(September 20, 2011 at 11:22 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: Actually, I think I pretty accurately stated what you rephrased.
Go ahead and think what you want, but you didn’t.
Quote: "You can't account for X but I can because GodWillsWantsDoesDidIt.
Well I have demonstrated how I can account for these things and you have demonstrated that you cannot, so I see no issue with this statement.
Quote: And it just so happens that I've come up with a contrived definition of God or some unproven assertion about God specially suited to this argument.
I have appealed to the God of scripture, I have used scripture to back up my conception of this God, you can call it contrived if you like but that just shows that you understand the meaning of the word contrived about as well as you do the word contradiction.
Quote: You see, it turns out that logic is a reflection of how God thinks or it turns out that moral goodness is bound in the very nature of God etc and I know all this because I just got through pulling it all out of my ass."
My ass has nothing to do with it, you do realize you are doing nothing to refute the argument with this silliness and in doing so you are wasting both of our time right? I am still the one holding onto an un-refuted argument though, so I guess it is slightly more of a waste of your time than it is mine.
Quote: Pure philoso-babble crap.
You can call sophisticated logical argumentation whatever you like, but that does not make it anything other than what it is, sophisticated logical argumentation.
Quote: All this posited because you have not a shred of hard evidence to back up your extraordinary claims.
We are talking about logical proof here, not evidence. As I pointed out earlier though, by definition naturalism is the extraordinary claim because a majority of people reject it; I have not seen any evidence presented by you to back up naturalism much less any extraordinary evidence.
