Total Posts:18|Showing Posts:1-18
Jump to topic:

Argument from evil to refute God

Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2014 7:03:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Is self-refuting.

If God is perfectly good, no gratuitous evil would exist. Gratuitous evil exists. Therefore God does not exist.

But in order to make the premise "gratuitous evil exists" you can only argue this from the standpoint that there is such thing as true evil.

True evil can only exist if God exists. There cannot be any action that is truly right or wrong if human beings have no true purpose. Thus, to argue that evil refutes God you must presuppose his existence first. The argument is self-refuting.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2014 7:12:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/27/2014 7:03:34 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Is self-refuting.

If God is perfectly good, no gratuitous evil would exist. Gratuitous evil exists. Therefore God does not exist.

But in order to make the premise "gratuitous evil exists" you can only argue this from the standpoint that there is such thing as true evil.

True evil can only exist if God exists. There cannot be any action that is truly right or wrong if human beings have no true purpose. Thus, to argue that evil refutes God you must presuppose his existence first. The argument is self-refuting.

Though there are criticisms to the argument, I don't think this is a valid one. Even if your point regarding evil were true (And I would argue that it's not), if we accept that evil ONLY exists if God does, the argument doesn't fail--it just means that EITHER the God concept is incoherent, OR God does not exist--under the framework in which God doesn't exist, the evil doesn't exist either.

The answer is binary: Existence of non-existence. IFF (If and only if) God exists, under the argument (and a specific formulation at that), THEN Evil cannot exist. Yet evil, as defined which, according to you, requires for the definition to apply that God exist, exists.

That the definition requires the existence of God doesn't get harmed on this line of enquiry, as it's assumed on this side of the fence: If God exists, then this concept is real, and if this concept is real, these things shouldn't exist. Yet these things do exist. Thus, God doesn't exist. That it also means that the concept loses meaning (which I still don't agree with), is irrelevant to the argument--if God doesn't exist, then the evil spoken of can't (under your argument) still be called evil...but so?
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
SNP1
Posts: 2,404
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2014 7:17:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/27/2014 7:03:34 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Is self-refuting.

If God is perfectly good, no gratuitous evil would exist. Gratuitous evil exists. Therefore God does not exist.

But in order to make the premise "gratuitous evil exists" you can only argue this from the standpoint that there is such thing as true evil.

True evil can only exist if God exists. There cannot be any action that is truly right or wrong if human beings have no true purpose. Thus, to argue that evil refutes God you must presuppose his existence first. The argument is self-refuting.

The Problem of Evil is not necessarily self-refuting. It is a weak argument, but not self-refuting.

If you are talking about any god, then it is a flawed argument.

It works, however, when talking about certain, specific gods. Christianity, Islam, etc. have examples of what is considered evil. The god of those religions is also said to be "All-powerful", "All-knowing", and "All-good". This means that the problem of evil can be used to argue against the Christian god, the Muslim god, etc.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2014 7:20:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/27/2014 7:12:36 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 12/27/2014 7:03:34 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Is self-refuting.

If God is perfectly good, no gratuitous evil would exist. Gratuitous evil exists. Therefore God does not exist.

But in order to make the premise "gratuitous evil exists" you can only argue this from the standpoint that there is such thing as true evil.

True evil can only exist if God exists. There cannot be any action that is truly right or wrong if human beings have no true purpose. Thus, to argue that evil refutes God you must presuppose his existence first. The argument is self-refuting.

Though there are criticisms to the argument, I don't think this is a valid one. Even if your point regarding evil were true (And I would argue that it's not), if we accept that evil ONLY exists if God does, the argument doesn't fail--it just means that EITHER the God concept is incoherent, OR God does not exist--under the framework in which God doesn't exist, the evil doesn't exist either.

How could evil truly exist if our existence came about for no reason? How can certain actions be definitively right or wrong if nothing is actually definitively right or wrong? In order for the argument to hold any weight it would have to be argued that gratuitous suffering is objectively evil.

It can't be argued that the concept of God is incoherent if a conditional requirement of this incoherence is a truth that only exists if God does. It's self-refuting. The BoP is on the person making the argument for the non-existence of God.


The answer is binary: Existence of non-existence. IFF (If and only if) God exists, under the argument (and a specific formulation at that), THEN Evil cannot exist. Yet evil, as defined which, according to you, requires for the definition to apply that God exist, exists.

