To Mike_the_wiz:
Oh! I see. So you're saying that you are ignoring my points due primarily to time constraints (and not deliberation or rudeness). Ok, I accept that. Which is why I propose the following:
Reagarding the points you have ignored in my last post (points 2, 3, 6, 9, 11-15, 21 (regarding challenge number 4)), I suggest you respond to each in turn in your future posts. Note that I have not placed a time limit on your reply, and you may wish to spread the discussion of any one point over as many days/posts as you wish. Time not important only argument important. I am willing to wait if your refutation/discussion of any/all above ignored points are valid. Don't just brush them off and put the blame down to time, ok?
By the way, I have devised a way to reply while NOT taking up so much of your time (see end of this post). Please refrain from replying until you have finished reading this post.
Reply to your post:
"In logic, the progression is NOT the inverse like you suggested"
WHICH inverse that I have suggested?
"If M.E. is part of your stance then surely I don't have to agree."
Certainly.
Challenge number 5: Please identify the part of my argument which incorporates M.E., state why I have done so (hint: it is not assumed, and yes, I have told you why), and explain why I shouldn't do so.
1) a) "Yet, when I use terms in the same way, you say things like "seek help" and other such-like things. I am easy going, and so, why bother?"
Easy, because even without the term "conclude", my argument (see post 107, part 2c, as well as previous post, point (9)) would still be valid. In my case, I used the term "conclude" when I meant "deduce", so it's a term misuse.
In your case, your conclusion doesn't follow from your assumptions, so you can't really use the word "conclude" at all. (Note: even if you use the word "deduce" in your argument instead of "conclude", it would still be invalid. You cannot deduce (or conclude) God = Free Will from your assumptions. You need to assume that the bible is true for that to happen, but you have not done that (or you have but you haven't told me.) See point 1(b) below regarding your argument.
"I am convinced you see this as some sort of ego challenge. I never partake in such things. Check out that link though."
You are solely mistaken. Read my challenges before you reject them. The first one asks you to state my arguments, state your arguments, and show how I am wrong. This goes hand in hand with my repeated assertion that I have no clue in hell what you're on about. In other words, it is a cry for help for you to make yourself clear (and to show that you have actually read what I have wrote).
My second challenge arises from your assertion that the tape anaology not only accommodates all my assumptions but somehow came up with noticably different conclusions. I don't understand how this is the case, so (again, consistent with my repeated assertion that I have no idea in hell what you're on about) I have asked you to explain your point of view.
My third challenge was made due to my inability in see how contrapositives have ANY relevance to my argument. You have argued repeatedly that contrapositives (somehow) undermines the M.E. situation which I have (apparently) assumed. I don't understand what you are talking about, so I asked you to explain.
My fourth challenge (from post 135) arise from your (and Spiritman's) repeated accusations that I have used "evasive arguments". This term, in itself, is (may I say) idiosyncratic and makes no (re: none whatsoever) sense to me. Hence I have asked you to explain.
My fifth challenge (newly introduced in this post) arises from my doubt and suspicions that you do not know where the concept of "mutually exclusive" is used in my argument, nor do you have a valid argument against its use. So I am asking you to explain how I have "invoked" it and why it should not be "invoked".
As you can see, all these "challenges" arise from problems in communication between us. The reason why I want you to engage in them is as follows: I want to know what you are talking about. If you won't tell me, I am afraid I would stay lost and confused. Note also the emphasis on EXPLAIN in all of them. I need you to EXPLAIN because I am LOST. Is this sufficient incentives for you to engage in my challenges? Go on, start from the first one...
Question: where does ego come into play?
1) b)
Ok. I will dissect your argument for you:
You cannot argue using the bible. Period.
The reason why you cannot argue using the bible is because it is dogma. Dogma means "An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true." (
Dictionary.com | Meanings and Definitions of Words at Dictionary.com). See the bit about "considered absolutely true"? If you use the bible as your argument, you have invoked a collection of beliefs which you have assumed to be true, without explicitly stating them (yes, this is bad for debating).
If we are debating whether or not Jonah was swallowed by a great fish from a philosophical/scientific perspective, and you invoked the bible as your argument, do you see a problem with that? There is no debate! You have assumed it to be true because the bible said so!
Similarly, if we are debating whether God and free-will can co-exist, you using the bible and saying that "it must because the bible says so" means that there's no debate. So why are we here?
Moreover, if you are using this argument (the bible) as the ultimate authority on truth, this entire forum (let alone this thread) would cease to exist. You can reply to every single argument on this forum with "it is blah-blah becaue the bible says so" and "win" every single debate! Do you see a problem with that?
Debating means that you argue based on assumptions that most (if not all) parties agree on (as I believe I have said previously). Your assumption that the bible is true will not be held by everyone, and it is certainly not assumed in post 1 or 107. You have, in actual fact, begun your own sub-thread:
i) Assuming biblical God exists
ii) Assuming Bible is true
Argument) Since bible is true, and bible dictates that God and free-will co-exi.
Conclusion) Therefore they must.
You have not explicitly stated assumption (ii), and that is your argument's fatal error. My refutation that assumption (i) would be irrelevant in your case is justified because if the bible is assumed true, it doesn't matter if God existed. You would still be able to make the conclusion above. (You can assume (i) if you want, but it makes no difference whatsoever)
In your case, logic is but a mere facade. Your argument is not based on logic but instead, dogma. Hence my heavy criticsm. Your repeated assertion that you "know logic" is undermined by the demonstratably flawed argument you have submitted.
