My Cosmological argument:
1. Something exists.
2. Whatever exists, does so either necessarily or contingently.
3. It is impossible that only contingent things exist.
4. Therefore, there exists at least one necessary thing.
5. If there is a necessary thing, that thing is appropriately called 'God.'
6. Therefore God exists.
(revised 8/6/'18)
This version understands Necessity and contingency largely in causal terms. The necessity that creates the universe must be understood as eternal and uncaused for two reasons: (1) The impossibility of ICR[1], there has to be a final cause or nothing would ever come to be, (2) empirically we know the universe is not eternal. See the supporting material. Atheists will often argue that this kind of argument doesn't prove that God is the necessity that causes the universe. but being necessary and creator and primary cause makes it the sources of all things we can rationally construe that as God.
Finally, even if the cosmological argument is sound or cogent, the difficult task remains to show, as part of natural theology, that the necessary being to which the cosmological argument concludes is the God of religion, and if so, of which religion. Rowe suggests that the cosmological argument has two parts, one to establish the existence of a first cause or necessary being, the other that this necessary being is God (1975: 6). It is unclear, however, whether the second contention is an essential part of the cosmological argument. Although Aquinas was quick to make the identification between God and the first mover or first cause, such identification seems to go beyond the causal reasoning that informs the argument (although one can argue that it is consistent with the larger picture of God and his properties that Aquinas paints in his Summae). Some (Rasmussen, O’Connor, Koons) have plowed ahead in developing this stage 2 process by showing how and what properties—simplicity, unity, omnipotence, omniscience, goodness, and so on—might follow from the concept of a necessary being. It “has implications that bring it into the neighborhood of God as traditionally conceived” (O’Connor 2008: 67).[2]
There's a problem in speaking of God as "a being" since it threatens to reduce God from infinite and omnipresent to a localized entity. This is a semantic problem and we can resole it by through understanding that God is the eternal necessary aspect of being. Being is a thing and God is "that thing" which is unbounded,eternal, and necessary aspect of being. This unbounded condition is implied by the nature of cosmological necessity.
The eternal causal agent that gives rise to all existing things could not be itself caused since that would just create the necessity of another explanation (it would mean that thing is not the ultimate cause but is just another contingent thing). Being eternal and necessary means the ground of being. The contrast between human finitude and the infinite evokes the senses of the numinous or mystical experience which is the basis of all religion.[3]
Of course we understand this eternal necessary aspect of being to be God not only because the infinite evokes the numinous but also because the notion that God is being itself is a major aspect of Christian Theology.[4]
special note: mysterious stranger who knows Quantum field theory sets atheist critic straight,
https://religiousapriori.blogspot.com/2018/09/the-truth-of-nothing-emerges.html
Notes
[1] Infinite Causal Regression. For arguments against see: No Infinite Causal Regression
[2] Timothy O’Connor2008, Theism and Ultimate Explanation: the Necessary Shape of Contingency, London: Wiley-Blackwell.
[3] David Steindl-Rast,OSB, "The Mystical Core of Organized religion," Greatfulness, blog, 2018
https://gratefulness.org/resource/dsr-mystical-core-religion/
[4] Timothy Ware, The Orthodox Church NY: Penguin,1964.65
2. Whatever exists, does so either necessarily or contingently.
3. It is impossible that only contingent things exist.
4. Therefore, there exists at least one necessary thing.
5. If there is a necessary thing, that thing is appropriately called 'God.'
6. Therefore God exists.
(revised 8/6/'18)
This version understands Necessity and contingency largely in causal terms. The necessity that creates the universe must be understood as eternal and uncaused for two reasons: (1) The impossibility of ICR[1], there has to be a final cause or nothing would ever come to be, (2) empirically we know the universe is not eternal. See the supporting material. Atheists will often argue that this kind of argument doesn't prove that God is the necessity that causes the universe. but being necessary and creator and primary cause makes it the sources of all things we can rationally construe that as God.
