You don’t have to argue any point.
There’s nothing logically inconsistent about it within the Christian context. I’ve set out that much and that was the point. That you’re attempting to turn it into something else is your concern. Your declaration regarding my duty is both errant and uncontrolling.
Then you mistake or misstate the case a second time. I said the central difference is, to be a bit more blunt, you’d be dissembling where I’m relating what I honestly believe and experience as the truth. That’s a fairly substantial difference before we approach the details.
No, you’re only demonstrating that men are capable of making any sort of claim. It doesn’t follow that every sort of claim is disreputable or that none should be taken seriously, even when there is no methodology to provide an objective proof. A liar tells one woman that he loves her while Romeo declares the same in truth to the object of his affection. That one declaration is false says nothing of the other.
Rather, I’ve set out why it is not, why it is entirely consistent within the context of God’s existence, which itself is an article of faith that can neither be established nor refuted objectively. I’ve met the only burden my position requires. You can do no better, posturing to the contrary notwithstanding.
You absolutely can. And you can say you love and lie. Same objection and rebuttal as previously offered. And I omitted your example, as it was essentially the same one I refuted with illustration in our last exchange. So if there’s nothing new…
That’s like being criticized by Liberace for being flamboyant. And a nice side step of actually engaging. :thumb: But I know that probably means you've worked up another set of declarations...
That would be a declaration. To answer in kind: there’s nothing irrational about it and you cannot, have not and will never illustrate the contrary.
Same argument I previously answered. I omit yet another variation on that theme, previously rejected in principle.
My point was that telling me you find a thing this or that way, in terms of value, is to be expected given you decide that value for yourself. And so, I said that ludicrous was a subjective value. Your calling a thing ludicrous then establishes nothing other than your reaction. You might as well be declaring chocolate ice cream the finest of all ice creams. There’s no courage in recognizing that.
It’s tragic that you confuse this sort of witless insult with repartee.
I’d agree that if slight effort sustained a point yours would be nearly irrefutable…
Hence, miraculous. I omit the rest of your illustration since the point is here and what followed was little more than insult and I've answered you more fully on this point before.
Then you should be relieved, since no argument is precisely what you’ve set out.
I’d agree in this much, you appear to be having a great deal of difficulty in understanding me. So there's some truth to what you say, if not as you intended it.
I didn't come to you with any particular claim. You chose the example and I provided a context. It is rational, sustainable and as supportable as your own.
Yes, yes and yes, to match your effort…and the rest of your, let’s call it an answer for want of a more descriptive phrase, is opinion previously countered.
Ah, I see the problem. I thought you understood I was speaking in terms of physical proof…objectively irrefutable. The Bible itself is testimony, evidence and report, as is the experience of the Christian in his walk with God.
Evidence that would satisfy you?
And there you have it. When a man cannot name the standard that would satisfy his objective nature that nature cannot be said to exist within an understanding of the question. Thank you.
You can choose to cynically question love without diminishing the reality or value of it.
Ah, the old “you think you’re so smart” gambit. My high school response then…No, I know I’m smart, I think I’m right and the nature of your response assures me.
Were God to manifest before you none of those would be established. Only God overwhelming your will with His own or your relational experience of Him can satisfy on point.
Yes. I just finished telling you..
Not true at all. The argument between us isn’t over the proof of or for God. We both should understand (and I’ve been clear on this) that neither the Theist nor the Anti-Theist can make his case objectively. It’s the nature of the question. But you’ve made rather bold declarations regarding reason and those I have answered. I didn’t do so with the idea that you would have any interest in seriously entertaining them. I did so, instead, because I felt it was important that the attempt be made to reach you and those your words might influence absent serious contention.
I'm certainly not going to dispute the effort. The result is another matter.
True, if you mean to be seen as someone who lacks ability and maturity. But to each his own.
Re: complexity as an argument against God.
Why isn't it unreasonable? I set out the counter and you meet me with declaration...
If by word games you mean applied reason and by work you mean put in clear relief your inability to meet the inquiry, yes. I think it does nicely.
The thing I noted as sad, the sort of example you use in repeating the same ineffectual argument on more than one occasion, was
“2000 years ago Deborah ripped her head open and twelve children popped out. It's okay, my god Dfjxncxlk made it all possible because he has the power to do so.” Sad would describe it to a tee. I set out why the first time you attempted it.
I am.
Then your maturity is the equal of your reason and the only reputation you injure is your own.
No, but I respond to them as though they warranted reflection and reasoned response whenever possible. But we're talking about the state and disposition of your soul. You don't believe it and so can take the matter lightly. I do and so, for your sake, cannot.
You’re young and I think lose yourself to the heat of battle in the moment, then find your better nature later. I’m not young, have established my credentials in every way that is meaningful to me and don’t look to others for validation. Self righteous? My concern for you is genuine. I have not said or asserted that I am morally superior to any man, though I would say I am more fortunate than many, through no merit of my own. And as to my claims and evidence, continue to declare and I’ll continue to set and sort out. :e4e:
lain: Any position is a response, to a claim, to a perception of reality. You name it. What Atheism cannot be is an act, which is part of the mistake that I noted.
