Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: The "Transcendental Argument" for God

Expand Messages
  • Robert Baty
    ... It looks like that cannot should be a can ! Alas, I had written the above, checked your latest incoming post, and noticed you have already noted and
    Message 1 of 10 , Jul 1, 2007
      Todd, you wrote, in part:

      > Thus, until the claim
      > "God exists" cannot be
      > justified, the rational
      > position is that there is
      > no reason to believe in
      > the god.

      It looks like that "cannot" should be a "can"!

      Alas, I had written the above, checked your latest incoming post, and noticed you have already noted and corrected the error! :o)

      You also noted that:

      > Daniel (Denham) will keep
      > right on misrepresenting
      > what atheism even means,
      > long after the cows have
      > come home.

      Speaking of which, the "cows" (i.e., according to Donald Canny, the "girlie-men" who are most vocal on the ContendingFTF list) are all due home tomorrow.

      What else will they be doing once all the cows come home?

      Todd, you also wrote:

      > Notice that Daniel did not
      > even attempt to back up
      > his assertion.

      I noticed!

      Todd, you also noticed:

      > What we're observing is
      > Daniel giving up on the
      > rationality of his belief...

      Didn't I note that Bales warned us of that. Daniel is in a place where reason doesn't dwell.

      Todd, you again properly notice, for the record:

      > In regard to seeking
      > to "constantly...change the
      > subject," the fact of the
      > matter is that it is the young
      > earth creationists who
      > constantly sought to change
      > the subject because they're so
      > embarrassed about the fact
      > that their religious dogma of
      > young earth creationism is
      > scientifically false.

      > So here we see Daniel lying
      > about this too, as he has been
      > constantly lying about it all
      > along.

      Sincerely,
      Robert Baty



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • w_w_c_l
      ... Todd, thank you for pointing that out. As I just posted in the other thread (in part): ***** Here is the message that shows Daniel Denham would have been
      Message 2 of 10 , Jul 1, 2007
        Todd, you quoted Daniel Denham:

        > > Then there's Rick
        > > who has trumpeted loudly the values and virtues of
        > > "cat morality"

        And replied:

        > This is just Daniel burying his head in the sand again,
        > because he is incapable of dealing with the reality
        > that animals display many of the behavioral aspects of
        > what we call morality. Daniel merely denigrates the
        > point rather than even trying to deal with the facts.
        > This is one of his standard operating procedures.

        Quoting Denham again:

        > > and who has intimated that some people are
        > > more human than others.

        You replied:

        > This is a point from Rick's discussion, that Daniel
        > failed to address. Again, rather than even trying to
        > deal with the facts of the discussion, Daniel just
        > runs away from the points being made and then later
        > just makes stupid and vapid remarks about points that
        > he ran away from even dealing with in a rational
        > manner.

        Todd, thank you for pointing that out. As I just
        posted in the other thread (in part):

        *****
        Here is the message that shows Daniel Denham would have
        been better served to just keep his mouth shut about me
        and my "cat morality" and my "intimations" of what makes
        a human a "human":

        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/9782
        *****

        Quoting Denham:

        > > Just a helpful
        > > suggestion based on Todd's own implicit admissions.

        You replied:

        > There's that "implicit admissions" weasel words
        > tactic again. Of course, there was nothing "implicit"
        > or an "admission." I stated my points explicitly,
        > and far from being any "admission" my points
        > substantiate my position.
        >
        > - Todd Greene

        Just a "helpful suggestion", Todd: you might want to
        copy your last paragraph here to a handy place so
        you can paste it repeatedly into any replies you may
        make to Daniel Denham. Those "implicit admissions"
        of yours will be where Denham gets himself into trouble --
        you can say the sky is above the sea and Denham will
        take that as an "implicit admission" from you that you
        believe the sea is above the sky.


        Rick Hartzog
        Worldwide Church of Latitudinarianism
      • Robert Baty
        Rick, Todd: I think you might find some good evidence as to just how hard I ve hit Daniel Denham by simply doing some checking on the use of the term, in its
        Message 3 of 10 , Jul 1, 2007
          Rick, Todd:

          I think you might find some good evidence as to just how hard I've hit Daniel Denham by simply doing some checking on the use of the term, in its various forms, "implicit".

          I have used the term so successfully to note various aspects of where David P. Brown and the boys are at that it really got to Daniel Denham.

          So, Denham has recently picked it up and started using it, ineffectively, in his postings.

          What a hoot!

          Denham can't be like Wallace!
          Denham can't be like Warren!
          Denham can't be like Bales!

          Denham wants to try to be like Baty!

          I win again!

          Sincerely,
          Robert Baty






          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.