[cowb0yl0gic]

I'm not trying to be merely argumentative or dismissive. I understand the words that you've written; I'm saying that there's no real point in them. You're saying (aren't you?): "The way I define God, this other thing must be true." While I'm saying, "So what?" If you are arguing strictly that, according to a specific theology, "this implies that", then great. But you sound more like you are saying, "This is true, therefore that must be true", which is a very different thing. I'm not arguing about your definitions, I'm arguing about the application of your logic to the real Universe. And I'm not arguing as an atheist, but simply as someone evaluating the discussion thread and what you said in that context. But, you seem to have "not addressed" my whole "God goo" thing, which completely demolishes any non-strictly-Abrahamic-definition-of-God argument. If God split itself into two equal parts, would they still not be "alpha and omega"? But feel free to disengage if you feel there's no value in engaging further. :)

[dang]

Religious flamewar is not wanted on HN, and neither are tit-for-tat spats. Please avoid these in the future.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[jedimind]

> I'm not trying to be merely argumentative or dismissive.

Then try harder I guess, because that's exactly what you are doing.

> I understand the words that you've written; I'm saying that there's no real point in them.

Yet in your supposed 'refutation' you clearly demonstrated that you haven't understood the argument at all, because you outright ignored it and continued paraphrasing already addressed points.

> "The way I define God, this other thing must be true."

False, this is a straw man and proves again that you can't be bothered to understand the argument, because it goes against your narrative. The argument is from the principle of causality and a proof by contradiction of the infinite regress. The first mover, the uncaused cause fits the description of how God describes himself in scripture.

This was in reaction to the popular atheist misrepresentation of what theists supposedly believe.

>But you sound more like you are saying, "This is true, therefore that must be true", which is a very different thing.

That's not even remotely what I said and reflects your poor reading and thinking skills.

> I'm not arguing about your definitions, I'm arguing about the application of your logic to the real Universe.

Yet you failed to propose a single coherent argument and instead resorted to misrepresenting and ignoring arguments in order to engage in the usual atheist rants.

> But, you seem to have "not addressed" my whole "God goo" thing, which completely demolishes any non-strictly-Abrahamic-definition-of-God argument.

Your "God goo thing" is a non argument based on your distortion of the given arguments, it doesn't demolish anything except itself.

> If God split itself into two equal parts, would they still not be "alpha and omega"? But feel free to disengage if you feel there's no value in engaging further. :)

That is the most nonsensical and contrived hypothetical I heard in these discussions and I am actually baffled that you would think that it makes remotely sense. What if you were a frog and had an IQ below 50, would I still need to take you seriously? Hypothetical of course, but feel free to disengage if you feel there's no value in engaging such an absurd question.

[dang]

Religious flamewar is not wanted on HN, and neither are tit-for-tat spats. Please avoid these in the future.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html