V Null

[V Null @null00333]

@matsciguycanada @TheGenXTruther You were refuted soundly. You then ran after appealing to numerous authorities that have since been refuted. My favorite part was when you sent the image and said “this sums up what I have to say about the first way” and then I refuted it entirely piece by piece. You’re an idiot

[V Null @null00333]

@TheGenXTruther Immaterial referring to something not being composed of matter, IS what something is. It’s also NOT the only thing I said. You like to isolate things to build strawmen. I said he IS pure act. You’re slow. You not knowing what pure act is just says that you’re a retard

[V Null @null00333]

@TheGenXTruther @matsciguycanada Lol you’re a Trump dick sucking atheist with a failed YouTube channel that doesn’t know basic philosophy. Mat would say you too are crazy for your trump dick sucking.

[V Null @null00333]

@matsciguycanada @TheGenXTruther You’re truly a retard. Just like in math, you can prove 2+2=4 but that doesn’t mean you’re justified in saying “wElL yOu cOuLdNt pRoVe tHaT tHe dErIvAtIvE oF 2 iS zErO”. That’s a separate step, jackass. But it’s all encompassed in mathematics just in separate proofs. Retard.

[V Null @null00333]

@TheGenXTruther I’ll wait for proof of the claims you just made.

“He most likely didn’t ever exist”
Is a claim that not even secular scholars hold to. You’re indeed a retard.

[V Null @null00333]

@TheGenXTruther “I’m doing better intellectually than yourself”

LOL. By dismissing without reason? By failing to understand basic terms? By presupposing a materialist empiricist view that you can’t prove? You’re so low tier.

[V Null @null00333]

@TheGenXTruther I already presented you with the beliefs. You think merely saying “pure act is meaningless” is a critique. Stick to debating people on the street

[V Null @null00333]

@TheGenXTruther I didn’t define it by what it isn’t. I said pure act. He IS pure act. You’re either retarded or just trolling at this point.

“Immaterial” is a trait that definitely does make up how something is defined. For example, numbers, are immaterial. You’re slow.

[V Null @null00333]

@TheGenXTruther You literally accused me of defining god by what he is not.

I said he IS pure act which refutes your claim. Your grandstanding fails.

[V Null @null00333]

@matsciguycanada Hey retard, Aquinas 5 ways deal with natural theism. He then focuses on attributes further into his summa and on Christianity specifically in even later parts. You’re an idiot 😂

[V Null @null00333]

@TheGenXTruther Ah, I see. The retardation runs deep. From your failed YouTube channel.

“If Jesus was alive, he was just a regular person, so he’s dead now”

Question begging nonsense motivated by your failed empiricist and materials worldview. Prove your worldview before making critiques.

[V Null @null00333]

@TheGenXTruther Your question being that materialism is true so prove materialism is true otherwise your 2nd need 3rd nonsense fails. God isn’t material. If you were familiar with what you’re talking about, you’d know this

[V Null @null00333]

@TheGenXTruther YOU don’t know what it means. That’s clear. But to say “we” is retarded. Your ignorance is irrelevant. Metaphysical refers to the immaterial nature of something. You’re begging the question by holding to a type of materialism. Your critique fails

[V Null @null00333]

@TheGenXTruther “How do you know he is immaterial? If you know nothing about it?”

First, we do know things about him.

Second, since god is pure act and things that are material are subject to potential and change, god cannot be material and so he is immaterial.

I’ve done what you asked.

[V Null @null00333]

@TheGenXTruther @matsciguycanada @Truth_matters20 I literally just answered what god is. To add to it, god is metaphysical and is pure act.

“What’s its made of” begs the question about materiality. God isn’t material.

“Where is it” implies again, that it is material. Begs the question.