It's time to review, once again, the cosmological argument for God's existence

[BackAgain]

What’s the difference between Ringtone and infinitely massive asshole?

ok ok. Trick question. It is the same thing.

299.

 

[Ringtone]

299

Hey, just between you and me, dumbass, when did you say oops, I unwittingly gave my ignorance away to yourself and Google actual infinity vs. potential infinity and finally learn the difference between infinity proper and actual infinity?

The obvious fact of your lies and stupidity is hilarious.


Hey, asshole, have you ever heard the expression, the liar always tells on himself?

 

[Ringtone]

What’s the difference between Ringtone and infinitely massive asshole?

ok ok. Trick question. It is the same thing.

299.

Forensics, you filthy liar!

 

[BackAgain]

Hey, just between you and me, dumbass, when did you say oops, I unwittingly gave my ignorance away to yourself and Google actual infinity vs. potential infinity and finally learn the difference between infinity proper and actual infinity?

The obvious fact of your lies and stupidity is hilarious.


Hey, asshole, have you ever heard the expression, the liar always tells on himself?

Hey, retard. . Admit your fail. Acknowledge that you confused a fallacy for a valid syllogism. Then, we’ll talk. Until then, you’re nothing but a laughingstock.

 

[Ringtone]

299

Hey, just between you and me, dumbass, when did you say oops, I unwittingly gave my ignorance away to yourself and Google actual infinity vs. potential infinity and finally learn the difference between infinity proper and actual infinity?

The obvious fact of your lies and stupidity is hilarious.


Hey, asshole, have you ever heard the expression, the liar always tells on himself?

 

[BackAgain]

Forensics, you filthy liar!

Your fail is never ending. You remain a laughingstock. And one of the funniest parts is — you imagine you’re smart!

 

[BackAgain]

Hey, just between you and me, dumbass, when did you say oops, I unwittingly gave my ignorance away to yourself and Google actual infinity vs. potential infinity and finally learn the difference between infinity proper and actual infinity?

The obvious fact of your lies and stupidity is hilarious.


Hey, asshole, have you ever heard the expression, the liar always tells on himself?

You’ve told on yourself. We all see it.

 

[Ringtone]

299

Hey, you know what else is hilarious?

You could have saved yourself two paragraphs of bloviation by simply referencing Aristotle's dictum infinitum actu non datur (i.e., there is only a potential infinity, not an actual infinity), per the principle of the boundless points of infinite division.

But you really don't know dick about the terms and the historical development of the philosophy and mathematics of infinity, do you, beginning with the difference between infinity proper and actual infinity?

LMFAO!

You pretentious phony ass!

 

[BackAgain]

Hey, you know what else is hilarious?

You could have saved yourself two paragraphs of bloviation by simply referencing Aristotle's dictum infinitum actu non datur (i.e., there is only a potential infinity, not an actual infinity), per the principle of the boundless points of infinite division.

But you really don't know dick about the terms and the historical development of the philosophy and mathematics of infinity, do you, beginning with the difference between infinity proper and actual infinity?

LMFAO!

You pretentious phony ass!

You could save yourself enormous humiliation by admitting that you’re wrong. Infinitely wrong.

299.

 

[Ringtone]

You could save yourself enormous humiliation by admitting that you’re wrong. Infinitely wrong.

299.

The Kalam Cosmological Argument - Cosmic Skeptic Refuted

The Kalam Cosmological Argument:Cosmic Skeptic Refutedby David Thompson(See Cosmic Skeptic's video Cosmic Skeptic at the ACSJ:

www.yumpu.com

Click on document to magnify or change view mode.

I'm the author, dumbass. There's nothing you can teach me about the KCA, let alone about the pertinent science from quantum physics or the pertinent science from physics in general. Also, there's nothing you can teach me about the pertinent mathematics and philosophy of infinity. By the way, the article includes an extensive exegesis on the mathematics and philosophy of infinity.

You don't fly anywhere near the altitude of my intellect and learning.

 

[BackAgain]

The Kalam Cosmological Argument - Cosmic Skeptic Refuted

The Kalam Cosmological Argument:Cosmic Skeptic Refutedby David Thompson(See Cosmic Skeptic's video Cosmic Skeptic at the ACSJ:

www.yumpu.com

Click on document to magnify or change view mode.

I'm the author, dumbass. There's nothing you can teach me about the KCA, let alone about the pertinent science from quantum physics or the pertinent science from physics in general. Also, there's nothing you can teach me about the pertinent mathematics and philosophy of infinity. By the way, the article includes an extensive exegesis on the mathematics and philosophy of infinity.

You don't fly anywhere near the altitude of my intellect and learning.

299, you idiot

 

[BackAgain]

The Kalam Cosmological Argument - Cosmic Skeptic Refuted

The Kalam Cosmological Argument:Cosmic Skeptic Refutedby David Thompson(See Cosmic Skeptic's video Cosmic Skeptic at the ACSJ:

www.yumpu.com

Click on document to magnify or change view mode.

