Better lie

Quote from: observer on December 27, 2016, 03:12:56 AM

Once again, if you feel you have any dignity then simply back up your accusation and show me where I said anything you claimed I said as requested in the previous 3 posts.

Again, I have. What is the point in doing it again when it is there for everyone to see a few posts up? You will just ignore it.

I will only address this portion as I refuse to derail every argument the way you are doing. Once this is resolved, I am more than happy to continue. This does not imply ignoring or avoiding of any sort before you jump to that conclusion.

After my request to prove your statement, you replied with multiple quotes and arguments not sticking to the topic. In that post, after you quoted my request you didn't provide it immediately, you rambled on as usual and then you quoted something which doesn't prove your assumption.

Quote from: observer on December 24, 2016, 01:33:08 AM

I tell you what, go through all my posts and find me one single instance where I typed anything that affirms your assumption that I'm providing "logical and rational proof or argument of God's existence" - Once you provide proof of the above statement, I will denounce my belief in God publicly.

I don't give a damn if you believe a God or not. All I want you do do, and that is from the start, is to admit that it is not a rational argument for God's existence and that the atheist was right to ask those questions to point out it wasn't a rational argument.

Here is a comment from you stating that the argument isn't wrong:

Quote from: observer on December 05, 2016, 09:59:38 PM

Quote from: JackBlack on December 04, 2016, 12:57:16 PM

That means you believe the first line of the argument is false.

No.

Again:
Only God (the creator) exists without cause. Everything "after" God has a cause. There is no concept according to Theists for "before God"

Is this the "proof" you provided that you are referring to stating that I ignored it? (This is a yes/no question)

Quote from: JackBlack on December 27, 2016, 03:48:34 AM

Quote from: observer on December 27, 2016, 03:12:56 AM

Once again, if you feel you have any dignity then simply back up your accusation and show me where I said anything you claimed I said as requested in the previous 3 posts.

Again, I have. What is the point in doing it again when it is there for everyone to see a few posts up? You will just ignore it.

I will only address this portion as I refuse to derail every argument the way you are doing.

But that is exactly what you are and have been doing.
You have been continually avoiding the questions and trying to derail the argument with insults and preaching at every opportunity.

This whole tangent started with you derailing the thread to avoid dealing with the argument.

Once this is resolved, I am more than happy to continue. This does not imply ignoring or avoiding of any sort before you jump to that conclusion.

No. It does imply that. You are claiming you never wanted to discuss the first cause argument, even though that was what you responded to to start this little conversation of ours. You continually asking for proof of that (especially after it is provided) is showing that you know it is crap and that I can see through your excuses. So you are doing what you can to avoid it.

After my request to prove your statement, you replied with multiple quotes and arguments not sticking to the topic. In that post, after you quoted my request you didn't provide it immediately, you rambled on as usual and then you quoted something which doesn't prove your assumption.

No. I broke apart your post to respond to each part individually so it was clear what I was responding to.
I then provided 2 quotes of yours (in different posts of mine), which clearly showed that this was what we were meant to be discussing.

If you want me to just stick to a tiny topic, then don't go rambling yourself. Don't go on a tirade with insults and slander and lies, as I will respond to each of them.

So no, it isn't rambling, and I did stay on topic.

Quote from: JackBlack on December 24, 2016, 02:33:58 AM

Here is a comment from you stating that the argument isn't wrong:

Quote from: observer on December 05, 2016, 09:59:38 PM

Quote from: JackBlack on December 04, 2016, 12:57:16 PM

That means you believe the first line of the argument is false.

No.

Again:
Only God (the creator) exists without cause. Everything "after" God has a cause. There is no concept according to Theists for "before God"

Is this the "proof" you provided that you are referring to stating that I ignored it? (This is a yes/no question)

Yes. That is one of them.
That is a statement from you claiming that the first line of the argument is true (while also going against the argument as it was presented and the simplest form of the first cause argument).
That is a statement from you defending the first cause argument.

But that isn't the most damning one.

