Arghor

@kangminlee Because your response is literally false. Jesus is not the most documented person ever, there are plenty of historical figures better documented.

Why do atheists do this?

@jontheless4347 @Smultronnos @NotEvolution1 It's a well known phenomena called "Emergence" where things without X property exhibit property X when sufficiently complex. Minds come from matter, this is only false until you can show a mind with no matter. God is not an example because god is what you are trying to prove.

@AlexV960 @Smultronnos @NotEvolution1 Logic requires a mind. Matter does not have a mind. Therefore Logic does not originate from mindless matter by an Supreme mind. You trying to say, mindless matter=A mind. Cooked.

Literally atheist dogma:

@jontheless4347 @Smultronnos @NotEvolution1 Except that matter does have a mind, because we are matter and we have minds. You have 0 examples of minds with no matter. The property of "mind" emerges from complex arrangements of matter as far as we can tell. No, I'm saying specific, complex arrangements of matter = mind.

@AdonaiOnGaia @caveman0184 @dannih721041 Then give the reason why it’s the way it is. Don’t just describe it, give the reason why denser things accumulate below rather than up. EXPLAIN IT!!!

@caveman0184 @dannih721041 Only in your mind champ.

Suure ya do globetards. You know theoretical physics that don't exist in reality. And that's being generous because really your "theoretical physics" are more like fairytales than they are science.

@AdonaiOnGaia @dannih721041 The air above the water is less dense than the water too, so why does it not go up or float? You are not explaining that.

@dannih721041 The air is a fluid matrix. Fluid dynamics apply. Think water. Things lighter float, things heavier sink. Same with air. You are like a rock in water but the medium is air and you're much more dense than your surrounding medium so you stay down. No gravity required.

@AdonaiOnGaia Sorry, but if there is one group of people that doesn’t understand any physics (theoretical or otherwise) is flattards like you. The image in your post even shows how much you don’t understand any physics.

@SueSuemaria1 @IEAffiliate Oh so you admit the image you used is edited and therefore not proof of anything. Thank you for admitting you are a dishonest piece of shit.

@IEAffiliate Yep it shows how they curved it with fish eye lens 😊

@AdonaiOnGaia The thing is neither of those is real. The flood didn’t happen and the Earth isn’t flat 🤣

@jontheless4347 @Smultronnos @NotEvolution1 Also, it depends what you mean by logic. If you mean the classical laws of logic, then yes. They are definitely human dependent. If you mean a way of structured reasoning then no. Structured reasoning is unavoidable.

@AlexV960 @Smultronnos @NotEvolution1 @Alexv960 "Logic is just a human way of thinking" Are you saying logic "only" exists in the human mind(s)?

@jontheless4347 @Smultronnos @NotEvolution1 Except again, you haven't demonstrated a dilemma because even if w accepted both of your flawed premises, the conclusion doesn't even follow 😂😂😂

@Smultronnos @AlexV960 @NotEvolution1 The Atheist dilemma--Cooked

@jontheless4347 @Smultronnos @NotEvolution1 Minds are brain/matter bound. If you change the brain, you change the mind, so actually, dirt or matter does think if it's sufficiently complex. No, structures don't imply design at all, they imply a pattern. Is semantics the best argument you have?

@Smultronnos @AlexV960 @NotEvolution1 "Logic" requires a mind and an ability to think. (Dirt or matter) doesn't think. "Structures" implies design. I think you're stuck.

@jontheless4347 @Smultronnos @NotEvolution1 What I'm saying is that logic is a set of rules we previously agree to in order to be able to talk about anything. Logic is a presupposed framework, not a universal set of rules that everything in nature must follow. There are even different types of logic we invented.

@TedLogan1010 I would genuinely want to know, what would it take to show you the photo is real? If your answer is something like "it has to look flat", then you just admitted you are presupposing your conclusion and you don't believe it based on evidence at all.

NOT REAL..

@jontheless4347 @Smultronnos @NotEvolution1 The first one, because logic is just a human way of thinking. The second one, because it's a category error stated as some sort of meaningful comparison. And the conclusion, because it doesn't follow from the premises. Literally all the parts of your syllogism are a mess.

@Smultronnos @NotEvolution1 • ​P1 Logic is objective and universal. • ​P2 Matter itself is not "logical"; it just exists. • ​Conclusion Therefore, the source of logic must be an Objective Mind (God) rather than just a byproduct of shifting atoms. Which premise or premises do you disagree?

@jontheless4347 @NotEvolution1 You misspelled "theist". It's without the a at the start.

@NotEvolution1 When you ask atheists a logic question about origins of ANYTHING.

@NotEvolution1 Except literally no atheist ever has said the universe created itself. A lot of us say it's uncreated. Not that it created itself. If your dumb ass thinks that's the same, then how did your god create itself before they existed?

@ApoloJedi_ Yeah if I were you I would try and make the case that Evolution is compatible with Christianity, because only 1 is backed up by science and it’s not Christianity.

Evolution is incompatible with Christianity.

@Randy912541093 Says the moron that literally disproved himself with his own source. First law of flerf.

@AlexV960 Stay Stupid...Globetards find you charming

Pseudoscience theories are statements, beliefs, or practices that claim to be scientific but are incompatible with the scientific method. Globetards seem to be confused about REAL Science and Reality

@Randy912541093 Once more, your stupidity misunderstanding Piccard doesn't make him a retard like you. He knew the Earth was a globe. "Seemed" is not a statement of what something is, is a statement of what something appears. Something can look like something it isn't. Learn English.

@AlexV960 x.com/Randy912541093…

@Randy912541093 Brother, sorry to say that if arguing from the level of an idiot is what we are talking about, you have tons more experience than me and most of the people in the world on that 🤣🤣🤣