Part 2 of my opening statement in debate with shwanerd
Uploader Comments (migkillertwo)
All Comments (30)
-
LMAO! Thanks for the laugh.
-
haha
-
"Perfect" is completely subjective. What you would consider "a perfect island" I would consider the 3rd or 4th level of Dante's hell. Dead argument prima facie.
-
Wrong. Someone always wins, maybe not in the first drawing, but someone always wins. If no one wins then it's a scam and not a lottery, kid.
-
Millions of people may lose, but someone always wins
Not every lottery does someone win, that's a false statement.
-
You are jumping to conclusions when you assume the universe was by design. Someone always wins the lottery. Millions of people may lose, but someone always wins. Just because something is improbable does not make it impossible, ergo you are making unsubstantiated assumptions.
-
Then refute it.
-
If you consider this a domination, you are delusional.
"The perfect island" would be completely subjective. Useless argument- tossed out. Try again.
bamboo4tameshigiri 3 years ago
its useless? Kant used that argument.
migkillertwo 3 years ago
Do numbers really exist necessarily?
Maybe you should have a look at "the conceptualist argument", there is a good discussion available at the "doxazo theos"-blog.
Deliratio 3 years ago
if they do exist and are not merely man-made abstractions, then yes they exist necessarily and eternally and have no explanation.
migkillertwo 3 years ago
Why did you used Plantinga's ontological argument? He doesn't consider it as a successful piece of natural theology.
TheGamingWeasel 3 years ago
he doesn't?
well that is damn-interesting.
migkillertwo 3 years ago