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

[Thief]

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...

you failed to rebuttal
you are denied

 

[Thief]

a bold empty claim is not an argument.

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

Someone had to be first
a self evident.....statement

 

[McBell]

you failed to rebuttal

unsubstantiated bold empty claims do not require rebuttal

you are denied

As if you had the authority or power to deny me...

 

[Thief]

denied

 

[McBell]

Someone had to be first
a self evident.....statement

unsubstantiated bold empty claim.

"Self evident" is nothing more than you dogmatic cop out.

Nice try thiough

 

[leibowde84]

Someone had to be first
it's that simple

Yeah, you've said that. Why did someone have to be first? You have yet to support your claim that "someone had to be first". Can you at least try to do that?

 

[leibowde84]

Someone had to be first
it's that simple

Yeah, you've said that. Why did someone have to be first? You have yet to support your claim that "someone had to be first". Can you at least try to do that?

 

[leibowde84]

Someone had to be first
it's that simple

If it's simple, it should be easy to back up. Can you substantiate the claim that "someone had to be first"? You have still failed to do that.

 

[leibowde84]

you failed to rebuttal
you are denied

He's right. You haven't supported your claim yet, so there is nothing to rebut. Can you support your claim?

 

[McBell]

denied

only in your own fantasy world.

Until you can present an argument and no, unsubstantiated bold empty claims are not an argument, there is no need for refutation.

 

[Thief]

He's right. You haven't supported your claim yet, so there is nothing to rebut. Can you support your claim?

it is self evident.....Someone had to be first
no proof required

 

[leibowde84]

Someone had to be first
a self evident.....statement

There isn't anything "self-evident" about that claim. Actually, facially, it seems counter-intuitive. But, can you support your claim that "someone had to be first".

Btw, if a claim is "self-evident", that means that it should be EASIER to support. Can we assume that you cannot support your claim and that, by definition, it is not "self-evident"?

 

[McBell]

it is self evident.....Someone had to be first
no proof required

theres that no proof dogma you are famous for!
one wonders why you are so hypocritical about it though.

I mean, if you have no problems with no proof required, why all this demanding proof from others?

 

[Thief]

keep trying guys.....you have already been reported

 

[leibowde84]

it is self evident.....Someone had to be first
no proof required

Can you support your claim that "someone had to be first"? So far you have attempted to support your claim with an additional claim (that it is "self-evident"), which you have also failed to support in any way. Pretty pathetic.

 

[McBell]

keep trying guys.....you have already been reported

the way of the coward.
to report someone else for your own trolling...

Most entertaining.

 

[leibowde84]

keep trying guys.....you have already been reported

There is nothing in the forum rules about asking for claims to be substantiated. Actually, using the pathetic "self-evident" claim is trolling, and I actually reported quite a few of your comments today.

 

[Thief]

Someone had to be first.

which part is confusing you guys?
the word someone?....had to be?.......or the word.... first?

 

[leibowde84]

keep trying guys.....you have already been reported

So, can you at least be honest and admit you cannot support the claim that "someone had to be first"?

 

[leibowde84]

Someone had to be first.

which part is confusing you guys?
the word someone?....had to be?.......or the word.... first?

It is a claim. Claims require support to be taken seriously or as legitimate. You have failed to support this claim. Can you support it now?