First order logic, set theory and God

[Angrboda]

No, I wouldn't have.  The existence of a fallacy indicates that your conclusion doesn't follow from the premises.  That's how logic works, dumbass.  I could have pointed out other errors, but there was no need to do so having established the one.  A point that apparently sailed over your head.

Are you really this stupid?

In all honesty, the impression one gets by reading your posts is akin to a douche on a futile endeavor of throwing around "fallacy" this and "fallacy" that, and not even understanding what they're talking about. Perhaps you should understand that you don't get the decisive edge in an argument by simply brandishing retardedly your "Fallacy" wand at every chance you get and cramming your goddamn post with an impressive-sounding Latin term. Ironically enough, you're just as guilty of committing the fallacy of supposing you can defeat an argument simply by appealing to a named fallacy. You fucking dunce.

So, in other words, you really are this stupid. In the first place, I didn't just throw out the term fallacy, I gave the reason why it was fallacious, namely that it doesn't prove God exists, but rather that something that isn't necessarily God exists. The use of the Latin phrase is merely a shorthand for intelligent people to convey exactly what kind of error is involved and so convey why it is an error. Since you apparently aren't intelligent, it does not convey much to you. Feel free to name the fallacy that you think I've committed by pointing out the problem with your argument and naming the species of fallacy it is. I expect that you won't, and instead we'll hear more moronic bluster about how a fallacy is not fatal to a logical argument. Good luck with that, loser.