| Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ] | | EvC Forum active members: 207 (7532 total) |
| | Current session began: | | | Page Loaded: | 05-23-2013 10:53 PM |
|
|
101 online now:
|
|
| Chatting now:
| Chat room empty
| | Newest Member: | letchimWOD
|
| Post Volume:
|
|
Total: 698,862
|
Year: 13,309/40,304
|
Month: 1,869/2,861
|
Week: 301/443
|
Day: 49/75
|
Hour: 2/3
|
|
Originator Info
Deleted
Inactive Junior Member
|
|
| Originated: | 08-13-2010 5:47 AM
| | Total Participants: | 26
| | Total Posts: | 177 | | Summation Mode: | Off |
|
|
Author
|
Topic: The Kalam cosmological argument
|
Straggler
Member Posts: 9305 From: London England Joined: 09-30-2006 Member Rating: 9.9
|
|
Message 11 of 177 (574507)
08-16-2010 9:38 AM
|
Reply to: Message 10 by nwr 08-16-2010 9:11 AM
|
|
Re: Why these arguments always fail
| When you see arguments that seem to assume little, but prove much, it is time to be skeptical. |
Hmmmmm you seem to be presenting an argument that assumes little but proves much........? 
(I am only kidding. I agree with the sort of principle you are stating)
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 10 by nwr, posted 08-16-2010 9:11 AM | | nwr has responded |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 12 by nwr, posted 08-16-2010 9:58 AM | | Straggler has not yet responded |
|
| Date format: mm-dd-yyyy |
Timezone: ET (US)
|
 |
|
|
| Newer Topic | Older Topic |
| Jump to: |
|
Copyright 2001-2013 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved Version 4.0 Beta Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2013
|