Wednesday, November 17, 2010

asserting a being as necessary and transcendent?

I have encountered this video several times in online debates. This video is bad, very bad. This video is not good logic. The first argument is just bad. You use the same logic on both beings. But, lets get down to their main argument. God is a necessary being. That is exactly the point we are disputing. This argument is retarded in so many ways. They assert their god is necessary. This is begging the question. The very question we are asking them to prove. We can simply assert the same characteristics for the flying spaghetti monster or the invisible pink unicorn and it means nothing. They are simply asserting the need to believe in their being without providing any proof.

People who make this argument are just simply unwilling to take the step back and start without the assumption god is more important. There argument assumes this. That is pure stupidity on its highest level. I love how they assert the spaghetti monster does not change reason and knowledge but their god does, hmm more assertions about the characteristics. I assert the flying spaghetti monster does effect reason and knowledge. See just how bad this video is. When I use random beings such as the invisible pink unicorn or flying spaghetti monster, I use them to show exactly where the assertion is. Sorry this argument was just so bad and I have seen it too many times now, just needed to rant.