Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

Reply to thread

Message

Your welcome.

No.

On the contrary, it proves the NECESSARY EXISTENCE of god. The fact that the universe didn't come into being by itself LOGICALLY JOINS THE PREMISE OF CAUSATION TO THE CONCLUSION OF CREATION.

I simply cannot imagine how anyone can put this in simpler terms.

Not really. It states the nature of contingent existence. Something exists contingently as the result of a necessary existence prior it it. Otherwise, this something wouldn't be contingent, would it?

Being a moderator requires a certain degree of intellectual honesty. Otherwise, you have no business moderating anything.

So, to summarize your argument - you DON'T KNOW what something IS but you DO KNOW what that something ISN'T.

Such gobledygook is a very clear indication of DISHONESTY, and not a very good attempt at dishonesty at that.

<blockquote data-quote="numinus" data-source="post: 26895" data-attributes="member: 537">Your welcome.No.On the contrary, it proves the NECESSARY EXISTENCE of god. The fact that the universe didn&#039;t come into being by itself LOGICALLY JOINS THE PREMISE OF CAUSATION TO THE CONCLUSION OF CREATION.I simply cannot imagine how anyone can put this in simpler terms.Not really. It states the nature of contingent existence. Something exists contingently as the result of a necessary existence prior it it. Otherwise, this something wouldn&#039;t be contingent, would it?Being a moderator requires a certain degree of intellectual honesty. Otherwise, you have no business moderating anything.So, to summarize your argument - you DON&#039;T KNOW what something IS but you DO KNOW what that something ISN&#039;T.Such gobledygook is a very clear indication of DISHONESTY, and not a very good attempt at dishonesty at that.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="numinus, post: 26895, member: 537"] Your welcome. No. On the contrary, it proves the [B][U]NECESSARY EXISTENCE[/U][/B] of god. The fact that the universe didn't come into being by itself [B][U]LOGICALLY JOINS THE PREMISE OF CAUSATION TO THE CONCLUSION OF CREATION[/U][/B]. I simply cannot imagine how anyone can put this in simpler terms. Not really. It states the nature of contingent existence. Something exists contingently as the result of a necessary existence prior it it. Otherwise, this something wouldn't be contingent, would it? Being a moderator requires a certain degree of intellectual honesty. Otherwise, you have no business moderating anything. So, to summarize your argument - you [B][U]DON'T KNOW[/U][/B] what something [B][U]IS[/U][/B] but you [B][U]DO KNOW[/U][/B] what that something [B][U]ISN'T[/U][/B]. Such gobledygook is a very clear indication of [B][U]DISHONESTY[/U][/B], and not a very good attempt at dishonesty at that. [/QUOTE]

Verification