What is wrong with this argument?
in [Logic]
|
Next: arithmetic in ZF
From: Hector Plasmic on 31 Mar 2005 13:52 >> And you're the Final Arbiter of the Things to Know >> about the Supreme Being, are you? Snork. > Actually I take my direction from philsophers And how did these philsophers [sic] of yours become the Final Arbiters of the Things to Know about the Supreme Being? Snork. > Be concise and do not drag your feet. > No one is dragging any feet around here. Really? :-) > I have to answer the questions as they are posted Easy. Two simple steps for you, and you can forgo the rest: 1. Do you have any reason and/or evidence to support your claim for the existence of gods outside the human imagination? 2a. If yes, show us this reason and/or evidence. 2b. If no, dismissed.l One wonders why you have not covered these two simple things already, as you are not dragging your feet, according to you? I suspect I know the answer, and it has to do with a falsehood on your part, eh? :-) >>> I am developing this in steps. >> AKA "I'm making it up as I go along." > Yeah sure. Here's just a small sampling of the most > recent books I have read: Silly boy, reading books does not mean you are not making it up as you go along, as you so obviously are. Come on, get it over with. It'll only take us a few moments to debunk you, so why should it take you so long to state your pathetic case?
From: SunDancer on 31 Mar 2005 14:40 On 27 Mar 2005 15:43:53 -0800, "The great philosopher-criminologist" <bedford_park2000(a)yahoo.ca> wrote: > >Gavan wrote: >> How hypocritical that someone who espouses the virtues of an >> organisation that proclaims peace and love for all would now say that >> one's own comfort is all that matters. > >This is just in response to those that ask, "Why did God help you with >your success while he lets someone else in another part of the world >starve.?" > >I am just saying that some people say that if God wants to work like >that, then that is okay with them. Gee, you don't suppose it's the successful ones who feel that way....
From: SunDancer on 31 Mar 2005 14:46 On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 17:35:04 GMT, sob(a)sob.com (Sweet Ol' Bob (SOB)) wrote: >On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 10:18:21 -0500, "Robibnikoff" ><witchypoo(a)broomstick.com> wrote: > >>> You all are assuming that God knows about such events in advance. But >>> that cannot be the case, because God cannot be expected to do >>> something that contradicts reality. > >>Why? Because that's what you believe? > >I stated my reasons. Just because they are over your head does not >mean they are not valid. > >>Hm, not much of a god then, is it. > >Not in your limited understanding. My secret knowledge is superior to yours!
From: SunDancer on 31 Mar 2005 14:59 On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 03:45:07 GMT, sob(a)sob.com (Sweet Ol' Bob (SOB)) wrote: >>> He better exist or else nothing exists. > >>Oh please give me the reasoned argument to that effect, I'd love to >>hear it :-) > >Read Aquinas - and I don't mean Summa Theologica, which is a religious >work. I mean "On Being and Essence", which is a metaphysical work. So you are unable to explain it in your own words? We can safely conclude then, that you don't understand it. What happened to this secret, superior knowledge of yours?
From: SunDancer on 31 Mar 2005 14:56
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 14:26:56 GMT, sob(a)sob.com (Sweet Ol' Bob (SOB)) wrote: >This line of thinking solves the dilemna of Free Will. You can make >decisions that even God does not know about until you make them. >Therefore it is useless to blame God for your mistakes or accidents of >nature, like floods. But God can blame us for mistakes we had nothing to do with, i.e. "original sin"? |