That the definition requires the existence of God doesn't get harmed on this line of enquiry, as it's assumed on this side of the fence: If God exists, then this concept is real, and if this concept is real, these things shouldn't exist. Yet these things do exist. Thus, God doesn't exist. That it also means that the concept loses meaning (which I still don't agree with), is irrelevant to the argument--if God doesn't exist, then the evil spoken of can't (under your argument) still be called evil...but so?

The BoP rests on the person making the argument for the non-existence of God. It can't be incoherent without first being self-refuting.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2014 7:22:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/27/2014 7:17:12 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 12/27/2014 7:03:34 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Is self-refuting.

If God is perfectly good, no gratuitous evil would exist. Gratuitous evil exists. Therefore God does not exist.

But in order to make the premise "gratuitous evil exists" you can only argue this from the standpoint that there is such thing as true evil.

True evil can only exist if God exists. There cannot be any action that is truly right or wrong if human beings have no true purpose. Thus, to argue that evil refutes God you must presuppose his existence first. The argument is self-refuting.

The Problem of Evil is not necessarily self-refuting. It is a weak argument, but not self-refuting.

If you are talking about any god, then it is a flawed argument.

It works, however, when talking about certain, specific gods. Christianity, Islam, etc. have examples of what is considered evil. The god of those religions is also said to be "All-powerful", "All-knowing", and "All-good". This means that the problem of evil can be used to argue against the Christian god, the Muslim god, etc.

It wouldn't work on any God. It must follow as a conditional requirement for making the argument that evil objectively exits. Evil cannot objectively exist if God does not. Therefore the argument is self-refuting. The person making the argument can't uphold their BoP to show that God does not exist.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2014 7:26:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/27/2014 7:03:34 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Is self-refuting.

If God is perfectly good, no gratuitous evil would exist. Gratuitous evil exists. Therefore God does not exist.

I think in these arguments the "evil" spoken of here is suffering, so it's unnecessary suffering exists therefore God (a certain conception) does not exist.


But in order to make the premise "gratuitous evil exists" you can only argue this from the standpoint that there is such thing as true evil.


True evil can only exist if God exists. There cannot be any action that is truly right or wrong if human beings have no true purpose. Thus, to argue that evil refutes God you must presuppose his existence first. The argument is self-refuting.

Depends on what you mean by evil and what you think the necessary pre condition/s is for that evil to exist.

One definition of evil is suffering that is not necessary to achieve a greater good. Seems to be that "evil" in this sense does not require any existence of God, Gods, goblins, persons existing outside our universe, etc etc.

Of course that is just one conception of evil and like God there are many others.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
SNP1
Posts: 2,404
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2014 7:27:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/27/2014 7:22:44 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/27/2014 7:17:12 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 12/27/2014 7:03:34 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Is self-refuting.

If God is perfectly good, no gratuitous evil would exist. Gratuitous evil exists. Therefore God does not exist.

But in order to make the premise "gratuitous evil exists" you can only argue this from the standpoint that there is such thing as true evil.

True evil can only exist if God exists. There cannot be any action that is truly right or wrong if human beings have no true purpose. Thus, to argue that evil refutes God you must presuppose his existence first. The argument is self-refuting.

The Problem of Evil is not necessarily self-refuting. It is a weak argument, but not self-refuting.

If you are talking about any god, then it is a flawed argument.

It works, however, when talking about certain, specific gods. Christianity, Islam, etc. have examples of what is considered evil. The god of those religions is also said to be "All-powerful", "All-knowing", and "All-good". This means that the problem of evil can be used to argue against the Christian god, the Muslim god, etc.

It wouldn't work on any God. It must follow as a conditional requirement for making the argument that evil objectively exits. Evil cannot objectively exist if God does not. Therefore the argument is self-refuting. The person making the argument can't uphold their BoP to show that God does not exist.

It does work against certain gods.

Here is how:
A: God X is real
P1) God X says that Y is evil
P2) God X is All-Powerful
P3) God X is All-Knowing
P4) God X is All-Loving
P5) Y exists
C1) P1-P5 entails a contradiction
C2) A is false

Replace God X with any specific god where P1-P5 remains true about that god, then that god cannot exist. It does not work on the majority of possible gods, but it does work on some.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2014 7:32:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/27/2014 7:20:45 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/27/2014 7:12:36 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 12/27/2014 7:03:34 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Is self-refuting.

