Search results

Obviously not as interested to discuss / learn as he pretends . More to do with proselytizing then?

No. and you have now gone and tripped up over your own words. Wouldn't any reasonable person conclude from your statement that the "your" therein: 1. isn't reasonable; and, 2. concludes badly (whatever that means) See? No? .. oh go on... give it a real try. Now if your point...

I'd just like to say, the sun is shining the sky is so blue, it's a beautiful day and life is wonderful. I hope it can be the same for everyone Happiness and good trading to all . _________________________ Quote fron trainr 1. There are no rules for the debate Agreed, there are...

no problemo rj but be warned, the dudes at ma local baptist church already got hold and are bashin it out large already. They saw the words pray and hell so turned it Gospel. They think rcj be the "talkin in tongues" for a second cummin ( christ, jesus and resurrected, all mixed...

Were that the case, then #1 #2 and #3 are derived conclusions also. 1. A God you imagine (conceive) "thought" isn’t a universe-creating God. "derived conclusion" 2. If the universe-creating God exists and reveals himself, "thought" he isn’t imaginary, "derived...

They are either 3 thoughts or 3 conclusions. You called them 2 thoughts. Your comment shows you continue to be deceitful It is deceitful of you to alter words and meaning , then try to accuse by that same fraudulent act.. If you are looking for an essence, why don't you try being...

I gotta get myself together, cuz i got someplace to go And i'm praying when i get there, i see everyone i know I wanna go to ignore hell, because i hear that's it's ok , i said i wanna go to ignore hell, let's... go with rcj

Did you see this or miss it? I said...."I tell you what.. stop your deceit, I could have a go at it for you." Your posts do indicate however you are deceitful. I don't agree That is not ad hominem. My remark is making comment against what I see as the restriction of religion against...

YOU added it.... HELLO.!! Quoted by trainr: "Any non-eternal thing requires a sufficient and adequate cause; from observation" : Your statement. "Positron Pairs are non-eternal and require no sufficient and adequate cause, from observation." : My response My response shows your...

I suggest you re-count those thoughts until you find all 3 of them. 1. A God you imagine (conceive) isn’t a universe-creating God. But in 3. you say yourself.... "We can imagine all kinds of Gods" . So indeed we can imagine all kinds of a "universe-creating God". So I repeat...

followed by this.... "In the non-abstract, we can conceive of something called God." Your contradiction is not apparent nor mistaken. You might do better if you remember you wrote these things . Therefore they are recorded. More demonstration of you not being able to stand by the...

Your form of logic is a personal one and contradicts itself. You don't acknowledge the contradictions you make and ignore your own tautologies when they are brought to your notice. As an aside, when ever a religious apologist makes mistakes, they can only recognise and acknowledge them...

Quotes from trainr... "In the non-abstract, we can conceive of something called God." "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".,,, um... you seem to be doing a pretty good job of confirming God as...

I would suggest a post so badly laid out as that one of yours below, does not help the discussion any. Perhaps you would help yourself understand both your own and another's viewpoint better, were you to take more care with your presentation. What it is you are actually trying to show and...

If I may offer my opinion, there is no substantive evidence, that's what's wrong with your "evidence". Not true. Observing positron pairs demonstrates their spontaneous appearance (uncaused) for very brief periods (non-eternal.). That 50 year observation from the principles of Quantum...

...and so by that statement you contradict yourself by offering up the tautology you say isn't there. What don't you understand about that?

uh uh The tautology which you describe would be caused by your statement above, simply because of this statement below, which makes it redundant .... I was pointing out that the argument-from-cause isn't required to be a tautology, as long as you can prove "All causes have a cause...

I read your post and from your remarks above, it is obvious you have made yet another statement which you cannot support. I have not been trying to rule a causless cause in or out. So far you have been trying to rule one in . Your statement confirms so ... "all effects have causes except...

right so if Pabst goes, but jem stays and you go and Skalpz returns then ElCubano goes because Pabst goes but Pabst comes back because jem left, will you have gone or come back at that time and by then will Dick Cheney be here as I am just wondering would it be best for everyone to leave...

Should you want your statements to stand, it may be advisable not to knock them down as you try to keep them upright. You demonstrated that to decide what exists, requires you put the onus imperatively on what exists. Then you destroyed your own statement ( in the same sentence no less)...