tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post4112874100415860220..comments2024-03-22T06:22:08.010+00:00Comments on Stephen Law: Sye - a third atheist "account" of logicStephen Lawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-82803773870151320342009-11-16T10:21:17.160+00:002009-11-16T10:21:17.160+00:00Great article as for me. It would be great to read...Great article as for me. It would be great to read something more concerning this topic.<br />By the way check the design I've made myself <a href="http://www.admirableescorts.com/a_level_escorts_london.html" rel="nofollow">A level escorts</a>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-60684317332073495402008-08-11T08:48:00.000+00:002008-08-11T08:48:00.000+00:00"Supposed to do" by whom? By you, Stephen, and oth..."Supposed to do" by whom? By you, Stephen, and others posting here, perhaps - but Sye makes his own rules, and the basic one is "Logic is impossible without God, because it emanates from His mind. Until you lot accept this, I won't debate on YOUR terms."<BR/><BR/>That's why it's a waste of time to argue or reason with Sye. He's never going to budge. If he did, his whole worldview would collapse, and he would probably suffer a nervous breakdown. As it is, he's perfectly happy in his delusion that baseless assertions are 'proofs'.anticanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18135207107619114891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-87397484523379385392008-08-11T07:18:00.000+00:002008-08-11T07:18:00.000+00:00Stephen said: ""What [Sye] really needs is an argu...Stephen said: ""What [Sye] really needs is an argument that rules out all atheist-friendly accounts in principle.""<BR/><BR/>Anticant said: "<BR/>He has one. "Nothing is meaningful without God. Because of the impossibility of the contrary.""<BR/><BR/>=============<BR/><BR/>But Anticant, what's he's supposed to do is prove all non-Christian views ARE impossible. Citing 'impossibility of the contrary' is no justification, for that's what needs to be proven.<BR/><BR/>But, what the hell does Sye care.Nutcasenightmarehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08782037549575540589noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-44771562446668736892008-08-10T12:43:00.000+00:002008-08-10T12:43:00.000+00:00"What [Sye] really needs is an argument that rules..."What [Sye] really needs is an argument that rules out all atheist-friendly accounts in principle."<BR/><BR/>He has one. "Nothing is meaningful without God. Because of the impossibility of the contrary." <BR/><BR/>I'm surprised you haven't cottoned on to this yet!anticanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18135207107619114891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-44880715127162783842008-08-10T10:47:00.000+00:002008-08-10T10:47:00.000+00:00Hi Stephen,With one broken clavicle and one disloc...Hi Stephen,<BR/><BR/>With one broken clavicle and one dislocated, I'm amazed you can type.<BR/><BR/>I hope it mends straight, and all the best.<BR/><BR/>Enjoyed the 'God is not a Jerk' video link from KyleP.<BR/><BR/>Regards, Paul.Paul P. Mealinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14573615711151742992noreply@blogger.com