To: longshadow; PatrickHenry; Woahhs; P.O.E.; No More Gore Anymore; jigsaw; Snake65; RobFromGa; ...
Part 7.
Apologies for the delays, lack of interaction, et cetera. Part 8 will, tomorrow, close the discussion of fallacies of presumption with the fallacies of Accident and Converse Accident. Part 9 will then begin the discussion of the fallacies of ambiguity.
2 posted on
12/30/2003 11:36:21 AM PST by
general_re
("Frantic orthodoxy is never rooted in faith, but in doubt." - Reinhold Niebuhr)
To: *crevo_list; VadeRetro; jennyp; Junior; longshadow; RadioAstronomer; Physicist; LogicWings; ...
PING. [This ping list is for the evolution side of evolution threads, and sometimes for other science topics. FReepmail me to be added or dropped.]
3 posted on
12/30/2003 12:37:25 PM PST by
PatrickHenry
(Hic amor, haec patria est.)
To: general_re
Thank you for posting these.
To: general_re
To beg the question is to assume the truth of what one seeks to prove, in the effort to prove it. 1. Everything has a cause.
2. Therefore the universe has a cause.
3. Therefore God.
My apologies to Aquinas for the gross over-simplification of his second proof. For more detailed information:
Thomas Aquinas: Reasons in Proof of the Existence of God.
6 posted on
12/30/2003 1:30:55 PM PST by
PatrickHenry
(Hic amor, haec patria est.)
To: general_re
when do we get the "no True Scotsman"?
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson