Science, Metaphysics, and "God of the Gaps" Arguments

[Thief]

Someone didn't have to be first ... Self evident.

See how that works? If you don't substantiate your claim at all, it is no more valid than any opposing claim. You have to back up your claim that "someone had to be first". Repeating it merely makes it look like you have no support for your claim and it is, in fact, fraudulent.

simple minded denial is not a rebuttal....

now the ball is in your court......demonstrate.....
multiple firsts....

go for it

 

[leibowde84]

simple minded denial is not a rebuttal....

now the ball is in your court......demonstrate.....
multiple firsts....

go for it

Something rather than someone could have been first.

 

[Thief]

Something rather than someone could have been first.

that's not much of a rebuttal.....
you are denied

demonstrate your claim

 

[McBell]

Someone had to be first.....is a pivot point.

it's been ignored so far......
what do you think you are doing here?

repeating an unsubstantiated bold empty claim does not make it true.
I understand you rely heavily on your dogma.
Problem is that only your choir will be convinced.
To bad you have been unsuccessful in obtaining a choir, eh?

 

[McBell]

simple minded denial is not a rebuttal....

now the ball is in your court......demonstrate.....
multiple firsts....

go for it

sad attempt at shifting the burden.

Is this because you have nothing to offer up but your bold empty claims?

 

[McBell]

demonstrate your claim

you first.
I mean, you made your claim first, so if anyone is to go first with demonstrating their claim, it should be you.

or are you ready to admit you are merely pulling this all from your backside?

 

[leibowde84]

that's not much of a rebuttal.....
you are denied

demonstrate your claim

So, it's OK for you to not "demonstrate your claim" in any way by simply utilizing the cop-out that its "self-evident". Then you complain about my reply not being "much of a rebuttal". You haven't given me anything to rebut. You simply made the unsubstantiated claim that "someone must have come first". Can you substantiate that claim so I actually have something to rebut?

 

[Thief]

So, it's OK for you to not "demonstrate your claim" in any way by simply utilizing the cop-out that its "self-evident". Then you complain about my reply not being "much of a rebuttal". You haven't given me anything to rebut. You simply made the unsubstantiated claim that "someone must have come first". Can you substantiate that claim so I actually have something to rebut?

demonstrating a self evident is ...... draggin of you through this discussion.

why not hang on my pant leg and scream for ice cream?

now....how about that demo?
support YOUR claim

 

[Thief]

you first.
I mean, you made your claim first, so if anyone is to go first with demonstrating their claim, it should be you.

or are you ready to admit you are merely pulling this all from your backside?

did you want ice cream?

 

[McBell]

demonstrating a self evident is ...... draggin of you through this discussion.

why not hang on my pant leg and scream for ice cream?

now....how about that demo?
support YOUR claim

your desperation is showing.

 

[leibowde84]

demonstrating a self evident is ...... draggin of you through this discussion.

why not hang on my pant leg and scream for ice cream?

now....how about that demo?
support YOUR claim

My point is that it isn't self-evident. Up till now you have claimed that it is over and over again, yet you have failed to substantiate that claim. If something is self-evident, that means it should be extremely easy to demonstrate. Thus, your avoidance of doing so makes it seem as if you have realized that it is not really self-evident, and you are unable to back up that claim.

I will be happy to rebut your claim that "someone must come first" as soon as you support that claim. Until then I don't have anything to rebut. Can you do that?

 

[McBell]

did you want ice cream?

how is that choir coming?
All these years with the same song and dance and you still have no choir to speak of?

 

[Thief]

denial to the choir is pointless

 

[leibowde84]

now....how about that demo?
support YOUR claim

You have provided no reason to think that "someone must have come first". Thus, there is no reason to think that "someone must have come first" presented in this discussion. Your claim that it is "self-evident" is obviously false, as you aren't even able to explain why it is self-evident.

So, it can safely be assumed that "someone didn't have to come first".

 

[Thief]

You have provided no reason to think that "someone must have come first". Thus, there is no reason to think that "someone must have come first" presented in this discussion. Your claim that it is "self-evident" is obviously false, as you aren't even able to explain why it is self-evident.

So, it can safely be assumed that "someone didn't have to come first".

the reason is straight forward
your denial is noted
and refused

 

[McBell]

denial to the choir is pointless

again, what is it you claim is being denied?

Why are you so unwilling to answer that question?
I mean, hells bells, you don't even dodge or dismiss it.
You flat out ignore it.

 

[leibowde84]

the reason is straight forward
your denial is noted
and refused

Ok, so what is that reason?

 

[Thief]

Ok, so what is that reason?

Someone had to be first
it's that simple

 

[McBell]

the reason is straight forward
your denial is noted
and refused

I suspect that the denial you speak of is actually yours, not any one elses.
I mean, you are so quick with the denial accusation, but never support that claim either.
In fact, you always just completely ignore the question of what is being denied as if it was never asked...

 

[McBell]

Someone had to be first
it's that simple

a bold empty claim is not an argument.

Funny how after all these years of being told that, you still do not understand it.