tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post4077553519762492707..comments2024-03-28T11:25:20.916-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: Natural theology and God of the GapsVictor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger106125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-59384104778853913802016-02-06T14:24:02.238-07:002016-02-06T14:24:02.238-07:00http://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularoutpost/2016/0...http://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularoutpost/2016/02/06/when-are-theistic-arguments-god-of-the-gaps-arguments/Secular Outposthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10289884295542007401noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-8230941338874579722016-01-12T10:28:14.960-07:002016-01-12T10:28:14.960-07:00Obviously anyone who thinks that God exists doesn&...Obviously anyone who thinks that God exists doesn't think that God exists outsider reality. Rather, he thinks that God is part of reality, and the creator of the rest of it. Victor Repperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-81554764737663610252016-01-11T21:45:33.293-07:002016-01-11T21:45:33.293-07:00Rayndeon,
I appreciate your comments on the Big B...Rayndeon,<br />I appreciate your comments on the Big Bang theory. Properly understood, the theory is just a scientific theory that is neutral in the theism wars. It does not support theism at all. Since all the Big Bang theory reveals is that some billion years ago, the known universe had a much smaller size. <br /><br />Of course, philosophy can question that science can treat of Universe at all. That Universe is a proper subject for scientific investigations. The way I see it, general relativity can speak of and calculate local geometry but to speak of and calculate geometry of the Universe is a bit of presumption. Gyanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09941686166886986037noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-52161405764041289632016-01-11T21:41:05.871-07:002016-01-11T21:41:05.871-07:00Prokop,
Granted that a man stood up and walked aft...Prokop,<br />Granted that a man stood up and walked after being dead 2000 years ago.<br /><br />But how does that show that this man was God? <br />Or that this event was connected with God?Gyanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09941686166886986037noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-55553024819139411892016-01-11T17:41:28.028-07:002016-01-11T17:41:28.028-07:00Hugo,
I appreciate your adding bold text to my co...Hugo,<br /><br />I appreciate your adding bold text to my comment, and have no objection to it. But I fail to see what point you were attempting to make by doing so.B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-52845867215075277552016-01-11T17:31:34.948-07:002016-01-11T17:31:34.948-07:00B. Prokop said...
The Resurrection of Christ is t...B. Prokop said...<br /><br /><i>The Resurrection of Christ is the single most significant event in the history of the Macrocosmic All*. It is the "Eighth Day of Creation", relegating everything that went before to mere prologue. Nothing, literally nothing is the same afterwards [...] Once the Resurrection is acknowledged as Fact, then all else pales in comparison to it and has to be evaluated in light of it. <b>Our response to it is more important than our careers, our politics, our families, our country, our very lives..</b> more important than anything you can think of.</i><br /><br />This is fascinating; <a href="https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/c2/b4/79/c2b479aab1342606734f3cb8833e44c8.jpg" rel="nofollow">please keep the comments going</a>; 100 is not nearly enough.World of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-59637661142239888672016-01-11T17:11:58.738-07:002016-01-11T17:11:58.738-07:00Do you honestly think that the author of Mark ... ...<i>Do you honestly think that the author of Mark ... thought ... "That's not really that important?"</i><br /><br />You're asking the wrong question. It's not that Mark didn't think these things important, it's just that they weren't what he wanted to write about. All four of the Evangelists had very specific theological points they wished to make, and arranged the selection and presentation of their material to suit their purposes. <br /><br />"<i>why do we find these forged endings?</i>"<br /><br />Why do you call them forged? First of all, we do not know the story of how they were appended to the rest of Mark. It's entirely probable that they were part of the original design of the Gospel, just written by another hand. There are several other books in the New Testament with multiple writers - why not Mark? Alternatively, they may be a "Reader's Digest" version of an original longer ending, now lost. Or it may simply be that the last few lines were penned after a space of some time, and Mark's style had developed in the interim. (Do the songs on <i>Magical Mystery Tour</i> sound like they were composed by the same people who wrote <i>A Hard Day's Night</i>? Yet they were.)<br /><br />You're creating difficulties where none are necessary.<br /><br />"<i>Interesting</i>"<br /><br />It is indeed interesting. The Resurrection of Christ is the single most significant event in the history of the Macrocosmic All<b>*</b>. It is the "Eighth Day of Creation", relegating everything that went before to mere prologue. Nothing, literally <i>nothing</i> is the same afterwards. St. Paul hinted at this when he wrote that all creation was "groaning" in anticipation of the revelation of the Son of God.<br /><br />And in the end of ends, that is why this is not some mere intellectual game. Once the Resurrection is acknowledged as Fact, then all else pales in comparison to it and has to be evaluated in light of it. Our response to it is more important than our careers, our politics, our families, our country, our very lives.. more important than anything you can think of.<br /><br /><b>*</b> A Phrase coined by the good Edward E. Smith, author of <i>The Lensman Series</i><br /><br /><i>Jezu ufam tobie!</i>B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-61536893717561665752016-01-11T14:42:00.886-07:002016-01-11T14:42:00.886-07:00"This is the opinion of some scholars."