Finally, even if the cosmological argument is sound or cogent, the difficult task remains to show, as part of natural theology, that the necessary being to which the cosmological argument concludes is the God of religion, and if so, of which religion. Rowe suggests that the cosmological argument has two parts, one to establish the existence of a first cause or necessary being, the other that this necessary being is God (1975: 6). It is unclear, however, whether the second contention is an essential part of the cosmological argument. Although Aquinas was quick to make the identification between God and the first mover or first cause, such identification seems to go beyond the causal reasoning that informs the argument (although one can argue that it is consistent with the larger picture of God and his properties that Aquinas paints in his Summae). Some (Rasmussen, O’Connor, Koons) have plowed ahead in developing this stage 2 process by showing how and what properties—simplicity, unity, omnipotence, omniscience, goodness, and so on—might follow from the concept of a necessary being. It “has implications that bring it into the neighborhood of God as traditionally conceived” (O’Connor 2008: 67).[2]
There's a problem in speaking of God as "a being" since it threatens to reduce God from infinite and omnipresent to a localized entity. This is a semantic problem and we can resole it by through understanding that God is the eternal necessary aspect of being. Being is a thing and God is "that thing" which is unbounded,eternal, and necessary aspect of being. This unbounded condition is implied by the nature of cosmological necessity.
The eternal causal agent that gives rise to all existing things could not be itself caused since that would just create the necessity of another explanation (it would mean that thing is not the ultimate cause but is just another contingent thing). Being eternal and necessary means the ground of being. The contrast between human finitude and the infinite evokes the senses of the numinous or mystical experience which is the basis of all religion.[3]
Of course we understand this eternal necessary aspect of being to be God not only because the infinite evokes the numinous but also because the notion that God is being itself is a major aspect of Christian Theology.[4]
special note: mysterious stranger who knows Quantum field theory sets atheist critic straight,
https://religiousapriori.blogspot.com/2018/09/the-truth-of-nothing-emerges.html
Notes
[1] Infinite Causal Regression. For arguments against see: No Infinite Causal Regression
[2] Timothy O’Connor2008, Theism and Ultimate Explanation: the Necessary Shape of Contingency, London: Wiley-Blackwell.
[3] David Steindl-Rast,OSB, "The Mystical Core of Organized religion," Greatfulness, blog, 2018
https://gratefulness.org/resource/dsr-mystical-core-religion/
[4] Timothy Ware, The Orthodox Church NY: Penguin,1964.65
Comments
Not according to the usual understanding of the word. Everyone else understands "god" to mean an intelligent, thinking being, whether we are talking about the pagan concept or the Judeo-Christian concept. Everyon understands god to mean something worthy of worship, whih implies something that understands and appreciates that it is being worshipped.
That is not necessarily the case for your necessary thing.
Pix
Unfortunately, I am obliged to use "necessary" to mean two different things here, so to be (hopefully) clear, when I use it to mean the opposite of contingent, I will put it in italics, and when I use it in the more conventional sense, I will not (and to be clear; I am not suggesting you are conflating the the two).
Consider these two claims:
1. The necessity thing necessarily implies God
2. The necessity thing might be God
Can you see how these are different claims? I agree with 2, but disagree with 1. The necessity thing might be God, but it might not.
Your statement 5 is:
5. If there is a necessary thing, that thing is appropriately called 'God.'
That is the same as number 1 above.
However, your reply is addressing number 2. You are right that none of the things I point to say that the necessity thing cannot be God. It is still the case that it might be God.
You are failing to address the real issue - your claim, as stated in number 1 above. You are claiming that the necessity thing necessarily implies God. It does not, because it does not exclude the possibilities of a non-intelligent necessity thing.
Pix
Anonymous said…
I never said they are contradicted by the concept of necessity. What I said is that that concept of God does not follow from the concept of necessity.
Yes it does because God cannot be contingent.
Unfortunately, I am obliged to use "necessary" to mean two different things here, so to be (hopefully) clear, when I use it to mean the opposite of contingent, I will put it in italics, and when I use it in the more conventional sense, I will not (and to be clear; I am not suggesting you are conflating the the two).
