Originally posted by AgergI have addressed every point, just because you don't like my answers doesn't mean I didn't give them.
Wrong, you impute onto to the thinking of others your own miscomprehension of an argument and then attempt to steer the discussion away from the actual issue using your own confusion as a basis for rejecting the premises of an argument. (see my last response in the "Greatest Conceivable Being???" ) thread.
You then dance around as though you've slain a dragon ...[text shortened]... a vague answer to some different question and assert the opposition is a crapola debater.
Your logic is feeble and weak, you consistantly fail to be consistant, you should give up philosophy and stick to maths
Originally posted by DowardYeah yeah...and I am rubber you are glue 😞
I have addressed every point, just because you don't like my answers doesn't mean I didn't give them.
Your logic is feeble and weak, you consistantly fail to be consistant, you should give up philosophy and stick to maths
*edit* you are lying when you say you addressed every point.
Originally posted by DowardThere's a whole gallery of them in Thread 138037, in particular, see my last reponse which references a point you dodged prior to your last (a point which refined in light of your bullchit objections, takes away from you the standard theist defence: God can see how things may be better by its inaction, when we cannot). There are many others as well. In fact most of your responses I would be wise to consider as jokes.
which point have I not addressed? post them here, but be warned, when I prove that I have addressed them Ii expect a full and contrite apology
Originally posted by AgergAnyone who actually reads that thread with an open mind will see that you are either dense or a liar. I addressed every point, the real problem is that your premis was so shoddy that no one could take seriously any of your arguments. Shore up your argument and then you won't run into these troubles.
There's a whole gallery of them in Thread 138037, in particular, see my last reponse which references a point you dodged prior to your last (a point which refined in light of your bullchit objections, takes away from you the standard theist defence: God can see how things may be better by its inaction, when we cannot). There are many others as well. In fact most of your responses I would be wise to consider as jokes.
edit: The main thrust of my counter argument was that your premis can not hold to be universally true (and thus false), nor could be held true in any specific instance, a point that I believe I made fairly well
Originally posted by DowardAnyone who actually reads that thread with an open mind will see that you are either dense or a liar. I addressed every point, the real problem is that your premis was so shoddy that no one could take seriously any of your arguments. Shore up your argument and then you won't run into these troubles.
Anyone who actually reads that thread with an open mind will see that you are either dense or a liar. I addressed every point, the real problem is that your premis was so shoddy that no one could take seriously any of your arguments. Shore up your argument and then you won't run into these troubles.
edit: The main thrust of my counter argument was that y ...[text shortened]... se), nor could be held true in any specific instance, a point that I believe I made fairly well
Nope, you avoided most of my points and for a select few you tried to recast a specific scenario into an altered form which allows you to give a poorly justifed, over general response.
The main thrust of my counter argument was that your premis can not hold to be universally true (and thus false), nor could be held true in any specific instance, a point that I believe I made fairly well
Let me tell you how disproving a claim via a counter example works: Person A makes the claim P(X) is true for all X. Person B then comes along and finds some particular X_0 where P(X) fails to be true. Then it is clear that the claim made by A is false.
In this context the claim by theists such as yourself is:
for all actions towards humans on the part of your god, these actions are maximally benevolent.
There is no need for me to show any sort of universality at all - I need just find one case, one iddy biddy little case where the proposition fails and I'm done - it doesn't matter if for all other cases your proposition holds, the fact that there exists one where it doesn't is sufficient. Or in other words, even if X_0 is part of a family {X_0, X_1, ... , X_n} and P(X_i) holds for all 1 =< i =< n then the fact P(X_0) fails to hold is damning. As for specific instances you are terrible at even acknowledging these.
Originally posted by DowardYou are probably the only one in this forum with an open mind.
Anyone who actually reads that thread with an open mind will see that you are either dense or a liar.
I addressed every point, the real problem is that your premis was so shoddy that no one could take seriously any of your arguments.
I guess I am no one.
Originally posted by twhiteheadcorrect... you are no one...glad we established that.
You are probably the only one in this forum with an open mind.
[b]I addressed every point, the real problem is that your premis was so shoddy that no one could take seriously any of your arguments.
I guess I am no one.[/b]
Originally posted by Agerghere is your response in a nut shell:
[b]Anyone who actually reads that thread with an open mind will see that you are either dense or a liar. I addressed every point, the real problem is that your premis was so shoddy that no one could take seriously any of your arguments. Shore up your argument and then you won't run into these troubles.
Nope, you avoided most of my points and for a select ...[text shortened]... to hold is damning. As for specific instances you are terrible at even acknowledging these.[/b]
nu uhhn, I tol' you that's not right but you di'nt lissen
for all actions towards humans on the part of your god, these actions are maximally benevolent.
You: I need just find one case, one iddy biddy little case
Me: show that case, you have failed to do so.
Originally posted by DowardNo Doward you just fail to acknowledge or understand those specific cases. Your tactic of argument by thoughtless gainsaying carries no merit.
here is your response in a nut shell:
nu uhhn, I tol' you that's not right but you di'nt lissen
for all actions towards humans on the part of your god, these actions are maximally benevolent.
You: I need just find one case, one iddy biddy little case
Me: show that case, you have failed to do so.
Originally posted by AgergIn the thread "greatest concievable being (or whatever)" You first accuse me of being too broad, then on the same page you accuse me of being too narrow. You remind me of Goldilocks, you won't be satisfied until its juuuust right. Sorry, I don't play that way. No wonder you think "Twithead" is so "respected' you share the same brain.
No Doward you just fail to acknowledge or understand those specific cases. Your tactic of argument by thoughtless gainsaying carries no merit.
pathetic
Originally posted by DowardHmm...lest we forget this piece of garbage (it was justified because...???)
I don't recall any thread were you added anything whatsoever to the discussion
Avalanchethecat usually avoids adding *anything whatsoever*, indeed he is far more judicious, articulate, and thoughtful with respect to what he posts. Any old chit is what we expect mainly from you Doward.
Originally posted by DowardYeah yeah Cowar...ahem... Doward!
In the thread "greatest concievable being (or whatever)" You first accuse me of being too broad, then on the same page you accuse me of being too narrow. You remind me of Goldilocks, you won't be satisfied until its juuuust right. Sorry, I don't play that way. No wonder you think "Twithead" is so "respected' you share the same brain.
pathetic