J Hubner wrote:

incoherence of omnipotence

Demonstration, rather than assertions? You seem to be adept at slipping these tid-bits... However the carfull reader will notice that the '' inchorence of omnipotence'' is far from being an established fact.

This has been demonstrated a hundred times here, you just keep avoiding it.

Look, just one page ago, on this very post :

aban57 wrote:To me, it looks more like you want us to disappear because we are the very proof that your god is not omnipotent.
If he were, he would bring us into the right path, just because "god is love".
But since he doesn't do it, it makes you doubt his existance. So you prefer see us disappear that questionning your faith.
That's the problem to all believers : even though you're proven wrong every day, you prefer staying blind to your faith

And that's only one aspect of this incoherence. Only beeing able to appear on dog's ass, or toasts, to prove his existance to all us ignorants is another one, among dozens.

iam43 wrote:

ispoketoanangel wrote:The only logical conclusion would be that whatever command I am receiving doesn't come from God, since there cannot be a contradiction between my core convictions and God commands, as my core convictions are rooted in God Himself. If I would turn out to be wrong, then I would be at His feet asking for His forgiveness.

god has feet?

God materialises feet when he requires abject abasement.

J Hubner wrote:

the incoherence of omnipotence has been demonstrated time and time again on this forum.

Dont make me laugh.

And when you're done, please answer the questions answered to you, for a change...

J Hubner wrote:

the incoherence of omnipotence has been demonstrated time and time again on this forum.

Dont make me laugh.

Another non-response. Bravo, Hubner, bravo!

Between J Hubner laughing instead of answering, and ispoketoanangel who disapeared when we started asking questions, it looks like we won't get many answers, as usual...

aban57 wrote:Between J Hubner laughing instead of answering, and ispoketoanangel who disapeared when we started asking questions, it looks like we won't get many answers, as usual...

We could try praying?

well we could, but then we would have hard time explaining that atheism is not a religion, it's already hard enough...

J Hubner wrote:

aban57 wrote:Between J Hubner laughing instead of answering, and ispoketoanangel who disapeared when we started asking questions, it looks like we won't get many answers, as usual...

I dont have time to answer all the bilge you spout on a huge topic!

But you have time to post non-responses. There's a clear pattern here, Hubner.

Have you read this incidentally?

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/annou ... t-t76.html

J Hubner wrote:

aban57 wrote:Between J Hubner laughing instead of answering, and ispoketoanangel who disapeared when we started asking questions, it looks like we won't get many answers, as usual...

I dont have time to answer all the bilge you spout on a huge topic!

Hahahahaha that's the worst excuse I've heard in days

When you christians "spout bilge" (whatever that means), we take time to demonstrate you're wrong, point by point. (Just look at Cali's average lenght of posts...)

But when we ask you to prove what you say, you just don't have time ?

Even to a simple mind, it shows without any doubt that you have nothing you answer.

And by the way, "huge post" ? 5 pages is a huge post to you ????

J Hubner wrote:

aban57 wrote:

J Hubner wrote:

aban57 wrote:Between J Hubner laughing instead of answering, and ispoketoanangel who disapeared when we started asking questions, it looks like we won't get many answers, as usual...

I dont have time to answer all the bilge you spout on a huge topic!

Hahahahaha that's the worst excuse I've heard in days

When you christians "spout bilge" (whatever that means), we take time to demonstrate you're wrong, point by point. (Just look at Cali's average lenght of posts...)

But when we ask you to prove what you say, you just don't have time ?

Even to a simple mind, it shows without any doubt that you have nothing you answer.

And by the way, "huge post" ? 5 pages is a huge post to you ????

You people answer so much to our claims because we are few and you many here. Send me a money order by pay-pall, pm me for this, il give you the info, and il do the work and take a look at all of your claims. 10$ for the basic responses, and 25$ for the delux treatement.

I don't work for free.

So you want us to pay for your perpetual non-answers ??
You sound exactly like those tele-evangelists or fortune tellers

J Hubner wrote:

You people answer so much to our claims because we are few and you many here. Send me a money order by pay-pall, pm me for this, il give you the info, and il do the work and take a look at all of your claims. 10$ for the basic responses, and 25$ for the delux treatement.

I don't work for free.

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/annou ... t-t76.html

Membership Agreement

Members of rationalskepticism.org agree to:

1.6. not spam or solicit

Alternatively, you could consider this to be, as it manifestly is, a public discussion forum.

If you make an argument and then fail cataclysmically to offer any support for your ridiculous assertions, then you can expect to be called on it. If you can't support your ludicrous nonsense, there are several options available to you - one might be to stop posting evasions that constitute a non-response. Another might be to retract your stupid assertion. You have clearly opted for a slighly unusual 3rd option of trying to blame your interlocutors for your own lack of ability to respond.

Let's see how that works out for you.

J Hubner wrote:

hackenslash wrote:Hahahaha. You think your intellectual farts are worth money? Fuck me, but this is priceless!

Meh, you people actually have site donators for your collective brain farts, its only fairt that I try to make a little money of my own.

Why do you come here if you have such a low opinion of people? Do you think you've 'found your level'?

J Hubner wrote:trubble76RS Donator you could send me a little donation, not much, just enough to buy myself a couple of cups of coffee or a few packs of Gum.

More soliciting!