its definitely a stretch calling that a rebuttal. that was pathetic. not only did this guy manage to not answer any of the questions that the attractive oxford guy posed, but he somehow got the attractive oxford guys argument wrong and then proceeded to base his argument (in the loosest definition of the word) on his wrong assumptions. it was morally insulting for me to listen to him.
first of all, conceeding an argument should automatically forfeit you from said argument. if you concede, then its over. especially if you're conceding major points. this retard said he didnt believe some things about the bible, like a 7 day creation. we spent a ridiculous amount of time in bible class talking about the 7 day creation and how it was literal and the implications of it not being literal and the such. and he just goes and conceeds he wouldnt say everything in the bible is correct (obviously he said it in a different way, but this is what it essentially boils down to). then he goes on about what is more probable to believe in, a series of hallucinations of the same thing, or God. well CLEARLY, the ATHEIST would say the hallucinations!!! HE'S AN ATHEIST!!! i mean really, if you spend your entire life in an naturalist worldview, God is clearly not the probable answer. and really when you think about it, how probable is it that an all powerful god who created the universe, died for those who rejected him, hated him?
so since i still havent concluded the answer for the salvation of a naturalist, and if this idiot is at the top of the game and hasnt concluded anything even slightly worthwhile, i guess theyre all going to hell.
No comments:
Post a Comment