Using Thunderbird, it looks like a there are two colors for text in this
thread, but three posters. Go figure.
On 4/22/2014 7:01 PM, steve.sun...@yahoo.com wrote:
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote :
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,
On 4/21/2014 1:57 PM, curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com wrote:
My responses are interwoven into her last post. I marked our responses
with our initials before each response. In my web browser it shows up
right at the top of all the discussion posts in this thread.
Snipping anything often leads to
Share, were you in the Reply window when you tried to do the edit?
What's File Edit?
I have no trouble editing in Neo.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sharelong60@... wrote :
Richard, I just attempted to edit your post in Neo. I highlighted what i
wanted to edit. When I hit
Richard, I just attempted to edit your post in Neo. I highlighted what i wanted
to edit. When I hit backspace, nothing happened. When I went to File Edit,
nothing happened.
How can I edit in Neo?
Sorry, I don't want to change to Google Chrome even though designed by geniuses
(-:
On
On 4/21/2014 2:01 PM, emilymae...@yahoo.com wrote:
Reads just fine to me. Snipping this will only confuse those who want
to follow the discussion, like myself.
Thanks for snipping, Emily!
---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection
is active.
Hi Judy, yes I was in the Reply window in email, rather than the website.
On Wednesday, April 23, 2014 11:26 AM, authfri...@yahoo.com
authfri...@yahoo.com wrote:
Share, were you in the Reply window when you tried to do the edit?
What's File Edit?
I have no trouble editing in Neo.
Richard, the way you snip changes up the context and mostly serves your sense
of humor and ego, not the integrity of whatever it is that you are commenting
on. The way that Judy snips, for example, is for the purpose of retaining
the essence and readability of a discussion, given Neo's
On 4/22/2014 12:48 AM, TurquoiseBee wrote:
All these words, talking about something that doesn't exist...
Has anyone else noticed that Barry hasn't presented anything but
emotions on this subject, compared to Xeno, Curtis, and Judy?
---
This email is free from viruses and malware because
On 4/22/2014 8:01 AM, authfri...@yahoo.com wrote:
We are so fortunate to have Barry here with us to set us all straight
about what exists and what doesn't. ;-)
Barry doesn't seem to want to talk about human levitation, which is kind
of paranormal, except when it is performed by The Last
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote :
All these words, talking about something that doesn't exist...
It's enough to drive you crazy, ain't it? Too many big words in a row just
flummox you. And those ideas...whew, way too hard to follow, especially if
Despicable Me
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote :
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote :
All these words, talking about something that doesn't exist...
It's enough to drive you crazy, ain't it? Too many big words in a row just
flummox you. And
On 4/22/2014 8:56 AM, awoelfleba...@yahoo.com wrote:
All these words, talking about something that doesn't exist...
*/
/*
*It's enough to drive you crazy, ain't it? Too many big words in a row
just flummox you. And those ideas...whew, way too hard to follow,
especially if Despicable Me is more
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote :
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote :
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote :
All these words, talking about something that doesn't exist...
It's enough to drive
From: salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2014 4:38 PM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version
of the God Idea?
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote :
---In
Actually, the fire hydrant analogy is a perfect one for Barry's near-total
ignorance of metaphyics. (As well as of Robin.)
Discussions of God and theology make Barry very nervous; that's why he's
especially irritable and gratuitously nasty this morning.
But what do you think of the
I'll reply just because it's perversely pleasing to see Judy trying to steal
someone else's funny insult because she's incapable of thinking up her own.
She's been reduced to I know she is, but so are you! :-) :-) :-)
From: authfri...@yahoo.com
You missed the point, dimwit. It's not that the insult was funny, it's that it
was, like so many of your insults and accusations, a projection of your own
flaws onto someone else, in this case your abysmal ignorance of metaphysics. I
suspect everyone recognized that but you.
Oooopsie!
On 4/22/2014 11:25 AM, TurquoiseBee wrote:
This is a person who actually believed Robin Carlsen was bright and
charismatic and worth following as a spiritual teacher.
As opposed to Barry who actually believed Fred Lenz was bright enough to
turn huge halls golden and worth following as a
Projection, as I just pointed out.
This is a person who actually believed Robin Carlsen was bright and
charismatic and worth following as a spiritual teacher.
