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

[Ringtone]

Somebody wake me if and when my little bitch, the vainglorious self-proclaimed logician, Ringtone ever finds his balls sufficiently to man up and answer the question.

I know Ringtone lies. I’m not expecting much. We had an agreement earlier on how to proceed, and he elected to violate it within about 3 or 4 additional posts. So, I’m not expecting a professional reply. Hell, I’m not even expecting an honest answer from him. Just something beyond his present petty avoidance.

The only one deflecting is you, bitch!

Once again, you bloviating, pretentious bitch of a stinking street whore, the varying forms of the Fallacy of Presumption (begging the question, circular reasoning/argument, embedded conclusion) are not relevant! There is nothing you can teach me about logic.

This is what is relevant. . . .

You write:

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

Where is the copied and pasted citation from my post and your argument demonstrating that your claim is true?

What don't you understand about I don't read minds, and I have no idea what the hell you're talking about?

 

[Ringtone]

Somebody wake me if and when my little bitch, the vainglorious self-proclaimed logician, Ringtone ever finds his balls sufficiently to man up and answer the question.

I know Ringtone lies. I’m not expecting much. We had an agreement earlier on how to proceed, and he elected to violate it within about 3 or 4 additional posts. So, I’m not expecting a professional reply. Hell, I’m not even expecting an honest answer from him. Just something beyond his present petty avoidance.

Where is the copied and pasted citation from my post and your argument demonstrating that your claim is true?

Where is the copied and pasted citation from my post and your argument demonstrating that your claim is true?

Where is the copied and pasted citation from my post and your argument demonstrating that your claim is true?

Put up or shut up!

Put up or shut up!

Put up or shut up!

 

[BackAgain]

The only one deflecting is you, bitch!

Once again, you bloviating, pretentious bitch of a stinking street whore, the varying forms of the Fallacy of Presumption (begging the question, circular reasoning/argument, embedded conclusion) are not relevant! There is nothing you can teach me about logic.

This is what is relevant. . . .

You write:

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

Where is the copied and pasted citation from my post and your argument demonstrating that your claim is true?

What don't you understand about I don't read minds, and I have no idea what the hell you're talking about?

So, your bad temper aside, let’s just get real for a moment.

Simple question. Is it your claim that you offered a conclusion which was not one of the premises? Yes or no?

 

[BackAgain]

Where is the copied and pasted citation from my post and your argument demonstrating that your claim is true?

Where is the copied and pasted citation from my post and your argument demonstrating that your claim is true?

Where is the copied and pasted citation from my post and your argument demonstrating that your claim is true?

Put up or shut up!

Put up or shut up!

Put up or shut up!

You haven’t answered my question yet. Put that up. I’ll be happy to provide you with the evidence once you do so. I told you before: you don’t get to dictate. You want answers? Cool. Then start offering some. And do as you had previously agreed:. Cease with your ad hominems rest.

 

[Ringtone]

So, your bad temper aside, let’s just get real for a moment.

Simple question. Is it your claim that you offered a conclusion which was not one of the premises? Yes or no?

What conclusion and what premises are you talking about?

 

[Ringtone]

You haven’t answered my question yet. Put that up. I’ll be happy to provide you with the evidence once you do so. I told you before: you don’t get to dictate. You want answers? Cool. Then start offering some. And do as you had previously agreed:. Cease with your ad hominems rest.

You write:

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

Where is the copied and pasted citation from my post and your argument demonstrating that your claim is true in the first place?

What don't you understand about I don't read minds, and I have no idea what the hell you're talking about?

 

[BackAgain]

What conclusion and what premises are you talking about?

I haven’t seen your answer yet.

 

[BackAgain]

You write:

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

Where is the copied and pasted citation from my post and your argument demonstrating that your claim is true in the first place?

What don't you understand about I don't read minds, and I have no idea what the hell you're talking about?

You may recall, I told you before: I don’t accept your right to dictate terms. Answer
My question, first. It is a non-negotiable pre-condition.

 

[Ringtone]

You may recall, I told you before: I don’t accept your right to dictate terms. Answer
My question, first. It is a non-negotiable pre-condition.

I have no idea what premises or conclusions you're talking about.

 

[BackAgain]

I have no idea what premises or conclusions you're talking about.

I asked the question and you certainly know your own conclusion. Did you or did you not make use of your conclusion as one of the premises, master logician?

