Search results

More's the pity. My preference is that people make an effort to contribute, rather than bury the thread in fluff.

Cooldude and others who have been *plonk*-ed and are trying to respond to my posts. I can't see your responses. I receive an email telling me you have replied but can't see it -- that's the point of having a killfile. How do you communicate with me? You don't. I'll remove you from...

[/b]There is no logic there, no thinking at all. Adding the phrase “from observation” is meaningless – contrary to your belief of sinister intent by me -- because, as you know, there is no way to observe nothing. What you’re admitting is that there is no observable cause. And, if you...

*plonk* (ignore filter activated)

[/b](... if you’re saying there’s no apparent contradiction, then what are you arguing?) Actually, you’ve made no change in the original concepts or their meaning, and the contradiction remains mistaken. You’ve just willfully ignored the additional context to make it seem like I’ve...

What? With all your :and all you can do is guessing? Are you suffering from Alzheimer already? Poor soul! :eek: [/B] Another question as an answer. (Sigh) At least you're consistent. I won't ask another question, considering the labyrinth that exposes. I'll just assume you're 17...

I forgot how old you are. Did you say you are 17? I honestly don't remember, but I thought that was what you said.

Expand on this. Show me how God requires non-existence to create the universe. I assume it's easy to do considering the lengths you go to proclaim how obvious it is. Go ahead, dumb it down for me. Does ad hominem attacks indicate you are able to think? If so, you are. If instead, as I...

[/b]If you weren't explicit, you implied it. Why do you introduce the concept of positron pairs unless you are trying to convince people that there are things -- in this case positron pairs -- that have no cause? I think you're just playing games. Are positron pairs caused or uncaused...

Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out. *plonk* (ignore filter activated)

Why ask me since you boast that : :eek: What does your IQ says to your question? [/B] Simple observation says something: you don't know how to answer questions without asking them.

(I deleted the body of your post because I think you are creating a quagmire of unnecessary complexity and inviting me to enter and then extricate myself. It’s not a pleasant thought. I mean that in as nice a way as I can.) But, I appreciate your cautious and apparently sensitive...

See my post regarding proofs, about halfway down the page. http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=60535&perpage=40&pagenumber=8

Half right.

This is what I actually said. Notice the apparent and mistaken contradiction -- something which you're supposedly much too careful to allow -- goes up in smoke: Any God of which you can conceive isn’t a God who is big enough to create the universe. You can only understand of him what he...

Since you’re having difficulty with tautologies, deal with the logic of the statements themselves. We can return to a discussion of tautologies if you first deal with simple logic. Fair enough? My take on the direction so far: Me: Any non-eternal thing requires a sufficient and...

Not at all. If you had read the remainder of my earlier posts you would have the complete context. As it is, you are now in the same camp -- logically speaking -- as Thunderdog.

A reasonable one. What was your answer?

I know how you can find out. [B] A god of which you can conceive isn't big enough to create the universe. So, no, a god that you create isn't worthy of worship.[B] Earlier, God developed the idea of a man.

Try Sunday evening. I can't logon either until then.