If God does not exist, then nothing exists.
>>18758154>If Khaos and Gaia don't exist, nothing exists
>>18758160>shitposting to deflect and avoid facing reality
>>18758165Enjoy Tartarus :)
>>18758166God bless you.
>>18758169The Olympians exist. Your hatred of them is proof of that.
>>18758173Have a nice day.
>>18758176You're going to wander the banks of the Acheron, blind and in terror, with no coin to pay the ferryman. Tick tock :)
>>18758154das rite goy
>>18758192Reminder, if you don't believe this actually happened, you aren't a Christian.
>>18758195Reminder, you are a clown.
>>18758204How so? Are you saying it didn't happen?
>>18758154>The only proof for the existence of God is that without God [something that makes my feelies hurt]What will it take for these old babies to learn that their feelings dont decide reality?
>>18758218There’s no reference to feelings in that image.
>>18758219Yeah, if there was id be shocked. Imagine them being self aware about it
>>18758154If transexual faires didn't exist, you couldn't prove anything.
>>18758228That image has nothing to do with feelings.
>>18758236Are you autistic? If you were, id be inclined to explain step by step
>>18758240I think you might be autistic, or disingenuous. The point is that knowledge is impossible without God. If knowledge is impossible, then you couldn’t even know that knowledge is impossible, or that I’m saying this, or that you exist. What do feelings have to do with any of this?
>>18758246>then you couldn’t even know that knowledge is impossible, or that I’m saying thisThankfully when i said step by step, there really is only 2 steps to this. You are on step 1, step 2 is answering what the problem with this is. Why does it matter if knowledge is impossible? You can do it
>>18758273How do you know it doesn’t matter if knowledge is impossible?
>>18758277I dont, now just answer the question sweetie
>>18758285I don’t know that you asked me a question
Maybe God is just different from what you were taught he was. God by his very nature is above human understanding. Even the bible says that.
>>18758286Mhm but you think i did, so answer
>>18758290Do you know that I think you did?
>>18758246>knowledge is impossible without GodHow so?
>>18758293I think that you think you did
>>18758298Do you know that you think that?>>18758294Because without God there is no basis for universal, objective, immaterial laws of logic, mathematics, and nature, without which knowledge is impossible.
>>18758309I know you want to play this word game with me till the dawn of time since you have nothing better to do but unfortunately your free trial has expired. To continue, pay with an answer
>>18758309>t.
>>18758328>I knowHow do you know anything at all? >pay with an answerI believe I just did>>18758330God bless you!
>>18758309>Because without God there is no basis for universal, objective, immaterial laws of logic, mathematics, and nature, without which knowledge is impossible.How so?
bro just discovered presup apologetics and doesn't realize how retarded it is
>>18758341Atheists hate presup because it proves them wrong.>>18758340Because no other worldview can account for laws such as them.
>Atheists hate presup because it proves them wronglmao told ya
>>18758344>Because no other worldview can account for laws such as them.How so?
>>18758354It is self-explanatory.
>>18758355How so?
>>18758341>>18758344First thing I always have to say is that, outside of a few internet apologists (the Matt Slicks, Darth Dawkins, Sye Ten Bruggencates, and Jay Dyers) that nobody takes presup seriously. You'll find people in academia arguing about fine tuning, modal ontological arguments, psycho-physical harmony, and so on, but nobody really even cares to write about presup. Because presup isn't really an argument. It's a rhetorical device that says "Solve whatever philosophical problems I throw at you or else I'll declare your whole worldview absurd". And some people try in good faith to justify their worldview to the presups, and it's always a mistake.A big issue of presup is a tremendous lack of imagination. Over and over again they'll claim that there are "laws of logic" and without them everything collapses. This misses out on, well, most of all the philosophy about logic going on for the past few thousand years. Aristotle questioned excluded middle. There are logics that don't have excluded middle. People have questioned non-contradiction. There are logics that tolerate some contradictions. There are logics that don't hold to the same view of identity as classical logic. For some reason, no presup has ever heard of this. Almost as if they know rock all about logic. Moreover, they have a penchant for claiming knowledge can't be possible without God. The world waits for why anyone would accept that, but they do it. And without knowledge, they eagerly tell you, all is lost. Which sort of forgets about a few thousand years of sceptical philosophy that has called the notion of knowledge into question on all sorts of grounds. Almost as if no presup has any interest in engaging with epistemology.It's all smoke and mirrors and the only correct response is not to play this very silly game and wait to see if any presup ever produces an actual goddamn argument instead of grilling random atheists about what atheists believe.The world holds its breath.