I'm the author, dumbass. There's nothing you can teach me about the KCA, let alone about the pertinent science from quantum physics or the pertinent science from physics in general. Also, there's nothing you can teach me about the pertinent mathematics and philosophy of infinity. By the way, the article includes an extensive exegesis on the mathematics and philosophy of infinity.

You don't fly anywhere near the altitude of my intellect and learning.

Nobody could fly near the height of your ego. That’s for sure.

Meanwhile, before I try to wade through your lengthy paper, Davey, I’d still like to have you defend using the Creator as a premise to reach the conclusion that the Creator necessarily exists. In short, 299.

In the interim, congratulations on your ego.

 

[Ringtone]

Nobody could fly near the height of your ego. That’s for sure.

Meanwhile, before I try to wade through your lengthy paper, Davey, I’d still like to have you defend using the Creator as a premise to reach the conclusion that the Creator necessarily exists. In short, 299.

In the interim, congratulations on your ego.

You're claiming that a classic, centuries-old deductive argument that manifestly moves from the general to the specific—indeed, an argument that's necessarily predicated on the first principles of apriority regarding existence—is circular?!

When did you make this incredible discovery about the fundamental imperatives of an argument that no other celebrated mind has ever made in the history of philosophical letters?!

You're claiming to have overtured the linear integrity of a classic argument developed by the likes of Aristotle, Avicenna, Philoponus, Al-Kindi, and Aquinas no less?!

Over the centuries, unknown scores of humans, both great and small, have failed to see what you see?!

Excuse me, I need a brief moment to laugh my ass off at your stupidity, indeed, a moment to laugh uproariously over the dizzying heights at which your delusional ego dances.



You demented, dumpster-breath dweeb of a delusional, doddering old fool, indeed, you senile, disease-ridden, dimwitted, derp-derp squawking dumbass of a drooling dope.



See Post #330.

 

[BackAgain]

You're claiming that a classic, centuries-old deductive argument that manifestly moves from the general to the specific—indeed, an argument that's necessarily predicated on the first principles of apriority regarding existence—is circular?!

When did you make this incredible discovery about the fundamental imperatives of an argument that no other celebrated mind has ever made in the history of philosophical letters?!

You're claiming to have overtured the linear integrity of a classic argument developed by the likes of Aristotle, Avicenna, Philoponus, Al-Kindi, and Aquinas no less?!

Over the centuries, unknown scores of humans, both great and small, have failed to see what you see?!

Excuse me, I need a brief moment to laugh my ass off at your stupidity, indeed, a moment to laugh uproariously over the dizzying heights at which your delusional ego dances.



You demented, dumpster-breath dweeb of a delusional, doddering old fool, indeed, you senile, disease-ridden, dimwitted, derp-derp squawking dumbass of a drooling dope.



See Post #330.

No lad. I’m saying that you’ve engaged in a fallacy.

Your claim was that it was “proof” of God.
But your syllogism uses God as a premise.
It is not my fault that you can’t admit the fallacy. (You’re a pussy for a blowhard.)

 

[Ringtone]

No lad. I’m saying that you’ve engaged in a fallacy.

Your claim was that it was “proof” of God.
But your syllogism uses God as a premise.
It is not my fault that you can’t admit the fallacy. (You’re a pussy for a blowhard.)

What syllogism are you talking about, moron?

 

[BackAgain]

What syllogism are you talking about, moron?

You really are a moron.

 

[Ringtone]

You really are a moron.

That's what I thought, bitch. You can't demonstrate your ridiculous allegation. I, a learned logician, have never made a circular argument in life!

You lying-ass, two-bit-punk shit stain of a toothless, goat-humping inbred.

 

[BackAgain]

That's what I thought, bitch. You can't demonstrate your ridiculous allegation. I, a learned logician, have never made a circular argument in life!

You lying-ass, two-bit-punk shit stain of a toothless, goat-humping inbred.

Lol.

A “learned logician” wouldn’t include a desired conclusion as one of his premises. This explains why your massive vanity wouldn’t allow you to answer the question earlier.

 

[Ringtone]

Lol.

A “learned logician” wouldn’t include a desired conclusion as one of his premises. This explains why your massive vanity wouldn’t allow you to answer the question earlier.

A circular argument entails presupposing or embedding the conclusion in the premise. Correct! But you're repeating yourself.

Let's have your example where I supposedly did that, retard.

Please include an objectively coherent argument explaining precisely why your cited example is circular.

crickets chirping.

 

[BackAgain]

A circular argument entails presupposing or embedding the conclusion in the premise. Correct! But you're repeating yourself.

Let's have your example where I supposedly did that, retard.

Please include an objectively coherent argument explaining precisely why your cited example is circular.

crickets chirping.

It was your argument that is fallacious, stupid. Try to keep up.