What is wrong with this argument?
in [Logic]
|
Next: arithmetic in ZF
From: SOB) on 30 Mar 2005 14:20 On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 11:22:24 -0500, "Dan Listermann" <dan(a)listermann.com> wrote: >> And the Supreme Being is credited with causing Existence. >Which begs the question I have made no assumptions nor have I arrived at any conclusions. Therefore I have not begged the question. >what caused the supreme being, etc? Prove that the Supreme Being needs a cause. -- Million Mom March For Gun Confiscation http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/mmm.html "If you build a man a fire and he will be warm for a day. If you set a man on fire, he will be warm for the rest of his life."
From: SOB) on 30 Mar 2005 14:22 On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 10:55:24 -0600, Mike Oliver <mike_lists(a)verizon.net> wrote: >Sweet Ol' Bob (SOB) wrote: > >> It is not fair to compare Prophesy to works of people like Nostradamus >> or Casey. Those people operate in a different way from Prophesy. > ><spelling flame alert> >"Prophesy", pronounced to rhyme with "eye", is a verb, meaning >"to engage in prophecy". "Prophecy", which rhymes with "bee", >is a noun. There seem to be plenty of otherwise-well-educated >folks who don't know this, so I hope to be excused for pointing >it out. Yes, I am glad you did point it out. I learn something every day. Now my pet peeve is when people use "its" when they should be using "it's" and vice versa. -- Million Mom March For Gun Confiscation http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/mmm.html "If you build a man a fire and he will be warm for a day. If you set a man on fire, he will be warm for the rest of his life."
From: Dan Listermann on 30 Mar 2005 15:12 "Sweet Ol' Bob (SOB)" <sob(a)sob.com> wrote in message news:424afb39.7762391(a)news-server.houston.rr.com... > On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 11:22:24 -0500, "Dan Listermann" > <dan(a)listermann.com> wrote: > >>> And the Supreme Being is credited with causing Existence. > >>Which begs the question > > I have made no assumptions nor have I arrived at any conclusions. > Therefore I have not begged the question. > >>what caused the supreme being, etc? > > Prove that the Supreme Being needs a cause. According to some, everything has / needs a cause. Are not supreme beings "things?" I think it is your place to PROVE that supreme beings DON'T require causes especially considering they are supposed to be the exception to the norm.
From: Bob on 30 Mar 2005 15:21 Dan Listermann wrote: > "Sweet Ol' Bob (SOB)" <sob(a)sob.com> wrote in message > news:424afb39.7762391(a)news-server.houston.rr.com... > >>On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 11:22:24 -0500, "Dan Listermann" >><dan(a)listermann.com> wrote: >> >> >>>>And the Supreme Being is credited with causing Existence. >> >>>Which begs the question >> >>I have made no assumptions nor have I arrived at any conclusions. >>Therefore I have not begged the question. >> >> >>>what caused the supreme being, etc? >> >>Prove that the Supreme Being needs a cause. > > > According to some, everything has / needs a cause. Are not supreme beings > "things?" I think it is your place to PROVE that supreme beings DON'T > require causes especially considering they are supposed to be the exception > to the norm. > > If not everything needs a cause, then the universe does not need a cause. If everything needs a cause, and 'god' is an exception, then it is a case of special pleading.
From: SOB) on 30 Mar 2005 16:32
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 15:12:07 -0500, "Dan Listermann" <dan(a)listermann.com> wrote: >> Prove that the Supreme Being needs a cause. >According to some, everything has / needs a cause. Not true. >Are not supreme beings "things?" No. The Supreme Being is an Act. -- Million Mom March For Gun Confiscation http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/mmm.html "If you build a man a fire and he will be warm for a day. If you set a man on fire, he will be warm for the rest of his life." |