>>18758154define "God"
>>18758154I'm a Christian, but I fail to see how the transcendental argument isn't a clear example of begging the question. Why can't our intuition of "knowledge" within a set sphere (called "the universe") itself be a function of chaos - like bubbles of air rising in an otherwise boiling pot?We don't need to rely on philosophical arguments to prove God's existence. We have faith that He exists and rewards those who diligently seek Him.
>>18758359yeah that's because the average presup posters are underage retards who fell for the online orthobro meme movement and think jay dyer discovered a cure for atheism
>>18758154If God isn't real, who wrote the Bible?
>>18758370it just is bro, and it has to be the israelite god of foreskins because magic icons and orthodox wizards are based
>>18758154false because god does not exist, and something existsalso, you can't absolutely prove things with or without god
>>18758359I’ll summarize this long-winded post: “I have no answer and I lose”>You'll find people in academiaWhat is understood or considered acceptable ideas in the academic priesthood is of no consequence, and what is considered in the academy speaks more to conscientiousness than truth. This is an appeal to authority fallacy.>Because presup isn't really an argument. It's a rhetorical device that says "Solve whatever philosophical problems I throw at you or else I'll declare your whole worldview absurd". Yet those foolish people who tell themselves this don’t seem to be under the impression that Immanuel Kant was using a rhetorical device rather than arguing. What we are talking about is a transcendental argument, it is an argument, you just dislike it because you can’t answer it. This is an argument to the stone fallacy.>And some people try in good faith to justify their worldview to the presups, and it's always a mistake.I very rarely encounter any atheists who do anything in good faith, but there it is not so much a mistake as a failure, because they may try to justify their worldview, but they fail. (cont.)
>>18758359>This misses out on, well, most of all the philosophy about logic going on for the past few thousand years. Aristotle questioned excluded middle. There are logics that don't have excluded middle. People have questioned non-contradiction. There are logics that tolerate some contradictions. There are logics that don't hold to the same view of identity as classical logic.Despite the empty dismissals throughout this post, this is an actual attempt to answer the argument. The claims about presup ignorance are false and irrelevant so I will ignore them. Now this answer is this: that there is no problem with laws of logic not existing. In reality, this is wholly absurd, and it is the embrace of the absurd. No, jettisoning the laws of thought is not in reality an option and those who do so have done little more than intellectualize schizophrenia. For example, if it is true that the law of non-contradiction can not exist, then it is false that the law of non-contradiction can not exist; and refuting this is absolutely impossible without presupposing the law of non-contradiction. And while there have been skeptics who claimed we really couldn’t know anything, yet those same delusional men knew to drink water when they were thirsty. The reason the transcendental argument is so effective is not because unbelievers give no excuse but because they are unable to give any excuse which does not ultimately presuppose the existence of God.>It's all smoke and mirrors and the only correct response is not to play this very silly game Appeal to ridicule fallacy.
>>18758377OP is an orthodox presbyterian, not an Eastern Orthodox Christian.
>>18758381>The reason the transcendental argument is so effective is not because unbelievers give no excuse but because they are unable to give any excuse which does not ultimately presuppose the existence of God.This sounds like a further presupposition.
>>18758382op is larper
>>18758361It is not begging the question because 1. The premise is not contingent on the conclusion, 2. The allegation of the argument is that not only itself but all propositions whatsoever necessarily presuppose the existence of God. And we are not talking about a feeling of having knowledge, but the actual possession thereof.>We don't need to rely on philosophical arguments to prove God's existence. We have faith that He exists and rewards those who diligently seek Him.We have faith in the truth, and faith in Him, we do not have faith in faith. The scriptures say that God has left man no excuse for his rebellion against Him (Romans 1).
>>18758374Moses wrote the Torah.
>>18758381>Now this answer is this: that there is no problem with laws of logic not existing.No. You seem to have purposefully misunderstood what it is he saying. He isn't saying that there is no problem with logic not existing; he's saying that there are different logics and not all of them must presuppose a divine creator.
>>18758379>>18758381>presup started his empty rant
>>18758399I like when they pretend they've even read Aristotle's Metaphysics.
>>18758396Those “different logics” are a denial of the laws of thought. >>18758378Begging the question fallacy.