..."This is the opinion of some scholars."<br /><br />I guess it is the majority opinion but that does not matter much.<br />I think there are good reasons to think it is the first.<br /><br /><br /><br />"Mark also contains no account of the birth of Jesus. Do you therefore assume that Jesus was not born?"<br /><br />No, i think that the author of Mark sees no reason to narrate Jesus' birth because he believed that it was an ordinary event not worth narrating.<br />Do you honestly think that the author of Mark, fully aware of the story of the Great Commission, thought:<br />"The risen Son of God telling his followers to disciple the whole world? That's not really that important"<br /><br /><br />"Again, I believe the order of composition for the Gospels to be first Matthew, then either Mark or Luke, and finally John"<br /><br />This view is maybe broadly defensible but i can not see how this is the most plausible rather than one that is born out of necessity.<br />Mark not only omits important elements, it stops before the most essential elements are narrated which gives good reason to think that the additional elements are later inventions.<br />Also, if Matthew already told the fuller story, why do we find these forged endings ??<br />It seems unnecessary to put these words into somebody's mouth if a more sufficient account was already in circulation.<br /><br />"Yes, I do."<br /><br />Interesting.<br />John Mitchelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11866752092372522993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-69434022246557152572016-01-11T13:19:14.912-07:002016-01-11T13:19:14.912-07:00"The earliest account, Mark"
This is th..."<i>The earliest account, Mark</i>"<br /><br />This is the <b>opinion</b> of <i>some</i> scholars. Notably, St. Jerome (who probably knew more about the New Testament than any other person in all of history) is not one of them. He put Matthew first, and I concur with his judgement. So did St. Thomas Aquinas. And in any case, the women in Mark were fleeing from <i>an empty</i> tomb.<br /><br /><i>But it did not seem to bother the author of Mark that his gospel contained no post-mortem appearances.</i><br /><br />And why should it? That was not his purpose. Mark also contains no account of the birth of Jesus. Do you therefore assume that Jesus was not born?<br /><br /><i>the omissions of the first Gospel</i>"<br /><br />Again, I believe the order of composition for the Gospels to be first Matthew, then either Mark or Luke, and finally John. I could go with either Luke then Mark, or Mark then Luke.<br /><br />"<i>Do you think it is more amazing than the creation of the universe itself or the Son becoming fully human in the first place??</i>"<br /><br />Yes, I do.<br /><br /><i>Jezu ufam tobie!</i>B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-80842012990370273492016-01-11T12:06:25.189-07:002016-01-11T12:06:25.189-07:00"My point is that before someone can rational..."My point is that before someone can rationally reject the Gospel narrative of the Resurrection, he must first have a rational and credible alternative explanation of what was reported to have happened, that can stand up to scrutiny. I maintain that no one has ever succeeded in doing so"<br /><br />I completely disagree.<br />There simply is no fact entailed by a story about an empty tomb.<br />The earliest account, Mark, stops with the women fleeing from the tomb and it is said they told noone. This was so bothersome to scribes that they not only added verses to it but changed the story.<br />But it did not seem to bother the author of Mark that his gospel contained no post-mortem appearances.<br />Yes i agree, people had visions of Jesus, as they have today but we dont now who and when and what kind of visions and we definitely have no reason to believe these people were martyrs or anything. There is nothing to explain because we don't know what actually happened.