 

[Ringtone]

I asked the question and you certainly know your own conclusion. Did you or did you not make use of your conclusion as one of the premises, master logician?

You lunatic!

The answer is I have no idea what conclusion or premises you could possibly be talking about. How could I? To the best of my knowledge, I have never begged the question in my life.

Now you can either cite the text from the thread in which I did or you can't.

It's your bald, unsupported claim, not mine.

 

[BackAgain]

You lunatic!

The answer is I have no idea what conclusion or premises you could possibly be talking about. How could I? Just how stupid are you? To the best of my knowledge, I have never begged the question in my life.

Now you can either cite the text from the thread in which I did or you can't.

It's still your bald, unsupported claim, not mine.

How many conclusions did your OP come to? Focus on just that. I know you know what your own conclusion was. Therefore, it has to be clear (even to you) whether or not you used it as a premise.

 

[Ringtone]

How many conclusions did your OP come to? Focus on just that. I know you know what your own conclusion was. Therefore, it has to be clear (even to you) whether or not you used it as a premise.

You lame-brained, limp-wristed, ass-licking lunatic of a feeble-minded freak wallowing in a putrid puddle of soiled panties!

The answer is I have no idea what conclusion or premises you could possibly be talking about. How could I? To the best of my knowledge, I have never begged the question in my life.

Now you can either cite the text from the thread in which I did or you can't.

It's your bald, unsupported claim, not mine.

 

[BackAgain]

You lame-brained, limp-wristed, ass-licking lunatic of a feeble-minded freak wallowing in a putrid puddle of soiled panties!

The answer is I have no idea what conclusion or premises you could possibly be talking about. How could I? To the best of my knowledge, I have never begged the question in my life.

Now you can either cite the text from the thread in which I did or you can't.

It's your bald, unsupported claim, not mine.

You may be dishonest but you’re also not remotely convincing.

I’m going to assist you just because it assists in exposing you as the fraud you are:

YOU wrote:
“Question: how do we know that God necessarily exists?
Short Answer: . . . because the imperatives of logic, mathematics, and metaphysics tell us that God necessarily exists. The Cosmological Argument is bullet proof.”

I’m gonna go out in a limb here. You (not being particularly reliable) may deny it, but let’s call that your clearly stated conclusion. Now, let’s simplify it. “Therefore, God exists.”

Now, man up. Is it your claim, at this point, that none of your premises include the existence of God?

 

[BackAgain]

You lame-brained, limp-wristed, ass-licking lunatic of a feeble-minded freak wallowing in a putrid puddle of soiled panties!

The answer is I have no idea what conclusion or premises you could possibly be talking about. How could I? To the best of my knowledge, I have never begged the question in my life.

Now you can either cite the text from the thread in which I did or you can't.

It's your bald, unsupported claim, not mine.

Yeah. Sure. Of course. You’re a genius.

 

[Ringtone]

Yeah. Sure. Of course. You’re a genius.

I know.

 

[BackAgain]

I know.

And you’re also still a coward. But of course that you’ll deny.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Yes, let's review:

These laughable arguments are still fodder for college sophomores when the professor wants to teach them what bad philosophy and illogic looks like.

That isn't going to change, no matter how many freakish nutters flog them to death on message boards.

 

[Ringtone]

You may be dishonest but you’re also not remotely convincing.

I’m going to assist you just because it assists in exposing you as the fraud you are:

YOU wrote:
“Question: how do we know that God necessarily exists?
Short Answer: . . . because the imperatives of logic, mathematics, and metaphysics tell us that God necessarily exists. The Cosmological Argument is bullet proof.”

I’m gonna go out in a limb here. You (not being particularly reliable) may deny it, but let’s call that your clearly stated conclusion. Now, let’s simplify it. “Therefore, God exists.”

Now, man up. Is it your claim, at this point, that none of your premises include the existence of God?

Exactly!

God reveals his existence via the fundamental imperatives of logic and mathematics, and the first principles of ontology and epistemology. The Kalam Cosmological Argument is predicated on these a priori axioms. The Argument is bulletproof.

 

[BackAgain]

Exactly!

God reveals his existence via the fundamental imperatives of logic and mathematics, and the first principles of ontology and epistemology. The Kalam Cosmological Argument is predicated on these a priori axioms. The Argument is bulletproof.

Zzz. So. Maybe now that you know what your own conclusion is, you can admit or deny that you used the existence of God as a premise.