Doctrine of the Divine Decree

Originally posted by bbarr
Back away from the thesaurus, it makes you look needy. So, which premise of the general argument from evil do you reject, and why?

Apparently all that time on the bong has finally caught up with your brain's neural pathways; such are the pitfalls of life on campus, I suppose. The issue has been cussed, discussed and recussed several times. Hint: your arguments lost.

Let me know which word was most difficult for you, and I'll make sure not to use it in the future.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Apparently all that time on the bong has finally caught up with your brain's neural pathways; such are the pitfalls of life on campus, I suppose. The issue has been cussed, discussed and recussed several times. Hint: your arguments lost.

Let me know which word was most difficult for you, and I'll make sure not to use it in the future.

O.K., so which premise of the argument do you reject, and why? This should be easy for you, right?

Originally posted by bbarr
O.K., so which premise of the argument do you reject, and why? This should be easy for you, right?

So with your memory went your reading comprehension? This should be easy for you, right? If you can't recall the conversation, simply go back and re-read the posts! Waste your own time.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
So with your memory went your reading comprehension? This should be easy for you, right? If you can't recall the conversation, simply go back and re-read the posts! Waste your own time.

You haven't identified a premise for rejection in this thread, and you didn't identify one for rejection in the "General Argument from Evil" thread. So, once more, which premise of the argument do you reject, and why?

Originally posted by bbarr
You haven't identified a premise for rejection in this thread, and you didn't identify one for rejection in the "General Argument from Evil" thread. So, once more, which premise of the argument do you reject, and why?

Re-read the posts. That's your answer.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Re-read the posts. That's your answer.

I have. You haven't rejected a premise of the argument I gave in the 'General Argument from Evil' thread. If you want to reject a premise, great. If you don't want to, that's fine with me too. But the latter shows that when you make claims about the argument's having been refuted, you are lying. Then again, that's par for the course for fundies.

Originally posted by bbarr
I have. You haven't rejected a premise of the argument I gave in the 'General Argument from Evil' thread. If you want to reject a premise, great. If you don't want to, that's fine with me too. But the latter shows that when you make claims about the argument's having been refuted, you are lying. Then again, that's par for the course for fundies.

Premise? The whole argument was rejected. You seem prone to resort to defamation whenever someone refuses the bad bait you offer on your rusty hook. Curious.

Funny thing, if I am a liar in your book of Dr. Seuss-like nonsense, that can't be a bad thing. As far as fundies go, look no further than the closest mirror: and as your house seems to be full of them, it shouldn't be too difficult in finding one.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Premise? The whole argument was rejected. You seem prone to resort to defamation whenever someone refuses the bad bait you offer on your rusty hook. Curious.

Funny thing, if I am a liar in your book of Dr. Seuss-like nonsense, that can't be a bad thing. As far as fundies go, look no further than the closest mirror: and as your house seems to be full of them, it shouldn't be too difficult in finding one.

The whole argument was rejected.

Rejection is different from refutation. A person may reject a sound argument because he is, for example, psychologically married to arbitrary or false presuppositions. Or maybe he just doesn't understand the argument and rejects it out of ignorance.

By the way, Dr. Seuss didn't write 'nonsense'. Put down your Bible and pick up The Butter Battle Book: grab hold of some proper perspective.

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]The whole argument was rejected.

Rejection is different from refutation. A person may reject a sound argument because he is, for example, psychologically married to arbitrary or false presuppositions. Or maybe he just doesn't understand the argument and rejects it out of ignorance.

By the way, Dr. Seuss didn't write 'nonsense'. Put down your Bible and pick up The Butter Battle Book: grab hold of some proper perspective.[/b]

Rejection is different from refutation.
But of course, Mr. Webster. One means to discard as defective or useless or throw away; while the other is to take the legs out from under it. Take your pick: they both fit.

By the way, Dr. Seuss didn't write 'nonsense'.
While much could be made about the good doctor's masterful use of multiple meter (and simple words to boot), to assert that the inventive language used was anything less than nonsense is silly.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Premise? The whole argument was rejected. You seem prone to resort to defamation whenever someone refuses the bad bait you offer on your rusty hook. Curious.

Some as secure in his faith should find it a trivial exercise to demonstrate why GAFE is flawed
rather than simply saying 'I reject it.'

Your evasive stance gives the impression not of confidence, but fear. Why not tackle the argument,
show why it is worthy of rejection, and give the unbelievers something to think about rather than
the plagarized, internally inconsistent ranting and raving you've been providing so far?

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
Some as secure in his faith should find it a trivial exercise to demonstrate why GAFE is flawed
rather than simply saying 'I reject it.'

Your evasive stance gives the impression not of confidence, but fear. Why not tackle the argument,
show why it is worthy of rejection, and give the unbelievers something to think about rather than
the plagarized, internally inconsistent ranting and raving you've been providing so far?

Nemesio

As has been demonstrated previously--- not 'rejected out of hand' as charged--- the arguments were found wanting. If you wish to revisit the threads, feel free.

Internally inconsistent? Ranting and raving? Your insults carry no weight. Why not give the believers something to think about by backing the charges up rather than throw empty insults around? You have yet to reveal even one inconsistency within the doctrine. As far as "ranting and raving" go, perhaps an on-line dictionary will clear up your word confusion.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
As has been demonstrated previously--- not 'rejected out of hand' as charged--- the arguments were found wanting. If you wish to revisit the threads, feel free.

Are you referring to "A General Argument from Evil" (Thread 21886), or some other thread?

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
Are you referring to "A General Argument from Evil" (Thread 21886), or some other thread?

The argument was addressed in this thread, around page 14.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
The argument was addressed in this thread, around page 14.

The posts on that page happened 8 months before you joined the site. Do you endorse Coletti's position? If so, you could have cleared up the confusion in this thread by simply stating that you had not personally made an argument because you thought the arguments of others were sufficient.

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
The posts on that page happened 8 months before you joined the site. Do you endorse Coletti's position? If so, you could have cleared up the confusion in this thread by simply stating that you had not personally made an argument because you thought the arguments of others were sufficient.

By "this thread," I meant this thread, the one we are currently in.