<br /><br />Christians love to praise the gospels as 'early accounts' of the life of Jesus but they completely ignore the clues we can draw from the omissions of the first Gospel.<br /><br />I dont think you can trust later accounts that add crucial elements to a story that the earliest writer could impossibly thought to be unnecessary to include.<br />And if later writers have to change the earliest account in order to proceed with the story, everything they add to it is really dubious.<br /><br /><br />I don't know what happened but that does not bother me, why should it ?<br /><br /><br /><br />"A good summary of this process can be found in Timothy McGrew's series of lectures on the veracity of the New Testament"<br /><br />I might listen to some of it. I think highly of Tim McGrew. He seems to be very competent in probability theory and his writings in epistemology are quite interesting (the little bit that i know of)<br />The article of him and Lydia McGrew in the Blackwell Companion arguing for the resurrection seems to me to be a flawless exercise in Bayesian reasoning concerning history but the 'facts' they take for granted see to me to be dubious.<br /><br /><br />"Is it the idea that the miraculous can occur at all?"<br /><br />No.<br /><br /><br />"Also, the very wording "walked out of [H]is grave after being dead" indicates to me that you have grave misconceptions about what the Resurrection actually is. It was not simply a return to life from death"<br /><br />I did not even attempt to capture at all the importance and meaning the resurrection would have, if it were true.<br />I just alluded to the fact that it is claimed that Jesus left his tomb.<br /><br /><br /><br />"The Resurrection is quite literally amazing - as it should be."<br /><br /><br />Do you think it is more amazing than the creation of the universe itself or the Son becoming fully human in the first place??<br /><br />I can't see how.<br />John Mitchelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11866752092372522993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-22767115375891004602016-01-11T12:05:01.600-07:002016-01-11T12:05:01.600-07:00VR: "Even when they are telling true stories?...VR: "Even when they are telling true stories?"<br /><br />I am not sure what of my statements you are referring to.<br /><br />VR: "There are important differences between the Christian story and other stories."<br /><br />Differences? Sure. Important? In order to believe that you'd have to be indoctrinated in Christian dogma. That's what some good coursework in comparative religions, study of Antiquity, languages, and History all give you -- the realization that Christianity resembles other successful cults in every meaningful way. <br /><br />VR: "Don't you have to assume that all stories are false before you conclude that this story is false."<br /><br />No. I can observe that reality is always consistent with itself, and investigate stories based on this.<br /><br />VR: "And isn't that a classic example of begging the question?"<br /><br />No. I can evaluate any story based on the observable fact that reality is always consistent with itself, and b) the evidence. No question begging necessary to determine that the supernatural events of the NT are just stories. <br /><br />It seems to me that you (and some other believers like you, but not all) start out with a foundational premise that there must be something else out there, outside reality, and all of your other inquiries flow from that certainty. I've found that if you don't beg that question (that there must be something else out there, outside reality), then the world makes so much more sense. <br /><br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09268824070081295206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-89437684142600430512016-01-11T08:27:59.193-07:002016-01-11T08:27:59.193-07:00John,
Thanks for the response.
