| Subject: Misread |
Author:
Baz
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 03/13/04 7:29pm
In reply to:
Wade A. Tisthammer
's message, "Careful..." on 03/13/04 1:56pm
>>The arguments of extreme theists, such as Wade
>
>Really? I'm "extreme"? How so?
Extreme in the fact most people who believe in God do not go to the lengths you have in this forum in attempting to cast doubt on science or any idea that you see as a challenge to the assertion that God exists. Most people take the idea of God on faith, to do what you do I see as extreme.
>
>>must
>>ever remain ridiculous
>
>Ridiculous eh? How about that Tristram Shandy
>paradox? Perhaps it can be resolved, perhaps one of
>the premises is wrong, but you haven't provided any
>basis for showing so. It seems a bit presumptuous to
>call that argument at least, “ridiculous” if
>you have no reason to think so.
I said in a past message that it was no good reciting the mantra: if the premises are correct the conclusions are correct. I have explained why the paradox is a non-starter as far as reality is concerned. I have posted a coherent argument from a web site against the sort of deductive reasoning you have used, and you flatly refuse to accept any of it. Give ME a reason for accepting the paradox as a valid vehicle for coming to the conclusion you have, I and others on this forum cannot see one.
>>because the conclusion they
>>hope to arrive at happens to be their ultimate
>>premise: God exists
>
>Hmm, I don't think that's been a premise in any
>argument I've used. (If you think otherwise, I
>request a specific example).
Are you purposely being obtuse or am I going to have to retract my view of your abilities? This seems to be straight from the fundamentalists' book of tactics: if in doubt, sidetrack and obfuscate. You know full well that to use such a premise in a deductive argument concerning the existence of God, or against ideas that might cast doubt on aspects of the bible, would be ridiculous on your part, so why phrase your objection in the way you have. Anyone who believes in God has his existence as their ultimate premise in so far as everything flows from that proposition.
>>This is why they are forced to put
>>forward the indefensible assertion that atheism is a
>>religion.
>
>You think I believe atheism is a religion?
I believe we used quite a bit of band width debating this. Perhaps Ben can find the relevant messages in his archives.
>Baz, I think you need to be a bit more careful. It's
>been my experience that in controversial and fervent
>debates, zealousness tends to increase the risks of
>misconstruing or distorting the opposition, attack a
>position using albeit closely related yet irrelevant
>information/argumentation, seeing things that aren't
>there and missing things that are. For instance,
>regarding the Tristram Shandy paradox thread you said
>I had no premises in my argument against an infinite
>past, yet my premises (true or not) were clearly
>there.
>How do you account for this oversight?
You have just described how you yourself conduct arguments. As far as the Tristram Shandy paradox is concerned I said, as a starter, and nothing to do with the fictitious Shandy, that we can't make any deductions about an infinite past as we have no premises from which to argue.
I was talking about the reality or not of an infinte past. Your premises were concerned with a scenario where a straw man individual was writing a book, not premises about infinite time itself. My fictitious character Brandy demonstrated that his yesterday had as much to do with the reality of yesterday (none) as did Shandy's infinity had to do with the reality or not of infinite time.
You might remember very early on, I presented a piece of logic someone produced that "proved" God did not exist. You may have noticed that I did not say, "There you are, God does not exist", because I knew logic and deductive reasoning can never deal with such issues.
>Speaking of distorting the opposition,
(Which you do all the time, either intentionally or through a lack of understanding or being incapable of accepting ideas contrary to your beliefs. I have already gone through some in this post)
what about the
>"Surely your Jorge" remark? What prompted you to make
>that? What mistake(s) do you think I made?
I'm sorry Wade but this is almost becoming laughable. Go through all the "debates" you have had with me and others for that matter. They are almost all concerned with your mistakes of reasoning. "What mistakes do you think I made"?
So you don't make mistakes of any kind? In all the arguments you have had with me you have never conceded a thing. You may have in other threads but I haven't seen it, not on any major points. In this respect, and in the respect of some of the tactics you use(consciously or not), you are like Jorge.
Perhaps I should not bring this up, but because you are being so intractable in you attitude, I will. I seem to have a better memory than you. Can you rememdber sending me an unsolicited e-mail asking why I had dropped out of the forum? You expressed doubts about continuing, and one of the reasons you gave was because you found yourself arguing merely to win the argument! Having made that admission to me how can you expect anyone to trust that your arguments are genuine and not merely a means of protecting your ego?
>I suggest a bit of caution.
Amen to that.
Baz
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 