BTW just so we are clear when I say "UNCOMMON DESCENT is over there" I am nor tell'in ye to leave. I am just giving ye some advice on where to better go to shop yer contra Scientific Theism polemics. Ye want to hang oot here I got no say. But if ye make bad arguments I will lecture you on how bad they are and why. BTW I expect the same treatment as well nay I demand it.

Excuse me but what specifically did I say to you that was so bad? I didn't personally insult you. I attacked yer arguments. I didn't call you "clueless". Ye did that tae me mate. You also accused me of not being open minded. All personal attacks not reasoned counter arguments in defense of yer view or critique of mine. Yeh Ficino is a class act maybe ye can learn from him to respond with reason & intelligence (many times he is above my weight class there. I am nor ashamed to admit it too) and not emotion like a wee child. Because that is how you have come across here. A child throwing a tantrum. Like a wee woman.

So grow up sir and grow a pair. As fur the others who have bad reactions I don't give a fig about persons whose main complaint is "Boo hoo! No fair! Yer not Fundamentalists!". Nor my problem mate. Catholics, Classic Theist and Scholastics. If ye wan presuppositionalists, Reformed and or YEC UNCOMMON DESCENT might be more yer speed. Have at them. Good luck too. I'm rooting fur ya and I mean that.

Well, not everybody. There is a Ficino who commented on my post and did so without all the bombast and unnecessary lecturing. Check him out. You could learn a thing or two about responding to posts from following Mr. Ficino. By the way I see that others in this chain have had reactions to your responses similar to mine.

>So I made a comment on this site, which apparently offended you as a participant.

As I explained I apologized for being harsh but hearing the same error over and over is tedious. Like the wee evolutionary biologist who hears the wee Creationist Yob bang on about "The 2nd law of thermal dynamics refutes evolution" or some such dosh. God is not a scientific question. God is a philosophical one.

>And in doing so, I greeted me with condescension, contempt, belittlement, insults, ridicule, and a holier-than-thou attitude.

Ye mean I was unimpressed with yer bad arguments like the competent biologist is nor impressed with the wee YEC 2nd law dosh? Yeh I was. Ye made a bad argument. At least acknowledge it was bad. If ye want me to treat ye more kindly then ask but ye don't get to make lousy arguments without being called on it. BTW that goes fur me too and everybody else.

I agree. Thanks

You can make universal affirmatives or negations without bringing in possible worlds. Since there is at least one truth in the "real" world that is not true in some possible world, I would leave out possible worlds.

>Well, your reply is about what I expected. You are totally clueless.

Said every Young Earth Creationist with a 5th graders knowledge of biology when he butted heeds with some 3rd year bio majors.

>If you were in a real debate, you'd probably get kicked out of the room.

You need to grow up man and nor cry like a wee bairn. So ye feel humiliated because we are not a blog full of wee unsophisticated fundie types. Nor my problem man.

Well, your reply is about what I expected. You are totally clueless. If you were in a real debate, you'd probably get kicked out of the room.

>Yes, it does need to be clarified. I just edited it to ad all those worlds. Thanks for the notice.

Ye should at least acknowledge you edited it(that specific post) so as not to mislead. My post responded to yer original version.

>I don't believe God exists. There are many reasons, but for brevity, I offer this simple syllogism:

>1. For something to exist empirically in all possible worlds, there must be empirical proof and falsifiable evidence, where proof and falsifiable evidence are understood by science,

>2. There is no empirical proof or falsifiable evidence in all possible worlds for God,

>3. Therefore, God does not exist empirically in all possible worlds.

Actually all this means is that scientific theism does not exist in all possible worlds. Which we all here already believe. But ye yerself admitted not every question can be answered by science and I would add metaphysics and philosophy have to be settled with philosophical argument and or answered with philosophical defeaters.

Is reductionist materialism true? That is a philosophical question? Is Essentalism or strong Platonic Realism True? Philosophy. Naturalism? Same thing. Science can only answer quantitative questions not qualitative ones. Science by method has to abstract out the qualitative.

>I don't believe God exists.

We here Classic Theists and Skeptics alike don't believe that "god" exists either and or we lack belief in it. But there are other God concepts so I cannot recommend enough ye study Philosophy if only to be a better Atheist.

Now chill man.

You're right. I got a little carried away with the "all possible worlds" qualifier. I don't know what goes on in all possible worlds. A few of them may have evidence for the existence for a god. Maybe I just take it out and put in something like "the known universe." Still not universal. but maybe a little more coherent.