>>24626687
THIS is the dishonest sophist tactic handbook. And both of you have run through most of the tricks in it over the course of this thread, except the one about accentuation. The original theist argument is retarded because it assumes there must be a condition for x without justifying this assumption, which it can't. Any argument it could give for the mediacy of its premise would apply just as well to its supposed solution. And you're also retarded because you think that only things that can be seen are real, even though every one of the concepts you employ in your post are invisible and immaterial. You also have a very crude/retarded understanding of religious faith but this is pretty universal among atheists - you think faith is about believing a set of wacky 'facts' about spooky entities hovering around at the edge of the universe. Meanwhile the theist has already lost because he's arguing on bogus ground, i.e. he does not genuinely understand his own position but is himself a sort of atheist. Hegel speaks of all of this, you're actually blinded by the presuppositions of modernity. I would post the relevant quotes but you wouldn't be able to understand them. Neither of you know anything about logic. A shit showing overall, you should both be ashamed of yourselves really.