so you are accusing the method that is able to provide the credible knowledge, not Humans and their innate drive to discover knowledge and use according to its personal needs.
Are you even reading what you write?

btw mr universeness tap danced and never addressed my answer on his immoral comment about this war crime — Nickolasgaspar

I answered you fully it's just that your attention span and cognitive ability are limited.
I can only work with the ingredients you offer. You are asking us to turn you into an enlightened individual but you offer very poor materials to work with.
Perhaps you watch too many cartoons on the internet instead of its more useful offerings.

Again you don't understand what logic is....lol — Nickolasgaspar

Logic is a totally boring subject. It's math that's interesting. The world is a place without inherent logic. That exists in the mind only, and some people even build a philosophy on it. I can easily understand logic. What's so difficult about that. If it's your strong side, I can imagine you worship it. But I don't and have not the slightest intention using it. So it's only logically you wont hear logically sound arguments from my side. I base life and philosophy on something deeper than such surface phenomenon.

And who brandished such tech for such a purpose? god(s)? theists? atheists? or just HUMANS? — universeness

Who cares? It is science that produced them. Without science no such weaponry. How logical can it be. Even my primitive logic can understand that.

Funny! Brother Uni called me a panto player. So him being a tap dancer combines us in a powerful duo package! Panto Tap! — Hillary

:lol: Now that's a hellspawn partnership if ever there was one! Good luck with that.
The antichrist is born of such a union!

"This is the argument you are using to posit a god called Cosmos which is 'more omnipotent' than omnipotent! In your world infinity + 1 is bigger than infinity?"

Strawman, You are missing the point of what an ad absurdums is and does and this shows that you don't understand it.
The Ad absurdum analogy is designed to be as irrational as the claim it addresses.
So you are really evaluating this Ad Absurdum for what...logic?lol seriously? hahaha
Plus I don't accept omnipotence or any of the omni (and so all modern theologians) because it is a nonsensical concept.
Can your god(of your culture not yours) create a rock that heavy he can not lift it? Can your god create a burrito that hot he can not eat it? etc etc lol

The theistic argument is irrational by default....so I need an irrational analogy to expose the absurdity.
Plus Cosmos as a concept is bigger then our universe and it includes god so you meshed up again in your critique.
I am not sure that you are that bad in reasoning. Your anger for me exposing your weaknesses in your reasoning must be clouding your thinking and that is obvous in your arguments.

Logic is a totally boring subject — Hillary

I can believe that you hold that opinion...it shows in your reasoning lol

I answered you fully it's just that your attention span and cognitive ability are limited. — universeness

Yes you did...and that was a really bad answer!

I can believe that you hold that opinion...it shows in your reasoning — Nickolasgaspar

Do I use reason and logic?

The theistic argument is irrational by default....so I need an irrational analogy to expose the absurdity. — Nickolasgaspar

Your Cosmos God assumption is very rational, to be honest! But it's still about the universe. Your alter ego in heaven has a good time! He laughs his pants off, looking at you. Well, coming to think about it, he cries buckets full! :lol:

- This is why we have rules and Laws of WAR. Does the Term "Geneva Convention" rings any bells?
Stop attempting to justify the phenomenon we are trying to regulate through laws — Nickolasgaspar

Again you offer 'no shit Sherlock' comments.

Your reasoning could be used by any criminal to defend his crimes "Human nature in unequal and competitive societies becomes a bitch....why trying to regulate it" — Nickolasgaspar

Which word in 'all war is criminal' did you fail to understand 'Mr English is not my first language?'

How old are you sir???
Did you ever thought taking a course on Logic?
With every comment you dig a deeper hole for you.....you never getting out of there mate. — Nickolasgaspar

You ask for data I have posted many times. Pay attention Mr minutia.
As for digging holes, I think you display a much bigger shovel than I, along with a far greater tendency to dig holes.

The antichrist is born of such a union! — universeness

Consider me the second coming. You and Nickolast could form the anti. Together we form the Final Trinity, the announcers of chaos, death, and destruction...

Why both of you, instead of acknowledging the argument exposing your irrational position you prefer to ridicule yourselves by acting like clowns? — Nickolasgaspar

An accusation from BEPO GASBAG in full clown makeup and costume! :rofl: Go figure?

Your Cosmos God assumption is very rational, to be honest! — Hillary

lol.....the same you would think about my Smurf demigod, Lilith, the three little piggies , Casper the ghost etc ....

