(April 2, 2012 at 9:08 am)Rhythm Wrote: There is very little that is "stereotypically Christian", 38k denominations, each individual within each denomination with their own personal twist, their own Jesus. You seem to have a habit of lumping things together without any thought given to reality of the situation

if it's 38, 48, 58 or even 68k They all get their religious start from where? Roman catholicism. You know as well as I do The vast Majority of Christians get their core beliefs from there. You acting like this is a huge atheist secret. Even if it is to you, most of your peers know this fact and seek to exploit it any way they can. Look at your efforts of the Omni aspects of God. A solid catholic premise if there ever was one. destroy this Lynch pin and my whole argument falls apart. But if you like the catholic church are arguing a non biblically based but heavily religious principle instead, then you get angry when I put you through the paces of an inadvertent education, that you are none the wiser for. You NEEED apologetics like this one to be true or your lame arguments fall apart.

Quote:(you're equally dismissive of Christians and atheists alike, which is usually a sign of complete ignorance of the varying positions held by any given person).

Nothing wrong with being dismissive/selective IF there is a well defined reason to be.

Quote:"Biblically based knowledge"? lol, no. I point out the amusing bits of the fairy tales (both those written and your own). This conversation would be so much more fruitful if you asserted less (even so far as to embed them in your terms) and demonstrated more.

If you wish to be educated on biblical terms then by all means just ask.

Quote: You seem to think we're having some sort of debate where you can flash around the word fallacy and all will bow. We aren't, and I don't think that word means what you think it means.

I have defined very specific fallacies on many different occasions. Do not be upset if your reasoning ability is riddled with Logical fallacies. Simply take a step back and rephrase. If you honor the art of conversation rather than use it to push your atheist doctrine then your feelings would not be hurt so quickly when your reasoning and or logic is found to be in error.

Quote:You have your own favorite interpretation of scripture, there are others, and none of you can provide any convincing demonstration as to why I should read your fairy tale in the manner that you recommend.

Because unless you wish to seek God with all of your being, you shouldn't read the bible. The bible should only be read as a last resort. When absolutely nothing else will quench your hunger and thirst for knowledge of God. Until then maybe you should avoid it. It will do you more harm than good.

Quote:That's laying aside the fact that if you ever could provide such a demonstration, you would still be left holding nothing but a fairy tale, unless further demonstration was arranged.

Demonstrating God's ability is not my responsibility. It is His.
If you wish a demonstration then simply follow the prescribed path.

Quote:The "failed points" in each and every one of your statements would be a failure to demonstrate the veracity of any given assertion. Other "failed points" for specific claims lie in the inconsistent manner in which you make your claims. Other "failed points" lie in your use of fuzzy language, weasel words, and general evasion. Not that any of this hasn't been pointed out to you, but it's easier to prance about claiming that you've somehow been wronged, that no one has addressed this. Well, you haven't, and it has, repeatedly. This is something that we see fairly often from those engaged in defending the indefensible.

Quote:I have absolutely no doubt that in your mind you have done everything you listed. The problem is that every time you brought up a "failed point" it was based on an elementary level understanding of Roman catholic based Christianity. Which I have repeatedly and promptly corrected with scriptural based explanations. When your Sunday school education has reached it's intellectual limit, you simply trivialize my efforts sighting a whole host of personal reason for not believing and move to dismiss.

Look at the whole of your last paragraph to me. This is a fancied up version of "trivialize and dismiss," but it is indeed the same. Why? Because even when you attempted to specify, you were actually speaking in generalities not sighting one example from start to finish outlining the failed points you alluded to and then you failed to explain (If you want a proper example of how to criticize and dismiss a weak effort look at all of the very specific failures in your last paragraph i have just pointed out to you.)

That is what it looks like when someone legitimately trivializes a weak or Failed argument and dismisses the whole premise. I identified your core argument, dismantled the points (which in actuality there weren't any Real points) and then I Identified the effort as being little more than personal conjecture designed to stab at my personal pride.

Know this may work for your peers, but not here.


[quote]I don't think you have any medicine, or any clean water to share.

I do and have done what was needed, when it was needed, for as long as needed. water, food, Medicine whatever.

Find a need fill a need. Your needs like those who read and do not respond are spiritual. Why do you think I am here? Why do you think I have not been more aggressive in my responses? Do you think I can't spell the words others have used against me? do you not think i can understand them? Do you honestly believe I do not see your weaknesses and insecurities in what and how you write? If this were about me i would have satisfied my primal need to lash out long ago. As it is I am here to bring you the spiritual medicine you need.