If God is perfectly good, no gratuitous evil would exist. Gratuitous evil exists. Therefore God does not exist.

But in order to make the premise "gratuitous evil exists" you can only argue this from the standpoint that there is such thing as true evil.

True evil can only exist if God exists. There cannot be any action that is truly right or wrong if human beings have no true purpose. Thus, to argue that evil refutes God you must presuppose his existence first. The argument is self-refuting.

Though there are criticisms to the argument, I don't think this is a valid one. Even if your point regarding evil were true (And I would argue that it's not), if we accept that evil ONLY exists if God does, the argument doesn't fail--it just means that EITHER the God concept is incoherent, OR God does not exist--under the framework in which God doesn't exist, the evil doesn't exist either.

How could evil truly exist if our existence came about for no reason? How can certain actions be definitively right or wrong if nothing is actually definitively right or wrong? In order for the argument to hold any weight it would have to be argued that gratuitous suffering is objectively evil.

That God calls something evil does not make it "objectively evil". It's the Euthyphro dilemma.

It can't be argued that the concept of God is incoherent if a conditional requirement of this incoherence is a truth that only exists if God does. It's self-refuting. The BoP is on the person making the argument for the non-existence of God.

The point is that IFF God exists, THEN the evil still exists--thus, the Problem exists.

If God does not exist, the Problem does not exist--but then, that's the point of the Problem.

As both I and SNP said, the argument isn't a fantastic one. However, taken on its own merits, it is not self-refuting, and the notion that evil cannot properly exist without a god doesn't refute it.

There are 2 options:

Existence of God
Non existence of God

IFF God exists, the God as conceived by the problem, THEN good and evil are real things, and IFF there is gratuitous evil, THEN that God cannot actaully exist.

That on the other side, if God does NOT exist, gratuitous evil cannot exist because evil requires god to exist, doesn't matter. The things which WOULD BE evil if God existed are still present, precluding the existence of the God as described by the problem--because IF he existed, then those things would be evil, and therefore, they wouldn't exist.

The answer is binary: Existence of non-existence. IFF (If and only if) God exists, under the argument (and a specific formulation at that), THEN Evil cannot exist. Yet evil, as defined which, according to you, requires for the definition to apply that God exist, exists.

That the definition requires the existence of God doesn't get harmed on this line of enquiry, as it's assumed on this side of the fence: If God exists, then this concept is real, and if this concept is real, these things shouldn't exist. Yet these things do exist. Thus, God doesn't exist. That it also means that the concept loses meaning (which I still don't agree with), is irrelevant to the argument--if God doesn't exist, then the evil spoken of can't (under your argument) still be called evil...but so?

The BoP rests on the person making the argument for the non-existence of God. It can't be incoherent without first being self-refuting.

No. The argument is one that says IF this God DID exist, these things (gratuitous evil) would not exist. That these things DO exist means that God cannot exist (under the problem). That without the existence of god, these things stop being "gratuitous evil" because "evil" doesn't exist is irrelevant.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,635
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2014 7:33:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/27/2014 7:03:34 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Is self-refuting.

If God is perfectly good, no gratuitous evil would exist. Gratuitous evil exists. Therefore God does not exist.

But in order to make the premise "gratuitous evil exists" you can only argue this from the standpoint that there is such thing as true evil.

True evil can only exist if God exists. There cannot be any action that is truly right or wrong if human beings have no true purpose. Thus, to argue that evil refutes God you must presuppose his existence first. The argument is self-refuting.

Seriously dude, you should read up on fallacies, your assertions are based on nothing but fallacies.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
bulproof
Posts: 25,290
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2014 9:39:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/27/2014 7:03:34 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Is self-refuting.

If God is perfectly good, no gratuitous evil would exist. Gratuitous evil exists. Therefore God does not exist.

But in order to make the premise "gratuitous evil exists" you can only argue this from the standpoint that there is such thing as true evil.

True evil can only exist if God exists. There cannot be any action that is truly right or wrong if human beings have no true purpose. Thus, to argue that evil refutes God you must presuppose his existence first. The argument is self-refuting.

