>>12740093>How is calling the argument itself childish an ad hominemCalling an argument "childish" is a form of ad hominem, is an insult to an argument, if you may.
>It's an illogical thought experiment with many issues (as explained above)Nope, is not ilogical, the only ilogical thought is to believe the world is a sourceless accident, that is truly ilogical, see
>>12737116 pic which is what you are literally what you believe in
>And what's the proof of this being true?>It's literally an idea, it's not based on anything.Principle of causality, there is nothing that denies causality in physics, the only thing that denies causality in physics are the tachyon particles, and tachyons are only hypothetical particles. So ultimately it is based on scientific observation, saying is an "idea" is not argument, everything is an idea, everything you are writing is merely an idea too.
>No, we have evidence these forces exist, we can confirm their existence through experimentationYes and they are infinite and thus we can't ever say what those forces are in the end, that's the same principle God has, since it is an ultimate force which is beyond human concepts and capacity, God is all of those forces, they are infinite and beyond human comprehension. They(God) has no attributes in the end.
>The Principle of Causality does not mean what you think it meansEvery effect has a cause and every cause has an effect, that's all it means. Moron.
>Please explain how it refutes the paper I have just cited to you.Your paper cannot make predictions at Planck lengths.
>So you do care.Yes, about Truth, not atheist stupidity. see
>>12736228>One dictionary of etimologies provided by you, versus three modern definitions from reputable dictionaries Argumentum ad populum and authority, mine is the original etymological meaning.
>So? This doesn't mean you can define it All "religion" means etymologically is "something that is binded to", one can be binded to truth or untruth, simple as.