To go back to my original point with the missionaries;
That means for me i must know of the Omni aspects of God. what i am saying is not all others do.

Again it is like getting the message of the gospel through a song like Amazing Grace. The song contains a kernel of truth, but in no way is the song supposed to represent an exhaustive in depth study of the gospel. likewise the omni aspects of God are to help those first learning about God to understand the boundlessness of an almighty God. Once someone has reached the limits of this teaching then they are free to move on. However most never reach their limit, and that is OK. Why? Because the Omni aspects of God will not be on your final exam.

Quote:Demonstrate that you do. If a missionary cannot clearly communicate the message they are hoping to spread, if they cannot address the criticisms or questions of those who they are communicating with, then they aren't very good at this whole missionary bit.

If you were going to teach English to a person who never heard it spoken before where would you start? On a Master's level or would you start in kindergarten? Missionaries are feeding new believers Spiritual Milk. Why because the spiritually young need basic concepts before they need in depth apologetics.

Quote: Whether or not you had ever had to deal with Epicurus means exactly what? Are you seriously complaining here that you were not prepared for this specific line of questioning? A line of questioning older than your fairy tale and "it never came up"? Well, now it has, and your responses were less than satisfactory. Improve upon them.

It appears they were more than satisfactory to shake you into attempting to dismiss an explanation with out specifically addressing the root cause of the dissatisfaction. Perhaps you could go line by line from what was written in the OP. Show me as I have shown you where my explanation does not sync up with the biblical definitions, or principles that proves Epicurus 'paradox" to indeed be a paradox.

Again I am looking for a line by line break down of my "failure" otherwise know any response that does not yield what i have asked for will result in a line by line break down of your failure to answer my challenge to you.

Quote:You do? You're prepared to demonstrate that you do? That's the entirety of the problem isn't it? You make assertions which you are incapable or unwilling to justify. When you attempt to justify them you seem to believe that more assertions will satisfy the requirement. It's turtles all the way down. Again, I have higher standards.

I have no idea what you are talking about. If you want a response please explain.

Quote:Why do you suppose that you feel that there are "well rehearsed atheist answers" to these things that you post?

Because all of you follow the same pattern. assert a mutilated principle of Christianity, defend it till you realize there is absolutely nothing to be said, because you either do not understand the concept well enough to argue it, or your understanding is based on a flawed Roman Catholic doctrine. Then when you can no longer "religiously" defend the position then you attack it from a philosophical view, then a personal view then if there is nothing else to be said you trivialize with generalities or "personal faith" and you dismiss. If that fails you result to name calling, and then if that fails i am informed I have been put on your "ignore list." If I blow past that then you will post addendum to your buddies posts, stating that "I am still being ignored, but your buddy is not."

So if I am correct... we are about to the name calling stage.. Give or take a few steps.

Quote:How could I possibly know what you might post next in any case?

Years and Years and Years of going around and around with cookie cutter minds. I tell yeah if collage isn't good for anything else it is good and training you guys what to think, How to think it, and when to think it, all the while having you think you are all still unique snow flakes. No two alike.
i guess it make the population more docile and easy to control. after if one of you gets too far out of the box you have to contend with how your peers perceive you. Can't say any thing about the foolishness of Global warming or Gay (Fill in the blank) or Racism or God without being labeled. I guess we must trade freedom of thought for free speech.

Quote:Could it be that your "arguments" have been entirely unoriginal up to this point?

That only works if I am trying to put distance between myself and my contemporaries. When in actuality If my message sounds familiar it is because it was taken from a 2000+ year old message.So thank you for confirming the Message I bring is indeed from the Holy Spirit.

Quote:If I (or we) have heard all of this before, and yet remain unconvinced, then why would you assume that you could rehash them and I (or we) would miraculously see the light?

If you closely examine the message i bring it is to directly answer the questions and challenges you present. If you tire of the messages I bring then simply stop asking questions or presenting challenges. It seems all but a few have learned this truth.

Quote: It isn't going to be by sheer force of your repeating them amigo. I can't say that I consider you much of an authority on anything at all, and each post you make reduces your already dismal level of credibility with me. I'm actually very close to writing you off as a habitual, and intentional, bullshitter. A troll. When your "biblical answers" are evasive, I call them evasive, you even managed to embed evasiveness in your bible waffling around about truth and doctrinal truth.

When one asks an evasive question why does he expect a straight answer? I very carefully select my words to match the effort you give. I only answer what you ask. If an answer brings more confusion then ask another question.