Ok thanks. Good idea I've often wanted to designate that distinction in some way.
Consider these two claims:
1. The necessity thing necessarily implies God
2. The necessity thing might be God
Can you see how these are different claims? I agree with 2, but disagree with 1. The necessity thing might be God, but it might not.
Your statement 5 is:
5. If there is a necessary thing, that thing is appropriately called 'God.'
That is the same as number 1 above.
U don;t think so Because it is the non contingent sense
However, your reply is addressing number 2. You are right that none of the things I point to say that the necessity thing cannot be God. It is still the case that it might be God.
no 5 is speaking in the sense of no 2
You are failing to address the real issue - your claim, as stated in number 1 above. You are claiming that the necessity thing necessarily implies God. It does not, because it does not exclude the possibilities of a non-intelligent necessity thing.
show me how a non intelligent thing can create the universe,
No it does not. God not being contingent does not necessitate the necessary thing being because it does not exclude the necessary thing being something else.
Joe: no 5 is speaking in the sense of no 2
Really? So your argument goes:
4. Therefore, there exists at least one necessary thing.
5. If there is a necessary thing, that thing is might be God
6. Therefore God exists.
You really think you can convert "it might be God" to "therefore God".
Joe: show me how a non intelligent thing can create the universe,
Show me God.
Pix
Joe: Yes it does because God cannot be contingent.
No it does not. God not being contingent does not necessitate the necessary thing being because it does not exclude the necessary thing being something else.
That statement is too veg to meaning anything, and I don't think you handle my ideas with much acuity.
Joe: no 5 is speaking in the sense of no 2
Really? So your argument goes:
4. Therefore, there exists at least one necessary thing.
5. If there is a necessary thing, that thing is might be God
6. Therefore God exists.
You have changed the meaning of the ideas, where do you get the might be
You really think you can convert "it might be God" to "therefore God".
there is not might be in my argent, you can't be trusted to connect two common ideas, I said 5 is in the sense of 2, that mean "5. If there is a necessary thing, that thing is appropriately called 'God.'" saying 2 means nixing choce 1, The choices were worded by you they have nothing to do with my argument.
Joe: show me how a non intelligent thing can create the universe,
Show me God.
I did. read it again, better yet read the Trace of God, my book,
=
No Joe, YOU changed the meaning.
Originally said:
5. If there is a necessary thing, that thing is appropriately called 'God.'
Then later you said "no 5 is speaking in the sense of no 2", which is that the necessary thing MIGHT be God.
Joe: there is not might be in my argent, you can't be trusted to connect two common ideas, I said 5 is in the sense of 2, that mean "5. If there is a necessary thing, that thing is appropriately called 'God.'" saying 2 means nixing choce 1, The choices were worded by you they have nothing to do with my argument.
Here are numbers 1 and 2 again:
1. The necessary thing necessarily implies God
2. The necessary thing might be God
You insist there is no might inyour argument, but you also insist number two, with might right there in it, represents your position!
You need to make your mind up Joe. Are you arguing 2, that the necessary thing might be God? Or are you arguing 1, the necessary thing necessarily implies God?
Pix
Joe: You have changed the meaning of the ideas, where do you get the might be
No Joe, YOU changed the meaning.
Originally said:
5. If there is a necessary thing, that thing is appropriately called 'God.'
Then later you said "no 5 is speaking in th
e sense of no 2", which is that the necessary thing MIGHT be God.
that is how you pit it in no 2,I as quoting your wording
Joe: there is not might be in my argent, you can't be trusted to connect two common ideas, I said 5 is in the sense of 2, that mean "5. If there is a necessary thing, that thing is appropriately called 'God.'" saying 2 means nixing choce 1, The choices were worded by you they have nothing to do with my argument.
Here are numbers 1 and 2 again:
1. The necessary thing necessarily implies God
2. The necessary thing might be God
your words
You insist there is no might inyour argument, but you also insist number two, with might right there in it, represents your position!
yes but that was when I stupidly assumed that you really wanted to have a valid discussion rather than just screwing around to look likes you won some trivial point,
You need to make your mind up Joe. Are you arguing 2, that the necessary thing might be God? Or are you arguing 1, the necessary thing necessarily implies God?
where did i say in my own words it might be God?