I'm curious a...John,<br /><br />Thanks for the response.<br /><br />I'm curious about your last sentence. There are basically three parts to it:<br /><br />1. "the rational person has to, on pain or irrationality, [ought to] accept"<br /><br />Allow me to elaborate. First, kindly re-read my posting above from January 09, 2016 1:34 PM. My point is that before someone can <i>rationally</i> reject (Note I am not <i>yet</i> saying "accept") the Gospel narrative of the Resurrection, he must first have a rational and credible alternative explanation of what was reported to have happened, that can stand up to scrutiny. I maintain that no one has ever succeeded in doing so. I also maintain that taking the narratives to be reliably true <i>has</i> survived the most exacting scrutiny, many times over. This in not, as so many gnus claim, a sign of "blind faith" or a preconceived outcome, but rather the result of a thorough and objective examination of the evidence. A good summary of this process can be found in <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gldvim1yjYM" rel="nofollow">Timothy McGrew's series of lectures</a> on the veracity of the New Testament. (I realize that listening to them all would take more than 8 hours, but you can hardly expect such a topic to be covered in a single tweet now, can you?)<br /><br />2. "that a man, 2000 years ago, walked out of [H]is grave after being dead"<br /><br />What part of that is so incredible? That Jesus was a man? That the Resurrection occurred 2000 years ago? (Would it make any difference if it were 5000 years, or 50?) Is it the idea that the miraculous can occur at all? (Because if <i>that's</i> your objection, then I would be justified in accusing <i>you</i> of "reasoning" from a preconceived outcome.)<br /><br />Also, the very wording "walked out of [H]is grave after being dead" indicates to me that you have grave misconceptions about what the Resurrection actually is. It was not simply a return to life from death (although it does include that), but rather a New Creation. The return to life is actually the smallest and least significant part of that event. Jesus did not simply stop being dead (as in the case of Lazarus), but rather initiated a new mode of being.<br /><br />3. "I can only shake my head in amazement"<br /><br />As can we all. The Resurrection is quite literally amazing - as it should be.<br /><br /><i>Jezu ufam tobie!</i>B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-28870629532419006062016-01-11T07:25:48.324-07:002016-01-11T07:25:48.324-07:00"John,
I apologize if I've misread you. ..."John,<br /><br />I apologize if I've misread you. I can't keep track of who's who on this site, especially for those who (like you) have nothing on their profile to alert people as to where they stand on the issues."<br /><br />I guess i am an odd bird.<br /><br />I am open to the existence of God, i think there are numerous was in which a serious case for God can be made.<br />I have no time for the despicable 'New-Atheist'-'movement' and the people that still see themselves as part of it. These people seem to me to be neurotic idiots that espouse an attitude of intellectual barbarism.<br /><br />In this way, i have nothing against Christianity or Christians.<br />But if you want to tell me that the rational person has to, on pain or irrationality, accept that a man, 2000 years ago, walked out of his grave after being dead, i can only shake my head in amazement.<br /><br />John Mitchelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11866752092372522993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-18240503990540488782016-01-11T06:47:31.899-07:002016-01-11T06:47:31.899-07:00VR: "I am trying to give you reasons why I th...VR: "I am trying to give you reasons why I think that is where your position is going. If I have to clarify a statement, that is not an admission that my statement was mistaken."<br /><br />And by pointing out where you have misrepresented my position, and asking you to re-examine what I have said, I am trying to give you reasons to reconsider what seem like, frankly, knee-jerk responses to my comments. <br /><br />VR: "Trying to win "talking points" strikes me as a counterproductive procedure. When you do this sort of thing, it makes it easier to understand some of the testy responses of the theists on this site."<br /><br />I don't consider pointing out where one's position has been misrepresented trying to win talking points. I consider that dialogue.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09268824070081295206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-28024910660588302232016-01-11T00:17:30.367-07:002016-01-11T00:17:30.367-07:00(serious typos fixed)
Victor Reppert said...
&quo...<i>(serious typos fixed)</i><br /><br />Victor Reppert said...<br />"Suppose, for example, contrary to what you think, God really does exist, and the reason why, say, a bunch of people who saw Jesus dead saw him alive a few days later, is that God resurrected him. We should, I take it, expect to find a number of mysterious situations that we don't ordinary encounter in ordinary life. We might ask why these things are taking place, and it might look kind of difficult to explain it."<br /><br />Even if we had good reasons to believe that Jesus was seen dead, and then not-dead, this does not prove the existence of a god, or specifically God, at all. It's yet another case of 'I don't know how this happen; I cannot think of anything else but God. Hence, God did it'<br /><br />"What this would mean is that God could perform miracles up the ying-yang but could never give us evidence of his existence. He's omnipotent, he really does exist, but he is, by his very nature, incapable of giving us adequate evidence that he exists. Isn't this an awfully weird, and to my mind, ridiculous position?"