lon la pona li lon anu seme?

[loteni]

nanpa wan: sewi li lon ala la pona li lon ala
nanpa tu: taso, pona li lon

tan ni la sewi li lon

[janKipo]

toki nasin ni li lon nasin. taso mi pilin e ni: toki nanpa wan li lon ala. tan ni la toki nasin ni li kepeken ala.

[loteni]

toki ni la mi mute li toki pona mute kepeken lawa pi mi mute.
toki ni la mi mute li toki pona lili kepeken pilin pi mi mute.

ken seme la linja nimi nanpa wan li lon ?
ken mute la linja nimi nanpa wan li lon tan ijo mute
ken lili la linja nimi nanpa wan li lon ala tan ijo pi kule kon ala.

tan ni la toki utala ni pi lipu nanpa wan li kepeken pona.

[janKipo]

ken pi ala poka la linja nanpa wan li lon.
ijo seme li kama e ni: jan li pilin e ni: toki ni li lon--?
jan mute li sona e pona, kepeken ala sewi. ona li kama sona e pona lon tenpo pi jan lili. ken la ona li sona, tan tenpo pi kama lon. sewi li lon ala lawa ona e sona ni. sewi li pana ala e lukin pona tawa ni: jan ken lukin e ona li pali sama --, tan ni: sewi li pona ala. sewi pi toki jan li ike mute. sewi lon li weka tan pona en ike (en ante ali kin).

[loteni]

ona li lon ni: jan li sona e pona

taso, lon la pona li lon anu pona tawa jan taso ?

wile sona ala li ni: sewi li pona
wile sona li ni: lon la ken lawa pona li lon kepeken sewi ala

sama ni la:
jan ala li jo e tomo. tomo ni li jo e lawa ala. jan li ken pali e ijo ali lon tomo ni.
taso, tomo ante la meli li jo e tomo. tomo ni li jo e lawa pi meli ni tan meli ni. meli ni li lawa e jan ante lon tomo ni.

meli li jo e tomo tan ni: ken la meli li pali e tomo. ken la meli li mani e tomo. tan ni la meli li ken pali e lipu lawa lon tomo ni.
sewi li jo e ali tan ni: sewi li pali e ali. tan ni la sewi li ken pali e lipu lawa lon ali.

[janKipo]

Who is 'ona' ?
ijo li pona la ijo ni li pona tawa jan.
lon la ni li wile sona: sewi li pona ala pona. lukin la ona li pona ala.
'... lon ala lon kepeken...' ni li wile sona kin.
'jan ali'? ante la ni li sona ala.
lon. sewi li pali e ali (pona mute la 'lon e ali') la kin sewi li ken pana e lipu lawa tawa ali. taso lawa pi lon lipu ni li pona ala pona? lipu lawa pi tan sewi mute li pona ala.

[loteni]

lipu lawa li ike tawa jan la toki utala ni li pona
lipu lawa li pona tawa jan la toki utala ni li pona

tan ni la nasin pi toki utala sina li ike mute tawa toki utala mi

[janKipo]

I'm not sure what argument you are talking about. The analogical argument about who has the right to lay down the law seems a reasonable one, though if the ultimate point is that laws are from God, then we need to know that God made the world and that is not a argued for (and, of course, if gee did, does gee want to exercise the right of ownership in this way? DDJ again.) The claim that God is good just pops up, presumably a definiiton or part of one and so leaving open the question of whether anything fits the definition.

DAMN! Sucked In Again. When ill I remember that, in arguments of this sort, the gut belief is first and governing and any appearance of arguments are just there to make the gut belief look plausible. Infidel things like facts and logic -- and the rules of debate -- are just to be ignored. So, having come to my senses rather belatedly, I drop out of this belief fest. Go, believe whatever you want and believe you have reasons for it. Just don't bug people with the paraphernalia that gets trotted out at the rallies.

[loteni]

In the actual argument presented, the premise is that if there is no God then there is no law. The conclusion is that God exists, we don't need to first establish that he exists, that is the conclusion that logically follows from the two premises. And nowhere do I make the claim that God is good. The statement is that goodness exists, you can change that to badness/evil exists, and the argument still concludes God, it makes no difference.

You seem very confused about how basic logic works. Since the conclusion is that God exists, that is not something to be debated here.

What we are supposed to debate is the premises. And no, you kept banging on about God being bad. It doesnt matter in this argument if God is good or bad.

All your points are irrelevant. You do not seem able to follow logic? I thought you said you did it professionally for 60 odd years?
Yet you don't know what a contradiction is, you do not understand conditional premises, or the difference between definitions and premises. You fail to understand the difference between a premise and a conclusion...

You use the terms validity/soundness completely illegitimately, I mean it's fair enough to be confident, but you are too close to the deceptive, this leads me to think you have little background in logic at all. Of course maybe you do, and you are just happily deceptive ?
But the fact that you seem unable to even follow basic syllogisms, leads me to believe that you have not really a good understand of basic logic. Your abuse of terms is something highly improbable if you spent a large part of your professional career in logic.

Gut feeling? You seem to be projecting again. facts and logic? rules of debate? You are the one ignoring them, or more likely ignorant of them. Belief fest ? It is a simple syllogism, that your blind belief and lack of logic and lack of facts and ignorance of the rules of debate, are breaking down/being exposed - under.

[loteni]

Heh kipo, didnt you say all theistic arguments are invalid? maybe you just want to say this is invalid ? or circular maybe ? ...