I had hoped to avoid that by focusing on one specific point, and laying out very clearly in my first and, more especially, my second posts, but still you do it.
You have clearly stated that your statement 5 is using the sense of my number two ("no 5 is speaking in the sense of no 2"), that the necessity thing MIGHT be God
It clearly has the word MIGHT in it. And yet you are adamant that you do not mean MIGHT. Let us see how this dance continues...
It MIGHT be God:
Joe: that is how you pit it in no 2,I as quoting your wording
So here you are confirming you used the sense of number 2, that the necessity thing MIGHT be God
It is DEFINITELY is God:
Joe: your words
And here you are objecting to the word "might".
It MIGHT be God if I want a valid discussion, it DEFINITELY is God if I do not:
Joe: yes but that was when I stupidly assumed that you really wanted to have a valid discussion rather than just screwing around to look likes you won some trivial point,
So apparently your claim 5 is in the sense of number 2 - the necessity thing might be God - only when your opponent wants a valid discussion. Otherwise it is not.
It is DEFINITELY is God
Joe: where did i say in my own words it might be God?
Now back to this.
I would love to have a valid discussion on this, but how can I when you change your position when it suits you? You just admitted that your response to what sense you meant your statement 5 depends on how you perceive the attitude of the person you are responding to!
Seriously, Joe, you are just making yourself look like an idiot.
Either your statement 5 is saying it is DEFINITELY God or it is saying it MIGHT be God. You cannot flip-flop between the two as it suits you. Have the balls to pick one and stick with it.
Pix
Is it DEFINITELY?
If your statement 5 is saying that the necessary thing is DEFINITELY God, then you are stuck with the problem of proving that. And we both know you cannot.
"there is not might be in my argent, you can't be trusted to connect two common ideas,"
"where did i say in my own words it might be God?"
The problem with definitely is there are other things that could be the first cause, such as a quantum field or just something beyond our imagining. To be considered God, as per the usual understanding of the word, this first cause has to be intelligent and able to understand and appreciate worship.
You have given us no reason to suppose the first cause has to be that.
Is it MIGHT?
But if your statement 5 is merely saying that the necessary thing MIGHT be God, then your proof fails. At best it shows God MIGHT exist. Hardly profound!
And yet that is exactly what your first response was saying. It might be God; nothing I said rules it out:
"None of the things you point to as what people think 'god is such as "intelligent, thinking being,... something worthy of worship," none are contradicted by the concept of necessity, In fact they are contradicted by God as contingent. So that does not answer my agreement."
And later you stated my number 2 is right: "no 5 is speaking in the sense of no 2"
Or is it both at the same time?
And so you are obliged to keep it vague, in the hope the reader will be fooled into thinking you mean MIGHT be God in statement 5, and will not notice that you quietly change it to DEFINITELY by the time we get to statement 6.
And if anyone points it out, just pretend it is a "trivial point"!
If you honestly want a valid discussion, learn to make yourself clear, and stop with the changing definitions. You will find the two go hand-in-hand; making yourself clear will stop these sad attempts as rhetorical trickery.
Pix
Every time we have a discussion it degenerates into you shilly-shallying between two (or more) different positions, unable to commit either way over dozens of posts until you eventually decide to close the discussion.
I had hoped to avoid that by focusing on one specific point, and laying out very clearly in my first and, more especially, my second posts, but still you do it.
Your game playing is why it degenerates so.
You have clearly stated that your statement 5 is using the sense of my number two ("no 5 is speaking in the sense of no 2"), that the necessity thing MIGHT be God
I assumed that your phrase "might be God" was a rhetorical device aimed at preserving the neutrality between us so we could discuss the argument without favoring one side or the other. I now see it as a bad faith move aimed at creating false trap and creating the appearance thought I contradict my own thinking,
It clearly has the word MIGHT in it. And yet you are adamant that you do not mean MIGHT. Let us see how this dance continues...
