(March 10, 2012 at 12:41 pm)Werewolff Wrote: No Phil, you did not write a summary. Ask anybody here who has not read the paper and who hopes to understand it via your explanation and they will tell you that they do not understand your explanation. You have not explained anything in a way that anybody could understand.

I see, you're blind as well as stupid. What was post #67? This is my last reply to you moron.

I must say that I have not read said paper, but I fully understood the summary Phil gave. It is not his fault that some people have not been able to understand it


Oh, and everyone should calm doooooooon.

(March 10, 2012 at 12:45 pm)Phil Wrote:

(March 10, 2012 at 12:41 pm)Werewolff Wrote: No Phil, you did not write a summary. Ask anybody here who has not read the paper and who hopes to understand it via your explanation and they will tell you that they do not understand your explanation. You have not explained anything in a way that anybody could understand.

I see, you're blind as well as stupid. What was post #67? This is my last reply to you moron.

That's out of order. First you can't provide a decent explanation and now you resort to namecalling. Poor show.

(March 10, 2012 at 12:48 pm)frankiej Wrote: I must say that I have not read said paper, but I fully understood the summary Phil gave. It is not his fault that some people have not been able to understand it

So, can you explain it, or are you just going to ACT as though you understand it as well?

(March 10, 2012 at 12:51 pm)black36 Wrote:

(March 10, 2012 at 12:48 pm)frankiej Wrote: I must say that I have not read said paper, but I fully understood the summary Phil gave. It is not his fault that some people have not been able to understand it

So, can you explain it, or are you just going to ACT as though you understand it as well?

Oh, wow. I didn't think you could get more condescending than you have already been. I owe you nothing.
If I have time later then I will write something to try to satisfy your needs, but I have little time at the moment to entertain someone who just seems to be pestering others.

(March 10, 2012 at 12:55 pm)frankiej Wrote:

(March 10, 2012 at 12:51 pm)black36 Wrote:

(March 10, 2012 at 12:48 pm)frankiej Wrote: I must say that I have not read said paper, but I fully understood the summary Phil gave. It is not his fault that some people have not been able to understand it

So, can you explain it, or are you just going to ACT as though you understand it as well?

Oh, wow. I didn't think you could get more condescending than you have already been. I owe you nothing.
If I have time later then I will write something to try to satisfy your needs, but I have little time at the moment to entertain someone who just seems to be pestering others.

Time will tell.

Frankiej, I don't think black36 is pestering anybody, much less resorting to namecalling, unlike our friend Phil. And yet no one (with the exception of myself) says a word about that.

ONE
TWO
THREE!

...pissing match over.

(March 10, 2012 at 10:46 am)black36 Wrote: However if God has always existed then you are arguing at a point in infinite God simply decided he was finally bored enough to create reality. The beginning of existence period apparently has always been here because God has always been here. The problem with making this argument is it actually makes the idea of matter always existing seem even more valid. If God always existed without beginning, always had his qualities inherent to his nature, etc then why is he the only thing that could do that?"

A passing appraisal of the trouble with the argument in and of itself. Of course the trouble with this argument as it applies to the world outside of the argument, is that it is completely and woefully lacking any evidence. What can be imagined, what can be argued, and what is are not always the same thing. Similarly, cause and god are not synonymous, except insomuch as some would argue that they are, without being able to contain themselves to that definition after having tried to weasel it in.

In your wording of the argument you have both special pleading, and unjustified assumptions. As you've mentioned, special pleading alone is bad enough, but compounding that with assumptions such as this makes it even more untenable.

IOW, "if" there was a beginning, "if" this phrase has any actual merit, it is not for the reason that follows the word "apparently", because there is nothing "apparent" about that assumption.

(March 10, 2012 at 1:13 pm)Rhythm Wrote:

(March 10, 2012 at 10:46 am)black36 Wrote: However if God has always existed then you are arguing at a point in infinite God simply decided he was finally bored enough to create reality. The beginning of existence period apparently has always been here because God has always been here. The problem with making this argument is it actually makes the idea of matter always existing seem even more valid. If God always existed without beginning, always had his qualities inherent to his nature, etc then why is he the only thing that could do that?"

A passing appraisal of the trouble with the argument in and of itself. Of course the trouble with this argument as it applies to the world outside of the argument, is that it is completely and woefully lacking any evidence. What can be imagined, what can be argued, and what is are not always the same thing. Similarly, cause and god are not synonymous, except insomuch as some would argue that they are, without being able to contain themselves to that definition after having tried to weasel it in.

This is not my quote. I'm considering reporting you.