What is wrong with this argument?
in [Logic]
|
Next: arithmetic in ZF
From: Scotmc on 8 Apr 2005 22:01 "Sweet Ol' Bob (SOB)" <sob(a)sob.com> wrote in message news:42557248.21980836(a)news-server.houston.rr.com... > On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 02:45:07 GMT, Bob <rmoss(a)hvc.rr.com> wrote: > > I am content to be a troll. > > Since all the posters on these forums are trolls too, I am in good > company. Would you behave differently if you actually met someone who wanted to discuss philosophy honestly? (I will grant that these newsgroups are not completely populated by such people).
From: SOB) on 8 Apr 2005 23:58 On Fri, 8 Apr 2005 22:01:57 -0400, "Scotmc" <scotmc(a)SPAMBLOCKoptonline.net> wrote: >Would you behave differently if you actually met someone who wanted to >discuss philosophy honestly? As I said before, when in Rome... >(I will grant that these newsgroups >are not completely populated by such people). I cannot find any. People have tried mailing lists but they are moderated which means politics enters into the mix and eventually the list degenerates into a dictatorship, as all democracies eventually do (according toPlato, Republic Book VIII). Despite the little fuckwit cretins on these forums, there are lurkers who are interested, and every once in a while they surface. -- Million Mom March For Gun Confiscation http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/mmm.html An atheist visited Isaac Newton and noticed his new toy, a mechanical model of the Solar System. "Who made this?", asked the atheist. "No one", replied Newton. "But somebody MUST have made it - it couldn't make itself", said the atheist. "Why do you believe that about the model, but not about the real thing?", asked Newton.
From: Hector Plasmic on 11 Apr 2005 09:21 >> On 8 Apr 2005 11:29:34 -0700, "Hector Plasmic" >> <h...(a)hectorplasmic.com> wrote: >> You haven't presented any concepts > Posted to: alt.atheism,alt.agnosticism,talk.atheism,alt.religion > Subject: Supreme Being of Existential Metaphysics > Date: Friday April 8, 2005, 5:00 pm CT 1. Note the date of your post is *after* the date of the post where I point out you haven't presented any concepts. 2. The post to which you point is one unsupported assertion: That the universe requires some "source of existence." Until you can back that assertion up, there's really no need to consider the rest of your irrelevant, long-winded post which depends upon your initial unsupported assertion. 3. You still haven't presented any concepts or arguments. Perhaps you'd like to present an argument to support your assertion that the universe requires some "source of existence?"
From: Scotmc on 11 Apr 2005 10:40 "Sweet Ol' Bob (SOB)" <sob(a)sob.com> wrote in message news:4257524e.55162469(a)news-server.houston.rr.com... > On Fri, 8 Apr 2005 22:01:57 -0400, "Scotmc" > <scotmc(a)SPAMBLOCKoptonline.net> wrote: >>>"Sweet Ol' Bob (SOB)" <sob(a)sob.com> wrote in message >>> I am content to be a troll. >>> Since all the posters on these forums are trolls too, I am in good >>> company. Scotmc wrote: >>Would you behave differently if you actually met someone who wanted to >>discuss philosophy honestly? Sweet Ol'Bob > I cannot find any. <snip> What have I written indicates to you that I am deceptive or dishonest in my discussions?
From: SOB) on 11 Apr 2005 12:12
On 11 Apr 2005 06:21:21 -0700, "Hector Plasmic" <hec(a)hectorplasmic.com> wrote: >> Posted to: alt.atheism,alt.agnosticism,talk.atheism,alt.religion >> Subject: Supreme Being of Existential Metaphysics >> Date: Friday April 8, 2005, 5:00 pm CT >1. Note the date of your post is *after* the date of the post where I >point out you haven't presented any concepts. I also posted it earlier than that date. -- Million Mom March For Gun Confiscation http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/mmm.html "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world. The unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." -- George Bernard Shaw |