The Argument from Truth

[Stevil]

I don't mean to be snide and nasty but a person would have to be somewhat mentally challenged to think that physical objects cannot exist without a consciousness present to define them. His argument is more bizarre than most we have heard given that most of his posts hadn't been too weird apart from his enthusiastic call to have a holy war.

[Sandra Craft]

*hiccup* Drink!

Yep.  Ed is one of those people who makes me sad I don't drink.

I guess I can be happy to say that I haven't given Egor enough thought to even know where this grand blog is.

Came across it while satisfying my obsession with background checks on weird theists, but never bothered to read it.

He also told us how to find it in his first post and my curiosity got the better of me.  Let me know exactly what to expect from him and he proved true to form.

[ThinkAnarchy]

I have obviously missed some interesting things here. I had a hard time following his points, but what I gathered was this:

Despite there being physical objects prior to living consciousness, those things only existed if there were a consciousness? If that is his argument in a nutshell, even if we accepted that as truth, it still wouldn't be evidence of a god. It would simply mean there was a god and things existed prior to us, or there is no god and things that exist didn't exist until we existed...

[The Magic Pudding]

I have obviously missed some interesting things here. I had a hard time following his points,

That's probably because they move about, they're kind of wobbly.
I find it best to approximate trajectory and place myself where I think they are least likely to land.

[xSilverPhinx]

I have obviously missed some interesting things here. I had a hard time following his points, but what I gathered was this:

Despite there being physical objects prior to living consciousness, those things only existed if there were a consciousness? If that is his argument in a nutshell, even if we accepted that as truth, it still wouldn't be evidence of a god. It would simply mean there was a god and things existed prior to us, or there is no god and things that exist didn't exist until we existed...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't he basically saying that he imagines his reality? ???

[ThinkAnarchy]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't he basically saying that he imagines his reality? ???

Maybe. I could read his blog to better understand his argument, but I clicked it once and he compared atheists to rapists. That was the point where I was done. When he compared non-violent atheists to violent rapists he lost any credibility he might have had on any subject.

[MadBomr101]

He lost all credibility with me within three days after he first showed up.  He really hasn't got a clue what he's talking about and the arrogance act gets old fast.