It was your wording, I told you why I allowed it. I just told you, Stop trying to make something out of it
It MIGHT be God:
Joe: that is how you pit it in no 2,I as quoting your wording
So here you are confirming you used the sense of number 2, that the necessity thing MIGHT be God
Get this trough your head: Because its the last tine I will dignify this bull shit with discussion, I was working within your options.
get off it
It is DEFINITELY is God:
Joe: your words
And here you are objecting to the word "might".
It MIGHT be God if I want a valid discussion, it DEFINITELY is God if I do not:
Joe: yes but that was when I stupidly assumed that you really wanted to have a valid discussion rather than just screwing around to look likes you won some trivial point,
So apparently your claim 5 is in the sense of number 2 - the necessity thing might be God - only when your opponent wants a valid discussion. Otherwise it is not.
read the above again
It is DEFINITELY is God
Joe: where did i say in my own words it might be God?
Now back to this.
I would love to have a valid discussion on this, but how can I when you change your position when it suits you? You just admitted that your response to what sense you meant your statement 5 depends on how you perceive the attitude of the person you are responding to!
bull shit you do not, You fear giving religous ideas any credence will cause you to lose standing,
Seriously, Joe, you are just making yourself look like an idiot.
Translation you wish your stunt had succeeded. You fear looking like an idiot so you must disvalue any religious thought.
If your statement 5 is saying that the necessary thing is DEFINITELY God, then you are stuck with the problem of proving that. And we both know you cannot.
"there is not might be in my argent, you can't be trusted to connect two common ideas,"
You are Full of shit! if you want a discussion knock off the BS.
"where did i say in my own words it might be God?"
The problem with definitely is there are other things that could be the first cause, such as a quantum field or just something beyond our imagining. To be considered God, as per the usual understanding of the word, this first cause has to be intelligent and able to understand and appreciate worship.
you cannot account for those without the assumption of something prior, they are natural so they must have a cause then you are back in Icr land,
You have given us no reason to suppose the first cause has to be that.
Yes, you didn't read the essay. 2 answers
(1) Naturalistic phenomena need not apply:This version understands Necessity and contingency largely in causal terms. The necessity that creates the universe must be understood as eternal and uncaused for two reasons: (1) The impossibility of ICR[1], there has to be a final cause or nothing would ever come to be, (2) empirically we know the universe is not eternal. See the supporting material. Atheists will often argue that this kind of argument doesn't prove that God is the necessity that causes the universe. but being necessary and creator and primary cause makes it the sources of all things we can rationally construe that as God.
(2)The eternal causal agent that gives rise to all existing things could not be itself caused since that would just create the necessity of another explanation (it would mean that thing is not the ultimate cause but is just another contingent thing). Being eternal and necessary means the ground of being. The contrast between human finitude and the infinite evokes the senses of the numinous or mystical experience which is the basis of all religion.[3]
Of course we understand this eternal necessary aspect of being to be God not only because the infinite evokes the numinous but also because the notion that God is being itself is a major aspect of Christian Theology
Is it MIGHT?
But if your statement 5 is merely saying that the necessary thing MIGHT be God, then your proof fails. At best it shows God MIGHT exist. Hardly profound!
And yet that is exactly what your first response was saying. It might be God; nothing I said rules it out:
Your little trick failed i did not say that, so its a lie,
"None of the things you point to as what people think 'god is such as "intelligent, thinking being,... something worthy of worship," none are contradicted by the concept of necessity, In fact they are contradicted by God as contingent. So that does not answer my agreement."
And later you stated my number 2 is right: "no 5 is speaking in the sense of no 2"
stop sending the dead back into battle
Or is it both at the same time?
And so you are obliged to keep it vague, in the hope the reader will be fooled into thinking you mean MIGHT be God in statement 5, and will not notice that you quietly change it to DEFINITELY by the time we get to statement 6.
word theif what a splendid little trick it would have been had it worked,
It's veg because you didn't read the essay skepie, You know Skepie its easier to play with words than to understand them
But you cannot explain how, can youy?