I have modeled my teaching style after Christ. Not that i can produce the same caliber lesson, I can however sift wheat from chaff, without babysitting every single kernel.(as He did) Why do you think He taught in parables and only answered what was asked in a way to have the asker of said question come to his own conclusion?

Quote:Or perhaps I didn't get the answer I was looking for because you don't have it.

Do you have a question? If so ask it plainly, and i will give you a plain answer.

Quote:"When I fail it's your fault", sorry, no. Man up, if you want to pretend that you're some kind of missionary here then you need to accept that it is your failure to effectively communicate the concepts and ideas you are hoping to explain.

There is nothing to explain beyond what it is you seek. If you do not know what it is you seek How can i be expected to explain it? If you want direction the seek it. Ask for it, and knock till you get it.

Quote: Otherwise you'll never be any good at this (or anything else, really). What kind of missionary blames the natives when they "just don't get it"? This is how a child responds to criticism.

Native needs are easy. Natives do not generally want to judge God for crimes against humanity.

Quote:I'm not, I'm simply mentioning that your efforts have been disappointing, and even that I only mention because you seem to be so convinced that you have something worthwhile to share. If you do, you haven't been able to express it very well.

Again another well written example of personal conjecture aimed at absolutely nothing of substance. Unless you count personal pride. So let me challenge you one more time. If I have failed then please show me from start to finish what was said, how the bible was not properly represented and/or how it was not communicated.

Quote:-Notice, while we're on the subject, the lengths you've gone to in order to bicker with me about what is essentially nothing, repeating yourself as though you've been talking to yourself. Compare that with the number of posts you've made to justify your assertions. Why is it that you seem to be so willing to mope around blaming those you disagree with for not understanding what you have failed to effectively communicate, but completely unwilling to provide a convincing demonstration of these things which you hope to "clarify"? Personally, I call massive bullshit.-

Where can clarity be if no one wishes to see clearly? All that I am guilty of is pointing out your lack of personal information about the subject in which you have shaped your life to avoid. I do this not as a personal slight against your intelligence but as a way to gauge your purpose or your intent for responding to a given post.

For example if we are speaking of the Omni aspects of God and you make an assertion as to the Omni benevolence of God and I say that Omni benevolence is not a biblical attribute of God. then you say it is because of what you learned when you were here or there as a child..

At that point I need to know if you simply and honestly do not know what you are talking about, or if you have built an argument around omni benevolence, and need this principle to work in order to find God guilt of crimes against humanity.

If you seek clarity by asking related follow up questions then i will take the time to cut and paste the biblical based definitions you seek. However if you just spout what this bishop told you or that catechism says, then you are looking for a foundation/evidence for your prosecution. Of which I will not willing help you. To which brings you much frustration and confusion.

So Again, if you do not put in the effort then why should I? i am only here to provide what you seek. If you seek to muddle and confuse then know I will help muddle and confuse you. If you seek and Audience with God then perhaps i can point you in that direction as well. What you get out of out time together is up to you.

---

(April 2, 2012 at 12:20 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: In the interest of brevity, I'll stop here. If you can demonstrate the Epicurean Paradox affirms the consequent, you've demolished it, full stop. A better question would be why wouldn't you address him head on if his reasoning is fallacious? If you can, perhaps you'll be kind enough to to demonstrate the fallacy you believe is contained in the argument?

Affirming the consequent, sometimes called converse error, is a formal fallacy, committed by reasoning in the form:

1.If P, then Q.
2.Q.
3.Therefore, P.
An argument of this form is invalid, i.e., the conclusion can be false even when statements 1 and 2 are true. Since P was never asserted as the only sufficient condition for Q, other factors could account for Q (while P was false).

The name affirming the consequent derives from the premise Q, which affirms the "then" clause of the conditional premise.

If we can agree on the definition the look to the Opening post for your demolition

Drich, you are so obviously a troll, just shut the fuck up and get a life. Nobody cares about your pathetic spirituality.

More asserting, more blaming others for you failures, yawn.

How it's done-
Step 1: Demonstrate that the bible is a credible source of information.
Step 2: Demonstrate that any given interpretation of this source is "correct"
Step 3: Demonstrate that you are communicating this "correct" interpretation (step 2) from the source (step 1) effectively and accurately.

How to fail completely-
Step 1: Assume that the bible is a credible source of information.
Step 2: Assert that your interpretation is "correct"
Step 3: Bitch, moan, whine and complain that others have pointed out 1 and 2.
Step 4: (Bonus round) Martyr card and blaming others.



