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

[Thief]

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?

it is a fair statement that you have no recourse against

 

[McBell]

it is a fair statement that you have no recourse against

there is no need for recourse because you have merely declared it as true.
Now we all know you cannot substantiate your claim because if you could, you would have long before your cowardice set in.

 

[Thief]

there is no need for recourse because you have merely declared it as true.
Now we all know you cannot substantiate your claim because if you could, you would have long before your cowardice set in.

it is self evident....as truth
Someone had to be first.

 

[leibowde84]

it is a fair statement that you have no recourse against

Yes I do. I asked for you to support your claim. You refused to provide any support for your claim, using the excuse that it is "self-evident". Thus, your claim is no longer valid until you support it. Otherwise it is just an unsubstantiated empty claim.

 

[leibowde84]

it is self evident....as truth
Someone had to be first.

Why is that self-evident? That question you have yet to answer.

 

[McBell]

it is self evident....as truth
Someone had to be first.

it is not self evident.
Other wise you would have no problems proving it is self evident.
Since you are completely unable to substantiate your "self evident" claim, you have also shown in this very thread that it is in fact not self evident.

 

[Thief]

Why is that self-evident? That question you have yet to answer.

a fool's redirection
rebuttal the statement.....Someone had to be first

 

[leibowde84]

a fool's redirection
rebuttal the statement.....Someone had to be first

Because your claim is unsubstantiated and you refuse to support it, this is all I need to do. You have only provided an empty claim that has not been supported in any way.

Someone didn't have to be first. Something could have been first.

 

[leibowde84]

a fool's redirection
rebuttal the statement.....Someone had to be first

Someone didn't have to be first ... It's self evident.

 

[McBell]

a fool's redirection

yes it is.
Problem is you did not fool anyone with it.

rebuttal the statement.....Someone had to be first

substantiate it so that there is a need for rebuttal.

I know, it sucks when you have nothing but your dogma to fall back on.

 

[Thief]

substance is not self starting

Someone had to be first.

 

[leibowde84]

substance is not self starting

. This is another claim. Can you support this claim, or are you unable to like with the "someone had to come first" claim?

 

[McBell]

substance is not self starting

Another bold empty claim?
Or do you plan on substantiating it?
No, let me guess, you going to claim it is "self evident", right?

Someone had to be first.

unsubstantiated bold empty claim.

 

[Thief]

Another bold empty claim?
Or do you plan on substantiating it?
No, let me guess, you going to claim it is "self evident", right?


unsubstantiated bold empty claim.

now you are denying science....and the self evident

 

[Thief]

. This is another claim. Can you support this claim, or are you unable to like with the "someone had to come first" claim?

you likewise

 

[Thief]

you two guys babysit each other for a while

I'll be back to take care of this later

 

[leibowde84]

you likewise

So, no you can't support your claim? Why didn't you just admit that before.

 

[McBell]

now you are denying science....and the self evident

bold faced lie...bold faced lie

Care to try again?

 

[McBell]

I'll be back to take care of this later

You mean you are FINALLY going to substantiate your claims or are you merely going to continue having your *** handed to you?

 

[Iti oj]

Thread locked for excessive trolling.​