Bartricks

In case one wonders how it can be that there can be more than one way to be perfect, consider that an omnipotent being can do anything. And so that mu...

Though I believe God exists and that his existence can be demonstrated, there's an air of sophistry about this sort of ontological argument. I think w...

Er, yes. I know. You were talking about his ontological argument. So I pointed out how you'd misunderstood it. How does the fact he had two arguments ...

I did. You could read Descartes and then you'd know. You'd know Descartes thought God could do anything. You'd know that 'anything' includes destroyin...

Why are you doing this? Is it not yet apparent to you that you're talking to someone who knows Descartes well and understands him far better than you ...

On what basis? Either it is clear to you that there is reason to think that the senses are more reliable than the intellect, in which case you are rel...

So, er, just to be clear: despite having nothing remotely coherent to say about the trinity and despite confidently getting Descartes wrong at every t...

I have no idea what that means. But well done you! Who's a good boy!! Okay - so in your mind Descartes is the pupil and you're the teacher. Well, you ...

No. Did you attend one?

Why don't you read what I actually said? There are different ways to be perfect. One way involves knowing everything. Another way doesn't. See?

Well there's a lot you don't see. Perhaps if you tried to follow an argument and respected reason more you'd see. Or you could try reading Descartes. ...

No, the French version was 1647, not er, 1942. And your version only has 5 meditations??

1641. Not 1642. (And you try and cover up your mistake by saying he wrote it in 1641 and published it the following year - Haha, er, no. It was publis...

1642? I don't think you know your Descartes. I don't know what a 'dissociative' problem is, but whatever it may be I fail to see its relevance. I have...

You have said nothing to address the issue. I have explained in plain English why God can divest himself of his power - he can do anything and that in...

So, I asked you to explain how being a simple entity does anything to explain the trinity. And your response? Oh, thanks. Now I see. All crystal clear...

Yes. Minds don't have spatial locations. Material things have spatial locations. For that's the nature of a material thing - a material thing is somet...

No, that's not what it demonstrates (for what you've said makes no sense). What it demonstrates is that one and the same object can have radically dif...

Er, what are you on? Explain how God's being a simple entity does anything to explain the trinity.

Like I said, argue something. We have minds. Minds are simple objects. Why? They're indivisible. Half a mind makes no sense. If they were divisible, t...

You're not providing an argument or engaging with anything I've argued. I haven't denied that God is a simple object. God is a simple object. God is a...

And are you engaging with the topic with that post? No. Hypocrite. Also, you might have noticed that I engaged with the topic. Solving a problem is to...

Er, I did. Premise 2 is demonstrably false.

Why don't you try and engage with an argument rather than just asserting stuff? Now, back to the trinity: is there any contradiction involved in the i...

Your position is self-refuting and thus false. For the claim that agnosticism is the rational default is itself a claim that you are asserting as true...

What rubbish? You mean the ruthless reasoning? On whose authority? You're an expert on this sort of thing are you? Gibberish. Again, save it for the h...

I explained why that is not so. Literally. Did you not read it? I'll do it again. Read it this time. Velasquez's portrait of pope innocent X is perfec...

I am not surprised. I imagine you like crystals too. Obviously false. Save it for the Buddhists. Er, what? Did you read what I said? Minds - all minds...

You seem very confused to me. I have explained already why there is nothing higher than Reason and why anyone who thinks otherwise is demonstrably stu...

There can be more than one way to be perfect. Being perfect, then, does not have to involve having one set of unalterable characteristics. One can cha...

But three boxes, one inside the other, are not one and the same box. I could not say of one of the smaller boxes that it 'is' the larger box. I do not...

No, I don't think that works. I take it that one wants to say that God, Jesus and the Holy spirit are all one and the same person or mind (i tend to u...

It's all me - I haven't read anything whatsoever about the trinity, but I am sure someone else will have made the same point somewhere. (Although perh...

No, that's confused. Power, love etc - these are properties of a mind, but they do not constitute it. You are conflating an object with its properties...

Yes, I agree that we must be taking about one and the same mind. I would take issue with the claim that 'the Holy Spirit and God are one' is consisten...

Nothing's above Reason. For either you think there is a reason to think something is above Reason - in which case you demonstrate only that you are co...

So your criticism is that my analysis is too rational. In other words, not bollocksy enough.

That's incoherent.

I am not a Christian and am unsure exactly what scriptural support there is for the trinity. For I seem to remember hearing somewhere that it is not e...

No, I've been talking about universal income throughout. No doubt the word 'polluter' confused you.

Again with the outrage. You think I didn't make a reasoned case? Do you know the meaning of the words you are using. You seriously think I didn't make...

Er, what? No, rather than address my case for a universal income paid for by parents, you just told me to after assuming that I am not useful. You thi...

Because it is not just what I am entitled to, but what everyone who has been bred but hasn't bred is entitled to. And I am showing it by reasoned argu...

You're now wandering horribly. Focus. IF you've had kids, then you owe them a living. They don't have to earn it. You owe them it. I mean, you knowing...

Er, what on earth are you on about? Saying 'polluters should pay' is not equivalent to saying "I am allowed to pollute". I can only marvel at the reas...

Explain how what you said was implied by anything I said. Go on.

No. Blimey. Baby steps. It is wrong to mug me and give the proceeds to someone who has less. That's wrong. Okay? Now, would it magically become okay i...

Er, no. That quite obviously isn't implied by anything I said. Up your game.

Question begging. It is not the 'best' system. It violates rights. My system is better. Make the polluters pay. That is, make make parents pay. They h...

Er, yes I do. That's kinda the point.