Yes. That is one of them.
That is a statement from you claiming that the first line of the argument is true (while also going against the argument as it was presented and the simplest form of the first cause argument).
That is a statement from you defending the first cause argument.

But that isn't the most damning one.

So...god create the dome...or was the massons? i get lost in the argument...

Quote from: JackBlack on December 23, 2016, 12:54:43 PM

He is claiming that it is a rational, logical proof of God's existence/argument for God's existence.

I tell you what, go through all my posts and find me one single instance where I typed anything that affirms your assumption that I'm providing "logical and rational proof or argument of God's existence"

Yes. That is one of them.
That is a statement from you claiming that the first line of the argument is true (while also going against the argument as it was presented and the simplest form of the first cause argument).
That is a statement from you defending the first cause argument.

But that isn't the most damning one.

And how is this proof that I'm providing logical/rational proof of God's existence? Show me where I'm giving proof of God's existence. Nothing else. Just prove your accusation and wild assumptions. I'm not asking for you to do any maths, just copy my statement and paste it to show everyone your claims.

So again, I repeat:
Find me one single instance where I typed anything that affirms your assumption that I'm providing "logical and rational proof or argument of God's existence"

And how is this proof that I'm providing logical/rational proof of God's existence? Show me where I'm giving proof of God's existence. Nothing else. Just prove your accusation and wild assumptions. I'm not asking for you to do any maths, just copy my statement and paste it to show everyone your claims.

So again, I repeat:
Find me one single instance where I typed anything that affirms your assumption that I'm providing "logical and rational proof or argument of God's existence"

Provide evidence of where I ever claimed you were providing (not defending, providing) a "logical and rational proof or argument of God's existence".

Quote from: observer on December 27, 2016, 11:01:38 PM

And how is this proof that I'm providing logical/rational proof of God's existence? Show me where I'm giving proof of God's existence. Nothing else. Just prove your accusation and wild assumptions. I'm not asking for you to do any maths, just copy my statement and paste it to show everyone your claims.

So again, I repeat:
Find me one single instance where I typed anything that affirms your assumption that I'm providing "logical and rational proof or argument of God's existence"

Provide evidence of where I ever claimed you were providing (not defending, providing) a "logical and rational proof or argument of God's existence".

Still waiting

Quote from: JackBlack on December 28, 2016, 12:03:18 AM

Quote from: observer on December 27, 2016, 11:01:38 PM

And how is this proof that I'm providing logical/rational proof of God's existence? Show me where I'm giving proof of God's existence. Nothing else. Just prove your accusation and wild assumptions. I'm not asking for you to do any maths, just copy my statement and paste it to show everyone your claims.

So again, I repeat:
Find me one single instance where I typed anything that affirms your assumption that I'm providing "logical and rational proof or argument of God's existence"

Provide evidence of where I ever claimed you were providing (not defending, providing) a "logical and rational proof or argument of God's existence".

Still waiting

Nope. I'm still waiting.

Where in that does it show me claiming you as PROVIDING a rational, logical proof (or attempting to)?
Or are you claiming that defending the proof and claiming it isn't wrong/invalid/unsound is the same as providing one?

Where in that does it show me claiming you as PROVIDING a rational, logical proof (or attempting to)?
Or are you claiming that defending the proof and claiming it isn't wrong/invalid/unsound is the same as providing one?

Your quote, not mine:
He (as in me) is claiming that "it is" (definitive phrase) a rational, logical proof of God's existence

How can you possibly try to avoid your own quote even after I pasted it 3 or more times? You atheists are so buried in denial it's unreal. The inability to accept an answer and the sheer arrogance to completely dismiss everything provided if it doesn't suit your agenda is unparalleled.

I will repeat the proof again so you can go back to my request which you're clearly avoiding.

He is claiming that it is a rational, logical proof of God's existence/argument for God's existence.

So can you or can you not provide any proof of your claims or do you accept that you are incapable of understanding/or did not understand any of my answers provided to be able to jump to such incorrect conclusions to imply and impute words to me that I did not write?

