>>14100706 (lb)

>Oh, child. You poor, poor thing.

I love the condescending language.

You expect any one to take you serious when you speak like that?

>You realize there are so-called atheists who are philosophers who study metaphysics?

Yes, obviously. Atheism doesn't exclude metaphysics. I've never stated so…

>Waiting on your deboonking of any one of the 5 ways, kid.

I'm not deboonking anything, least of all strawmen that you build.

>Atheist philosophers think you're very ignorant.

Oh my, i'm so embarrased.

>>14100732

>You're claiming to believe that there is no God.

I'm still not.

You're claiming there is a God. I'm saying prove or I don't believe you.

I'm not claiming anything. How the fuck can this be so hard to understand?

>You either believe God does exist, doesn't exist

Correct and I don't. But I'm not claiming there is no God.

I know the difference between knowing and believing can be hard to grasp for people who think believing in God means knowing he's there…

>As if you weren't condescending?

Not really, just countering your attitude. But let's agree to disagree.

>Ok, then how can you say you "don't have a metaphysics"? It makes no sense.

I didn't. I said i didn't ascribe to a school of metaphysics…

>I'm talking about any one of the 5 ways. I'm very honored that you think I built them, but unfortunately for me they are over 700 years old, and I'm not quite that old.

And I don't care. I'm not here to deboonk or verify them. I'm here to figure out if you actually had Atheists checkmated, which I would have found VERY interesting.

But it turns out it was just more hyperbole from religiotards (yes, i'm gonna keep using that term) claiming victory when there is none.

>>14100751

Kek. I'm not e-bot, but I am kinda flattered.

>>14100769

>So you have no theory on being, "cats are cats and are just physical". Right. Good argument.

Good argument? You asked I answered. I didn't know it was part of the argumentation?

>Well the 5 ways checkmate you. So if you're not going to deboonk them, then you're admitting you're checkmated. So checkmate.

Atheist philosophers checkmated atheists?

Now I am confused.

Didn't you say these 5 ways were studied by Atheists and were regarding metaphysics not religion?

Also, metaphysics can by it's very nature not be either proven nor disproven. So you wanting me to "debunk" philosophy is just retarded. And then claiming that you won because I'm not entertaining your retarded notions is even more retarded.

>>14100808

>I'm making fun of you. Sorry for being so obtuse.

Good for you. I didn't work.

>What does it mean for an argument to be "regarding metaphysics and not religion"?

That the question is metaphysical in nature but doesn't touch on religion which also have metaphysical aspects to it.

It's not that hard.

>Says who?

Says science.

>You claim to not have metaphysics

What does that mean? Have metaphysics? What is a metaphysic? Can I get 2 metaphysics?

>Why? That's literally what philosophers do.

You don't understand philosophy either. Gotcha.

>>14100855

>metaphysical proof for God

metaphysics can't by it's very nature prove anything. It's meta.

Do you understand that word?

>>14100855

>>14100868

>>14100876

I'm done. You clearly don't understand what I'm saying. And you think this is some dick measuring contest. When in fact I wanted some actual proof to challenge my beliefs.

Not metaphysical mumbo-jumbo and philosophy, that doesn't prove a thing. Because that's not how proof works.

Call that a win if you want.

Over and out.

>>14100898

>You asked for proof

And you gave stories.

Now fuck off.

>>14100920

>The 5 ways are not "stories"

Philosophy = Imagining things = stories.

>Why are you so hostile?

Because you are retards and relentless.

>>14100968 (me)

>>14100920

retarded*