Now this is just trolling. This poster tries this ridiculousness on an incredibly regular basis.
Will the mods do something?
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2014 10:04:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/27/2014 7:03:34 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Is self-refuting.

If God is perfectly good, no gratuitous evil would exist. Gratuitous evil exists. Therefore God does not exist.

But in order to make the premise "gratuitous evil exists" you can only argue this from the standpoint that there is such thing as true evil.

True evil can only exist if God exists. There cannot be any action that is truly right or wrong if human beings have no true purpose. Thus, to argue that evil refutes God you must presuppose his existence first. The argument is self-refuting.

Why does evil need God?
EndlessVoid
Posts: 9
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2014 2:22:47 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/27/2014 7:32:16 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 12/27/2014 7:20:45 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/27/2014 7:12:36 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 12/27/2014 7:03:34 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Is self-refuting.

If God is perfectly good, no gratuitous evil would exist. Gratuitous evil exists. Therefore God does not exist.

But in order to make the premise "gratuitous evil exists" you can only argue this from the standpoint that there is such thing as true evil.

True evil can only exist if God exists. There cannot be any action that is truly right or wrong if human beings have no true purpose. Thus, to argue that evil refutes God you must presuppose his existence first. The argument is self-refuting.

Though there are criticisms to the argument, I don't think this is a valid one. Even if your point regarding evil were true (And I would argue that it's not), if we accept that evil ONLY exists if God does, the argument doesn't fail--it just means that EITHER the God concept is incoherent, OR God does not exist--under the framework in which God doesn't exist, the evil doesn't exist either.

How could evil truly exist if our existence came about for no reason? How can certain actions be definitively right or wrong if nothing is actually definitively right or wrong? In order for the argument to hold any weight it would have to be argued that gratuitous suffering is objectively evil.

That God calls something evil does not make it "objectively evil". It's the Euthyphro dilemma.

It can't be argued that the concept of God is incoherent if a conditional requirement of this incoherence is a truth that only exists if God does. It's self-refuting. The BoP is on the person making the argument for the non-existence of God.

The point is that IFF God exists, THEN the evil still exists--thus, the Problem exists.

If God does not exist, the Problem does not exist--but then, that's the point of the Problem.

As both I and SNP said, the argument isn't a fantastic one. However, taken on its own merits, it is not self-refuting, and the notion that evil cannot properly exist without a god doesn't refute it.

There are 2 options:

Existence of God
Non existence of God

IFF God exists, the God as conceived by the problem, THEN good and evil are real things, and IFF there is gratuitous evil, THEN that God cannot actaully exist.

That on the other side, if God does NOT exist, gratuitous evil cannot exist because evil requires god to exist, doesn't matter. The things which WOULD BE evil if God existed are still present, precluding the existence of the God as described by the problem--because IF he existed, then those things would be evil, and therefore, they wouldn't exist.

The answer is binary: Existence of non-existence. IFF (If and only if) God exists, under the argument (and a specific formulation at that), THEN Evil cannot exist. Yet evil, as defined which, according to you, requires for the definition to apply that God exist, exists.

That the definition requires the existence of God doesn't get harmed on this line of enquiry, as it's assumed on this side of the fence: If God exists, then this concept is real, and if this concept is real, these things shouldn't exist. Yet these things do exist. Thus, God doesn't exist. That it also means that the concept loses meaning (which I still don't agree with), is irrelevant to the argument--if God doesn't exist, then the evil spoken of can't (under your argument) still be called evil...but so?

The BoP rests on the person making the argument for the non-existence of God. It can't be incoherent without first being self-refuting.

No. The argument is one that says IF this God DID exist, these things (gratuitous evil) would not exist. That these things DO exist means that God cannot exist (under the problem). That without the existence of god, these things stop being "gratuitous evil" because "evil" doesn't exist is irrelevant.

You put your point very well. It might help to present the argument as a reducio ad absurdum:

A: God exists (Assumption)
1. IF God Exists, then Gratuitous Evil will not exist
2. IF God exists, then Gratuitous Evil exists
3. Gratuitous evil does not exist (A&1)
4. Gratuitous evil exists (A&2)
C. A entails a contradiction, thus A is false

It's much cleaner as gratuitous evil is explicitly presented as a conditional based n God's existance, and thus whether or not gratuitous evil exists without God's Existance is irrelevant.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2014 2:42:47 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/27/2014 7:33:37 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 12/27/2014 7:03:34 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Is self-refuting.

