FUNDIES FAIL TO ANSWER QUESTION:

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

>> >>JOE

>> >>Once again, DOES GOD EXIST? YES or NO

>> >>

>> >>WILL ANY FUNDIE ON THIS LIST ANSWER THIS QUESTION???

>> >

>> >Matthew Bell

>> >Yes, God exists.

>> >

>> >[grgaud]

>> >Define God.

>>

>> CARTER

>> Define yourself, giving at least two examples.

>>

>> -Jason

>

>[grgaud]

>Excuse me, but what kind of dodge is this? I made a simple request:

>define God. If neither Bell nor you can do this, then so be it, but

>don't give me this BS about defining myself. Either address the

>problem or wimp out and don't.


CARTER
Excuse me, but can someone please define who this person is?
I would like to have a definition of "G. R. Gaudreau" before I proceed to
actually dialogue with this entity. For how can I discuss with an entity I
have no definition for?

Hoping that someone here will actually think before they respond....

POOBAH
Jason, you seem to be the king of demanding that others answer your
questions while refusing to answer theirs. I seem to remember a similar
situation regarding "the rich man" in which you refused to answer Till's
questions because he was trying to shift the burden of proof. Never mind the
recent objective morality debacle in which you never did offer any evidence
for the existence of that but demanded answers to your subsequent
hypotheticals. Something about a speck & a log comes to mind.

We at least have evidence of grgaud's existence from his postings, and
billions of examples of other people to draw from, so it is hardly
unreasonable to conclude his existence. What evidence do we have of God's?

You are of course, being very disingenuous. You have an at least incomplete
definition of God in your head, but refuse to offer it because you know it
would be shot to pieces. For example, if in response to the question above,
I had opined, "Yes, she does" I'm sure you wouldn't have agreed.

So perhaps instead of sophistry you can offer what you think the attributes
of God are and perhaps a single shred more evidence then you offered for the
objective morality that supposedly emanates from the same.

B.

• Previous message: FUNDIES FAIL TO ANSWER QUESTION:
• Next message: FUNDIES FAIL TO ANSWER QUESTION:
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]