28 May 14
Originally posted by RJHindsNeither.
Is anything wrong with this logic?
[b]1. I exist
2. God exist
3. Therfore, I am God
Maybe, it should be:
1. God exist
2. I exist
3. Therfore, I am God
Which is the best logic?[/b]
You are using the word "therefore" incorrectly (as always).
But you know that already - are you just getting GB wound up? 😉
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyMentioning wolfgang59's wife's name and his child's name in a bitter little retort ~ passed off as creepy unsolicited bonhomie ~ like that, certainly was "ill considered". But it is one of the little passive aggressive tricks that you like to brandish from time to time. So, nothing new here.
Ill considered reply deleted.
29 May 14
Originally posted by FMFIncorrect.
Mentioning his wife's name and his child's name in a bitter little retort ~ passed off as creepy unsolicited bonhomie ~ like that, certainly was "ill considered". But it is one of the little passive aggressive tricks that you like to brandish from time to time. So, nothing new here.
29 May 14
Originally posted by FMFFMF, the generic post with the baby's name omitted was 'Hope the new baby and mother are still doing fine' wouldn't seem "creepy" to any father or grandfather reminiscing when his own daughter was a child. Made an error and corrected it. Period.
You may call the retort you deleted "ill considered". I would call it creepy.
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyYour creepy fake bonhomie ~ a general forum poster who knows you well recently described it as "condescending insincerity" ~ was made in response to this post below by wolfgang59 which was addressed to me and was part of a discussion specifically about your contribution to this thread and had nothing to do with wolfgang's wife or his child:
FMF, the generic post with the baby's name omitted was 'Hope the new baby and mother are still doing fine' wouldn't seem "creepy" to any father or grandfather reminiscing when his own daughter was a child. Made an error and corrected it. Period.
"I think you are right - Grampy Bobby is never laughingly stupid - more tragically stupid. He hides behind what he thinks are the wise words of others with his cut n paste and, as you say, never wants to engage in debate or learn. His posts condemn him; he is an intellectual weakling."
And it triggered your "ill considered' retort. Yours is a passive aggressive trick I have seen you deploy many a time when you have been criticized about something. The idea that you posted it on this thread ~ in reply to that post ~ 'accidentally' ~ is not credible. even you yourself described it as "ill considered" rather than "posted on the wrong forum". If you meant to post it on the General Forum three and a half hours ago ~ in response to an "announcement of a birth", then where is it? 🙂
29 May 14
Originally posted by FMFAfter posting in this forum then deleting it I went to the General Forum and found wolfgang59's thread on page 3 with a last post by FreakyKBH 18 May '14. Having already posted to each of the four pages, decided not to bump it. Thread 158727
Your creepy fake bonhomie ~ a general forum poster who knows you well recently described it as "condescending insincerity" ~ was made in response to this post below by wolfgang59 which was addressed to me and was part of a discussion specifically about your contribution to this thread and had nothing to do with wolfgang's wife or his child:
"I think you are r ...[text shortened]... m three and a half hours ago ~ in response to an "announcement of a birth", then where is it? 🙂
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyYou are incredible...
Originally posted by Penguin
Do you mean your reply on the previous page to my post also on the previous page, where you say the argument is flawed because of it's [i]"assumption of the presence of time. The nature, essence or essential being of God includes the attribute of eternal life: His absolute existence outside the boundaries of time."[/ ...[text shortened]... argument? [Flawed by reason of its invalid application of the human to the supernatural realm.]
Me: Do you mean your first response, or your second response?
You: I mean my first response. Here it is again: [pastes second response].
Either way, can you please make it clear which part of the argument you find problematic?
1. Is it the premise that "Everything that exists has a cause"?
2. Or the premise that "God exists"?
3. Or do you think that the conclusion that "God has a cause" does not logically follow if both premises are true?
A simple "it is 1", "it is 2" or "it is 3" is all that is needed.
29 May 14
Originally posted by PenguinOriginally posted by Grampy Bobby (Page 7) "What's wrong with this argument?" (OP)
You are incredible...
Me: Do you mean your first response, or your second response?
You: I mean my [b]first response. Here it is again: [pastes second response].
Either way, can you please make it clear which part of the argument you find problematic?