I spent two posts explaining how you are flip-flopping between MIGHT and DEFINITELY, and this is the bast you have.
Joe: I assumed that your phrase "might be God" was a rhetorical device aimed at preserving the neutrality between us so we could discuss the argument without favoring one side or the other. I now see it as a bad faith move aimed at creating false trap and creating the appearance thought I contradict my own thinking,
I was clearly drawing a distinction between MIGHT and DEFINITELY! I specifically gave you a choice between the two, and you explicitly chose the former!
And then you want to accuse me of playing games! Incredible.
Well, okay, so your position is that your statement 5 is saying it must definitely therefore be God, right? No going back.
So...
Joe: 5. If there is a necessary thing, that thing is appropriately called 'God.'
Not according to the usual understanding of the word. Everyone else understands "god" to mean an intelligent, thinking being, whether we are talking about the pagan concept or the Judeo-Christian concept. Everyone understands god to mean something worthy of worship, whih implies something that understands and appreciates that it is being worshipped.
That is not necessarily the case for your necessary thing.
Please show why the necessary thing has to be God, not merely that it could or might be God.
Your previous attempt was merely showing that it could or might be God, and we have now established that that is NOT what statement 5 is saying, so you need to try again.
Pix
Joe: Your game playing is why it degenerates so.
But you cannot explain how, can youy?
could if I cared to waste my time
I spent two posts explaining how you are flip-flopping between MIGHT and DEFINITELY, and this is the bast you have.
that is bull shit. the flip popping was due to your game paying. Look, suppose I said it might be God does that mean the argument failed? no because the argument still proves it's good reason to believe its God. That's all that matters.
Joe: I assumed that your phrase "might be God" was a rhetorical device aimed at preserving the neutrality between us so we could discuss the argument without favoring one side or the other. I now see it as a bad faith move aimed at creating false trap and creating the appearance thought I contradict my own thinking,
PIX:I was clearly drawing a distinction between MIGHT and DEFINITELY! I specifically gave you a choice between the two, and you explicitly chose the former!
That's pretty stupid Believers can always admit they have some doubts, but God arguments never shoot for for maybe,
And then you want to accuse me of playing games! Incredible.
clearly you were
Pix:Well, okay, so your position is that your statement 5 is saying it must definitely therefore be God, right? No going back.
why would I make an argument to go back on it?
So...
Joe: 5. If there is a necessary thing, that thing is appropriately called 'God.'
Not according to the usual understanding of the word. Everyone else understands "god" to mean an intelligent, thinking being, whether we are talking about the pagan concept or the Judeo-Christian concept. Everyone understands god to mean something worthy of worship, whih implies something that understands and appreciates that it is being worshipped.
Ignorant, unsophisticated shows no compression of theology but nothing in my argument demonstrates the necessity of an impersonal God.
That is not necessarily the case for your necessary thing.
there's no basis for your claim
Please show why the necessary thing has to be God, not merely that it could or might be God.
Eternal necessary ground of being = God
Your previous attempt was merely showing that it could or might be God, and we have now established that that is NOT what statement 5 is saying, so you need to try again.
You have neither demonstrated how this screws my argument nor how it screws my belief. Read the arguent stupid, it never says could nor might, you said that genius
Joe: that is bull shit. the flip popping was due to your game paying. Look, suppose I said it might be God does that mean the argument failed? no because the argument still proves it's good reason to believe its God. That's all that matters.
So you are saying this is a valid argument (if we assume the premise):
The first cause might be God
Therefore God exists
As opposed to:
The first cause must necessarily be God
Therefore God exists
Can you REALLY not see that the first is not valid logic? Do you REALLY think it does not matter if you say "might" or "must necessarily"?
See, this is why I think the game playing is you. I cannot believe you are honestly so clueless about logic that you actually think there is no difference. And yet, here you are saying just that.
And this happens every time! We always descend into this nonsense in which you are making the most absurd claims leaving me puzzling whether you really are as stupid as you make out or this is just some trickery.