Honestly, Drich, you need to go find easier marks for your little "spiritual milk" shell game.

(April 2, 2012 at 9:43 pm)Drich Wrote:

(April 2, 2012 at 12:20 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: In the interest of brevity, I'll stop here. If you can demonstrate the Epicurean Paradox affirms the consequent, you've demolished it, full stop. A better question would be why wouldn't you address him head on if his reasoning is fallacious? If you can, perhaps you'll be kind enough to to demonstrate the fallacy you believe is contained in the argument?

Affirming the consequent, sometimes called converse error, is a formal fallacy, committed by reasoning in the form:

1.If P, then Q.
2.Q.
3.Therefore, P.
An argument of this form is invalid, i.e., the conclusion can be false even when statements 1 and 2 are true. Since P was never asserted as the only sufficient condition for Q, other factors could account for Q (while P was false).

The name affirming the consequent derives from the premise Q, which affirms the "then" clause of the conditional premise.

If we can agree on the definition the look to the Opening post for your demolition

I'm familiar with the form of the argument, glad to see we can agree on that. The next step is to show how the Epicurean Paradox commits this particular fallacy. It is not evident to me. Please consider me as slow-minded as the average Oxford philosphy professor who has missed the critical flaw in the paradox that would gain me considerable fame had I spotted it. Remember that the paradox is only a problem for the God of theodicy (tri-omni) and you've already conceded that your version of God is not omni-benevolent, which is a valid way to evade the paradox. Now you're claiming that you didn't even have to concede that much, because the form of the paradox is inherently fallacious, making the conclusion (there is no tri-omni God) necessarily invalid.

I'm no philosopher, but it seems to me, the elements of the paradox take this form:

1. If P, then not Q.
2. Q.
3. Therefore, not P.

This is a valid argument, not fallacious.

1. If everyone had enough food, no one would starve.
2. Some people starve.
3. Therefore, not everyone has enough food.

1. If God had the power and desire to prevent all evil, there would be no evil.
2. There is evil.
3. Therefore, there is no God with the power and desire to prevent all evil.

(April 3, 2012 at 12:41 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: I'm no philosopher

That may be true, but you're way ahead of the competition.

(April 3, 2012 at 12:41 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote:

(April 2, 2012 at 9:43 pm)Drich Wrote:

(April 2, 2012 at 12:20 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: In the interest of brevity, I'll stop here. If you can demonstrate the Epicurean Paradox affirms the consequent, you've demolished it, full stop. A better question would be why wouldn't you address him head on if his reasoning is fallacious? If you can, perhaps you'll be kind enough to to demonstrate the fallacy you believe is contained in the argument?

Affirming the consequent, sometimes called converse error, is a formal fallacy, committed by reasoning in the form:

1.If P, then Q.
2.Q.
3.Therefore, P.
An argument of this form is invalid, i.e., the conclusion can be false even when statements 1 and 2 are true. Since P was never asserted as the only sufficient condition for Q, other factors could account for Q (while P was false).

The name affirming the consequent derives from the premise Q, which affirms the "then" clause of the conditional premise.

If we can agree on the definition the look to the Opening post for your demolition

I'm familiar with the form of the argument, glad to see we can agree on that. The next step is to show how the Epicurean Paradox commits this particular fallacy. It is not evident to me. Please consider me as slow-minded as the average Oxford philosphy professor who has missed the critical flaw in the paradox that would gain me considerable fame had I spotted it. Remember that the paradox is only a problem for the God of theodicy (tri-omni) and you've already conceded that your version of God is not omni-benevolent, which is a valid way to evade the paradox. Now you're claiming that you didn't even have to concede that much, because the form of the paradox is inherently fallacious, making the conclusion (there is no tri-omni God) necessarily invalid.

I'm no philosopher, but it seems to me, the elements of the paradox take this form:

1. If P, then not Q.
2. Q.
3. Therefore, not P.

This is a valid argument, not fallacious.

1. If everyone had enough food, no one would starve.
2. Some people starve.
3. Therefore, not everyone has enough food.

1. If God had the power and desire to prevent all evil, there would be no evil.
2. There is evil.
3. Therefore, there is no God with the power and desire to prevent all evil.

(April 3, 2012 at 12:41 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote:

(April 2, 2012 at 9:43 pm)Drich Wrote:

(April 2, 2012 at 12:20 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: In the interest of brevity, I'll stop here. If you can demonstrate the Epicurean Paradox affirms the consequent, you've demolished it, full stop. A better question would be why wouldn't you address him head on if his reasoning is fallacious? If you can, perhaps you'll be kind enough to to demonstrate the fallacy you believe is contained in the argument?