If you want to change or clarify what you meant....I will accept it. — Nickolasgaspar

Ok Sherlock, I will repeat again to aid your slow wit! My typing on the multiverse posit and the god posit where BOTH personal estimates of MY conviction towards both posits. The god posit...0.1%
The multiverse...>0.1% So I was indicating that I find the multiverse posit more convincing than the god posit and you dragged over those embers so vigorously to come up with contrived bullshit about mathematical probability and the rules of statistical analysis and even attempted to throw in more bullshit about contrived logical fallacy to remain standing on quicksand of your own making.
You expect me to respect your musings as fair-minded? Hah! Keep trying to work the megaphone fool on the hill or prat in the pit. You shame yourself BEPO!

- This is why we have rules and Laws of WAR. Does the Term "Geneva Convention" rings any bells?
Stop attempting to justify the phenomenon we are trying to regulate through laws — Nickolasgaspar


Again you offer 'no shit Sherlock' comments. — universeness

So you try to justify a war crime by appeal to the nature of war and when I point out that we have standards by which we judge war practices ....your answer is this statement? lol....ok
Pls communicate to others your relation with logic and reasoning...

Which word in 'all war is criminal' did you fail to understand 'Mr English is not my first language?' — universeness

The problem is not with my understanding your statement is just wrong.
Ciminal is a legal term. You don't get to hang it on any irrational human behavior.
Wars are irrational from the aspect of the well being of human societies, but as I said, Wars are fueled and enabled by our Philosophies and conflicting interests and some times huge misunderstanding (like yours in a general level)
Even when a war ise declared unlawful there are rules to be followed .....that you obviously ignore.
The evaluation of "war crimes" is done by those rules.
Bombing innocent civilians is a war crime and your soldier's lives is not an excuse for it.
Making up poetic excuses by stretching the word criminal doesn't help your case.

-"You ask for data I have posted many times. "
-You are shy?Is there a problem to see if your data remain constant throughout the year ? lol

Who cares? It is science that produced them. Without science no such weaponry. How logical can it be. Even my primitive logic can understand that — Hillary

You anthropomorphise Science! I choose not to. Put the blame where it fits! with humans, not gods!

My typing on the multiverse posit and the god posit where BOTH personal estimates of MY conviction towards both posits. The god posit...0.1%
The multiverse...>0.1% S — universeness

Ok the word credence isn't mentioned so you changed your statement, cool!
So next time think twice before criticizing other people's use of English.....
Now I guess you don't know that you can express your doubt about god without using numbers....

I am morally superior to any god who promotes slavery, genocides, gender and social inequality, eternal punishment for finite crimes, who accuses his creations for his screwups for not foreseeing how scarce and competitive environments enable bad behavior, human sacrifice, bigotry.
I am not just far more moral than you made up god, I am also far more educated to know human biology and behavior.
So when the time comes he will be in a big trouble. He will have to give answers for his stupidity, his immorality and his ignorance to me..... — Nickolasgaspar

Therefore please lay down your life so that I can start to believe what you say.

Preferably do it by crucifixion so that I can watch crows pecking you during 3-5 day period, which is approx. time that crucified persons spent on the cross, if you didn't know that.

And during that time you're supposed to keep saying how morally perfect you are so that no one gathered stops believing your words :wink:

its not rational or ethical to choose the lives of people who not participate in a war over those who do, independent if you find the act of war to be "criminal".
Again just because life in a society is unfair that doesn't justify a criminal for being unfair to his victims.
You see, I accept your claim (criminal wars) for the shake of the argument and still it doesn't hold up!
Why reasoning is so difficult for you????

Strawman, You are missing the point of what an ad absurdums is and does and this shows that you don't understand it. — Nickolasgaspar

Your interpretation of strawmanning you mean. You keep making Latin excuses for your poor skills in dialogue with others. Do you expect people to steelman you when you offer such poor logic?
You invented a beef with me and you have made every pathetic effort you can to gain a hit and you have failed miserably. This exposes you as a prideful prat who sucks on sour grapes.

The theistic argument is irrational by default....so I need an irrational analogy to expose the absurdity.
Plus Cosmos as a concept is bigger then our universe and it includes god so you meshed up again in your critique.
I am not sure that you are that bad in reasoning. Your anger for me exposing your weaknesses in your reasoning must be clouding your thinking and that is obvous in your arguments — Nickolasgaspar

How naive are you? You think any part of OUR exchange has been about the atheism/theism debate?
Your admission to having sinister purpose is beginning to surface and manifest.
I originally informed you that @Hillary was not female, simply because I did not want to read the posts that he would have allowed you to continue with down that particular rabbit hole. He would have done so as a harmless gigglefest that's all. I just wanted to bat it away.
You then tried to browbeat me with Imo, disrespectful commentary. That was a bad idea. You have typed like a pompous ass, ever since. We can continue as long as you like Mr Minutia!