<br /><br />This is exactly what it means yes. And yes, you do believe in awfully weird, ridiculous positions it seems, because that's the implication of your beliefs Victor. Well, I think, really not sure... because I don't know how literal you take the Jesus story is. I only know about (some of) your philosophical positions on God, based on arguments such as the AfR, which I disagree with but are is at all ridiculous.<br /><br />"There are important differences between the Christian story and other stories"<br />Wait, what... LOL!World of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-26776074782686284672016-01-10T20:38:25.864-07:002016-01-10T20:38:25.864-07:00Even when they are telling true stories? There are...Even when they are telling true stories? There are important differences between the Christian story and other stories. Don't you have to assume that all stories are false before you conclude that this story is false. And isn't that a classic example of begging the question?Victor Repperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-19582334980318826592016-01-10T20:35:02.623-07:002016-01-10T20:35:02.623-07:00I am trying to give you reasons why I think that i...I am trying to give you reasons why I think that is where your position is going. If I have to clarify a statement, that is not an admission that my statement was mistaken. <br /><br />Trying to win "talking points" strikes me as a counterproductive procedure. When you do this sort of thing, it makes it easier to understand some of the testy responses of the theists on this site. Victor Repperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-50975076794343713212016-01-10T20:19:29.952-07:002016-01-10T20:19:29.952-07:00VR: " Suppose, for example, contrary to what ...VR: " Suppose, for example, contrary to what you think, God really does exist, and the reason why, say, a bunch of people who saw Jesus dead saw him alive a few days later, is that God resurrected him. We should, I take it, expect to find a number of mysterious situations that we don't ordinary encounter in ordinary life. We might ask why these things are taking place, and it might look kind of difficult to explain it. But, apparently, for you, its being the true explanation does not prevent it from being a bad explanation."<br /><br />The reason it's a bad explanation is that all the descriptions you give for this supposed god are the same ones that people give when they're telling stories. And in every single previous example we know of, all these excuses you give are the same ones that the story-tellers give us when they try to explain why their story is real even though there's nothing else real about it. <br /><br />Btw, my saying all this is uncontroversial. It's honest. It needs a good answer. And for all this (wait for it...) I get called a troll around here. <br /><br />Hmmmmm.<br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09268824070081295206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-34904871217037177052016-01-10T20:14:08.974-07:002016-01-10T20:14:08.974-07:00VR: "What you seem to be saying is that whene...VR: "What you seem to be saying is that whenever there is an inexplicable gap, it is always better to say that we don't know the explanation."<br /><br />Yes, I would say that when we don't have a good explanation, we should recognize that. Recognizing that you don't have a good explanation is the first step. Declaring that you have a good explanation that doesn't explain anything more than saying the phenomena can't be explained is, well, just weird. <br /><br />VR: "What this would mean is that God could perform miracles up the ying-yang but could never give us evidence of his existence."<br /><br />No it doesn't. At all. If god wanted us to know god existed, god could show up and introduce himself, the same way that evidence for all good explanations (including you and me) does. God is supposed to be a person, and he is supposed to have introduced himself to a bunch of people in stories, but he doesn't do that anymore because... why? Because stories are better than showing up? What? <br /><br />VR: "He's omnipotent, he really does exist, but he is, by his very nature, incapable of giving us adequate evidence that he exists. Isn't this an awfully weird, and to my mind, ridiculous position?"<br /><br />Yes, it's a ridiculous position that a god who is omnipotent would be incapable of giving us evidence of his existence. But there's nothing in my position that could overcome god's supposed omnipotence, for one. And there's also nothing in my position that denies god making himself known in ways all other real things do -- in ways that are reliable, verifiable, and objective. The same ways that you, and I, and everyone else we know, do everyday. And yet, somehow, an omnipotent god is supposed to be incapable of showing us that he exists except for in stories told by men -- the exact same problem that all other things that don't exist in reality have. <br /><br />Hmm. <br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09268824070081295206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-45463766536875660492016-01-10T19:38:07.905-07:002016-01-10T19:38:07.905-07:00Victor: "So, theism can make testable claims ...Victor: "So, theism can make testable claims if and only if those claims fail."<br />Me: "No. Where do you think I said that?"<br />Victor: "First of all, let us try to unpack this issue a little."<br /><br />I will take that as an admission that you cannot find me saying what you tried to represent as my argument.<br /><br />And now I'll move on to the rest of your comment. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09268824070081295206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-79700901807256806762016-01-10T19:08:53.211-07:002016-01-10T19:08:53.211-07:00First of all, let us try to unpack this issue a li...First of all, let us try to unpack this issue a little. Suppose, for example, contrary to what you think, God really does exist, and the reason why, say, a bunch of people who saw Jesus dead saw him alive a few days later, is that God resurrected him. We should, I take it, expect to find a number of mysterious situations that we don't ordinary encounter in ordinary life. We might ask why these things are taking place, and it might look kind of difficult to explain it. But, apparently, for you, its being the true explanation does not prevent it from being a bad explanation. <br /><br />What you seem to be saying is that whenever there is an inexplicable gap, it is always better to say that we don't know the explanation. What this would mean is that God could perform miracles up the ying-yang but could never give us evidence of his existence. He's omnipotent, he really does exist, but he is, by his very nature, incapable of giving us adequate evidence that he exists. Isn't this an awfully weird, and to my mind, ridiculous position? Victor Repperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-46865586182016742612016-01-10T17:28:22.189-07:002016-01-10T17:28:22.189-07:00Prokop: "If you catch him at some fallacy, he...Prokop: "If you catch him at some fallacy, he blatantly denies ever saying any such thing, despite everyone being able to just scroll up and see where he did."<br /><br />Um, Victor wrote:<br />Victor: "So, theism can make testable claims if and only if those claims fail."<br />I asked him, ""Where do you think I said that?"<br /><br />Then you pipe in and accuse me of employing a fallacy (the same thing I think VR was saying), and instead of showing me where I said what Victor wrote, you double down and insist that all we need do is "scroll up and see" where I wrote what Victor summarized. <br /><br />I've been blunt, and I've called out the silliness that populates this sites posts and comments, and for that what looks like the regular denizens here can only pout together-- all without ever quite getting around to locating where it is I've gone wrong. <br /><br />Hmmmm.<br /><br />Do you know what I think? Do you know what's really, really, really obvious? That I make you all uncomfortable, and when you can't exactly locate what is that I've done wrong, you stop caring that I haven't done anything wrong so long as you all agree that I make you uncomfortable. From there, it's easy for you all to reassure one another that I've, well, done something wrong (I must have!). And because you all agree that I make you uncomfortable (I mean, that all agree that I must have done something wrong!) you all make excuses for another as you act shabbily toward me. <br /><br />And I wouldn't care. Except that you all put on this pretense of being respectable intellectuals. But respectable intellectuals don't behave as you guys do. And (for whatever reason), I just can't stop myself from pointing this out.<br /><br />So if you can't handle that, as I've said in the past -- ban me. But if you're going to keep on writing silly things, and being abusive rather than defend your silliness, then you should expect that these things will be pointed out to you by the likes of me. <br /><br /><br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09268824070081295206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-72209660411920632252016-01-10T16:31:43.273-07:002016-01-10T16:31:43.273-07:00Are you guys still trying to reason with this trol...Are you guys still trying to reason with this troll? You ought to have seen by now that he's got the same MO as ol' Skeppy. If you catch him at some fallacy, he blatantly denies ever saying any such thing, despite everyone being able to just scroll up and see where he did. Call him on it, and he complains you're twisting his words - which is rich considering his own serial misinterpretation of literally everything addressed in his direction. I for one ain't respondin' to him any more. I played that game with the Mad Dingo and his sidekick im-gullible, and believe me, there's no percentage in it.B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-14926046894684841972016-01-10T16:17:20.556-07:002016-01-10T16:17:20.556-07:00Hinman: "I think Dr. R took you out."
m...Hinman: "I think Dr. R took you out."<br /><br />mKay.<br /><br />Hinman: " it's also the case that arguments that turn on logically eliminating alternatives are not Gaotg's. I do that with all my arguments."<br /><br />By Gaotg's I assume you mean god of the gaps arguments - I'm just not sure what the a in your acronym relates to.<br /><br />So what's your point in relation to what I wrote? I'm just not following what you're saying. <br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09268824070081295206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-66179898770364803912016-01-10T16:04:41.995-07:002016-01-10T16:04:41.995-07:00Victor: "So, theism can make testable claims ...Victor: "So, theism can make testable claims if and only if those claims fail."<br /><br />No. Where do you think I said that? <br /><br />Victor: "So long as they succeed, they fall into the god of the gaps fallacy? Heads I win, tails you lose."<br /><br />What? I think you should re-read what I wrote. I think you're jumping to the (wrong) conclusions by not reading what I wrote more carefully. I would write it a different way but I don't think I can say it much more clearly.<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09268824070081295206noreply@blogger.com