You complimented me on my "nice ad hominem". Thank you, but I get no credit there. My saying "Self-contradiction appears to be a habit with you" is not an ad hominem. An ad hominem is an argument in the form "my opponent is bad (or good), therefore my opponent's argument is bad (or good)". An observation of a person's behavior is not an argument at all, and therefore not an ad hominem. Had I said "dressing well appears to be a habit with you", the form would have been identical, but you would not likely have mistaken it for an ad hominem. The complimentary antecedent would not have blinded you to the absent consequent the way the unflattering one did.

My assertion that self contradiction appears to be a habit with you was a statement of fact, not an argument. You, however, disagree with the truth of my asserted fact. What can we do to resolve whether the fact is true or not? Argue from evidence! Here is my evidence:

1. Writing "I decline to play this game" as your move in the game is a self-contradictory statement. You made the statement; therefore, you contradicted yourself.

2. You wrote "If God created the universe, then he exists outside of it, and it is unreasonable for us to expect to comprehend the nature of existence in a realm outside of and above our own." Then you wrote "I claim God exists in a realm outside our own....I reason that he must". The second statement contradicts the first. If it is unreasonable, you cannot reason it. If you can reason it, then it is not unreasonable. You made both statements; therefore, you contradicted yourself.

3. and 4. You wrote "I decline to play this game" early Tuesday morning. But, by Tuesday evening, you played your next move, saying, among other things, "I commented on the "game"...but I did not play it". Given that commenting is the game, you contradicted yourself twice. First by playing after saying you decline to play, and second by making the self-contradictory statement that you played it (by commenting) but did not play it.

If the four examples attributed to you were made by you, then you contradicted yourself at least four times in our very brief acquaintance. Therefore, my assertion that self-contradiction appears to be a habit with you is not only not an ad hominem, but also not unfounded.

He said, ironically, while taking his final shot from the free throw line.

Self-contradiction appears to be a habit with you.

Alright then, we agree that you said God exists in a realm outside our own. Good so far.

I remind you, I made no argument whatever. I quoted you. That is not an argument.

I asked you a question about your statement. As you have confirmed that you did in fact claim "God exists in a realm outside our own", and as you previously stated "it is unreasonable for us to expect to comprehend the nature of existence" in that realm, I will reiterate my question: if there is, as you asserted, a realm "outside of and above our own" that is "unreasonable for us to expect to comprehend", is it reasonable to declare, as you did, what exists in such a realm? No argument yet; just a question.

From the indirect answer you gave, "So, who am I to say what exists there? Again, I am a finite human being, so I cannot", I could infer that you think it is not reasonable to declare what exists in an incomprehensible realm outside the Universe. However, I do not want to put words in your mouth. I would like you to answer the question directly; a simple yes or no will be appreciated. Is it reasonable to declare what exists in an incomprehensible realm outside the Universe?

I think that you did. Don't take my word for it, though. Here are your own words:

God, you said, exists in a realm outside of the Universe.

I am not arguing anything by extension; I'm quoting you. Other than God, you have not declared that anything else exists in that realm, but you did clearly declare that God does.

That, I suppose, is the next "relevant question".

Implicit in your argument is the assumption that if something exists, then it must have been created. If that assumption is correct, then if the Universe exists, it must have been created. What created the Universe? Some people, perhaps including you, would answer that God created the Universe. Does God exist? If so, what created God? Now you have the problem of an infinite regress.

This is only a problem if you make it one. If God created the universe, then he exists outside of it, and it is unreasonable for us to expect to comprehend the nature of existence in a realm outside of and above our own.

If, instead, you admit that some questions are not answerable in this realm, then such problems cease to be problems, and you can move on to relevant questions.

Or, to put it another way, if I accept your conclusions a priori, then logical argument is a waste of our time.

Note that my prior comment did not argue for or against the existence of God. It was, instead, questioning the validity of BitZtream's criticism of Hawking's logic.

Moving on, then, to relevant questions: if there is, as you asserted, a realm "outside of and above our own" that is "unreasonable for us to expect to comprehend", is it reasonable to declare, as you did, what exists in such a realm?

Implicit in your argument is the assumption that if something exists, then it must have been created. If that assumption is correct, then if the Universe exists, it must have been created. What created the Universe? Some people, perhaps including you, would answer that God created the Universe. Does God exist? If so, what created created God? Now you have the problem of an infinite regress.

If, however, the assumption is incorrect, then the Universe can exist without having been created. If the Universe can exist without having been created, then your criticism of Hawking's logic is poorly supported.

yet

Aborted fetuses are imaginary, in your view? Or is it your position that they are not victims?

I'm reminded of General Jack Ripper.

I can no longer sit back and allow smart phones to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.

I want someone to drastically reduce the probability that any one will spray our children, our relatives, our friends, or our fellow citizens with bullets.

I want someone to drastically reduce the probability that any one will drink herself insensible and crash her fucking SUV head-on into any more of my friends' cars.

There is no "line". The slippery slope argument, as you present it, is nonsense. We can say "No, you can't have an assault weapon," without saying "No, you can't own all the liquor you can afford." We can say "No, you can't drink and drive," without saying "No, you can't buy an SUV."

See, here's how it works in civilized societies: we weigh the costs and benefits of particular freedoms and responsibilities. We agree, as best we can, after consideration and argument, what we should allow and what we shouldn't. For example: the benefit to gun nuts of owning assault weapons is exceedingly low in comparison to the cost to parents whose children are slaughtered. The benefit to drunkards of guzzling all the liquor they can hold and then going for a spin is exceedingly small in comparison to the cost to society. Remember society? That's US...you, and me, and all our friends, and all theirs...

As it is clear that if considerations were limited to the costs and benefits mentioned in my examples, then owning assault weapons would be prohibited, just as drunk driving is. Why then isn't it? I speculate it is because the folks who make a killing by selling assault weapons spend a lot of that money on advertising and PR to get folks like you to think the way you do. They want you to imagine that if they can't sell their deadly wares that will somehow diminish your freedom. Now that the liquor industry has given up fighting against drunk driving laws, are you less free? I'm not.

"You couldn't even be bothered to RTFS, could you? This is about a legal claim against Apple, it has nothing to do with them operating a walled garden (though I agree this is a bad thing)."

Oh! I thought he was referring to the Ravensburger game "Mystery Garden".