DIss0n80r wrote:khanster wrote:DIss0n80r wrote:This is a good example of why it's a waste of time to try to reason with people who hold strong irrational beliefs.
Like your particular irrational belief that square circles can exist ...OK...
I don't believe in square circles. Nor do I disbelieve in the possibility of non-euclidean mathematical objects which might appear as such to us.
But that is an attempted red herring on your part to attempt to distract from the debate you are losing in THIS thread. Do you have anything other than irrelevancies in your bag of tricks?
I recall arguing with you where you implied square circles are not impossible ..or did you say that limited human reasoning just could not say whether square circles existed or not? I do recall at1with0 trying to argue for the existence of square circles, yes...
But, whatever the case, I see you have reverted to your old tactics of wordplay and going off topic.
So please stay on topic.
This thread is about the existence of intelligent design but humphreys appears to wish to turn it into an endless debate about the non-existence of the Christian god due to his own unresolved psychological issues about losing faith. He probably grew up in a religious environment and now proudly proclaims independence of religious dogma.
I am going to quit arguing for the ontological argument due to the lack of comprehension by one side of this debate, it could be me or it could be you.