Quote from: JackBlack on December 28, 2016, 01:11:50 PM

Where in that does it show me claiming you as PROVIDING a rational, logical proof (or attempting to)?
Or are you claiming that defending the proof and claiming it isn't wrong/invalid/unsound is the same as providing one?

Your quote, not mine:
He (as in me) is claiming that "it is" (definitive phrase) a rational, logical proof of God's existence

How can you possibly try to avoid your own quote even after I pasted it 3 or more times? You atheists are so buried in denial it's unreal. The inability to accept an answer and the sheer arrogance to completely dismiss everything provided if it doesn't suit your agenda is unparalleled.

I'm not avoiding it.
I'm just doing what you are doing, but more honestly.

That is me claiming that you are claiming that it is a rational, logical proof of God's existence. Not that you are providing it. You are just saying that an argument someone else provided is.
No. We are not the ones in denial.
We aren't dismissing your crap because it doesn't suit our agenda.
We are dismissing your crap because it is a bunch of baseless claims/beliefs.

I will repeat the proof again so you can go back to my request which you're clearly avoiding.

Quote from: JackBlack on December 23, 2016, 12:54:43 PM

He is claiming that it is a rational, logical proof of God's existence/argument for God's existence.

So can you or can you not provide any proof of your claims or do you accept that you are incapable of understanding/or did not understand any of my answers provided to be able to jump to such incorrect conclusions to imply and impute words to me that I did not write?

Nope. You are the one playing avoidance here.
I have provided evidence of my claims. I haven't provided evidence of your claims, and neither have you.
I am quite capable of understanding what you have said, and that means realising that they are not answers that should be used in a rational debate as they are baseless claims.

So, do you want to keep going down this path of bullshit, or do you want to get back to the topic at hand, which was the first cause argument?

That is me claiming that you are claiming that it is a rational, logical proof of God's existence. Not that you are providing it. You are just saying that an argument someone else provided is.

Do you have any idea how pathetic your sentences are? And how much it doesn't make sense?

You say I am claiming that [some statement] is a rational, logical proof of God's existence. Correct? Moving on...
Meaning... a statement I made is me trying to prove rationally/logically God's existence? Still following?
So... according to you, that statement is me providing proof.
Therefore, I ask you for the 10th time, quote me where I provided proof of God's existence.

Repeating:
"So can you or can you not provide any proof of your claims or do you accept that you are incapable of understanding/or did not understand any of my answers provided to be able to jump to such incorrect conclusions to imply and impute words to me that I did not write?"

Or to dumb it down for you according to your own sentence above, please quote and provide proof of where I claimed a reason to be a rational, logical proof of God's existence. Still waiting and it's almost 2017

Quote from: JackBlack on December 28, 2016, 11:19:00 PM

That is me claiming that you are claiming that it is a rational, logical proof of God's existence. Not that you are providing it. You are just saying that an argument someone else provided is.

Do you have any idea how pathetic your sentences are? And how much it doesn't make sense?

Somewhat. It is pathetic picking at straws akin to what you have been doing, and pointless deflection (and ignoring presented evidence) like you have been doing.

You say I am claiming that [some statement] is a rational, logical proof of God's existence. Correct? Moving on...
Meaning... a statement I made is me trying to prove rationally/logically God's existence? Still following?
So... according to you, that statement is me providing proof.

Technically no.
You are trying to defend a proof put forth by someone else and attack the disproof put forth by an atheist, calling the atheist stupid in the process.

Therefore, I ask you for the 10th time, quote me where I provided proof of God's existence.

Repeating:
"So can you or can you not provide any proof of your claims or do you accept that you are incapable of understanding/or did not understand any of my answers provided to be able to jump to such incorrect conclusions to imply and impute words to me that I did not write?"

Or to dumb it down for you according to your own sentence above, please quote and provide proof of where I claimed a reason to be a rational, logical proof of God's existence. Still waiting and it's almost 2017

If you do think that is providing a proof, then I have already given you your evidence, you just ignore it. I won't be bothering with this bullshit anymore.
Either get back to the topic at hand, or just shut up.