>>18758382I’m actually a member of the URCNA.
>>18758403the aristotelian god didn't order his followers to collect foreskins so it can't be the real god
Knowledge is reliable predictive power. Historical knowledge predicts what sources and digs will show, and recent history predicts more, as with alibis. Lucky guesses don’t count, because they aren’t reliable. So knowledge exists to the extent the world has stable regularities. It needs no guarantee of that stability, because it measures it.
>>18758192The fire is eternal and does not consume the low lying clump of thorns. I am illuminating the curse for you to see.
>>18758392>The premise is not contingent on the conclusionIts first premise quietly presupposes the very conclusion it is supposed to establish: "if X (e.g., God) does not exist, then Y (e.g., intelligibility/rationality) cannot exist" is entirely unproven and smuggles the conclusion in from the start.Instead of proving that God is the only possible foundation for logic or reason, the argument defines logic and reason in a way that already requires a divine mind. Anyone who does not already accept the conclusion has no rational reason to accept that premise.TAG proponents try to bypass the circularity by arguing for the "impossibility of the contrary". You claim that if you reject God, you are left with absolute scepticism, where logic and truth cannot exist.This begs the question by presupposing that only two conceptual options exist: the specific Christian world-view or absolute, irrational chaos. It entirely dismisses, without argument or justification, dozens of non-theistic philosophical frameworks that account for logic, such as conceptualism, mathematical Platonism, or pragmatic evolutionary realism. By asserting without proof that non-theistic frameworks inherently fail, it takes the superiority of theism for granted.>we do not have faith in faith.We do trust that faith is substantive and that it thus matters. Stop being pedantic. >The scriptures say that God has left man no excuse for his rebellion against Him (Romans 1)You haven't shown how this demonstrates the soundness of the transcendental argument.
>>18758341Presups tend to grow up when they realize presup isn't required for TAG.
>>18758414>Knowledge is reliable predictive power.This is not what anyone understands by the word “knowledge”. I am not so much concerned by the word as what it means, so I ask to restrict our inquiry to the typical everyday sense of the term.
>>18758406>Those “different logics” are a denial of the laws of thought.Well, no. They're a denial of certain laws of thought that you are presupposing must be the case according to your perception.
>>18758422this definition was proven right by AI and it is defensible in the everyday sense of the word. You know your friend's personality? You can predict their action. You know where a treasure is buried? You can predict where to dig.
>>18758414>predictive powerPredictive power is the power that an agent has to actualize it's will, because free will exists, and we choose what to manifest. Thats why it's called pre-dict. Its realated to dictate, where the agent is dictating what will happen.
>>18758419>Its first premise quietly presupposes the very conclusionIt is anything but quiet, as I said the very purpose of the argument is to allege that presupposing the existence of God is necessary for every proposition whatsoever. If the argument did not presuppose it, it would be self-contradictory, but there is a difference between presupposing the conclusion and begging the question because the latter consists in contingency of the truth of the premise on the truth of the conclusion, which is not the case here.>is entirely unproven and smuggles the conclusion in from the start.This is merely false, as it is directly proven from the things themselves and from internal critique.>This begs the question by presupposing that only two conceptual options exist: the specific Christian world-view or absolute, irrational chaos. It entirely dismisses, without argument or justification, dozens of non-theistic philosophical frameworks that account for logic, such as conceptualism, mathematical Platonism, or pragmatic evolutionary realism. By asserting without proof that non-theistic frameworks inherently fail, it takes the superiority of theism for granted.We absolutely do not merely presuppose our own worldview or dismiss without argument the contrary, that is what our opponents do. Rather, we rhetorically assume the presuppositions of these opposing worldview, and show how they lead to absurdity. This is a strawman fallacy.>We do trust that faith is substantive and that it thus matters. Stop being pedantic.The object of our faith is not faith itself, which is what you suggest.>You haven't shown how this demonstrates the soundness of the transcendental argument.I don’t understand what you are confused about. This demonstrates that there are objective proofs of the existence of God, that rejection of God is irrational, and that all men possess an inescapable knowledge of God.
>>18758431>dictAnd what do you know, the etymology /shem ties right back to Genesis.And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.
>>18758423>Well, no, but actually yesAgain, negating these laws is logically impossible. Either the law of non-contradiction exists, or the law of non-contradiction exists. >>18758429This simply is not the everyday sense of the term and this is not the correct use of “predict”. Saying that a definition was “proven right” especially “by AI” makes me think you’re just ‘avin a giggle.
