Epicurean Paradox

[Drich]

Are you claiming you have proved the existence of god?

I am stating I do not have to "prove anything" if you engage into a conversation discussing the recorded attributes of God. Why you ask??? Because if we are having a conversation about a documented subject you assume responsibility to properly represent said subject. (whether you believe in it or not.) Otherwise know you are simply trying to distract everyone reading this post by deviating from the topic at hand by introducing a separate argument which the speaker believes will be easier to speak on;P

Fact is when you Speak of the God of the bible using the standards found in the bible your "arguments" become subject to the same bible,

What? I don't understand what you mean,could you please expand,giving a couple of examples?

I would be most happy to do so
If we have a discussion about Red riding hood, the fact that whether she was a real person or not is inconsequential unless that is the exact discussion we are having. Why? Because we both agree to speak about red riding hood. As such the parameters of the discussion are limited to the works of James barker. Otherwise if you went off reservation then we would not be having a discussion about RRH. (Do not confuse this point with the informal fallacy you are guilty of.)

In turn if you wish to have a discussion about the recorded nature of God then you surrender your right to protest the evidence. UNLESS We are Speaking directly of the "Evidence" of God. Which we are not.

Yes please.

I'll give you a little help. I have selected a few for you to choose from. Understand you are guilty to one degree or another of everything listed, but one should stand out to you more than the others.. This is the Fallacy you are guilty of.

Ignoratio elenchi (irrelevant conclusion, missing the point) – an argument that may in itself be valid, but does not address the issue in question.

Moving the goalposts (raising the bar) – argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded

Red herring – a speaker attempts to distract an audience by deviating from the topic at hand by introducing a separate argument which the speaker believes will be easier to speak


I decided against rubbing salt into your false humility so i will end my response here.