As opposed to Barry who actually believed Fred Lenz was bright enough to turn
huge halls golden and worth following as a spiritual
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote :
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote :
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote :
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote :
AWhat I don't
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, steve.sundur@... wrote :
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote :
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote :
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote :
---In
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote :
From: salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2014 4:38 PM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version
of the God Idea?
---In
Where did you get this idea, it was never my intention Nabbie is not the only
guy who has believed here that somehow criticizing my music would be a way to
make me feel badly about myself The reason I pointed to your big hat wasn't to
try to make you feel bad but because you have the nerve to
From: nablusoss1008 no_re...@yahoogroups.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2014 9:56 AM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version
of the God Idea?
Where did you get this idea, it was never my intention Nabbie is not the only
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote :
Where did you get this idea, it was never my intention Nabbie is not the only
guy who has believed here that somehow criticizing my music would be a way to
make me feel badly about myself The reason I pointed to your
On 4/21/2014 3:12 AM, TurquoiseBee wrote:
So in other words you're ADMITTING to being a cultist, and to
attacking someone personally because they dissed your cult leader
Maharishi. Again, as with Richard yesterday, at least you admit it.
Several here still cannot.
But, it is strange that
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote :
From: nablusoss1008 no_re...@yahoogroups.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2014 9:56 AM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version
of the God Idea?
Where did
On 4/21/2014 11:24 AM, curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com wrote:
Look, this was your idea, Curtis. You wrote:
I claim that all the proof contain either an unsupported premise or
invalid inductive logic. If I pick one to show you what I mean by
example, you will claim, 'that was not the good one, you
My responses are interwoven into her last post. I marked our responses with our
initials before each response. In my web browser it shows up right at the top
of all the discussion posts in this thread.
Snipping anything often leads to accusations around here so I stopped doing it.
But if you
Reads just fine to me. Snipping this will only confuse those who want to
follow the discussion, like myself.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote :
My responses are interwoven into her last post. I marked our responses with
our initials before each response. In
Summary!
my own summery
Xenosophistry: you can't beat it.
Metaphysical ultimacy = divine simplicity. Being Itself. Doesn't get much
simpler than that.
Quantum mechanics, most successful theory in the history of science. And the
simple formula that everyone can understand is...?
“Do not keep saying to
I was not speaking of metaphysics except for the mention of theism.
Enlightenment is not about metaphysics.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote :
Xenosophistry: you can't beat it.
Metaphysical ultimacy = divine simplicity. Being Itself. Doesn't get much
simpler than
-In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote :
Ah Curtis yes, it's the fellow that with big letters proclaimed himself an
ARTIST,
C: You'll get no argument from me here Nabbie. I have been lobbying for years
to get people to refer to me in their contracts as Mojo
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote :
-In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote :
Ah Curtis yes, it's the fellow that with big letters proclaimed himself an
ARTIST,
C: You'll get no argument from me here Nabbie. I have been lobbying
Hard to guess how much of this from Curtis is self-deception, and how much of
it is an attempt to deceive readers here.
I must admit I completely missed that Curtis's objection to Feser is Feser's
opposition to gay rights rather than to Feser's support for classical theism
per se. But it
awoelflebater, I certainly wasn't after dealing any kind of personal blow, I
simply got fed up of the HUGE feathers when in reality the fellow can't sing.
He does put forward a lot of energy though, he is trying very, very hard,
agreed. And that's the sign of an amateur at work. All hat no
and you think Donovan can sing??? - I haven't heard you say squat about him
and he is bad even for a has been.
On Sun, 4/20/14, nablusoss1008 no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote:
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest
At least he is in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock_and_Roll_Hall_of_Fame
It occurs to me that I should make this additional point: If Curtis can
effectively deal with the classical theism argument, he'll have done precisely
what I said those who wish to debunk theism should do: address the strongest
argument for it.
If he does this well and responsibly, with
We both know this will end with you accusing me of something nefarious. It is a
foregone conclusion.But I am not gunna start there so pick one, post it and I
will apply the precise principles I laid out in my critique of Feser to show
you the problem with the classical proofs for god.
You know
I appreciate the kind intention behind your post Ann, thanks.
All professional performing artists have weathered the real shit-storm of
criticism which is the development stage where we are trying to match in
execution what we hear or see in our heads. This is a long period of self
Depends on whether you say something nefarious, Curtis. Maybe you're just too
entrenched in the behavior to change.
Interesting that you can't acknowledge anything I wrote in this post. Doesn't
bode well, but we'll see.
