The Fool will refute any argument for the existence of god.

A Fool™ By Any Other NameIt's disheartening to see The Fool™ resort to ad hominem. In one paragraph I am accused of: Becoming evil Becoming more insulting and deceptive Inciting creepy feelings Engaging in slander and distortion Not attempting to argue whatsoever This seems to me to be both totally inaccurate and hypocritical on his part. First of all, all references to term "The Fool" and "The Hill" where done tongue-in-cheek, and even then only because he uses those terms for himself. Moreover, he refers to me repeatedly as a sophist, which given his manner of speaking could easily be understood as "a person who uses clever or quibbling arguments that are fundamentally unsound." It seems to me that the pot is calling the kettle black.Secondly, I did respond to his arguments about language. I clearly pointed out a dichotomy when I said:Perhaps The Fool™ wants to argue that we can't trust our language to correctly symbolize reality, in which case, The Fool™ can't refute my argument because he'd be using untrustworthy language to do so and I win anyway.Perhaps he's just pointing out the obvious: that language is independent of reality, and as such you cannot define anything into reality. Such thinking, of course, is hardly Straight From the Hill™. That's just common sense. Any fool can see that this is just a tautology.Then I pointed out that either conclusion fails to refute my argument. The Fool™ refuses to recognize my arguments, but that does not make them suddenly nonexistent. He must respond to my contentions on language if he wants his refutation to be taken seriously.Notice that, even if he were right, that I am utterly evil in my argumentation, it does not actually prove anything in his favor. That is what ad hominem really means. It means he is arguing against me as a person and not my arguments. Is this how debate works on The Hill™?Fool: This is great because you realize that all you have is word and idea of god, for there to be any reality to come about by elimination god and his supernatural-ness must be demonstrated in reality first. I look forward to the show. Mind if I watch from a hill top?This is a completely arbitrary, absurd constraint. I can't use a definition of God until I've proved God? How is this nothing more than blatant question begging?The Fool™'s Analysis FailsThe Fool™ accuses me of the Fallacy of Improper Transposition. [2] This occurs when failing to switch the antecedent and consequent upon their negation. So, premises 7, 8, and 9 have the form: If not-P, then not-Q I would commit the Fallacy of Improper Transposition if I made the following conclusion: Therefore, if P then Q Thankfully, I do not do that. You see, it is perfectly logical to negate the antecedent so long as you swap them, like so: If not-P then not-Q. Therefore, if Q then P. That is exactly what I do with my argument: If there is no immaterial, invariant and universal mind, then there are no abstract, invariant, and universal logical laws. Therefore, if there are abstract, invariant, and universal logical laws, then there is an immaterial, invariant and universal mind. If have not committed a logical fallacy, and therefore my argument remains valid.The Fool™ keeps referring to negative absolutes as non-existent. However, he doesn't explain why anyone should accept such thinking. At every turn, he keeps arbitrarily saying that my terms don't exist, yet all his terms seem to exist just fine.Well, non-existence is a negative absolute also, so I guess non-existence is non-existent as well, so his contentions all fail.ConclusionThe Fool™ was apparently insulted by my use of propositional symbolism, as though I wrote them for his benefit. Sometimes, in order to be clearly understood, it's helpful to use such symbolism to help communicate my intentions to the reader.After all his complaining and arbitrary hand-waving, he goes back to his usual conceit and says I've been outclassed.Well, now I'm insulted. I spent a great deal of time contending each and every point of his single-sentence rebuttals in Round 2 only to be greeted with a giant dismissal of 80% of everything I said. His entire argument rests on a prolific use of ipse dixit. He does not explain why one should dismiss my negative antecedents. He does not attempt to answer my challenge that matter cannot account for abstract entities. He does not respond to my transcendental argument."Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something." – PlatoSources http://www.thefreedictionary.com... http://www.fallacyfiles.org...