[nkb]

selliedjoup wrote

Geez you're thick.

Geez, you're a retarded little muppet.

selliedjoup wrote

The first cause is undefined based on the traits you require for scientific validation.

Just because you said so. The term "undefined" is a completely meaningless term in the context that you use it in. It's a cheap trick to avoid examination of your anally-extracted explanation.

selliedjoup wrote

You place science at the centre of your universe.

Even if that were true, it beats placing unfounded speculation and wishful thinking at the center of yours.

selliedjoup wrote

If god is unknowable, it would be unknowable (Sorry it's merely a byproduct of being unknowable).

Do you understand the concept of circular reasoning (I'm not sure you do)? You're starting with the "unknowable" assumption, just because you think it makes your arguments easier. It doesn't, it's just a big, fat, hairy copout.

selliedjoup wrote

Are you claiming that it's knowable and does or doesn't exist? and if so based on what?

Am I claiming that your imagined nebulous entity, for which you have presented absolutely nothing except retarded reasoning, is knowable? Do you understand how stupid that question is?

selliedjoup wrote

This is where you'll fuck it up as no one has given you an answer and you'll have to try and think for yourself. Stick with occam's razor. It seems the most simple explanation suits the most simple.

And it takes a real deep guy like you to add a layer of superfluous complexity, and think it actually explains anything at all.

selliedjoup wrote

You're really not a smart man are you, but do you know what love is?

I'm not the smartest guy around, but, holy shit, compared to you, I look like a fucking genius.

selliedjoup wrote

That's a poor comparison as there is evidence to discount creationism.

You got it all wrong. Creationism is unknowable, so there can't be any evidence against it. You must be thinking of the knowable creationism.

selliedjoup wrote

Do you have the same to discount a first cause?

I have not discounted a first cause, I (and everyone else here) am disounting your presentation of an argument for a first cause. Do you understand the difference?

There may be a first cause, but maybe someone with half a brain should take over for you to try to sell it. Maybe, just maybe, that person will rise above a retarded "undefined thing is undefined" approach. Anything, and I mean anything, is better than that.