Talk:Impossibility of Actual Infinity against God

From Iron Chariots Wiki
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(burden of prof not ours)
(ce)
 
Line 6: Line 6:
  
 
Note: the argument provided in this article is, in my opinion, one of the strongest arguments against the existence of God.--[[User:Wissam hemadeh|wissam hemadeh]] 14:33, 4 May 2010 (CDT)
 
Note: the argument provided in this article is, in my opinion, one of the strongest arguments against the existence of God.--[[User:Wissam hemadeh|wissam hemadeh]] 14:33, 4 May 2010 (CDT)
:I'm afraid that it's a bit to dense for me so I won't be touching it. Frankly, I think that any and all "arguments against the existence of Gods" are a bit of a waste of time.  The people who need to supply evidence or persuasive arguments are those who maintain that something exists. If neither of these exists then "evidence against" is simply unnecessary. The burden of prof does not lie with athiests.--[[User:Bob M|Bob M]] 04:52, 15 May 2010 (CDT)
+
:I'm afraid that it's a bit to dense for me so I won't be touching it. Frankly, I think that any and all "arguments against the existence of Gods" are a bit of a waste of time.  The people who need to supply evidence or persuasive arguments are those who maintain that something exists. If neither evidence nor arguement supports a proposition then "evidence against" is simply unnecessary. The burden of prof does not lie with athiests.--[[User:Bob M|Bob M]] 04:52, 15 May 2010 (CDT)

Latest revision as of 03:53, 15 May 2010

Maybe I'm being dense, but I find the article title impossible to understand. On the other hand the first few paragraphs left me with a similar feeling. I also note that it goes into the first person with "Before I continue into the nature of this First Intention-Giver, I ..." which does not seem very wiki-like.--Bob M 05:10, 3 May 2010 (CDT)


The article title should be "Impossibility of an Actual Infinite against an Actually Infinite God" or just "Impossibility of an Actual Infinite against God". Maybe you should correct this. Also, you are right about the first person pronoun but I dont think it's much of a big deal.

Note: the argument provided in this article is, in my opinion, one of the strongest arguments against the existence of God.--wissam hemadeh 14:33, 4 May 2010 (CDT)

I'm afraid that it's a bit to dense for me so I won't be touching it. Frankly, I think that any and all "arguments against the existence of Gods" are a bit of a waste of time. The people who need to supply evidence or persuasive arguments are those who maintain that something exists. If neither evidence nor arguement supports a proposition then "evidence against" is simply unnecessary. The burden of prof does not lie with athiests.--Bob M 04:52, 15 May 2010 (CDT)
Personal tools
Namespaces
Variants
Actions
wiki navigation
IronChariots.Org
Toolbox