Now like I said, how about we quit with all the bullshit and get back to the topic at hand.

Do you think the first cause argument is a sound proof of God's existence, yes or no?

If you do think that is providing a proof, then I have already given you your evidence, you just ignore it.

That was not evidence of your claim.

Ignoring means reading something and not replying to it (like I'm doing with your off-topic rambling). Your "evidence" is inconclusive and does not prove your claim that I'm giving evidence of God's existence and I there's nothing to refute since you haven't provided any explanation on why you think that's me providing proof. So it's you who is ignoring again and again and again.

So can you or can you not provide this so called proof I gave for God's existence? If it's the same previous quote then explain why that's proof because no where in there can I see me proving God's existence.

So can you or can you not provide this so called proof I gave for God's existence? If it's the same previous quote then explain why that's proof because no where in there can I see me proving God's existence.

It is you defending the first cause argument, an argument for gods existence.
Like I said, it is only one of the quotes I provided.

Now then,
Do you think the first cause argument is a sound argument for gods existence?

Or alternatively, do you think atheists are stupid for questioning the first cause argument with questions like "then what caused god" or "why does God have a cause and the universe doesn't"?

Can you answer either of those questions?

Quote from: observer on December 29, 2016, 03:21:21 AM

So can you or can you not provide this so called proof I gave for God's existence? If it's the same previous quote then explain why that's proof because no where in there can I see me proving God's existence.

It is you defending the first cause argument, an argument for gods existence.
Like I said, it is only one of the quotes I provided.

Now then,
Do you think the first cause argument is a sound argument for gods existence?

Or alternatively, do you think atheists are stupid for questioning the first cause argument with questions like "then what caused god" or "why does God have a cause and the universe doesn't"?

Can you answer either of those questions?

Yes I can answer these but why is that atheists demand all answers yet deny answering anything themselves?

I was not defending God's existence either. If I was, provide the quote where I specifically defended his "existence" as a specific issue. If you cannot provide this do you have any intention of stopping false claims, accusations and assumptions? Or is that like a special skill of atheists to distort answers and explanations with ones own meaning?

Quote from: JackBlack on December 29, 2016, 03:35:39 AM

Quote from: observer on December 29, 2016, 03:21:21 AM

So can you or can you not provide this so called proof I gave for God's existence? If it's the same previous quote then explain why that's proof because no where in there can I see me proving God's existence.

It is you defending the first cause argument, an argument for gods existence.
Like I said, it is only one of the quotes I provided.

Now then,
Do you think the first cause argument is a sound argument for gods existence?

Or alternatively, do you think atheists are stupid for questioning the first cause argument with questions like "then what caused god" or "why does God have a cause and the universe doesn't"?

Can you answer either of those questions?

Yes I can answer these but why is that atheists demand all answers yet deny answering anything themselves?

I was not defending God's existence either. If I was, provide the quote where I specifically defended his "existence" as a specific issue. If you cannot provide this do you have any intention of stopping false claims, accusations and assumptions? Or is that like a special skill of atheists to distort answers and explanations with ones own meaning?

You were defending an argument for God's existence.
Again, I have provided it. I have not been making false claims, accusations or assumptions. That would be you, repeatedly, such as repeatedly asserting I can't understand simple concepts, calling the atheist stupid for questioning the theist's claims and so on.
You are also the one continually distorting things to suit your own agenda, being almost completely unable to answer simple questions and only capable of answering when repeatedly pushed.

How about you quit with distractions and get back to the topic at hand?
Do you think the first cause argument is a sound argument for gods existence?

Or alternatively, do you think atheists are stupid for questioning the first cause argument with questions like "then what caused god" or "why does God have a cause and the universe doesn't"?

You were defending an argument for God's existence.

And you still haven't proven the above lie

Again, I have provided it.

Another lie. If it's not a lie, show me where. The one you provided has been answered and you couldn't refute the answer. If you did, I'd have something to reply to.

I have not been making false claims, accusations or assumptions.

