Low hanging fruit - 2

izbo10 has gotten back to me.  Unfortunately, his response provided little of the boastful words he wrote me yesterday:  "dude when i get home from work tonight be prepared to have this crap butchered umkay". 


What he did provide is more of the same bluster.  He had a lot of arguments from me to choose from, and didn't seem to engage any of them.
(Oh, and I didn't correct or change any spelling...or lack thereof.)

izbo10:  Here's the point, you have came on my page and said kerrigan won, strangely you have failed to live up to demonstrating your god, it is an absolute failure on your part. Either your and kerrigan's argument from morailty is a red herring or its a god of the gaps argument. Please, if you know what a syllagism is present and argument you or dumb*** kerrigan have made that actually presents a logical argument that concludes god. Maybe you should actually try understanding the context in which I made said statement. You were saying kerrigan destroyed me using the morality argument and i was saying i would love for you to show me how a god who agrees with this type of action is moral. Your god clearly agrees with it since he is all powerful and does nothing to stop what he knows will happen. Try actually using logic next time umkay?

Hosea 13:16 for god agreeing with pregnant women having their stomachs ripped open, a moral being who is powerful enough to stop this ****, does unless of course said being agrees and hence they would be immoral.

P.s. you like to mock me you have proven to be a parrot who other than parroting philosophical terms is one brain cell short of a brain cell, now see how ad hominem works?

My reply:  Hello izbo10,

you have failed to live up to demonstrating your god

Kerrigan did.  I'm not obligated to reinvent the wheel.

Either your and kerrigan's argument from morailty is a red herring or its a god of the gaps argument.

Argument?

that actually presents a logical argument that concludes god.

And *there's* your problem.  Neither of us CONCLUDE God's existence.  We demonstrate that God is a necessary precondition for rationality and morality.  You have not yet understood our argument.  I suggest you start trying.

You were saying kerrigan destroyed me using the morality argument

I did no such thing.  I said he destroyed you, period.  You brought up the morality angle.  I corrected you on this last message - are you just not reading what I write to you, are you a disrespectful punk, or are you possessed of low intelligence?
For the record, my guess is disrespectful punk, but you can change that by actually addressing what I write.

Your god clearly agrees with it since he is all powerful and does nothing to stop what he knows will happen.

1) How could you possibly know that?  Murder of children happens all the time in the world, and many more are tempted to murder than actually do.  So unless you can prove a universal negative (and have fun with that), this statement is impossible to substantiate.
2) My last msg dealt specifically with this.  My blogpost went into even more detail.
Namely, the other reason I call your statement about "God has zero problem" wrong is b/c, even if God did command ripping open pregnant women at one or more specific times in the past, that is not at all the same as saying God has ZERO problem with it.  Since God has commanded not to murder and not to commit abortion to all people NOW, that means that God does have a problem with it, and one is greater than zero.
3) Are you 100% pro-life?  If not, what problem specifically do you have with God's being pro-choice?
4) If you respond "but abortion is OK if the woman consents", one wonders how you could morally justify that statement, that consent renders something permissible, whatever the action.  I might agree in certain cases (though not in the case of abortion; for one thing, the baby was never inquired of) but I don't see how your worldview can justify it.

Hosea 13:16 for god agreeing with pregnant women having their stomachs ripped open, a moral being who is powerful enough to stop this ****, does unless of course said being agrees and hence they would be immoral.

1) Asserting a reason for morality does not make it so.
2) You'll recall that I gave you 3 points to make sure that your chosen biblical psg actually does teach what you say it teaches.  Here they are:

a. I'd be interested in seeing what psgs you mention. Does the context make clear that GOD IS COMMANDING SUCH? Or is God telling people what is going to happen at the hands of evil men? From my doublecheck just now, it looks like the latter.

b. Even if you could find a psg where God specifically commands that pregnant women be ripped open, don't you remember that asserting a reason for morality does not make it so?

c. Also, if you could find a psg like that, you said "God has zero problem with it", which is entirely inaccurate. What about the more general commands to people not to commit murder? Even one counterexample disproves your statement that God has ZERO problem with it. It would demonstrate that He has a least one problem with it.

The verse says: 
16Samaria will be held guilty, For she has rebelled against her God. They will fall by the sword, Their little ones will be dashed in pieces, And their pregnant women will be ripped open.

So, the answer is FAIL. God didn't command it; He predicted it. 
I take it from your fail that you cannot substantiate your point about God commanding ripping open pregnant women.  Thanks for playing.

Finally, I missed where I ad hominem-ed you. Please quote me doing so.  Thanks!