Affirming the consequent, sometimes called converse error, is a formal fallacy, committed by reasoning in the form:

1.If P, then Q.
2.Q.
3.Therefore, P.
An argument of this form is invalid, i.e., the conclusion can be false even when statements 1 and 2 are true. Since P was never asserted as the only sufficient condition for Q, other factors could account for Q (while P was false).

The name affirming the consequent derives from the premise Q, which affirms the "then" clause of the conditional premise.

If we can agree on the definition the look to the Opening post for your demolition

I'm familiar with the form of the argument, glad to see we can agree on that. The next step is to show how the Epicurean Paradox commits this particular fallacy. It is not evident to me. Please consider me as slow-minded as the average Oxford philosphy professor who has missed the critical flaw in the paradox that would gain me considerable fame had I spotted it. Remember that the paradox is only a problem for the God of theodicy (tri-omni) and you've already conceded that your version of God is not omni-benevolent, which is a valid way to evade the paradox. Now you're claiming that you didn't even have to concede that much, because the form of the paradox is inherently fallacious, making the conclusion (there is no tri-omni God) necessarily invalid.

I'm no philosopher, but it seems to me, the elements of the paradox take this form:

1. If P, then not Q.
2. Q.
3. Therefore, not P.

This is a valid argument, not fallacious.

1. If everyone had enough food, no one would starve.
2. Some people starve.
3. Therefore, not everyone has enough food.

1. If God had the power and desire to prevent all evil, there would be no evil.
2. There is evil.
3. Therefore, there is no God with the power and desire to prevent all evil.

As it was demonstrated in the OP the paradigm of the argument shifted when the the definitions of sin and evil were biblically defined. Evil is not a cosmic force to be reckoned with as Epicurus has identified. Evil is an allowance or rather evil is the proof/result of free will. Evil is not the opposing cosmic force that the challenges the authority of God, but rather an allowance or gift of God.

(P)

Quote:If God had the power to prevent all evil there would be no evil

(A misconception based on a false presumption to the nature of evil)

(Q)

Quote:There is indeed evil

(God gave the gift of free will as a result men produced evil. Evil is a right or is a direct result from a misused gift of God.)

(Therefore p)

Quote:God does not have the power to prevent evil.

So to recap:

1.If P, then Q.
2.Q.
3.Therefore, P.
An argument of this form is invalid, i.e., the conclusion can be false even when statements 1 and 2 are true. Since P was never asserted as the only sufficient condition for Q, other factors could account for Q (while P was false).

This is the definition is it not?

Have I not demonstrated that "Since P was never asserted as the ONLY Sufficient condition for Q, Other factors (Like the ones I listed) could account for Q (While p was false)
Which satisfies the requirements for affirming the consequent does it not? Regardless of what you think of the biblical definitions, even if you took the biblical definitions of of this equation, Epicurus has still affirmed the consequent. How you ask? Because the conclusion can be false even when statements 1 and 2 are true. Since P was never asserted as the only sufficient condition for Q, other factors could account for Q (while P was false).

Demonstrate the veracity of your assertions regarding "the nature of evil"? The free will defense is unconvincing, unless you can demonstrate that free will bit as well. Just making more work for yourself. Now you're stuck defending two ghostly concepts against demonstrable objections.

"You criticisms are not logical because you failed to account for magic"

(April 3, 2012 at 3:03 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:

(April 3, 2012 at 12:41 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: I'm no philosopher

That may be true, but you're way ahead of the competition.

You mean Drip? Not entirely sure that's a compliment.

(April 4, 2012 at 2:09 am)Rhythm Wrote: Demonstrate the veracity of your assertions regarding "the nature of evil"? The free will defense is unconvincing, unless you can demonstrate that free will bit as well. Just making more work for yourself. Now you're stuck defending two ghostly concepts against demonstrable objections.

"You criticisms are not logical because you failed to account for magic"

I will be most happy to. But,thier is a little matter we must resolve First:

" Regardless of what you think of the biblical definitions, even if you took the biblical definitions of of this equation, Epicurus has still affirmed the consequent. How you ask? Because the conclusion can be false even when statements 1 and 2 are true. Since P was never asserted as the only sufficient condition for Q, other factors could account for Q (while P was false)."

Conceed this point and i will most happily move to the next. After all, one has absolutly nothing to do with the other.