If God is perfectly good, no gratuitous evil would exist. Gratuitous evil exists. Therefore God does not exist.

But in order to make the premise "gratuitous evil exists" you can only argue this from the standpoint that there is such thing as true evil.

True evil can only exist if God exists. There cannot be any action that is truly right or wrong if human beings have no true purpose. Thus, to argue that evil refutes God you must presuppose his existence first. The argument is self-refuting.

Seriously dude, you should read up on fallacies, your assertions are based on nothing but fallacies.

But you're committing the fallacy fallacy! https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...
Ahahahahahah ahaha ahaha Checkmate Atheist scum! MUhahahaha ahaha ha haha hahahahaha
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2014 3:04:11 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/27/2014 10:04:08 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 12/27/2014 7:03:34 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Is self-refuting.

If God is perfectly good, no gratuitous evil would exist. Gratuitous evil exists. Therefore God does not exist.

But in order to make the premise "gratuitous evil exists" you can only argue this from the standpoint that there is such thing as true evil.

True evil can only exist if God exists. There cannot be any action that is truly right or wrong if human beings have no true purpose. Thus, to argue that evil refutes God you must presuppose his existence first. The argument is self-refuting.

Why does evil need God?

Winner winner, right here.

The argument presupposes far to much to be a logical follow through, not that such a construct could apply to an irrational/illogical being anyways. Evil, apparently, must have a purpose, even though such hasn't always been the case. I can't see the OP's walk through with how much is being attributed, or 'dis'attributed to the deity in question.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2014 3:34:47 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/27/2014 10:04:08 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 12/27/2014 7:03:34 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Is self-refuting.

If God is perfectly good, no gratuitous evil would exist. Gratuitous evil exists. Therefore God does not exist.

But in order to make the premise "gratuitous evil exists" you can only argue this from the standpoint that there is such thing as true evil.

True evil can only exist if God exists. There cannot be any action that is truly right or wrong if human beings have no true purpose. Thus, to argue that evil refutes God you must presuppose his existence first. The argument is self-refuting.

Why does evil need God?

It doesn't. That's the fallacy. You said it all, quite eloquently.
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2014 7:58:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Winner winner, right here.

The argument presupposes far to much to be a logical follow through, not that such a construct could apply to an irrational/illogical being anyways. Evil, apparently, must have a purpose, even though such hasn't always been the case. I can't see the OP's walk through with how much is being attributed, or 'dis'attributed to the deity in question.

The only thing needed for evil to exist is goodness. To say evil is in need of God is like saying darkness is in need of God; darkness is not in need of anything but light. Now, if someone wants to say God is goodness and, therefore, evil is in need of God, then, they may. However, that's only a matter of terminology.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2014 8:00:04 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/28/2014 3:34:47 AM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 12/27/2014 10:04:08 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 12/27/2014 7:03:34 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Is self-refuting.

If God is perfectly good, no gratuitous evil would exist. Gratuitous evil exists. Therefore God does not exist.

But in order to make the premise "gratuitous evil exists" you can only argue this from the standpoint that there is such thing as true evil.

True evil can only exist if God exists. There cannot be any action that is truly right or wrong if human beings have no true purpose. Thus, to argue that evil refutes God you must presuppose his existence first. The argument is self-refuting.

Why does evil need God?

It doesn't. That's the fallacy. You said it all, quite eloquently.

Thank you.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2014 8:08:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/27/2014 9:39:13 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 12/27/2014 7:03:34 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Is self-refuting.

If God is perfectly good, no gratuitous evil would exist. Gratuitous evil exists. Therefore God does not exist.

But in order to make the premise "gratuitous evil exists" you can only argue this from the standpoint that there is such thing as true evil.

True evil can only exist if God exists. There cannot be any action that is truly right or wrong if human beings have no true purpose. Thus, to argue that evil refutes God you must presuppose his existence first. The argument is self-refuting.

Now this is just trolling. This poster tries this ridiculousness on an incredibly regular basis.
Will the mods do something?

Why the random insult? If you're incapable of intelligent discussion please refrain from posting instead of spitting out a random insult.