"I have already said I do not dissect each and every comment from a newbie. Why is it you have to make so many irrelevant points?"
I have repeatedly shown how they are not irrelevant. The ones I have deemed irrelevant, I have "killed" explicitly. Those I have NOT killed (points 2, 3, 6, 9, 11-15, 21) are the ones I believe to be important (and want responses from). So the fact that you see many of my (important) points as "irrelevant" makes me very angry. By the way, what does "newbie" status have to do with ANYTHING? Are you a fool?
1) c) "What you don't know my assumptions? They are similar to yours. Maybe you should read slower or buy some glasses."
Well, you may THINK that they are similiar to mine, but did you assume that the bible is true? Because I kind of didn't make that assumption. That would kind of make our assumptions CRUCIALLY DIFFERENT. I asked you to state them to see if you yourself knew this. Well, did you?
"You have ignored my questions about "Will God be tempted by evil". If God foresaw evil entering his creation and so didn't create it then he would have said "yes satan, I will make this stone bread"
Well, no. I haven't ignored it. I don't ignore your points like you do mine. Read point 6 in my previous post. I have explicitly asked you to explain what you meant by the above comment. I have (very very genuinely) no idea. More importantly, this shows that I HAVE NOT IGNORED IT. Don't put me on the same level as you.
As a matter of fact, I don't really understand your next comment either (which I think you were using to make the above quote clearer, but instead made me more confused). What's with God saying to Satan about stone to bread? What is the problem with "If God foresaw evil entering his creation and so didn't create it"? I find that very reasonable (though God obviously thought otherwise). Don't use examples that are not obvious. It makes your argument even more confusing.
1) d) "You are replacing a sword for a gun and saying "Let us not kill like this, it is wrong to kill - let's pick up guns instead"
However, atleast you admitted you are wrong. But, this all came from you saying you need an "assumption", "argument" and "conclusion". However, if you look at most threads in the F&B section, you'll see that there are no rules, so we can both use terms like "assume" or, "don't make an assumption" WITHOUT it meaning our official stated assumption/premise. This is not some sort of exam, logic can only offer so much, it's not the be all and end all. And I mean that in a friendly way! Because you will have a better debate without trying to make rules for yourself to follow, I think we have both tripped up a bit in following them, so why the hastle?"
In regards to the first sentence, please read point 1 (a) above. What I have done is perhaps NOT what you think I have. 1(a) also explains how my argument differs from yours.
In regards to the following paragraph, I would have to say that I am solely unaware of the rules of engagement in conducting a debate on an F&B forum.
"no rules, so we can both use terms like "assume" or, "don't make an assumption" WITHOUT it meaning our official stated assumption/premise. "
So....what you're saying is that when we say, "assume", it can mean that we assume, or it can also mean that we didn't assume. Huh? Can admin cue me in on this? I am sorry, but to me, debate without logic is like a ship with no hull. If words can have any meanings we want, what's the point of words? How do they convey messages? You ARE intentionally confusing me, aren't you?
1) e) "Just because the God YOU have assumed to exist (omnimax) doesn't mean YOUR argument is true. Hah! You see, I may see the bible as truth, but you also see M.E. as truth. Logic usually allows possibilities, even your "inverse" is a possibility yet you still have to assume the mechanism of "mutual exclusivity" is true. The video tape analogy shows a possibility of no connection. God will be responsible for his freewill outcome (the earth, when it was "good"), and humans will be responsible for theirs. (Present day hell hole, pollution and sin etc)"
The thing is, I again have doubts as to whether you even know my arguments. I believe that you are insinuating that I have included M.E. as an implicit assumption (like you have with bible). In that case, I would like to turn your attention to Challenge number 5 (in this post, above point 1(a)).
I want you to tell me where I have used M.E. in my argument, as well as why it is unjustified. Surely this is not a big ask.
"I do not assume it's true, I have been shown it is true by God"
Hint: you can't use that in any debate. I restate, please seek help. I don't mean that in a condescending way (even though it must sound that way) but the fact that you seem to have no clue as to how a debate occurs boggles my mind! Your argument sounds similiar to the following:
You are right because the bible says you're right.
Bible is right because God has shown you it's right.
So in actual fact, you are right because God has shown you you're right.
So if I argue with you, I'm really arguing with God.
Right.......and you don't see a problem with this....?
Your post took an hour? Hahahahahaha.....mine took 3.
********************************************************************
To make a compromise (since I won't DEMAND you to devote more time than you are willing to), let's do this: Reply to the first 2 questions of this post. When we have agreed that it is a lost cause, move on to 1(a). Keep going until we reach 1(e), and then move on to point 2, then 3, then 6, then 9, then 11, then 12, then 13, then 14, then 15, then finally 21.
If you agree (and I can see no reason why you wouldn't), let's start with these 2 questions: (copy and pasted from above)
"In logic, the progression is NOT the inverse like you suggested"
Q1) WHICH inverse that I have suggested?
"If M.E. is part of your stance then surely I don't have to agree."
Certainly.
Q2) Challenge number 5: Please identify the part of my argument which incorporates M.E., state why I have done so (hint: it is not assumed, and yes, I have told you why), and explain why I shouldn't do so.
Since we only need to focus on these 2 questions, take your time to answer them. Given my justification in point 1(a) above, you should have no reasons for not attempting challenge 5.
Thank you for your input and patiently awaiting your reply.
"Respect is like money, it can only be earned. When it is given, it becomes pittance"
™ Version 4.2