|
Post by Occam's Spork on Jan 28, 2013 10:33:15 GMT 10
Now THAT is obfuscation.
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Jan 28, 2013 10:36:52 GMT 10
No, it's not.
You state "God can't be culpable, if he doesn't exist, can He?"
But you deny "And therefore he IS culpable if he does exist".
Hint: When you have a statement with two negatives, the same statement with two positives generally means the same thing.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Jan 28, 2013 10:38:40 GMT 10
That comment doesn't really make sense, garfield. --You are an atheist, correct? So to paraphrase what you'd be saying from an atheistic perspective: "God doesn't exist, and this "non-existent being" is a mass murderer and child killer. God can't be culpable, if he doesn't exist, can He? I talk about it in the same sense that I talk about the Coyote never being able to catch the Road runner And you haven't denied that your god is a mass murdering maniac killer of women and children and you can't deny it, as he is, it says so in your bible You worship a mass murdering maniac killer, do you think a lot of Ted Bundy too ;D Murder? Murder is the unlawful killing, with malice aforethought, of another person. 1. Was the killing unlawful? No. 2. Was it with malice? No. 3. Is God a person? Possibly, but not on the same plane as us. Is it murder to kill a cow? Then I suppose we're all guilty of murder. God is the author of life, he has the right to take it.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Jan 28, 2013 10:41:29 GMT 10
No, it's not. You state " God can't be culpable, if he doesn't exist, can He?" But you deny " And therefore he IS culpable if he does exist". Hint: When you have a statement with two negatives, the same statement with two positives generally means the same thing. You mean the same as your famous "There ain't no God"? Ought we consider that a profession of your newly found faith, then?
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Jan 28, 2013 10:50:28 GMT 10
You do know the difference between slang and a statement?
Thought not, Mr O.
This should help:
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Jan 28, 2013 10:56:04 GMT 10
No, it's not. You state " God can't be culpable, if he doesn't exist, can He?" But you deny " And therefore he IS culpable if he does exist". Hint: When you have a statement with two negatives, the same statement with two positives generally means the same thing. If their sum are intended to be positive, double negatives are generally acceptable in all registers. Which is fine my me, since I am arguing (positive), for the existence of God. -1+-1=+1 Double negatives are logical errors, not grammatical ones.
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Jan 28, 2013 11:16:58 GMT 10
No, it's not. You state " God can't be culpable, if he doesn't exist, can He?" But you deny " And therefore he IS culpable if he does exist". Hint: When you have a statement with two negatives, the same statement with two positives generally means the same thing. If their sum are intended to be positive, double negatives are generally acceptable in all registers. Which is fine my me, since I am arguing (positive), for the existence of God. -1+-1=+1 Double negatives are logical errors, not grammatical ones. -1+-1=+1 Your school should be ashamed.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Jan 28, 2013 11:21:02 GMT 10
Metaphorically. I meant it made a positive, not that it literally equaled 1. (Otherwise I would've just typed 1, and left the + out)
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Jan 28, 2013 11:25:08 GMT 10
So maths is not a strongpoint for you, eh? Everyone with half a brain knows that -1 + -1 = -2
Goes with your total lack of ability of being to able to prove God exists.
How are the ribs going? Found proof that woman came out of man yet?
Not having a good day, are you?
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Jan 28, 2013 11:31:17 GMT 10
Logically, two negatives make a positive. --That's the point I was making, and the one that's eluded you.
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Jan 28, 2013 11:38:46 GMT 10
Logically, two negatives make a positive. --That's the point I was making, and the one that's eluded you. Maths is eluding you.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Jan 28, 2013 11:53:47 GMT 10
-1+-1 (would be 2 negatives, and 1 positive, slarti.)
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Jan 28, 2013 11:58:30 GMT 10
Minus one plus minus one equals minus two.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Jan 29, 2013 11:43:03 GMT 10
Good, Slarti. You are making great progress.
But you are detracting from the argument by changing the subject from a grammatical/logical context, to a mathematical one. (If you want to argue mathematically, you should know multiplying any 2 negatives will always result in a positive. (-5)(-9)=45) When you finally get bored of your childish tangents and are interested in returning to your original objection, let me know.
|
|
|
Post by garfield on Jan 29, 2013 11:56:50 GMT 10
When you finally get bored of your childish tangents and are interested in returning to your original objection, let me know. He finds it a lot simpler to be trivial
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Jan 29, 2013 22:17:02 GMT 10
Good, Slarti. You are making great progress. But you are detracting from the argument by changing the subject from a grammatical/logical context, to a mathematical one. (If you want to argue mathematically, you should know multiplying any 2 negatives will always result in a positive. (-5)(-9)=45) When you finally get bored of your childish tangents and are interested in returning to your original objection, let me know. PMSL. Yes, I know the difference between multiplying and adding. The facts are that you can't add ;D.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2013 6:44:52 GMT 10
One day a miracle will happen and you will actually have a post that doesn't label everyone else apart from yourself a moron, how can you be so far up yourself, are you red in the face? Well, if you don't want to be labelled a Moron, don't keep posting Moronic statements. It can't get any simpler than that Garfy.
|
|
|
Post by pim on Jan 30, 2013 8:22:53 GMT 10
Now now HG, don't be too hard on Garfield. After all when his major source on everything is the Encyclopedia Moronica you'd have to expect that he'd become ... well ... a tad moronic!
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Feb 2, 2013 1:35:23 GMT 10
Good, Slarti. You are making great progress. But you are detracting from the argument by changing the subject from a grammatical/logical context, to a mathematical one. (If you want to argue mathematically, you should know multiplying any 2 negatives will always result in a positive. (-5)(-9)=45) When you finally get bored of your childish tangents and are interested in returning to your original objection, let me know. PMSL. Yes, I know the difference between multiplying and adding. The facts are that you can't add ;D. You know what's amusing? You still think the context of my post was about mathematics. ..Even though it was explained to you twice.
|
|