Yet, you cannot prove the very false claims and accusations I've been asking proof for the past (lost count) number of posts.

That would be you, repeatedly, such as repeatedly asserting I can't understand simple concepts

Your inability to answer is plenty to confirm this.

calling the atheist stupid for questioning the theist's claims and so on.

Again, prove where I called the atheist stupid a single time. You really amazing at lying. I couldn't lie this cleanly even if I tried my best.

You are also the one continually distorting things to suit your own agenda

For me to distort things, you need to provide answers. Since you don't provide any answers, there's nothing to distort even if I wanted to. However, I've answered constantly and you've distorted it regularly. Besides, you're a proven liar so I don't need to justify this anymore.

being almost completely unable to answer simple questions and only capable of answering when repeatedly pushed.

Yet, I've answered everything from the beginning until you were pushed to prove your lies and accusations. You're still avoiding it even now. Are you really that blind to this clear fact?

How about you quit with distractions and get back to the topic at hand?

Distractions like your lies and accusations and puttings words into posts that aren't actually there? You mean those distractions?

Do you think the first cause argument is a sound argument for gods existence?

Answers available on page 1, page 2, etc but as it doesn't suit your agenda they don't exist right? Learn to counter-argue statements. Completely dismissing is a sign of ignorance and you clearly are incapable of providing counter arguments. Your method of counter-arguing is to instantly dismiss and call it "bullshit" - Genius

Or alternatively, do you think atheists are stupid for questioning the first cause argument with questions like "then what caused god" or "why does God have a cause and the universe doesn't"?

Now you're asking if I "THINK" atheists are stupid. Earlier you said I called atheists stupid. So what it is? Either I didn't call atheists stupid and you just lied as you do or you I did call atheists stupid according to your earlier statement and now you've forgotten that information by the time you reached your last sentence and have to accordingly ask me if I think atheists are stupid. Liars can never keep track as they're delusional with warped perception of all facts and information.

So are you back up or any of your lies or not? Will you answer a single question above or you want to continue from your lies which would be based on false information so I'd have to rewind to the beginning to bring you back on track? What's it gonna be?

How long can you guys keep going?

How many times can you lie in the one post?

I won't bother quoting it because of the sheer number of lies in it and will just respond to a few things.

Answers are not the only things you can distort.
You can also distort arguments and questions.
That is what you were doing right from the start.

You have not answered everything.
Right from the start you repeatedly avoided answering, manipulating the questions to get out of answering.
When you do finally get around to answering really important questions, rather than actually answering you just provide baseless beliefs.

Here is the post where you called the hypothetical atheist stupid (which began your defence of the first cause argument):

Quote from: southern hemispherer on December 02, 2016, 06:52:55 AM

THEIST: Everything has a cause. The universe too must have had a cause. That cause is God.

ATHEIST: Well what caused God then?

THEIST: God is uncaused. The existence of the universe requires a cause. God does not.

ATHEIST: But if you’re going to make an exception to the rule that everything has a cause, why not make the universe the exception? Why do you posit the existence of a further entity–God–for which we have no proof? Why can’t the universe itself be uncaused?

THEIST: Er … because?

Sounds a bit like FE reasoning!

I'm sure atheists are not dumb enough to say the above. Your logic actually ends on number 2

Quote

THEIST: Everything has a cause. The universe too must have had a cause. That cause is God.

ATHEIST: Well what caused God then?

THEIST: If something caused God then that wouldn't be God.

Page numbers are pointless, as different people can have a different number of posts per page.

Yes, your answers are there, but they are not always consistent, and you are pretending it never happened, demanding evidence for it, so I figured I would ask you again, but of course, you don't want to directly answer as that would show your dishonesty.

You are yet to prove anything, especially about me, so yes, you do need to justify your claims, especially those about me.

I am completely justified in dismissing your baseless claims/beliefs rather than accepting them as part of a rational argument or part of a justification for such an argument.

Now then, last chance, get back to the topic at hand, the first cause argument, or I am done with your pathetic childish bullshit.