1. Is it the premise that "Everything that exists has a cause"?
2. Or the premise that " ...[text shortened]... if both premises are true?
A simple "it is 1", "it is 2" or "it is 3" is all that is needed.[/b]
The argument's assumption of the presence of time. The nature, essence or essential being of God
includes the attribute of eternal life: His absolute existence outside the boundaries of time. (Page 10)
___________________________________________________
Originally posted by wolfgang59
1. Everything that exists has a cause [Assumes a time continuum within which the causal events of existence can occur.]
2. God exists [True]
3. Therefore God has a cause [False Ipso Facto: The nature, essence or essential being of God includes the attribute of eternal life: His absolute existence outside the boundaries of time.]
What's wrong with this argument? [Ignores the essence of God.]
[Note: Comparisons are odious, especially supercilious personality comparisons. You've changed.] [Argumentation: Arrogance complicates to make facts nebulous to enhance self importance. Antagonists think they're smarter than they are when the topic is out of focus. Objectivity clarifies. God's Perfect Plan is simple, too simple for arrogance.]
Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
"What's wrong with this argument?" (OP) The argument's assumption of the presence of time. The nature, essence or essential being of God includes the attribute of eternal life: His absolute existence outside the boundaries of time. (Page 10)
______________________________________________________
Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
First, thanks for mentioning "personal reasons". I do hope they resolve near term in ways favourable to you and your family.
Second, let's take another simplified objective and unemotional pass on wolfgang's original post:
Originally posted by wolfgang59
1. Everything that exists has a cause [Yes. Everything within the human realm that exists has a cause or multiple causes.]
2. God exists [Yes, without a beginning or a termination because of His essence: the attributes of eternal and immutable.]
3. Therefore God has a cause ["1." Refers to the human realm; "3." Presumes to apply the human realm to God. Invalid.]
What's wrong with this argument? [Flawed by reason of its invalid application of the human to the supernatural realm.] (Page 11)
_______________________________________________________
Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Originally posted by Penguin
Do you mean your reply on the previous page to my post also on the previous page, where you say the argument is flawed because of it's "assumption of the presence of time. The nature, essence or essential being of God includes the attribute of eternal life: His absolute existence outside the boundaries of time."?
Yes. Here it is again for your convenience:
Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
First, thanks for mentioning "personal reasons". I do hope they resolve near term in ways favourable to you and your family.
Second, let's take another simplified objective and unemotional pass on wolfgang's original post:
Originally posted by wolfgang59
1. Everything that exists has a cause [Yes. Everything within the human realm that exists has a cause or multiple causes.]
2. God exists [Yes, without a beginning or a termination because of His essence: the attributes of eternal and immutable.]
3. Therefore God has a cause ["1." Refers to the human realm; "3." Presumes to apply the human realm to God. Invalid.]
What's wrong with this argument? [Flawed by reason of its invalid application of the human to the supernatural realm.] (Page 11)
_______________________________________________________
"Either way, can you please make it clear which part of the argument you find problematic?" -Penguin [God has no cause.]
Originally posted by Grampy Bobby🙄 Sounds awfully convoluted. So, you'd have us believe that wolfgang59's withering criticism of you on this thread suddenly "reminded you of Heidi Lynn" and reminded you of a thread that's been dormant most of three weeks on a different forum which you then went to but you decided not to post anything there because you had posted four times, once on each of the 4 pages of the thread, and in each instance wolfgang59 ~ clearly unimpressed with your 'bonhomie' ~ had completely ignored you [four attempts, over a period of more than four weeks, all ignored, even when you called him "wolfie"], so you decided to try again for a fifth time, posted it on the wrong thread, in response to some blunt criticism of you, and you mentioned his wife's name and his child's name, and you decided it came across as what I'd describe as thoroughly creepy ~ or "ill considered", as you put it ~ but then you ended up not posting it, despite how it had "reminded you of Heidi Lynn", and so on and so forth...? Pretty convoluted if you ask me.
After posting in this forum then deleting it I went to the General Forum and found wolfgang59's thread on page 3 with a last post by FreakyKBH 18 May '14. Having already posted to each of the four pages, decided not to bump it. Thread 158727