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

[Ringtone]

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

crickets chirping

 

[BackAgain]

crickets chirping

You don’t want to discuss your inclusion of your proposed conclusion as one of your premises? It’s ok. You’re free to evade. You usually do.

 

[Ringtone]

You don’t want to discuss your inclusion of your proposed conclusion as one of your premises? It’s ok. You’re free to evade. You usually do.

I have no idea what you're talking about, you idiot.

 

[BackAgain]

I have no idea what you're talking about, you idiot.

Yes you do, you vainglorious scumbag dolt.

 

[Ringtone]

Yes you do, you vainglorious scumbag dolt.

 

[BackAgain]

Yes. You are indeed cuckoo.

 

[Ringtone]

299, you idiot

This is me:

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

This is you:

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.​

​

​

 

[BackAgain]

This is me:

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

This is you:

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 how stupid you are? You wrote “this is me” where you had written the material. So far so good.

Then, as per your standard stupidity, you wrote “This is you” but posted more of your own blather.

Bottom line: you’re a moron. And, using a conclusion as a premise remains a fallacy.

 

[Ringtone]

See how stupid you are? You wrote “this is me” where you had written the material. So far so good.

Then, as per your standard stupidity, you wrote “This is you” but posted more of your own blather.

Bottom line: you’re a moron. And, using a conclusion as a premise remains a fallacy.

Nonsense!

This is me:

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

​

​

I am the brilliant, highly learned logician who wrote the above.​

This is you, the grammatically challenge doofus who wrote an infinite [indefinite article + adjective construction] exists:

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.​

​

​

 

[BackAgain]

Nonsense!

This is me:

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

​

​

I am the brilliant, highly learned logician who wrote the above.​

This is you, the grammatically challenge doofus who wrote an infinite [indefinite article + adjective construction] exists:

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.​

​

​

Once again, you’re too retarded to even admit that you aren’t quoting me. You’re quoting your own silly assessment.

Damn, kid. For a brilliant logician you certainly are stupid.

 

[Ringtone]

Once again, you’re too retarded to even admit that you aren’t quoting me. You’re quoting your own silly assessment.

Damn, kid. For a brilliant logician you certainly are stupid.

You obtuse silly ass of a drooling imbecile, the point is that you are the one who claimed that the KCA is circular. Are you such a literalist dumbass that you can't follow the gist of the inference?

You are a lying bitch-ass doofus. The KCA is not circular.

In other words, I'm smart, and you're stupid.

 

[BackAgain]

You obtuse silly ass of a drooling imbecile, the point is that you are the one who claimed that the KCA is circular. Are you such a literalist dumbass that you can't follow the gist of the inference?

You are a lying bitch-ass doofus. The KCA is not circular.

In other words, I'm smart, and you're stupid.

Actually, I said that your OP contained the desired conclusion as a premise. So, I properly referred to it as the fallacy of “begging the question.”

I also criticized your error of maintaining that a fallacy constitutes “proof.”

 

[Ringtone]

Actually, I said that your OP contained the desired conclusion as a premise. So, I properly referred to it as the fallacy of “begging the question.”

I also criticized your error of maintaining that a fallacy constitutes “proof.”

You drooling 'trad!

The above is at least the fifth time now that you have claimed that I made a circular argument. Circular reasoning, begging the question, embedding the conclusion in the premise are all referents to the same logical fallacy, dumbass. I got you the first time.

The OP is an exegesis of the KCA. If you are not talking about the KCA, then what the hell are you talking about?

I am not a mind reader, dumbass.

You have not cited the text of this supposed fallacy, let alone objectively demonstrated that whatever the hell you're alluding to is circular in the first place.

Where's the beef, dumbass?

 

[BackAgain]

You drooling 'trad!

The above is at least the fifth time now that you have claimed that I made a circular argument. Circular reasoning, begging the question, embedding the conclusion in the premise are all referents to the same logical fallacy, dumbass. I got you the first time.

The OP is an exegesis of the KCA. If you are not talking about the KCA, then what the hell are you talking about?

I am not a mind reader, dumbass.

You have not cited the text of this supposed fallacy, let alone objectively demonstrated that whatever the hell you're alluding to is circular in the first place.

Where's the beef, dumbass?

What’s a ‘trad?

Also, no. The names of the fallacies are different for a few different reasons. Similarity is not the same as “the same.”

Now, back to it. You are guilty of using your desired conclusion as your premise. This is fallacious.

For a logician of your self-described status, that’s a pretty basic error by you. Stop trying to deflect. Accept your error and move on.

 

[Ringtone]

What’s a ‘trad?

Also, no. The names of the fallacies are different for a few different reasons. Similarity is not the same as “the same.”

Now, back to it. You are guilty of using your desired conclusion as your premise. This is fallacious.

For a logician of your self-described status, that’s a pretty basic error by you. Stop trying to deflect. Accept your error and move on.

