ground your intelligibility of knowledge in God, but you're a flat earther and other presuppers are globalist. God is lying to one of you if both are claiming that facts are grounded in God's revelation.
![[UNCUT] “บอสณวัฒน์” ลากไส้!! ใครหนุนหลัง "แม่ตั๊ก ป๋าเบียร์" I คนดังนั่งเคลียร์ I 30 ก.ย. 67](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/QlD7mU2KKRk/mqdefault.jpg)
My phone charger is universal! No god needed there!!
Darth am the big smart..........NOT!
Jesus was also illiterate!
At what point jehova become jesus?
No 1; invent a worldview that entails having an ultimate thingy that everything derives from.
No 2; say it's your Christian god.
No 3; ask what their ultimate thingy is in their worldview
They don't have one, you win!
Genius!!!!!!!!
What gets me is this equivocation between "thingy" and person- an individual (well, three) with personality, emotions, a throne, a human form, a personal name, etc. How does the ground of all being get to be a "he"? Why not a "she"? Or, more reasonably, an "it"?
@@peterwyetzner5276 or nothing at all!
i have yet to actually see an intelligent rebuttal from an atheist.
Now Darth , to use his own terminology , is switching to local atheism and atheism according to his own definition is the denial of all gods . This is typical Darth at his most disingenuous .
Darth did a really good job in this one. Dealt with the trolls really well.
He did a really good job reading his meaningless script and achieving nothing.
@midlander4 You did not do a good job, regarding what you just said. All you did was utilize an appeal to ridicule fallacy.
@lightbeforethetunnel ah yes... LBTT's favourite appeal to fallacy fallacy. Always a fantastic excuse for narcissistic bullying sky wizard not showing up.
@@midlander4 A fallacy fallacy is when you argue that a conclusion is false for no reason other than someone used a fallacy to try to support it. I did no such thing.
@@midlander4 It isn't a fallacy fallacy to simply argue that your interlocutor committed a fallacy. That's just the correct response when a fallacy is used against you, to invalidate it.
What pisses atheist off is that darth claims to do an internal critique, but then says that atheist can not ground intelligibility if not done with his god (external critique). Then he claims, but fails miserably that someone can't be agnostic when he uses, again, an external critique, even though the agnostic don't know if they are denying the existence of god, because which god is being denied?
Romans 1 does not apply to non-Christian believers, and is a non sequiter for the discussion.
When doing an internal critique on an atheist, there's no mention of God. Your system is temporarily granted and you then fail to explain how the pre-conditions for intelligibility are justified.
Because you've got nothing with the attributes needed to justify them.
This really isn't that hard to understand.
@lightbeforethetunnel except you're attempting to plug in god.
Here's the thing there is no Atheist world view, that is a Van til/Banshee made up thing.
2nd you have been debunked so many times, especially since you ground your intelligibility of knowledge in God, but you're a flat earther and other presuppers are globalist. God is lying to one of you if both are claiming that facts are grounded in God's revelation.