Here's Feser's post on classical theism, the one you said was a good
I already posted what I thought about the unnecessary assumptive in the
doctrine of simplicity. It doesn't pass the can we imagine it otherwise test.
Is there some other aspect of the post you want me to focus on?. Again, I need
you to pin down something specific that you think is the best
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote :
I appreciate the kind intention behind your post Ann, thanks.
All professional performing artists have weathered the real shit-storm of
criticism which is the development stage where we are trying to match in
execution what
Because he doesn't understand it. Maybe he should ask for an explanation
instead of assuming he's found some wiggle room for whatever god he's believing
in. Maybe Hawking shouldn't assume prior knowledge before writing about such
abstract things. Maybe if I had the book to hand I could work
On 4/18/2014 6:02 PM, awoelfleba...@yahoo.com wrote:
It's really funny when you think about how Judy masterfully pulls
them into the rabbit hole again and again. It's simply amazing!
They sound well-read but would anyone like to wager they probably
never even heard of Feser
On 4/19/2014 10:19 AM, TurquoiseBee wrote:
Judy Stein Argumentation Clinic, Lesson #1
It's all about Judy.
---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection
is active.
http://www.avast.com
From: salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, April 18, 2014 8:41 AM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version
of the God Idea?
The trouble I had with the Ed Fess blog is that he accuses Stephen Hawking of
Starting the day with an Oooopsie: Barry doesn't even know what McCarthyism
was:
Just to point it out to those who still don't get it, highlighted below in red
is another classic example of Judy's intellectual McCarthyism ploy. I have in
my hand a list of detailed refutations of each of
Barry is such a buffoon. This is much funnier than he can possibly imagine.
Remember, I was in constant private contact with Robin; I know why he left.
(Curtis does too, but he'll never admit it.)
Now ask Curtis why he left shortly thereafter, Barry.
No, never mind, he'll lie.
It
On 4/18/2014 12:49 AM, TurquoiseBee wrote:
Curtis makes some good points about Fester being just an attack dog
for those challenged by atheism, but my question is why is he so
damned funny-looking?
Speaking of funny looking - you're looking pretty funny after mistaking
a levitation event for
On 4/18/2014 12:57 AM, TurquoiseBee wrote:
And all of this just because neither Curtis nor myself was as
impressed by Uncle Fester as Judy was.
Curtis didn't seem to be very impressed with your proof for the
non-existence of God - that you witnessed Rama in a levitation event.
Maybe it's
On 4/18/2014 1:09 AM, TurquoiseBee wrote:
It really is all about her still being pissed off that you bested
Robin so badly that he ran away with his tail between his leg, isn't
it? She'll never get over that.
Maybe you're still pissed off for Shemp McGurk calling you on your big
lie about
On 4/18/2014 1:41 AM, salyavin808 wrote:
Ed Fess is simply the sort of jokey thing people do to names these
days to puncture pomposity and give them a bit of ironic street cred.
We do it to uncool politicians in particular. No need to take it
seriously.
Apparently nobody took Barry's claims
On 4/18/2014 1:53 AM, TurquoiseBee wrote:
Just imagine how Judy and Robin would get their buttons pushed if we
intentionally misspelled another supposed authority they love to
throw around,
So, it's all about Judy. Go figure.
---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast!
I can't find the Hawking post on Feser's blog. Do you perhaps have a link? He
did publish a review of Hawking's book on National Review Online; could that be
where you saw it? It was apparently for subscribers only. Are you a subscriber
to NRO?
Hawking's contention that philosophy is dead is
Sorry, Curtis, I get it that you were looking forward to a big fight, but you
aren't going to get it from me. I've had more than enough of your dishonest
debating tactics.
Cops refer to other cops they know to be corrupt as dirty. You're dirty,
Curtis.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,
Curtis, yes, it's the fellow that with big letters proclaimed himself an
ARTIST, then posted videos to youtube where he screams like a badly hurt pig
claiming it is ART :-)
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote :
Sorry, Curtis, I get it that you were looking forward to a
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote :
Sorry, Curtis, I get it that you were looking forward to a big fight, but you
aren't going to get it from me. I've had more than enough of your dishonest
debating tactics.
Cops refer to other cops they know to be corrupt as
Ah Curtis yes, it's the fellow that with big letters proclaimed himself an
ARTIST, then posted videos to youtube where he screams like a badly hurt pig.
