(May 18, 2015 at 11:35 pm)Esquilax Wrote:(May 18, 2015 at 9:37 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: Can you please cite the post # in which I made the claim which you assert that I made?
Here you go:
Quote: I probably will. Primarily because while you do not like his presuppositions, you have not formally defeated his arguments. And if I asked to be "honest", I don't think that you can.
Post number 178, in regards to whether or not you'll drop WLC as a reference now that he's been shown to be presupposing his conclusions as a matter of course. You say you'll continue to use him as a source because we haven't proved him wrong, and you don't think we can. It's a little bit of grandstanding that, when I later told you to present those claims so as to put your petty chest beating to the test, you waved it off as irrelevant and refused to do so.
You wrote:
Quote:So essentially you just wanted to do some cowardly grandstanding, claiming that nobody could defeat WLC's intellectually dishonest presuppositionalist buffoonery, and then flee the moment anybody actually took you up on that challenge. Out of interest, is every overreaching fiat claim you make solely to massage your ego?
1. How is my original post cowardly?
2. I didn't claim that nobody could defeat WLC's arguments. I said:
a. You haven't
b. I don't think you can, but given the remote possibility that you might actually be some intellectual giant with lots of degrees and published, peer-reviewed papers (like WLC) who is simply slumming in this forum, it is still the case that you haven't bested him with anything you have posted thus far.
3. I'm not "fleeing"; I'm simply not interested in defending WLC (who can defend himself) in a thread which has absolutely nothing to do with WLC.
If robvalue wants to hear an alternative to David Hume, then I provided one. And that's all.
Quote:So it was all well and good when you got to massage your ego, but the moment falsifiability was brought into the mix you cut and run; evidently the ego thing was more important than the veracity of the claims... really good look, with regard to the sources you chose.
Do you think that Hitchens, Dawkins, and Ehrman are any less prone to presuppositionalism? Can I dismiss their arguments on that basis?