>>18758154basically fuck it
>>18758436I love how shem is defined as "renown", and the phonetics takes us right to renoun, which is literally what happens when you understand shem, and can see the underlying reputation taking all sorts of various forms.
>>18758433>We absolutely do not merely presuppose our own worldviewHow do you go from "God is necessary for knowledge" to "the Bible is true" without merely presupposing it?
>>18758446What we are defending is the entire Christian worldview. It is a mistake to treat the ultimate presuppositions of the Christian worldview as though they were lesser propositions under a worldview. In reality a person’s ultimate presuppositions, which together form their worldview, either go together or not at all. The ultimate presuppositions of the Christian worldview are the articles of faith described in the Creed, and the ultimate authority upon which he builds his knowledge is the revelation of the Triune God in holy scripture.
>>18758451Cool, but why trust that holy scripture compared to any other?
>>18758453Because of the impossibility of the contrary.
>>18758461How is the contrary impossible?
>>18758462It is because there is no other worldview which could provide the preconditions of intelligibility. To posit another scripture is to posit another worldview, which would be refuted in the very same way atheism is.
>>18758469What do you mean by preconditions of intelligibility and how does the biblical worldview exclusively provide those?
>>18758475That would be the principium, i.e. laws of logic, intelligible and reliable sense perception etc etc. Those things without which any kind of knowledge would be impossible.
>>18758480Ok but how is it impossible without that particular book?
>>18758154Every so-called proof of the existence of God is a proof of the existence of Satan as they are reminders of our original fall from grace. No man would seek to prove the existence of God, to himself or to others, if not because of the existence of the Devil.
>>18758482Asked and answered.
>>18758461>>18758462>>18758469>>18758475>>18758482>>18758487
>>18758487>answeredWhere?>>18758488It's usually like that with presups.
>>18758451>ultimate presuppositionI am the ultimate presupposition
>>18758433>It is anything but quiet, as I said the very purpose of the argument is to allege that presupposing the existence of God is necessary for every proposition whatsoever. Yes. This is what makes it a case of begging the question. premises 2 and 3 of TAG assume the truth of the conclusion. TAG asserts that laws of logic require a "personal, immaterial foundation" and that only God fits this description. By defining the necessary foundation of logic as having the exact characteristics of God from the outset, the argument assumes what it is trying to prove rather than logically demonstrating it.>If the argument did not presuppose it, it would be self-contradictory, but there is a difference between presupposing the conclusion and begging the question because the latter consists in contingency of the truth of the premise on the truth of the conclusion, which is not the case here.This sounds like sophistry. "I have to assume my argument is right otherwise it is incoherent" doesn't make your argument right; it makes it circular.>...and show how they lead to absurdity.You haven't actually shown that. >...which is what you suggest.No it isn't. I am pointing out that valuing faith is itself to trust in the notion of faith. >This demonstrates that there are objective proofs of the existence of GodAgain, you keep "demonstrating" this by assuming you have demonstrated it. >>18758437>Again, negating these laws is logically impossible.No. There are different, valid logics.
>>18758493You can scroll up and read the thread if you want to see the answer, I am not interested in answering the same questions over and over and over again.
>>18758504I’ll summarize your long-winded thread: “I have no answer and I lose”
>>18758503>This is what makes it a case of begging the question. premises 2 and 3 of TAG assume the truth of the conclusion.Again, this is not correct because the truth of the premises is not contingent on the truth of the conclusion.>By defining the necessary foundation of logicIt is not a definition, but an allegation. This logic would make any argument circular, because you are saying that alleging the conclusion is circular.>This sounds like sophistryThis sounds like cope. Again, it is not TAG you are objecting to, but transcendental arguments in general. >You haven't actually shown that.I have, but to the extent I haven’t it’s primarily because my opponents are childish sophists crying about how they don’t like my argument rather than engaging it.>I am pointing out that valuing faith is itself to trust in the notion of faith.Non sequitur.>Again, you keep "demonstrating" this by assuming you have demonstrated it.In this case, the “demonstration” is based on the exegesis of scripture. You are so desperate to dismiss the transcendental argument that you’re getting lost in the clouds and losing sight of the mark. >No. There are different, valid logicsIt is true that there are different valid logics, but it is also not true that there are different valid logics.
>>18758507God bless, have a nice day.