Here, I'll even ask the questions again to get us back on topic:
Do you think the first cause argument is a sound argument for gods existence?

Or alternatively, do you think atheists are stupid for questioning the first cause argument with questions like "then what caused god" or "why does God have a cause and the universe doesn't"?

How long can you guys keep going?

Some people take a break from work with cigarettes, some with a walk... I take a break with this one who cannot stop contradicting himself and attributing his own delusional state on others.

How long can you guys keep going?

I hope it's entertainment if not enlightening

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on December 30, 2016, 12:29:36 PM

How long can you guys keep going?

Some people take a break from work with cigarettes, some with a walk... I take a break with this one who cannot stop contradicting himself and attributing his own delusional state on others.

Says the one doing exactly that...

How about you stop being childish and try and get back to the topic?

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on December 30, 2016, 12:29:36 PM

How long can you guys keep going?

I hope it's entertainment if not enlightening

It's like İntikam v Papa Legba without subtitles.

How many times can you lie in the one post?

So if you don't understand something, it's a lie?
If you cannot answer it, it's a lie?
If you disagree, it's a lie?

I can prove your lies, can you? This challenge can be added to the the previous one about your assumption on me trying to prove God's existence which you still haven't clarified or proven.

I won't bother quoting it because of the sheer number of lies in it and will just respond to a few things.

Calling it a lie doesn't make it a lie. I showed your lies as quotes. You just state "LIE" and expect it to affect me or the readers. It doesn't work that way. Back it up.

Answers are not the only things you can distort.
You can also distort arguments and questions.
That is what you were doing right from the start.

Says you. I guess that makes it conclusive.

You have not answered everything.
Right from the start you repeatedly avoided answering, manipulating the questions to get out of answering.
When you do finally get around to answering really important questions, rather than actually answering you just provide baseless beliefs.

Yet I've explained and provided follow ups on everything. You on the other hand dismiss as "bullshit" when it goes beyond you.

Here is the post where you called the hypothetical atheist stupid (which began your defence of the first cause argument):

Do you mean where I hypothetically called the atheist stupid. There's no such thing as a hypothetical atheist. Either way, you didn't say that did you? You said I called atheist stupid. Calling someone stupid and implying stupidity are two completely different things. Implying something is also subjective and most times a person only assumes they're being called stupid when they actually feel stupid otherwise it's just another statement, point, argument, etc. and life goes on with a discussion.

Quote from: southern hemispherer on December 02, 2016, 06:52:55 AM

THEIST: Everything has a cause. The universe too must have had a cause. That cause is God.

ATHEIST: Well what caused God then?

THEIST: God is uncaused. The existence of the universe requires a cause. God does not.

ATHEIST: But if you’re going to make an exception to the rule that everything has a cause, why not make the universe the exception? Why do you posit the existence of a further entity–God–for which we have no proof? Why can’t the universe itself be uncaused?

THEIST: Er … because?

Sounds a bit like FE reasoning!

I'm sure atheists are not dumb enough to say the above. Your logic actually ends on number 2

Quote

THEIST: Everything has a cause. The universe too must have had a cause. That cause is God.

ATHEIST: Well what caused God then?

THEIST: If something caused God then that wouldn't be God.

Also, I explained why the logic in the quote ends on number 2 and to continue beyond that is stupidity as reason doesn't apply after understanding why the approach is completely different for a theist and an atheist. Also, I gave a little credit to atheists for NOT BEING DUMB. Not the other way around. I bet you take receiving a flower to be some sort of act of war right because it may contain thorns?

Page numbers are pointless, as different people can have a different number of posts per page.

Ok

Yes, your answers are there, but they are not always consistent, and you are pretending it never happened, demanding evidence for it, so I figured I would ask you again, but of course, you don't want to directly answer as that would show your dishonesty.

Then argue, reply, respond, counter-argue, break it down, simplify parts of it, work it out. Why do you resort to lies and personal conclusions based on assumptions which you cannot even back up?

