His given reasons are irrational.

So, you may never know the hidden emotional distortions that deluded him. He won’t even know what they are. That’s why he was self-deceived into a cult.

Just like everyone else self-deceived into any other cult.

A note to my readers: given the context, you are allowed to laugh at the irony of Matthew’s statement here.

“Its a logically necessary property of any material that it can be reshaped, if it can have shape, it can have any shape”. WTF is this? You literally made this up…

So far as I can tell in your windy childish rant, this is the only example of actually identifying anything in my article you think is in error, so it’s the only thing worth responding to (even though you even acted like a child in saying this, when you could have made the point like an adult).

That it is logically possible, for example, for a circle to be bent into a square has been formally proved since the days of Euclid and Archimedes.

This was Aristotle’s point: every circle (for example) has the potential to become a square.

You may be confusing potentials with actuals (the paragraph you are quoting is about potentials, which are logically necessary properties in all geometries). Because it sounds like you are complaining that to actually transform (say) a circle into a square requires some actual thing. Which is my own point. So evidently you didn’t even understand what I was saying. Which tracks. Because the rest of your rant betrays a severe lack of reading comprehension and even emotional discipline. So one should not expect you to read at anywhere near the required college- or AP-level.

I could cite sentence aftet sentence after sentence of your nonsensical rambling and literally prove you wrong.

The core of your idiocy is toward the very beginning of your ignorant rambling, so let’s start there.

“Its a logically necessary propery of any material that it can be reshaped, if it can have shape, it can have any shape”. WTF is this? You literally made this up and called it “logically necessary”. You seem to think that a formal cause and potency (potential) is synonymous with “shape”. Can a rubber be made roghly into the shape of line? Can yarn? Can rubber take on the “shape” of goo, if an efficient cause such as a heat source is applied to it? Yes. Can yarn? No, no yarn cannot. It cannot, because rubber literally HAS potencies as apart of its being, that yarn does not have. This principle is true of monkeys, particles, gravity, horse shit, the strong nuclear force, literally everything that changes, has as apart of its being potencys to BE certain ways and not others, and/or the ability to function some ways and not others. “Science” literally has nothing to say about any of this, and this absolutely MUST be true or science would not exist. If monkeys randomly had the essence and functionality and potencies of planets some of the time, or if gravity took on the essence of water, just whenever, then youd live in an utterly incoherent universe.
You then start the obligatory atheist rambling on about multiverses LOL. Multiverses have literally nothing to do with any of this. You may as well have argued “philosophical idealism and nominalism is wrong, because theres probably a multiverse and we have no scientific evidence for nominalism” Its like WTF are you even talking about? If you said something like that (you have), you simply don’t understand a word you’re saying.

Buffoons like yourself, Dawkins, Carroll, Krauss, whomever have GOT to quit pretending like you’re “experts” on things you don’t remotely understand. This “refutation” (lol) is one long fluster cuck. How is it even possible that people like you can make such long responses about things you don’t even sorta understand? Simply amazing.

I found this to be incoherent. A state of affairs would still be objectively true or false. It’s not separate from the truth. If the state of affairs was that absolutely nothing existed, it would be objectively true that nothing existed. A mind shouldn’t be required for objective truths. The entire point of objectivity is that something is true, independent of any mind. Only subjectivity requires that a mind exists.

I’m sorry, what’s irrational about relying on our senses (empiricism)? Isn’t that how you experience the vast majority of life?

You know a creator with foreknowledge can’t provide free will, right? For there to be a point of creation requires that there be a point when there was no creation. If … at the point of no creation, your god knows exactly what you will do … then … once created, it would be impossible for you to choose to do otherwise.

Right.

Because you have no response to the fact that I said Premise 41 is a false lemma, rendering all of Feser’s arguments fallacious, and I was right.

And that’s that.

September 11th post. Thank you and have a good day.

Dude. You aren’t responding to anything I said about Premise 41.

You just keep making up stories about what we weren’t talking about.

Premise 41 is a false lemma. It therefore violates the Law of Excluded Middle.

The argument it contains is therefore fallacious.

All of Feser’s arguments contain some version of it.

Therefore all of Feser’s arguments are fallacious.

There is nothing else to discuss here. And your trying to avoid that actual fact with irrelevant word walls is a waste of everyone’s time.