Oh dear. Your summation of my position is far from what I intended. So far, in fact, that in order to continue the discussion I would need to restate and/or reiterate many, if not all, of my original assertions. I don't say this to be insulting; it is very easy to miss the nuances of a complex position, and the fault may well be mine for not being as clear as I could. (Some of the numbered points in your summation look eagerly misconstrued, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that this was not intentional.) At any rate, I have to bow out here for fear of wading into a bog of clarifications, corrections and particulars. That and the mood has passed. Via con dios
I suggest you re-count those thoughts until you find all 3 of them. 1. A God you imagine (conceive) isnât a universe-creating God. But in 3. you say yourself.... "We can imagine all kinds of Gods" . So indeed we can imagine all kinds of a "universe-creating God". So I repeat, Your contradiction is not an apparent one, nor is it mistaken, as you are still trying to say it is.. Oh and 2. is Tautological. You said you don't think tautology useful ,so why do you keep using it? Oh and 2 allows an -If- for Odin Zeus Allah Santa and the Easter Bunnies to exist and reveal themselves, well guess what....... Oh and 2. does not allow 3 to know anything specific although it tries to suggest it does.. Oh and 1. is wrong. You are wrong. I can imagine a "universe-creating God". From then on though, imagination is no longer enough to rely on. Oh and 2. is not true. The universe-creating God could have already revealed Itself in the form of the universe and you would still be imagining It as being something else. Oh and 2. is wrong anyway Any God revealing Itself ( I would hope not the dangly bits... unless It were a She.. oops now look where the imagination leads...) does not mean the impartation of any knowledge would be necessarily assured. Your "thoughts" have more holes in them than a WMD report. Can you see the third alternative now? Here's a clue. It is to do with you..
YOU added it.... HELLO.!! Quoted by trainr: "Any non-eternal thing requires a sufficient and adequate cause; from observation" : Your statement. "Positron Pairs are non-eternal and require no sufficient and adequate cause, from observation." : My response My response shows your statement to be incorrect. My response conforms to the condition and requirement YOU set down which is " from observation" and having done so, you now want to change the condition and requirement YOU used, but only for my response and not your own statement. Your statement gets off scott-free. It doesn't need to be proven because you don't see your error. Well just hold up there lightning. You are committing the same flawed approach as you were pages ago when you stumbled around the onus being on what exists not on what doesn't. Same goes here. When the onus is on proof you must first prove. Make a statement using proof and the rebutal would have to be one that disproves by proof, to be reasonable. Your error which you obviously still do not understand. step through this if you really are as genuinely confused as you appear.... please be aware...it is your own 'reasoning' showing itself to be faulty. Quote by trainr: NOTE A: Argument rejected from logical fallacy. Hardly worth responding to. The form of this entire debate is something like this: Me (trainr) : positional statement" "Any non-eternal thing requires a sufficient and adequate cause; from observation" You (stu) : rebuttal statement "Positron Pairs are non-eternal and require no sufficient and adequate cause, from observation." Me (trainr) : invalidation of your rebuttal statement " Please prove that the existence of positron pairs is uncaused. 1. Requesting proof is not invalidation. 2. Your positional statement would need proof. You:(stu) invalidation of rebuttal doesnât prove your position wtf is that?? Convinced yourself a request for something outside the debate is an invalidation of a rebuttal? Are you joking Me (trainr): your inability to rebut allows my position to remain until such time as you can. Ahh now I see. You are demonstrating how you make the logical fallacy and that is how you convince yourself you are right and therefore you know you are.
Did you see this or miss it? I said...."I tell you what.. stop your deceit, I could have a go at it for you." Your posts do indicate however you are deceitful. I don't agree That is not ad hominem. My remark is making comment against what I see as the restriction of religion against thought. If you were to voluntaily stuff horseshite in your ears and consider it was the only thing worth listening to, I would say your horseshite would not let you think. There's no ad hominem in that. Try racist if you like, but that won't work either. There was no personal attack, so it is deceitful for you to accuse of such. Bearing false witness is a form of capitulation. Accusing others of having deceit because they accuse you of it is childish as well as deceitful..
I gotta get myself together, cuz i got someplace to go And i'm praying when i get there, i see everyone i know I wanna go to ignore hell, because i hear that's it's ok , i said i wanna go to ignore hell, let's... go with rcj
2 thoughts and a conclusion is still 2 thoughts. Like I said before, you're just being willfully ... misleading, at best.
trainr: >Any non-eternal thing requires a sufficient >and adequate cause; from observation trainr: >Adding the phrase âfrom observationâ is meaningless Stu: >YOU added it.... HELLO.!! Though you'll likely plonk me instead, Stu is really the one you should put on ignore for your own good -- he's kicking your ass without even having to work at it. JB
Not really. For example, the item you quoted. In the previous post he was all over the fact that I omitted the phrase "from observation," so I included it. Notice after I re-include it, he tells me I "added" it. There's no way to win with that kind of "logic," which is why he does it. It's all smoke and mirrors. If you weren't so anxious to see him win the debate you might actually read the posts.