You are yet to prove anything, especially about me, so yes, you do need to justify your claims, especially those about me.

I'm ready to prove anything I've said. With confidence. Just quote it and I'll prove my statements about you. If I cannot, you win. The problem is you are unwilling to do the same because liars cannot win. Sadly this is the case with you and I'm certain of this too and have already proven in the last few posts how easily you lie and probably genuinely believe in your own state of mind for it to be true.

I am completely justified in dismissing your baseless claims/beliefs rather than accepting them as part of a rational argument or part of a justification for such an argument.

Finally you admit you dismiss without proof or reason. Just because you don't understand or accept it you dismiss it. This is not what you call argument, it's a sales pitch. Your attitude is, convince and I'll buy it or I walk out of the shop. Great debating skills!

Now then, last chance, get back to the topic at hand, the first cause argument, or I am done with your pathetic childish bullshit.

Nice try! At least you're sticking by your advanced method of debate and intellect.

Here, I'll even ask the questions again to get us back on topic:
Do you think the first cause argument is a sound argument for gods existence?

Or alternatively, do you think atheists are stupid for questioning the first cause argument with questions like "then what caused god" or "why does God have a cause and the universe doesn't"?

So you cannot prove the last issues and accept you were wrong? Sure we can move on to this once you confirm this.

No. Quotes are useless to you, as you just dismiss them.
I provided them, you dismissed them.

Your response was that you were still waiting.
So no, you cannot win against a liar by showing they are a liar. That won't magically make them admit they have been lying.

You called the hypothetical atheist stupid, when that is exactly what actual atheists do, and what I have been doing.
There is no practical difference between suggesting someone is stupid for asking a question like that (even a hypothetical person) and calling someone who does ask that stupid.
By suggesting you need to be stupid to ask such a question you are calling everyone that asks that question, stupid.
So yes, you have called people stupid, and it has nothing to do with them feeling stupid.

So no, you weren't giving them credit, you were just calling them stupid but trying to cover it up.

It has nothing to do with the atheist not understanding.
It has everything to do with the theist not understanding that they can't just baselessly assert things (not even their beliefs) as part of an argument.

You are yet to rationally justify why the universe needs a cause and your god does not. That is the key flaw of the first cause argument.
Any argument for the universe needing a cause works just as well for your god needing a cause.
Any argument for your god not needing one works just as well for the universe.
When I presented such an argument for the universe akin to what you did for God, you dismissed it as ignorance.

You didn't explain why the logic ends on number 2.
You indirectly explained why the theist is incapable of using logic.
You did pretty much the same thing as the hypothetical theist, just asserting that God doesn't have a cause.
You later tried to change the first part to be everything except God has a cause, in which case you skip lines 2 and 3 and go straight to a variation on line 4: Why does the universe need a cause, but God does not?

And all you have done to "justify" that is baselessly asserted your beliefs as if I should just accept it as part of a rational argument.

So you need the "logic" to end before line 2, because if you let the atheist question the argument it falls to pieces because all your god does is push the problem back.

Yes, it is completely different for an atheist and a theist.
A theist is just looking for any pathetic excuse to justify their belief, but instead all they get is a statement of their beliefs, but they don't care.
For the atheist, they need to be convinced, so the baseless beliefs of the theist don't help at all.

If you need to assume the theists beliefs before proceeding with the argument, then it isn't an argument, it is a tautology (aka circular reasoning).

I don't dismiss it without proof or reason.
I dismiss it because it is a baseless belief.
What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Until you justify your beliefs, they have no place in a rational argument and the rational thing to do is dismiss them.
It isn't because I don't like them or because I don't understand them. I understand it quite well, but there you go lying about me and making assumptions about me which are pure bullshit and which you have no backing for at all.

Yes, what you have is a sales pitch, and a very pathetic one at that. It is completely unconvincing to anyone who wishes to use their brain.
You are trying to sell useless crap which no one in their right mind would buy.
So what is wrong with me rejecting it and walking out?
The burden of proof rests entirely upon you (the theists).
You are asserting that your god exists, so you need to prove it. If you can't, I have no reason to believe in its existence.

