[ARCHIVED] - The attributes of the Christian God exhibit logical contradictions.

[Ryft]

First, I am not assuming that peer-reviewed journals are absolutely correct, despite your unfounded remark. Rather, I am concluding (which is very different from assuming) that peer-reviewed articles are written by scholars qualified in the field that our discussion involves, then edited and authorized for publication by likewise qualified scholars; i.e., highly disciplined results from people who have studied first-order philosophy at levels neither you or I have. When I want to learn about P, I give my attention to those who have deeply studied and know something about P. I do not simply make something up about P and pretend that my ignorance is more trustworthy than their expert conclusions. Perhaps you do, and that's your choice. But it does make me wonder why you are in school; i.e., of what value is education if ignorance is more trustworthy?

Second, how do you justify correctness for yourself? I mean, if you develop some notion about the Loaded Question fallacy from whole cloth, while ignoring qualified experts on the subject so as not to "argue from establishment," then how do you go about justifying correctness? What is the criteria? Is your forgone conclusion the criteria for justifying the correctness of your forgone conclusion? Do you not see the vicious circularity of that? And yet that must be what you have done, for if you had justified the correctness of your view on relevant and qualified information, you would have cited that support so your opponent and those following this debate could likewise justify its correctness.

Third, I have indeed refuted your arguments in a reasonable way, vis-à-vis the Loaded Question fallacy—in my Rebuttal Against Responses. In the second paragraph I stated specifically which arguments of yours were incorrect and explained why. You said the rock-too-heavy question asks about God's ability to create and that doing so doesn't assume anything. I refuted both these points by showing that (i) the question is still 'loaded' with more than one question and (ii) that it's the hidden or unasked question that is committing the fallacy (not the one asking about God's ability to create). After having stated my case, I went on to actually make my case in the third, fourth, and fifth paragraphs, establishing by reasoned arguments both those points (with additional arguments in Msg. #9).

So telling me that I have not refuted your arguments in any reasonable way is highly disingenuous, underscored by your lack of interacting directly with those points I had raised. That is why I requested that you cite, with a quotation, the part that you think is incorrect, explain how it is incorrect, and support your counter-arguments (and, please, with something a little more rationally credible than pizza). For example, you already said the rock-too-heavy question is not 'loaded' with more than one question, which I have directly responded to. If you think there is something amiss with my response, please interact directly with it, instead of ignoring it and merely repeating your original position.