Shut the hell up, you lying bitch. We're talking about the Fallacy of Presumption, the most common iteration of which is begging the question, a.k.a. as circular reasoning or embedding the conclusion in the premise!

Logical Fallacies: Begging the Question

Begging the Question is the most basic and classic example of a Fallacy of Presumption. Discover an explanation of the phenomenon plus see examples.

www.thoughtco.com

You claim now for at least the sixth time:

You are guilty of using your desired conclusion as your premise. This is fallacious.​

The OP is an exegesis of the KCA. If you are not talking about the KCA, then what the hell are you talking about?

I am not a mind reader, dumbass.

You have not cited the text of this supposed fallacy, let alone objectively demonstrated that whatever the hell you're alluding to is circular in the first place.

Where's the beef, dumbass?

 

[Ringtone]

What’s a ‘trad?

Also, no. The names of the fallacies are different for a few different reasons. Similarity is not the same as “the same.”

Now, back to it. You are guilty of using your desired conclusion as your premise. This is fallacious.

For a logician of your self-described status, that’s a pretty basic error by you. Stop trying to deflect. Accept your error and move on.

Where is the beef, bitch?

 

[Ringtone]

What’s a ‘trad?

Also, no. The names of the fallacies are different for a few different reasons. Similarity is not the same as “the same.”

Now, back to it. You are guilty of using your desired conclusion as your premise. This is fallacious.

For a logician of your self-described status, that’s a pretty basic error by you. Stop trying to deflect. Accept your error and move on.

Where is the beef, bitch?

 

[BackAgain]

Shut the hell up, you lying bitch. We're talking about the Fallacy of Presumption, the most common iteration of which is begging the question, a.k.a. as circular reasoning or embedding the conclusion in the premise!

Logical Fallacies: Begging the Question

Begging the Question is the most basic and classic example of a Fallacy of Presumption. Discover an explanation of the phenomenon plus see examples.

www.thoughtco.com

Suck another bag of dicks, you doofus. You assumed your desired conclusion as your premise. Your fallacy, as I correctly noted, is known as “begging the question.”

Here: I shall educate you a bit:

Begging the Question vs Circular Reasoning Fallacy​

The Circular Reasoning fallacy is often used interchangeably with Begging the Question.

The slight distinction is the number of terms used. Fallacy Begging the Question is:

premise A assumes A is true, so A is true.

With Circular Reasoning:

premise A proves B and B proves A.

— Begging the Question - Definition and Examples

You’re welcome.

Extra generous advice just for my vainglorious pal, Ringtone :

You would be well advised to demonstrate less concern for the particular name of the fallacy you’re guilty of committing than for correcting it.

Again. You’re welcome.

 

[Ringtone]

Suck another bag of dicks, you doofus. You assumed your desired conclusion as your premise. Your fallacy, as I correctly noted, is known as “begging the question.”

Here: I shall educate you a bit:

Begging the Question vs Circular Reasoning Fallacy​

The Circular Reasoning fallacy is often used interchangeably with Begging the Question.

The slight distinction is the number of terms used. Fallacy Begging the Question is:


With Circular Reasoning:


— Begging the Question - Definition and Examples

You’re welcome.

Extra generous advice just for my vainglorious pal, Ringtone :

You would be well advised to demonstrate less concern for the particular name of the fallacy you’re guilty of committing than for correcting it.

Again. You’re welcome.

Again, stop lying, dumbass.

https://www.thoughtco.com/begging-the-question-petitio-principii-250337:

Begging the question is the most basic and classic example of a Fallacy of Presumption because it directly presumes the conclusion which is at question in the first place. This can also be known as a "Circular Argument" - because the conclusion essentially appears both at the beginning and the end of the argument, it creates an endless circle, never accomplishing anything of substance.​

 

[Ringtone]

Suck another bag of dicks, you doofus. You assumed your desired conclusion as your premise. Your fallacy, as I correctly noted, is known as “begging the question.”

Here: I shall educate you a bit:

Begging the Question vs Circular Reasoning Fallacy​

The Circular Reasoning fallacy is often used interchangeably with Begging the Question.

The slight distinction is the number of terms used. Fallacy Begging the Question is:


With Circular Reasoning:


— Begging the Question - Definition and Examples

You’re welcome.

Extra generous advice just for my vainglorious pal, Ringtone :

You would be well advised to demonstrate less concern for the particular name of the fallacy you’re guilty of committing than for correcting it.

Again. You’re welcome.

Again, stop lying, dumbass.

https://www.thoughtco.com/begging-the-question-petitio-principii-250337:

Begging the question is the most basic and classic example of a Fallacy of Presumption because it directly presumes the conclusion which is at question in the first place. This can also be known as a "Circular Argument" - because the conclusion essentially appears both at the beginning and the end of the argument, it creates an endless circle, never accomplishing anything of substance.​