RE: Van Tillian/Clarkian Presuppositional Apologetics.
November 3, 2011 at 3:14 pm
(This post was last modified: November 3, 2011 at 3:15 pm by Statler Waldorf.)
(November 2, 2011 at 8:05 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: Well, I say "bullshit". I'll let others judge for themselves.
So you are calling me a liar because you don’t like what I said happened? That’s pretty convenient.
Quote:TAG
1. Without Yahweh, there is no absolute standard for morality (bare assertion fallacy).
This is not TAG but the Moral Argument for God’s existence, which is one I have not used.
Quote: 2. Absolute standards for morality exist. (bare assertion)
3. Therefore Yahweh exists. (conclusion based on bare assertions)
Still not TAG, Void already pointed this out to you in another thread, I am surprised you’d make the same mistake twice in such a short period of time. You are fallaciously equating the premises of valid syllogisms with bare assertions though just on a side note.
Quote:So you think moral justice can involve someone innocent volunteering to take the place of the guilty in punishment?Yes.
Quote:See above for an example.
I only see a question above, no example given.
Ok, just for the sake of discussion, since you seem to have an interesting concept of what constitutes demonstration and proof. Can you prove to me that humans cannot naturally fly?
