Everyone look at this. Oh how I wish he were here to be pointed and laughed at.
Everyone look again. Ha ha!
Which would mean it's only bad if you get caught. Most people learn about that when they're 4 or so.
He concedes, but thinks he didn't, because he didn't understand it.
Self preservation involves jails. I'm not sure whether he understood this and pretended not to avoid shame or if it really went over his head. It wasn't a hard thing to grasp.
See how he said something that sort of sounded like a point, but didn't actually contain any information?
This is a point that everyone should learn, because you all did it. Using extravagant adjectives doesn't make your point any more valid. It might show that you are impressed by such things. Take away his flowery language, and all he said here was "Nuh uh."
This was why arguing with him was difficult. You couldn't build on any points because he was only able to handle one thing at a time. If God were inclined to lie to you, he could make you believe whatever he wanted, therefore, believing God is evil can only means God wants you to think he's evil for some reason. God is either telling the truth, or you can outsmart God.
"Evil is what God is not, by definition."
What an ignorance of simple concepts. Something can be the truth, that didn't stop him from believing something else. He knew that full well, otherwise he thinks I said that God was both evil and good, which he obviously didn't. That's how poorly he thought out his arguments.
Because if evil is what God is not, by definition, he couldn't be responsible for evil. Simple.
If evil, by definition, is what God is not, he is the only one who can be responsible for the nature of evil as it is defined by him. It's not like I didn't warn him.
This is true, as I have shown. God is either telling the truth or you're smarter than him.
A person can think he's bananna dingleberry too, but what relevance this response has to intelligent discussion, I don't know. It is mathematically impossible to believe God is evil, and his whiny objections only show that he's not really very good at math either.
Notice how he intentionally bypassed the crux of the issue? What did he think I wasn't going to notice? Adults are different from children, epileptics are different from non epileptics, and God is different from us.
An opinion is a belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof, which is clearly not the case in the scenario I described, as there is positive knowledge that each opposing perspective is correct. He couldn't have really meant that... I think he just assumed I wouldn't respond anymore after he said he quit.
This was one of his favorite tactics. He makes a statement which I debunk, he then responds as if I have validated some predicate and repeats the same statement, incorporating elements of my response so as to appear more correct. He's now said that anyone who uses the same argument, regardless if it's being used in totally independent and unrelated contexts, must reach the same conclusion. I'm beginning to feel like I've taken advantage of him.
That's great.