Circularity & Self-Reference is a Taboo?

[Eodnhoj7]

No they don't. People just reject your version of all that which is upside down.

Hm a VA vs Johndoe showdown. Who should one root for here? I'm confused.

As long as they don't kiss, I am happy to see what happens. Maybe one of them will evolve a new talent.

I am surprised that you know what the concept of talent means, I always thought such things were foreign to you, conceptualization and talent I mean. Apparently there is more to you than meets the eye...now go tell a clever joke to convince yourself you are clever.

[FlashDangerpants]

Hm a VA vs Johndoe showdown. Who should one root for here? I'm confused.

As long as they don't kiss, I am happy to see what happens. Maybe one of them will evolve a new talent.

I am surprised that you know what the concept of talent means, I always thought such things were foreign to you, conceptualization and talent I mean. Apparently there is more to you than meets the eye...now go tell a clever joke to convince yourself you are clever.

You should have really only needed one sentence there.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Firstly, I already told you that you are applying natural limits to a supernatural being in that argument, so there's a single game ender just there. To be honest I don't know how many other massive failings anybody can find with it.

But I don't treat it as an argument that I need to care about. It's an intelligence test, anybody with any level of skill or talent should have no real problem defeating that argument, it's as if it were constructed to be an example of an argument that doesn't work. That's the limit of its value to me.

I'm sorry if you got the wrong end of the stick and thought that I would stoop to getting into a big debate about that actual argument, it's just that one and the oughtness to breathe argument among a few of your other spectacular missteps are sort of useful for gauging whether you have made any progress in those 7 years or so, and maybe I would point somebody like Advocate at them just to see if he is less stupid than you. But they are nothing to me beyond that.

You are too hasty due to biasness.
I don't see any problem with the argument;

• P1. Theists claim, God must be absolutely perfect and existing as real [i.],
  
  P2. But, Absolute perfection is impossible to exist as real.
  
  C1. Therefore it is impossible for God to exist as real.

I provided detailed explanations to the above premises in the posts that follow.

It is not me who is applying a natural limit to a supernatural being.
It is the theists who are applying the naturalism [realness] to a metaphysical supernatural being.
My point is to show they are conflating metaphysical ontology with the natural empirical ontology.

[FlashDangerpants]

Firstly, I already told you that you are applying natural limits to a supernatural being in that argument, so there's a single game ender just there. To be honest I don't know how many other massive failings anybody can find with it.

But I don't treat it as an argument that I need to care about. It's an intelligence test, anybody with any level of skill or talent should have no real problem defeating that argument, it's as if it were constructed to be an example of an argument that doesn't work. That's the limit of its value to me.

I'm sorry if you got the wrong end of the stick and thought that I would stoop to getting into a big debate about that actual argument, it's just that one and the oughtness to breathe argument among a few of your other spectacular missteps are sort of useful for gauging whether you have made any progress in those 7 years or so, and maybe I would point somebody like Advocate at them just to see if he is less stupid than you. But they are nothing to me beyond that.

You are too hasty due to biasness.
I don't see any problem with the argument;

• P1. Theists claim, God must be absolutely perfect and existing as real [i.],
  
  P2. But, Absolute perfection is impossible to exist as real.
  
  C1. Therefore it is impossible for God to exist as real.

I provided detailed explanations to the above premises in the posts that follow.

It is not me who is applying a natural limit to a supernatural being.
It is the theists who are applying the naturalism [realness] to a metaphysical supernatural being.
My point is to show they are conflating metaphysical ontology with the natural empirical ontology.

You failed the test again.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Firstly, I already told you that you are applying natural limits to a supernatural being in that argument, so there's a single game ender just there. To be honest I don't know how many other massive failings anybody can find with it.

But I don't treat it as an argument that I need to care about. It's an intelligence test, anybody with any level of skill or talent should have no real problem defeating that argument, it's as if it were constructed to be an example of an argument that doesn't work. That's the limit of its value to me.

I'm sorry if you got the wrong end of the stick and thought that I would stoop to getting into a big debate about that actual argument, it's just that one and the oughtness to breathe argument among a few of your other spectacular missteps are sort of useful for gauging whether you have made any progress in those 7 years or so, and maybe I would point somebody like Advocate at them just to see if he is less stupid than you. But they are nothing to me beyond that.

You are too hasty due to biasness.
I don't see any problem with the argument;

• P1. Theists claim, God must be absolutely perfect and existing as real [i.],
  
  P2. But, Absolute perfection is impossible to exist as real.
  
  C1. Therefore it is impossible for God to exist as real.

I provided detailed explanations to the above premises in the posts that follow.

It is not me who is applying a natural limit to a supernatural being.
It is the theists who are applying the naturalism [realness] to a metaphysical supernatural being.
My point is to show they are conflating metaphysical ontology with the natural empirical ontology.

You failed the test again.

I don't give a damn to your testing.
It is so easy for a kindi gnat to make to mark and fail papers on a subject submitted by a high school person.
Remember, your position is grounded on an illusion.

Note this:
It is Impossible for God to Be Real [3]
viewtopic.php?t=43342

[FlashDangerpants]

You are too hasty due to biasness.
I don't see any problem with the argument;

• P1. Theists claim, God must be absolutely perfect and existing as real [i.],
  
  P2. But, Absolute perfection is impossible to exist as real.
  
  C1. Therefore it is impossible for God to exist as real.

I provided detailed explanations to the above premises in the posts that follow.

It is not me who is applying a natural limit to a supernatural being.
It is the theists who are applying the naturalism [realness] to a metaphysical supernatural being.
My point is to show they are conflating metaphysical ontology with the natural empirical ontology.

You failed the test again.

I don't give a damn to your testing.
It is so easy for a kindi gnat to make to mark and fail papers on a subject submitted by a high school person.
Remember, your position is grounded on an illusion.

Note this:
It is Impossible for God to Be Real [3]
viewtopic.php?t=43342

The matter in hand here was not hte content of the god argument, or the breathing one, but your inability to perform simple acts of logical reasoning. If you could perform such simple acts, you would be able to show what was wrong with those old arguments of your own.

Instead you doubled down. You are not able to perform simple acts of basic reasoning. You failed so bad that you have actually made the god argument worse than itwas when you started.