This is an aside regarding Hawking. I was watching the sitcom 'The Big Bang
Theory' on Blu-ray last night, and in it the main character Dr Sheldon Cooper
is desperately trying to get a meeting with Stephen Hawking to discuss his
paper. He finally gets his meeting and the performer for Stephen
His books are full of little puns too, which is a nice touch considering the
effort it takes him to do anything!
I believe he is also the person with the most guest appearances on the
Simpsons.
I looked on youtube for a link but no deal, dang copyright. Where's the harm?
---In
From: salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, April 18, 2014 6:14 PM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Is Classical Theism Really the Strongest Version
of the God Idea?
His books are full of little puns too, which is a nice touch considering the
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote :
I can't find the Hawking post on Feser's blog. Do you perhaps have a link? He
did publish a review of Hawking's book on National Review Online; could that be
where you saw it? It was apparently for subscribers only. Are you a
If classical theism is wrong, the universe is no different, of course. Is that
what you really meant to ask?
Here's a question for you:
Try assuming that this classical god theory is wrong and whatever it is that
it does - or did - stops, or never started. In what way is the universe
For Judy: So I post my reasons for objecting to Feser's absurd position on
classical theism being the strongest version of the god idea that atheists need
to address, a statement you yourself have parroted giving no reasons...
you attack me personally and I ask you to stick to the topic as usual
For the record, Feser's position on classical theism is not significantly
different from that of the other philosophers of religion and thelogians who
espouse classical theism. To single his out as absurd is, well, absurd.
Yes, you had a short ride this time. Sorry about that. As I said, I've
-In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote :
For the record, Feser's position on classical theism is not significantly
different from that of the other philosophers of religion and thelogians who
espouse classical theism. To single his out as absurd is, well, absurd.
C: I
Is this it?
As I showed in my review of their book The Grand Design
http://nrd.nationalreview.com/?q=MjAxMDExMjk= for National Review, Stephen
Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow are no more philosophically competent than Siegel
is. Indeed, one of their errors is the same as Siegel’s: They tell us
Standard Curtis context-shifting. He can't respond to my point, so he shifts
the context and claims it's a straw man (even though he had insisted on
precisely what I addressed).
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote :
-In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,
On 4/18/2014 12:24 PM, curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com wrote:
It is all intellectual smoke and mirrors.
Judy did a masterful job of sucking you guys down a theistic rabbit
hole. I can't recall a time when she was in better form. It was just
awesome! The question is why would you guys be so
On 4/18/2014 10:56 AM, anartax...@yahoo.com wrote:
As I am a ember of the class of 'anyone', I want you to respond to
each point Curtis made below. Try not to make character assassination
and 'honesty' the main point. I think Curtis is the sharpest thinker
that has appeared on FFL since I have
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote :
If classical theism is wrong, the universe is no different, of course. Is that
what you really meant to ask?
Um, that's what I did ask. But it's nice to hear that there isn't anything to
worry about cosmologically. For a
All very funny Richard. I've noticed that you have really been rocking the
house this last year.
Sorry I can't help you on the Barry campaign.We just don't roll like that with
each other. We seem satisfied to state our opinions, and then drop it. As I
said I don't have any unresolved issues
In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote :
Standard Curtis context-shifting. He can't respond to my point, so he shifts
the context and claims it's a straw man (even though he had insisted on
precisely what I addressed).
C: No it is either your misread or my imprecision of
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote :
Is this it?
As I showed in my review of their book The Grand Design
http://nrd.nationalreview.com/?q=MjAxMDExMjk= for National Review, Stephen
Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow are no more philosophically competent than Siegel
is.
Thanks for that. Some good ones there, Don't Fear The Roofer is classic. Didn't
know he did a Star Trek though.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote :
From: salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, April 18, 2014 6:14 PM
That is an incomplete quote Judy:
'Because gravity shapes space and time, it allows space-time to be locally
stable but globally unstable. On the scale of the entire universe, the positive
energy of the mater can be balanced by the negative gravitational energy, and
so there is no restriction
It appears to be a quote from the book, Salyavin. I kind of doubt Feser would
just make it up.
Hmm, here's another review by a philospher that quotes the same sentence:
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2010/12/philosophy-lives
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2010/12/philosophy-lives
It appears they are using nothing to mean something different from the
philosophical nothing of ex nihilo, in which quantum fluctuations and/or
gravity would not be nothing.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote :
That is an incomplete quote Judy:
'Because gravity
BTW, the review of the book I cited for Salyavin quotes a different paragraph
containing the same sentence:
“[Just] as Darwin and Wallace explained how the apparently miraculous design
of living forms could appear without intervention by a supreme being, the
multiverse concept can explain
It's deja vu all over again!
