What is wrong with this argument?
in [Logic]
|
Next: arithmetic in ZF
From: Masked Avenger on 2 Apr 2005 21:16 Sweet Ol' Bob (SOB) wrote: > On 2 Apr 2005 16:00:24 -0800, "Iain" <iain_inkster(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >>>What is wrong with saying that God works in Mysterious ways? > > >>It's bollocks. > > > You understand Quantum Mechanics? It is not Mysterious to you? > > Please enlighten us. > So what's God's excuse for 'String Theory' .... ? and what has God got to do with Quantum Mechanics ....? These are just theories you know ? Granted, quantum mechanics is a damned good theory ...... but it is still only a theory, it has problems .... it is by no means complete ..... and no more mysterious than 'electricity' was to 19th century scientists ... but mainly.... ( and I have read your arguments, please don't post them again ) Metaphysics is a 'philosophy' ....not a science .... please don't confuse the two ...... physics does not require a god ( any god ) to work ...... I have yet to see a physics text book that makes any such claim ..... -- Masked Avenger aa#2224 EAC Chief Technician in charge of remotely rigging Fundie 'Spell Checkers' so they all look like hick home schooled yokels Does Schroedinger's cat have 18 half lives ?
From: Charles & Mambo Duckman on 3 Apr 2005 04:31 Sweet Ol' Bob (SOB) wrote: > I have stated several times that I am not discussing Religion. Yet you > are unable to grasp that. "I posted two long arguments that support my claim that the Supreme Being exists." "Have you read my arguments for the existence of the Supreme Being?" "This is about as close as I can come to looking at the face of God as I can get." "The closer you get to the fundamental source of creation, the closer you get to God" "If you reject prophesy outright, then you risk being uninfomed of possibilities that may turn out to be useful to know about." Yeah, sure you're not. >>Btw, much like putting a hat and a bra on a cow doesn't make her a model, >>neither does capitalizing selected words make bullshit rational. > > You are obsessed with my use of upper case. I use it to create a > proper noun, one that emphasizes the generic classification. For > example, instead of talking about physics, we are talking about The > Physics. There is a difference. No, there isn't. Only a deluded mysticist sees a distinction between physics and The Physics. Your posts here are a textbook exercise in mental masturbation. Pardon me, The Masturbation. I am emphasizing the generic classification. -- Come down off the cross We can use the wood Tom Waits, Come On Up To The House
From: SOB) on 3 Apr 2005 10:04 On Sun, 3 Apr 2005 09:21:45 -0400, "Scotmc" <scotmc(a)SPAMBLOCKoptonline.net> wrote: >If you are actually interested in an honest debate then >post something intelligent. I reposted it on alt.atheism and alt.religion. -- 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: Sister Mary on 3 Apr 2005 10:39 On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 21:30:02 GMT, sob(a)sob.com (Sweet Ol' Bob (SOB)) wrote: >If man screws things up beyond even God's ability to repair them, then >it is not worth the effort to come back. So much for omnipotence, eh liar!
From: SOB) on 3 Apr 2005 11:03
On Sun, 3 Apr 2005 09:21:45 -0400, "Scotmc" <scotmc(a)SPAMBLOCKoptonline.net> wrote: >I found your post on Apr 1, 2:09am. It said nothing. That is really disingenuous on your part. >I couldn't find your post on 30 Mar 2005 18:14:41 GMT (using Google). >If you are actually interested in an honest debate then >post something intelligent. In your case I am going to have to know what you mean by "intelligent" since you obviously mean something other than what most people mean. -- 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." |