What is wrong with this argument?
in [Logic]
|
Next: arithmetic in ZF
From: Hector Plasmic on 15 Apr 2005 11:40 >>>>>> 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. >>> I also posted it earlier than that date. >> So you claim, but I wouldn't know, since it wasn't in the newsgroup in >> which you and I have been conversing (argument by obfuscation, Silly >> Bobby -- tsk, tsk). > You're too stupid to know how to use Google to search. It's not up to me to dig up your argument, Silly Bobby. *You* figure out how to use Google to search, and *you* post the link. You had weeks to get it right. Don't blame others for your own failure. >>> 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. >> Hmm -- still no evidential backup provided for your primary unsupported >> assertion, despite ample opportunity. And still you fail to back up your assertions. >>> 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?" >> Hmm -- still no argument (reasoned backup) presented to support your >> primary unsupported assertion, despite ample opportunity. And still you fail to provide any support of any kind for your assertions. >> Your smoke's dispersed and your mirrors are broken, Silly Bobby. You >> and your claims are left naked, and neither are pretty. Dismissed. May as well take the Usenet equivalent of a dirtnap, Silly Bobby; cover up for propriety's sake, will ya? :-)
From: Tom on 15 Apr 2005 17:15 "Sweet Ol' Bob (SOB)" <sob(a)sob.com> wrote in message news:425fd6b8.11818103(a)news-server.houston.rr.com... > On 15 Apr 2005 06:18:18 -0700, "Hector Plasmic" > <hec(a)hectorplasmic.com> wrote: > >>So you claim, but I wouldn't know, since it wasn't in the newsgroup in >>which you and I have been conversing (argument by obfuscation, Silly >>Bobby -- tsk, tsk). > > You're too stupid to know how to use Google to search. How would you know?
From: SOB) on 16 Apr 2005 08:47 On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 17:15:26 -0400, "Tom" <mmman_90(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> You're too stupid to know how to use Google to search. >How would you know? Because if you knew, you would not be making stupid statements. -- 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
From: bob young on 11 May 2005 00:39 Incubus wrote: > Sweet Ol' Bob (SOB) wrote: > > > ... God is ... the cause of Existence. > > What caused God to come into exisence? Wild, uncontrolled, infantile, human imagination
From: bob young on 11 May 2005 00:41
"Sweet Ol' Bob (SOB)" wrote: > On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 17:02:46 -0700, Incubus <Incubus(a)inc.net> wrote: > > >Sweet Ol' Bob (SOB) wrote: > > > >> ... God is ... the cause of Existence. > > > >What caused God to come into exisence? > > Who says that God needs a cause of existence. > > God is the cause of *all* Existence. Well 'This Ole' Bob says to 'that Ole' Bob', take off your blinkers and grow up Take a look around you at all the other gods that humans have dreamed up, thousands of them. They are all imaginary I suppose? > > > -- > > Million Mom March For Gun Confiscation > http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/mmm.html > > "If someone is so fearful that, that they're going to start > using their weapons to protect their rights, it makes me very > nervous that these people have these weapons at all!" > --Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) |