>repeat “You’re just assuming the conclusion!” x1000>ignore all response given>repeat “You’re just assuming the conclusion!“This is how clowns think they epically destroy presup
>>18758516>GodWhich one?
>>18758521Kek there were no responses given. OP folded here >>18758355
>>18758522I am has brought me to you.
>>18758522The one you hate
>>18758531Tell I AM to show up in person next time.
>>18758529It is self-explanatory, because the reason no other worldview can account for them is because they are unable to. We can easily say more about particular worldviews, such as naturalism’s necessary denial of the existence of such immaterial laws, but a deeper general statement is impossible.
>>18758533I hate no fictional characters.
>>18758544Yet you clearly hate God, because you know He is real.>>18758541He is not far from any one of us.
>>18758543We can rhetorically assume the presuppositions of a purely theistic worldview all day and it still won't provide a good reason to believe the claims the Bible makes are true though.
>>18758553We know the teachings of the scriptures are true because they are the words of God.
>>18758546Why would I assume the sun and the moon were made by a god?
>>18758513>Again, this is not correct because the truth of the premises is not contingent on the truth of the conclusion.I've already shown how it is. >It is not a definition, but an allegation.It's the definition you're providing. A definition of foundation you haven't adequately shown is equivalent only to God Himself. >it is not TAG you are objecting to, but transcendental arguments in general.I am objecting to TAG. I am specifically dealing with the claims of TAG. >I have, but to the extent I haven’t it’s primarily because my opponents are childish sophists crying about how they don’t like my argument rather than engaging it.The fact that you're resorting to ad hominem shows that anons itt pretty much have you on the ropes. >Non sequitur.Because you keep trying to reframe the argument. >In this case, the “demonstration” is based on the exegesis of scripture. You are so desperate to dismiss the transcendental argument that you’re getting lost in the clouds and losing sight of the mark.You're moving from being merely long-winded to borderline incoherent. >It is true that there are different valid logics, but it is also not true that there are different valid logics.You're seething because anons here showed you up in record time.
>>18758541Don’t you know Me, even after I have been among you such a long time? Take the horses you love, and pull the plow.
>>18758555
>>18758556They weren’t made by “a god” (whatever that is), they were made by the Christian God. And you know this by virtue of the sensus divinitatis within your soul, which you struggle to extinguish. Your absurdist worldview is unable to account for either the origin or the maintenance of material objects and laws.
>>18758560He told me, "I've seen it all beforeI've been thereI've seen my hopes and dreams lying on the ground""I've seen the sky just begin to fall"He said, "All things pass into the night"And I said, "Oh no, sir, I must say you're wrongI must disagree, oh no, sir, I must say you're wrong"Won't you listen to me?Goodbye horses, I'm flying over youGoodbye horses, I'm flying over youGoodbye horses, I'm flying over youGoodbye horses, I'm flying, flying, flying over you
>>18758558I believe you are acting in bad faith, sir.
>>18758564Kek the funniest thing about presups is that when you're cornered you always start to presuppose your opponents' worldview for them.>You already believe what I believe bro don't ask me to corroborate my claims
>>18758571You attack my character because you have realised you have no real defence for what you're claiming.
>>18758573Still 0 rebuttals to the transcendental argument ITT. I win.
>>18758578No, you are intentionally acting in bad faith.
>>18758579>>18758553
>>18758546The sun, moon, planets, stars were formed from gravitational attraction of atoms. The water was formed from chemical reactions of hydrogen and oxygen atoms. The plants evolved out of previously existing multicellular life about 500 million years ago.Not only is there no god here, but it outright contradicts the biblical story in genesis according to which life is 6000 years old.
>"""laws of logic"""https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkey_illusion
>>18758586That’s all BS.
>>18758587Immaterial laws are unchanging until they change.
>>18758573Presuppositionalism is so useful to Christians they can't even defend their own Holy Book with it.
>>18758580This is a blatant coping mechanism on your part.
>>18758568Goodbye horses, hello Pegasus. I am opening the windows of heaven, and letting some chaos in. My purpose is to water the vines, while obeying the miracle of the rainbow, so as to not completely submerge the rocks forever with bad faith.
>>18758591what did the immaterial lawgiver mean by this?
>>18758602I will save my breath for walking uphill
>>18758621The preconditions of intelligibility just wouldn't be possible without worldwide genital mutilation.
