Do you know what projection is? You are the one whose only purpose here is to attack Mormon beliefs. The only beliefs that you have expressed are that Mormons are irrational, evil, deluded, etc.
And I said before that you should do your own work and provide your own definition of God. I also said I would wait to see how small a paper-tiger God you put up so that you could knock it down and you have not disappointed. That’s the best you could come up with? The null set?
For something that doesn't exist? Yes of course.
But even there you screwed up, because are you now saying that the null set doesn’t exist? Yup, you are blind to the holes in your own logic.
The concept of something that doesn't exist is entirely distinct from the subject. Do you understand what a symbol is?
I falsely accused you of nothing, you were well aware of what you were trying to do by insuating a cabal existed. Or do you just make empty accusations assuming no one will act on your ego inflated drivel? And I’ve said plenty, it’s your hysteria that is a bit disconcerting.
You falsely accused me of trying to censor you and members of your cabal. Now you falsely accuse me of making empty allegations. The ping list and your groups continued anti Mormon postings are evidence of your cabal.
“You falsely accused me of trying to censor you and members of your cabal. Now you falsely accuse me of making empty allegations. The ping list and your groups continued anti Mormon postings are evidence of your cabal.”
This is just too funny. The only reason to use the word “cabal” in a serious discussion is to imply there is a group of people worthy of censure or excommunication:
cabal:
1. a small group of secret plotters, as against a government or person in authority.
2. the plots and schemes of such a group; intrigue.
So let me translate what you are saying. You said:
“You falsely accused me of trying to censor you and members of your cabal.”
What that is equivalent to saying is [You falsely accused me of trying to censor you and members of your ‘small group of secret plotters, as against a government or person in authority.’]
Only the exceptionally dull of wit would not recognize that as a call for censure. It would be like saying “I am not for censoring people who must be censored.” I mean, how long can you avoid realizing how weak are your arguments?
“The concept of something that doesn’t exist is entirely distinct from the subject. Do you understand what a symbol is?”
Apparently I understand a lot better than you. You just said God is the null set. Then you said God does not exist. Therefore what you just implied is the null set does not exist, which invalidates your original definition. It’s this kind of sloppy thinking that permeates your discussions.