Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

7719Re: PE 2.2.2.1 Naturalism refuted by supernatural Biblical prophecies (e.g. Mic 5:2 & Dn 9:24-26, etc ...)

Expand Messages
  • elf
    Jan 16, 2004
      At 06:55 AM 1/16/2004, you wrote:
      >Paul: Elf do you understand the stupidity of maintaining an argument
      >that the Jesus of the gospels was never born when not a single
      >historian or scholor of any standing would argue that the evidence
      >indicates that Jesus never existed. This non-existent target is the
      >creation of self-delusion or maybe you're not really serious. Do
      >you make statements like this in an effort to annoy?
      >
      >Donald:
      >
      >I'm beginning to suspect that he is doing exactly that. Every one of Elf's
      >"arguments" are those that have been refuted time and again by theologians,
      >philosophers and apologists for centuries.

      ELF:
      Killing your opponents doesn't constitute a refutation.

      That no refutations are available is shown by the fact that the
      "heresy" of Arianism arose more than once, sometimes under anther name with
      a slightly different twist.

      Every heard of the Unitarians?

      Same argument, only they came along too late to get conveniently
      killed off.

      > He seems to be pretending that
      >his "arguments" are new in some way and also pretending that he hasn't read
      >or isn't aware of any of the refutations that have been given in numerous
      >sources. More and more it looks like he just wants attention.

      ELF:
      Poisoning of the well noted.


      >DONALD:
      >If we cease "debating" him, he'll claim it was because we didn't have any
      >counter-arguments and he'll break him arm patting himself on the back for
      >his "victory". If we continue, he'll continue his "yes but" game ad
      >nauseum. My conclusion: Elf isn't interested in honest debate or
      >discussion.

      ELF:
      Second Ad Hominem poisoning of the well noted.

      DONALD:
      > He's only interested in playing games. He will not accept ANY
      >argument in support of Christianity as valid or true. He will not accept
      >ANY refutation of his "arguments" as logically valid.

      ELF:
      Well, so far no one shown where I've committed any fallacy, formal
      or informal in any of my arguments.

      OTOH, I identify the specific assertions in your and other's
      arguments, name the fallacy, explain why what you've said is and instance
      of the fallacy and often include both quoted material and a link to a logic
      site describing the fallacy and giving other examples so have yet more
      material available with which to understand your mistake - or try and
      explain why the specific assertion isn't an instance of the fallacy.

      So far no one's even attempted to identify by name any errors in
      any of my post nor show exactly where the supposed fallacy is occuring.
      Jumping up and down shouting "fallacy" doesn't demonstrate that you've in
      fact found one (and would in fact be a fallacy of its own).

      Sucks for you I actually understand a smidgen of logic and have
      some little skill with it, eh?

      DONALD
      > He will not admit to
      >ANY fallacies in his own "arguments", no matter how obvious and glaring they
      >are.

      ELF:
      Find one, dissect the argument in detail showing just how and
      where I'm committing a fallacy.

      It's not hard, I do it to you guys all the time.

      Of course, I cheat -- I actually know what I'm doing.

      DONALD:
      >What's the point of continuing discussions with him?

      ELF:
      You might actually learn some logic?

      logically yours,

      elf
    • Show all 7 messages in this topic