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote :
BTW, the review of the book I cited for Salyavin quotes a different paragraph
containing the same sentence:
“[Just] as Darwin and Wallace explained how the apparently miraculous design
of living
An exhibition of how Curtis twists what one says:
j: Curtis is indeed very sharp, and anyone who tangles with him is in for a
hassle because he knows how to twist an argument into ingenious corkscrews. As
I've pointed out before, one won't be able to see what he does until one has
tangled
So I still don't know what Feser said that you thought was wrong...
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote :
It's deja vu all over again!
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote :
BTW, the review of the book I cited for Salyavin quotes a
Ignore for the moment the incoherence of the notion of self-causation (which
we explored recently here
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/12/dreaded-causa-sui.html and here
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/12/causal-loops-infinite-regresses-and.html).
Put to one side the question of
On 4/18/2014 1:43 PM, curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com wrote:
But keep on with the whacking stick for all of us Richard. It seems to
suit you.
You don't seem to be interested in music anymore. What's with all the
metaphysics? Why is Judy so easily able to suck you down the rabbit
hole? I guess
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote :
For Judy: So I post my reasons for objecting to Feser's absurd position on
classical theism being the strongest version of the god idea that atheists need
to address, a statement you yourself have parroted giving no
Not sorted, sorry. You claimed Hawking couldn't have written what Feser quoted
him as saying because it was appallingly inaccurate, but in fact Hawking did
write it, twice. So why was Feser wrong to have called him on it?
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote :
On 4/18/2014 10:21 AM, awoelfleba...@yahoo.com wrote:
*Sorry, Curtis, I get it that you were looking forward to a big fight,
but you aren't going to get it from me. I've had more than enough of
your dishonest debating tactics.*
*
*
*Cops refer to other cops they know to be corrupt as dirty.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote :
On 4/18/2014 10:21 AM, awoelflebater@... mailto:awoelflebater@... wrote:
Sorry, Curtis, I get it that you were looking forward to a big fight, but you
aren't going to get it from me. I've had more than enough of your dishonest
Ah, I've missed you, man.
To Judy, this is what I meant by being able to come up with one's own argument,
and in one's own language. All you are capable of is the same thing Curtis
suspects Fess of doing -- intellectual McCarthyism: I have in my hand a list
of the Great Books that you have to
Thanks Barry. The dickish depths of Feser go much deeper than I was able to go
into here. The connection I made to Palin's M.O. is valid on many levels.
On 4/17/2014 2:18 PM, curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com wrote:
You know in a special time when monkeys and yogisflew through the air.
Humans love to fantasize about previous ages being “golden ages” of
knowledge don’t we?
It was actually a relatively recent event that monkey came flying out of
On 4/17/2014 2:43 PM, curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com wrote:
Thanks Barry. The dickish depths of Feser go much deeper than I was
able to go into here.
You can't go very much more to dickish depths when Barry posted a
claim to having witnessed levitation, Curtis. What, exactly, are you two
guys
On 4/17/2014 2:34 PM, TurquoiseBee wrote:
To Judy, this is what I meant by being able to come up with one's own
argument, and in one's own language. All you are capable of is the
same thing Curtis suspects Fess of doing -- intellectual McCarthyism:
I have in my hand a list of the Great Books
On 4/17/2014 5:36 PM, authfri...@yahoo.com wrote:
Good old Curtis, slippery as ever. Notice that /he/ doesn't present
the argument of classical theism any more than I did. All he does is
claim it's inadequate (love to see how well he'd do in a debate with
Feser).
Yeah, like Curtis has been
On 4/17/2014 8:14 PM, curtisdeltabl...@yahoo.com wrote:
You know what you COULD have done? Presented why you find classical
theism to be the strongest version of the god idea. You know, like a
real discussion of ideas between people who disagree but like to
express their opinions. But you
I can't resist highlighting this example of Curtis's typical hypocrisy; it's so
blatant:
You know what you COULD have done? Presented why you find classical theism to
be the strongest version of the god idea. You know, like a real discussion of
ideas between people who disagree but like to
I get it that you really are not able to follow my critique of his laughable
presentation of classical theism as the strongest version of the god idea. You
can't follow philosophy which is why you just parroted his conclusion but can't
offer any counter argument to my points other than sophist
100 matches
Mail list logo
