And yet they would also be subjective from his point, being based upon what he wants.
No. It’s completely uncalled for.
OK. I’m done. This has gotten ridiculous and you really are an arse.
Have fun dancing around the fire with fellow militant atheists getting things wrong and jumping all over people for pointing it out kindly, BAMWA
boinks the secular left EVIL! 
That’s nice. Now did you have a real argument?
The invisible hand is God’s almighty Hand. For me at least.
No he didn’t. The free will argument has been brought up several times in this thread. At least two people have explained to you why this is possible and yet you just claimed a win here? You argue like a child.
Again, here, you make a false statement. He didn’t say it wasn’t possible, only that it wasn’t likely. He didn’t claim that God was there to satisfy his whims, only that He has the power to if He wills it. This is not the first time you’ve seemingly purposely mis-construed what your opposition was saying.
Seriously, even if you were right at this point in the thread you’ve alienated everyone with a view opposite to yours anyway. Are you arguing to claim a victory or actually convince someone of something?
Such an angry blowhard can only be arguing to convince himself. Those least secure in their convictions get the most vociferous about them.
Taken from wikipedia’s article on the “Argument from Ignorance” logical fallacy:
The argument from personal incredulity, also known as argument from personal belief or argument from personal conviction, refers to an assertion that because one personally finds a premise unlikely or unbelievable, the premise can be assumed not to be true, or alternatively that another preferred but unproven premise is true instead.
But don’t blame me for having a dog in this hunt, I’m a sometimes Deist, sometimes Gnostic, sometimes Pratchettist, and thus, the humor in the fact that ineffable-ness is likely to me to be a characteristic of an immortal omni-creator sort of being often wells in me. Additionally, I don’t have much faith in Man getting the question on presence or absence of such a thing 100% correct pro or con. In short, It’s up to you what to believe, the individual. I have friends that characterize Christianity as a fairy tale, and friends who deeply and firmly believe in god through a dogmatic creed that is Christian in nature. I tend to find that we can all get along on economics and rational thought quite well, considering.
I really do dislike Athiest bigots on an equal level to Christian bigots, so go figure.
Yes, he did. If he merely set everything in motion and let it fly, that means that god doesn’t know everything.
You’re arguing like a child. You refuse to logically think through the argument. You desire to supplant your wishes for reality.
Again, I do not. He said that he does not believe that god will help him survive. Clearly, that is incompatible with the idea that “with god, all things are possible”. And that, of course, is a notion from the very book he holds as holy.
You argue like a child. You refuse to think through the logical consequences of the argument.
Wonderful projection.
Non sequitur.
This also doesn’t follow. If you are about to fall off a ledge I can have the ability to catch you and choose not to do so. That doesn’t mean I wasn’t capable of doing it. Likewise, just because God can do something doesn’t mean he must just because I want it.
And you refuse to make a link to your “logical” consequences.
Dial-a-fallacy fallacy.
But it does.
Right, but what’s that got to do with anything here? Did you really want to use a false analogy, given that you weren’t the one who created me and you don’t know everything? If you’re going to use an analogy, do it correctly. Otherwise: don’t do it at all.
Now please: make the logical links and please think through the logical consequences of your argument. If you cannot, then I suggest that you don’t respond.
Hey, Kunigit, you and Econophysicyst should get together. Your temperament and powers of logic are so similar, I’d almost think you were the same person.
Go cry, emokid. Just because you’re not as prepared as you thought you were in no way reflects upon me. Please do not blame me for your lack of preparation and your lack of knowledge. Those are things you and you alone must rectify.
Are we clear?
Actually, I’m opaque, but I’m pretty sure I could get a good view of things looking through one of your ears and out the other.
That’s nice, but you’re still blaming me for your ignorance. Try not to act like the statists, ok. All your whining accomplishes one thing, though: it makes me laugh at you.
He’s hurting my heart. Make him stop! Waaah! RAPE!!!
Interestingly enough, that’s the same cry the statist makes when you tell the statist that governments are coercive monopolies.
As has been pointed out before: the pathology of the theist apologist and the statist apologist are incredibly alike.
Are you still trying to argue? How intriguingly pathological of you!
You smell.
Are you still trying to grow a pair?