Re: Physics and metaphysics
From: Atheistagnostic (atheistagnostic_at_nospam.net)
Date: 03/09/05
- Next message: tj Frazir: "Re: Gravity, the "channel of force""
- Previous message: Ken S. Tucker: "Re: The Graviton"
- In reply to: Virgil: "Re: Physics and metaphysics"
- Next in thread: Virgil: "Re: Physics and metaphysics"
- Reply: Virgil: "Re: Physics and metaphysics"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2005 15:46:27 -0800
Virgil wrote:
> In article <APednW0ujOhocbHfRVn-3g@comcast.com>,
> Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Virgil wrote:
>>
>>>In article <ksadnWSCGuGzaLbfRVn-sA@comcast.com>,
>>> Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Virgil wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>... has proposed that gods are impossible ...
>>>>
>>>>That's a lie.
>>>
>>>
>>>Actually, Simple Septic, under several aliases, has often claimed (in
>>>response to suggestions that there might be a god or that gods are not
>>>known to be impossible) "False, there are no such things"
>>
>>That's not an assertion...
>
>
> Then let us by all means ignore it ...
We cannot ignore the only reasonable default presumption, moron; just as
the only reasonable default presumption in criminal court is "No guilt,"
the only reasonable default presumption here is "No God."
Didn't your daddy teach you the basics?
- Next message: tj Frazir: "Re: Gravity, the "channel of force""
- Previous message: Ken S. Tucker: "Re: The Graviton"
- In reply to: Virgil: "Re: Physics and metaphysics"
- Next in thread: Virgil: "Re: Physics and metaphysics"
- Reply: Virgil: "Re: Physics and metaphysics"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|