Joe: That's pretty stupid Believers can always admit they have some doubts, but God arguments never shoot for for maybe,
How is whether believers have doubts relevant? This is basic logic here, Joe. This is you confusing "might" and "must necessarily"
Must the necessary thing be God?
Joe: Ignorant, unsophisticated shows no compression of theology but nothing in my argument demonstrates the necessity of an impersonal God.
Go back and read what I actually said. It was nothing about the necessity of an impersonal God.
What your argument possibly shows is that there is a necessary thing. You are making the assumption that that thing is God. It might be, but it might not.
Joe: Eternal necessary ground of being = God
Prove that the eternal necessary ground of being is intelligent (and not merely might be intelligent).
Prove that the eternal necessary ground appreciates being worshipped (and not merely might be appreciative of being worshipped).
These are necessary aspects of what everyone else understands of the word "God". To support your claim, you have to show whatever this eternal necessary ground of being is, it shares these properties with God if we are to believe that it is indeed God.
Pix
Joe confuses "might" and "must necessarily"
Joe: that is bull shit. the flip popping was due to your game paying. Look, suppose I said it might be God does that mean the argument failed? no because the argument still proves it's good reason to believe its God. That's all that matters.
So you are saying this is a valid argument (if we assume the premise):
The first cause might be God
Therefore God exists
As opposed to:
The first cause must necessarily be God
Therefore God exists
Are you daft? who could possibly misunderstand what I just said? You are clearly trying to subvert the argumentation process! "Might be" is your attempt at subversion it is not part of my argument. I will brooke no more of your Bull shit,
Can you REALLY not see that the first is not valid logic? Do you REALLY think it does not matter if you say "might" or "must necessarily"?
My argument does not say that I just told you that. I will not bother witn your BS
See, this is why I think the game playing is you. I cannot believe you are honestly so clueless about logic that you actually think there is no difference. And yet, here you are saying just that.
fuck you you lying piece of shit
tis thread is close any further attempts to post here will be moderated out/ take away:
He knows he lost because he has to resoart to this
You can't trust atheists.
And this happens every time! We always descend into this nonsense in which you are making the most absurd claims leaving me puzzling whether you really are as stupid as you make out or this is just some trickery.
that's just a taxonomy to your dishonesty, it always starts when you clearly have lost the argument,
That is the strategy. You say some nonsense, then I pull you up on it, you then pretend you never said it - despite the fact anyone can read your posts - and finally you declare the discussion over. And thereby you avoid dealing with the massive flaw ion your argument.
Joe: My argument does not say that I just told you that. I will not bother witn your BS
I did not say your argument says that. I said your previous comment says that. But why worry about the truth when you can insinuate.
Joe: fuck you you lying piece of shit
tis thread is close any further attempts to post here will be moderated out/ take away:
He knows he lost because he has to resoart to this
You can't trust atheists.
And there it is. The culmination of days of work. Congratulations Joe, you have found an excuse to close the thread and avoid dealing with the flaw in your argument.
I am not going to waste my time on your bull shit beastie I know you are not sincere,but for the record...
Joe: Are you daft? who could possibly misunderstand what I just said? You are clearly trying to subvert the argumentation process! "Might be" is your attempt at subversion it is not part of my argument. I will brooke no more of your Bull shit,
That is the strategy. You say some nonsense, then I pull you up on it, you then pretend you never said it - despite the fact anyone can read your posts -
You are sloppy, you don't think deeply you twist the other guy's intent to claim shallow victory, That's why that keeps happening,
and finally you declare the discussion over. And thereby you avoid dealing with the massive flaw ion your argument.
that is such utter BS I explained my claim of no 2 (5 in the sense of 2) I told it had nothing to do with your use of "might be." I said in the sense of the way I thought necessity was implied in 2 not because it said might be. Burt you pretended i never said it, then you ran wild. You went on to claim that this might disprove my argument acting as though I really said it e.
Joe: My argument does not say that I just told you that. I will not bother witn your BS
I did not say your argument says that. I said your previous comment says that. But why worry about the truth when you can insinuate.
LiarQ you did. It is up there if one looks, ok closed