Are you seriously suggesting people should just buy anything they are offered?

If you want to try proving something you have said, I can go down the technical BS route you have and ask you to provide proof that I claimed you were providing (an attempt at) a rational argument for gods existence, not defending actually providing.

Or I can go the more honest route of asking you to prove I don't understand your baseless claims.
Before you go trying, remember that not accepting is not the same as not understanding.

But I would rather get back to the debate rather than have you continue with your childish bullshit of ignoring evidence provided against you and pretending the crap you provide is evidence.

I'll try to simplify it more since you're still incapable of answering the issues and just ramble on and totally ignoring my post most likely because you do not have answers for it. Saying "I can't be bothered" is the sorriest weakest excuse on a forum as you clearly shouldn't be posting anything if you don't have the stamina.

Back to topic means dismissing your lies and misunderstood perception of everything that is relevant. In order to return to that, you need to clarify your assumptions or even justify your lies.

Do you concede and agree that your assumptions are baseless and based on your deep devotion to atheism that ALL answers are ruled as "bullshit" if it doesn't validate your beliefs? If you agree (since you haven't backed up anything) then we can move back to the other issue.

I'll try to simplify it more since you're still incapable of answering the issues and just ramble on and totally ignoring my post most likely because you do not have answers for it. Saying "I can't be bothered" is the sorriest weakest excuse on a forum as you clearly shouldn't be posting anything if you don't have the stamina.

Back to topic means dismissing your lies and misunderstood perception of everything that is relevant. In order to return to that, you need to clarify your assumptions or even justify your lies.

Do you concede and agree that your assumptions are baseless and based on your deep devotion to atheism that ALL answers are ruled as "bullshit" if it doesn't validate your beliefs? If you agree (since you haven't backed up anything) then we can move back to the other issue.

No. I concede no such thing.

Getting back to the topic means you stop acting like a pathetic child continually going off on tangents to try and avoid the rational conclusion of the debate which shows the first cause argument to be extremely flawed.

But there you go lying once again, saying I was totally ignoring your post, when I answered most of it.

You are yet to demonstrate that I have misunderstood anything.
Again, not accepting your baseless garbage doesn't mean I don't understand.


Again, you are the one defending the first cause argument. As such, you are the one with the burden of proof.
That means you need to back up your claims. You don't just get to baselessly assert crap and expect people to refute your crap rather than dismissing it.

I'm not ruling your "answers" as bullshit because I don't believe them or it doesn't validate my LACK OF belief. I rule them as bullshit because they are baseless garbage. I even explained that, and explained how they work for each other as well to further show all your god does is push the problem back.

I will not agree to your bullshit lies.

I don't need to justify my lies as you are the one lying here.

You say I am claiming that [some statement] is a rational, logical proof of God's existence. Correct? Moving on...
Meaning... a statement I made is me trying to prove rationally/logically God's existence? Still following?
So... according to you, that statement is me providing proof.
Therefore, I ask you for the 10th time, quote me where I provided proof of God's existence.

Repeating:
"So can you or can you not provide any proof of your claims or do you accept that you are incapable of understanding/or did not understand any of my answers provided to be able to jump to such incorrect conclusions to imply and impute words to me that I did not write?"

Or to dumb it down for you according to your own sentence above, please quote and provide proof of where I claimed a reason to be a rational, logical proof of God's existence. Still waiting and it's almost 2017

This

It is 2017.. still waiting

Do you notice the difference between you and I?
When I corned you, pointing out that you were continually dodging the question, and you asked to start again, I accepted.

Now, after your second defeat, you act like a pathetic child, sticking your fingers in your ear ignoring evidence that is presented to you.
When I try and get the argument back on topic, even if it is starting again, you just bring up the same crap again and again as if you know you are full of shit and completely incapable of defending the argument, so you need to go down the path of pretending you never tried.

Grow up.

When you are ready to get back on topic, rather than acting like a pathetic baby upset for not getting your way, let me know.