(August 21, 2009 at 6:16 pm)Darwinian Wrote: Don't be fooled by complex terms and philosophical phrases as this is just so much linguistic contortion that JP (and others) use in an attempt to counter common sense objections with so much hyperbolism and guff.
What....this? : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_intimidation
Specifically 'proof by verbosity', lol.
Verbosity is not a bad thing in my mind...I love words, but when it's more than necessary it can just confuse issues.
I don't think he's trying to confuse. I think that's just the way he is sometimes...over complicates things I guess.
fr0d0 Wrote:EvF: You want me to think for you Evie? The logic is presented - deal with it or not, it's your choice
Saying the 'logic is presented' doesn't make the logic logical/relevant to the matter. Untill I know of any evidence for God in the argument I consider the argument to be bullshit, or gratuitous and irrelevant to the matter of God's existence at best.
Quote:@ D: You want to measure non temporal with temporal tools then? We can consider it AND reach logical conclusions. That's the subject.
Well untill there's any evidence for it, labeling it nontemporal doesn't make it any more nontemporal than if you labeled it "cabbage". If God is going to be claimed to be somehow nontemporal then he needs evidence just as much as if he's labeled temporal. In fact you also perhaps need evidence for not only him, but also for the fact that you're claiming him outside time restrictions when....why? What's special about him? Why is he nontemporal? So evidence please.
EvF
