|
Understanding through Discussion |
|
|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
| EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total) |
|
| |
| ChatGPT | |
| Total: 916,479 Year: 3,736/9,624 Month: 607/974 Week: 220/276 Day: 60/34 Hour: 3/3 |
| Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
| Author | Topic: The Kalam cosmological argument | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
You'll have to forgive me, I fail to see how that was relivant. Perhaps you could explain your meaning? You said that me bringing up an eternal god was irrlevent the KA, but then a proponent of the KA brought up god being eternal as part of their argument for it.
An excelent way to determine the validity of an argument, however, I never claimed I was addressing the validity if the argument, now did I? Once again, strawmen are not your friends. I never said that you claimed you were... you're the one with straw in your teeth.
You seem to be stuck on the idea that in order to address an argument you must assume all of the premises are true and look for flaws in the argument's structure...  That's wierd... I explicitly said the exact opposite of that:
quote: Yet, you still have contention with me doing so... The only contention is how it is in any way relevant to the point I was making All I said was that your point was irrelevant and you just can't seem to acknowledge that.
I agree, but here's the kicker, where in our exchange did we agree that this was what we were discussing..?  Seriously? Don't have to: it was implicit.
This is the first instance in our exchange where this issue was brought up. You pointed out that I rejected a premise and informed me that " ...if we're discussing the argument, itself, then we should stick to the premises". 1) How is discussing why I am rejecting a premise in the argument -not- discussing the argument itself? 2) Why should we "stick to the premises" if we are discussing the argument, itself? Forget it, I'm not going to teach you Debating 101.
Okay, now point out where you agreed on your rule set that says the topic can only be discussed by first agreeing to accept the premises as true. Stupidest thing I've read today... thanks for the chuckle.
A: "If god is eternal, then he doesn't have a beginning" B: "So wut? If da universe is eternal it woodn't either!" A: "I'm sorry, sir, but you're beside the point." B: "OMG!? Wer didja state that I hadta be within tha point?!" A: "You're retarted" Good day, sir.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
You apologise for the unintentional misrepresentation, but not for; the intentional misrepresentation.. the ad homminem attacks.. the childish behavior.. or the flagrant disregard of civil discourse. Duly noted.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024