Therefore please lay down your life so that I can start to believe what you say. — SpaceDweller

No I am have a superior personality. I don't want followers, I don't want people to believe me on fact value. I want people to educate themselves academically and believe in what is Objectively verified.

Preferably do it by crucifixion so that I can watch crows pecking you during 3-5 day period, which is approx. time that crucified persons spent on the cross, if you didn't know that. — SpaceDweller

- I am far more advanced and civilized than your gods is . I don't do blood sacrifices. I communicate to people and tell them how to build their societies so that they don't benefit and favor psychopathology and bad behavior.
Obviously your god doesn't have a major on Psychology...lol

So you try to justify a war crime by appeal to the nature of war and when I point out that we have standards by which we judge war practices — Nickolasgaspar

Such standards were put in place BECAUSE of WW2. You put the cart before the horse as usual!

Learn the uses of an Ad Hominem and then we can talk. I can not address ignorant accusations...its a waste of time.
If you want academic material ...I can provide you...let me know.

Such standards were put in place BECAUSE of WW2. You put the cart before the horse as usual! — universeness

Irrelevant. We are not chronicling about these rules, we are addressing your immoral statement (justifying the killing civilians over soldiers). plus we judged the Nazis based on some kind of standards...so those standards should apply on anyone.

Ok the word credence isn't mentioned so you changed your statement, cool!
So next time think twice before criticizing other people's use of English.....
Now I guess you don't know that you can express your doubt about god without using numbers... — Nickolasgaspar

:rofl: Mr Minutia bleats again! The fact that you don't have enough command of English to be able to connect the concept of 'credence' with 'personal conviction,' because you think that credence is only applicable toward objective truth, is an example of how shallow your thinking is.
Especially when there is not much CREDENCE in the posit that objective truth even exists!
My use of percentage to express my personal conviction towards a particular posit or to use it as a personal statement towards how credible a particular posit is TO ME, is perfectly valid amongst the vast majority of all other human beings I have ever talked to in my life.
It's just little small-minded fools like you who create the bad smells in debates between grownups.

Therefore please lay down your life so that I can start to believe what you say — SpaceDweller

Oh come on SpaceDweller, you can do better than that. The Jesus fable of human sacrifice was supposed to pay all debts of sin. Why are you asking for another from a mere mortal?

Learn the uses of an Ad Hominem and then we can talk. I can not address ignorant accusations...its a waste of time.
If you want academic material ...I can provide you...let me know — Nickolasgaspar

And you accuse me of insulting you! :rofl:
All you are doing is offering me more reasons to continue to insult you.
I think I am much better at it than you are! :rofl:

You see, I accept your claim (criminal wars) for the shake of the argument and still it doesn't hold up!
Why reasoning is so difficult for you???? — Nickolasgaspar

Yeah, you keep 'shakin' those arguments BEPO, perhaps they will hold up for you eventually once you have learned how to proofread or at least use the provided edit facility that becomes available after you click on the 'Post Comment' button. Learn how to use the three small dots that appear when you hover the mouse cursor to the right of the time indicator for your posting. It's not difficult Sherlock!

Irrelevant. We are not chronicling about these rules, we are addressing your immoral statement (justifying the killing civilians over soldiers). plus we judged the Nazis based on some kind of standards...so those standards should apply on anyone — Nickolasgaspar

The concept of soldiers and civilians is the reality of what is changing. Soldiers don't stay away from civilians during war. You need to go back to something like the Napoleonic wars to find big armies fighting in a field somewhere with few or no civilians in danger.
Many civilians will die in modern warfare. No legislation will ever prevent that. Only the victors will be able to enforce justice on those who committed or commanded attrocities AFTER THE WAR IS OVER.
It gives hope to all when the victors also prosecute those who committed atrocities from their own side but that tends to be only based on the most extreme examples reported and can be pure tokenism but should still be pursued. The standards do apply to everyone.
Churchill allowed the bombing of Coventry without evacuating the civilians because he did not want the Nazis to find out that the British has broken the enigma code. Many call that a war crime. Others say his decision saved many more lives than it cost. What would you have done Sherlock?