RE: Why there must be a God
September 12, 2010 at 10:30 pm
(This post was last modified: September 12, 2010 at 10:36 pm by theVOID.)
If he honestly thinks a blatant forgery by a barely educated sand-dwelling pedophile Arab who flew on winged unicorns and lived 1400 years ago is representative of the ultimate truth of reality then that's his imperative.
Just don't expect us to take him seriously.
Actually, i'll say it outright - You are a fucking idiot.
I disagree, Kalam is dependent on A-theory of time in the way that it phrases and represents causality.
Too bad then that hardly anybody supports the a-theory of time.
It in effect makes his premise a bare-assertion fallacy.
Just don't expect us to take him seriously.
Actually, i'll say it outright - You are a fucking idiot.
(September 10, 2010 at 5:37 pm)Captain Scarlet Wrote: Firstly the syllogistic reasoning is logically valid.
I disagree, Kalam is dependent on A-theory of time in the way that it phrases and represents causality.
Too bad then that hardly anybody supports the a-theory of time.
It in effect makes his premise a bare-assertion fallacy.
.
