I was thinking of your existence of god article which as far as I can recall was riddled with loosely defined terms in a quasi-logical format and as I recall it was 'sufficiently voided' instead of disproved due to the very basic errors or ommisions and your lack of understanding the difference between a demand and a proof. I haven't read your 'philosophy' and I doubt It'd be any better since you're still sticking up for said article. In a few years after you've read a few more things and have pondered a hell of a lot more about those things you'll look back on this article and understand it as the half-formed juvenile and forced apologetic effort it is.
Quote:
|
Your sort of applying such processes of creation is puerile and stupid.
|
Not any bit more retarded that to attributing the burden of creation on another loosely defined semiotic entity like your God.