>>18758625See >>18758579
>>18758628See >>18758553
>>18758154I guess I get why 'act like a brick-wall until people stop talking to you' developed as a strategy, but frankly I don't get why people set out onto the world to argue using it. You'd think they would know it does not pack much offensive power.>>18758361Retreating from reason altogether would be a brutal concession to make, which, naturally, intellectual (and vulgar) Christians do not want to do.
>>18758639>act like a brick-wall until people stop talking to youAccurate description of the atheists.
>>18758601Watching OP having to disown his Holy Book because he can't explain how presuppositionalism validates it is hilarious.
>>18758642>I know you are but what am IC-Calvin sama...
>>18758642Says the shrinking minority that relies on tricks and quips to defend itself. It's not the 1950s anymore, this posturing is empty.
>>18758154okay.do I still need to mutilate my son's genitals?
>>18758651But that’s literally what happened here. I made arguments, I gave arguments, you said “nuh uh” and repeated yourself over and over. You chose to mock rather than engage the argument because you’re a bunch of incorrigible impudent miscreants who would’ve been publicly flogged in a just society.
>>18758654Funnily enough, it never was a mandate in most (if any) Christian churches. The Americans came up with that as a medical practice from sheer neurosis. The Jews did not even psy-op them.
>>18758643Yeah it's like >ok a transcendental God exists now what? Why believe the Jewish manual? And presups are like>y-you already believe the Jewish manual y-you just don't admit it And we're like>no we don't And they like >y-yes you doAnd they're stuttering so they lose
>>18758659>you’re a bunch of incorrigible impudent miscreants who would’ve been publicly flogged in a just societyWow did where THAT come from?
>>18758669>did where
>>18758663I explained this to the disingenuous atheist that was pretending to be Christian. We are not defending merely the existence of God (as though it could be separated from everything else), nor “a god” at all, but the entire Christian religion as a worldview.
>>18758677There were 0 (zero) defenses of the Christian religion that didn't boil down to >>18758563
>>18758659>You chose to mock rather than engage the argumentI answered you point for point in places where you weren't simply repeating yourself and gave valid reasons as to why I found the TAG unconvincing, even as a Christian. People can go back and view our exchange. For the most part you either repeated yourself, engaged in equivocation, or else you simply ignored what I was saying. You still haven't, for example, given a legitimate reason as to why we should assume the foundation of logic must be immaterial and personal, and why your conception of God alone fits that definition.
>>18758659>I want to physically hurt people who beat me in debatesThis is so on brand for Calvinists.
>>18758621First of all, your image is missleading. King Saul was not happy about receiving 200 foreskins. The text explicitly reveals his internal monologue: "For Saul thought, 'Let not my hand be against him, but let the hand of the Philistines be against him."Until you put in the effort to at least transmit the obvious message correctly, I don't know if I should waste my time providing any further explaination of עָרְלָה.
>>18758683>I answered you point for point in places where you weren't simply repeating yourself and gave valid reasons as to why I found the TAG unconvincingNo, you literally didn’t. This >>18758558 is the best example of “acting like a brick wall” in the thread and Jesus said not to cast pearls before swine for this very reason. >For the most part you either repeated yourself, engaged in equivocation, or else you simply ignored what I was saying.This is called projection. You simply ignored everything I said before either repeating yourself or crying about it. You are acting in bad faith and I am not interested in speaking to you. It doesn’t need to be said, but this rhetorical strategy has no logical substance whatsoever.>>18758692No debate occurred here. No rebuttal was ever offered. I would say the atheists lost, but they would have to show up first.>>18758680Read the thread
>>18758661I thought the dick slicing caused the neurosis
>>18758704>Read the threadIt did. "Self-explanatory" isn't a defense.
>>18758625Proverbs 14:15Genesis 34:2Exodus 20:7
>>18758704I would say God exists, but he would have to show up first. :)
>>18758707Ok, have a nice day.
>>18758714Guda: >>18758560
>>18758720>GudaExcuse me sir. I am hindu. Are you talking about ουρανους?
>>18758704>acting like a brick wallIt's become painfully obvious to me that you can't actually answer my point re the foundation, which is why you have resorted to churlishly mischaracterising our interaction.
>>18758708What the fuck
>>18758734What does the name Dinah mean to you, and why is there a large crowd of men cutting thier meat sticks? Maybe it has something to do with rumpelstiltskin. Why did Disney make Milah the ex-wife? And why did they pronounce her name "moolah"?The world may never know.
