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

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

Expand Messages
  • Stephen E. Jones
    Group ... My conclusion is *not* one of my premises. First here is my PE 2.2.2.1 ... http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/pe02phls.html#ntrlsm PROBLEMS OF
    Message 1 of 7 , Jan 14, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Group

      On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 19:48:37 -0800, elf wrote:

      >>>SJ>by
      >>>>supernatural fulfillment of prophecies like Dan 9:24-27 and Mic 5:2,

      >>>EC>Which, as I've pointed out before, begs the question, albeit in a
      >>>different direction - one which assumes as a premise that premise which
      >>>*you* wish to prove.

      >SJ>For the *umpteenth* time No. *I* am not ruling out in advance naturalistic
      >>explanations (in fact I am *inviting* them!). All I am asking my opponents
      >>to do is agree to not rule out in advance supernaturalist explanations.

      >EC>I didn't say you were ruling out anything -- I pointed out that
      >you were begging the very question you were asking, so since your
      >conclusion is one of your premises, of course you're going to arrive at
      >that conclusion.

      My conclusion is *not* one of my premises. First here is my PE 2.2.2.1
      "Naturalism ... Refuted by supernatural ... Biblical prophecies" page:

      --------------------------------------------------------------------------
      http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/pe02phls.html#ntrlsm
      "PROBLEMS OF EVOLUTION": 2. PHILOSOPHY
      2. Naturalism
      1. "Nature is all there is"
      2. Refuted by supernatural
      1. Biblical prophecies
      1. Micah 5:2: Birthplace of Messiah (Bethlehem)
      The prophet Micah in the 8th century BC, predicted that the Messiah would
      be born in Bethlehem (Mic 5:2; Mt 2:5-6; Jn 7:42). And Jesus was born in
      Bethlehem (Mt 2:1; Lk 2:4-7)!

      2. Daniel 9:24-27: The time of Messiah
      The objectively best combination of terminus a quo (starting point), and
      method of calculation of the 70 `weeks', yields a terminus ad quem (ending
      point) at the time of Jesus' public ministry and crucifixion! (Newman,
      1988; Newman, 1997, pp.223-224; Archer, 1964, pp.386-387; Strobel,
      2000, pp.248-249; Unger, 1966, pp.391-392). [...]
      --------------------------------------------------------------------------

      Expressed in logical premises and conclusions syllogistic format (I this
      together in 5 minutes, so it could no doubt be tightened up but it would
      not change its basic structure) my claim simply is:

      1. Naturalism is the claim that "nature is all there is" (i.e. the
      supernatural does not exist);

      2. Naturalism would therefore be refuted if the supernatural exists;

      3. The supernatural does in fact exist in the form of Fulfilled
      Biblical prophecy, that cannot plausibly be explained naturalistically
      (e.g. Mic. 5:2 and Dan. 9:24-27)

      4. Therefore naturalism is false.

      So the premise (1) does *not* contain the conclusion (4). And (2) follows
      from (1) by definition. Only (3) needs to be established, which is what I
      am prepared to debate.

      It is up to my opponents at (3) to provide a naturalistic explanation
      that: a) fits all the facts; and b) is more plausible than my supernatural
      explanation; without c) begging the question by ruling out supernatural
      explanations; and my claim that Naturalism is false, fails. But otherwise
      it stands.

      PS: Here is another tagline quote about Daniel's prophecy of the 70
      `weeks' in Dan 9:24.

      --------------------------------------------------------------------------
      "The Prophecy of Daniel Nine. Because our Lord quotes from the prophecy
      of Daniel, it may be profitable to study that passage ... Daniel 9:24-27 ...
      The seven weeks are, in prophetic language, weeks of years. The period in
      which the above was to find fulfillment consisted of 490 years. During this
      period four things were to be accomplished: (1) reconciliation for iniquity,
      (2) righteousness established, (3) sealing up vision and prophecy, and (4)
      the anointing of the Most Holy. All these things were to be accomplished
      by the Messiah. The whole design of Christ's coming upon earth and dying
      upon Calvary's Cross was "to finish transgression, and to make an end of
      sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity." Daniel, in his prayer previous
      to this particular prophecy, was deeply concerned with the forgiveness of
      both his and the people's transgressions, sins, and iniquities. God assures
      him that within the prophetic seventy weeks one would come who would
      remove these things. The whole of the New Testament proclaims that
      Christ did exactly what Daniel prophesied. ... (Acts 3:18,19,26).
      Everlasting righteousness has been brought into this world by the
      incarnation, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. ... Also Christ
      sealed up both vision and prophecy by fulfilling the same. ... This period,
      referred to in Daniel, saw also the fulfillment of the anointing of the Most
      Holy. This anointing took place at the baptism of Jesus. ... (Acts 10:38). ...
      (Dan. 9:25). The seventy weeks are divided into three divisions: 7-62-1.
      They form in years: 49-434-7. At the time Daniel made this prophecy the
      children of Israel were in captivity and Jerusalem and its Temple were in
      ruins. The first period Of 49 years was to accomplish the rebuilding of the
      city. This actually took place when Zerubbabel was governor over Judah. A
      number of Israelites were released from captivity, and they rebuilt the city.
      The books of Nehemiah and Ezra relate the troublous times that were
      experienced in the rebuilding. However, in spite of all these handicaps, the
      city was rebuilt. ... (Dan. 9:26). Notice that the above verse states after the
      threescore and two weeks shall the anointed one be cut off. The Anointed
      One is, of course, Christ Jesus. The 483 years (7 plus 62 weeks) takes us up
      to the ministry of Christ. During the last week of years the Messiah was to
      be cut off. We know that after three and a half years of his ministry the
      Anointed One suffered a violent death. Isaiah used the same expression in
      his fifty third chapter: "He was cut off out of the land of the living." The
      prophecy records that this cutting off of Christ was *after* the sixty ninth
      week. There are those who maintain that the last week of this prophecy has
      as yet not been fulfilled in history. This amounts to a denial of the plain
      import of the prophecy that the death of the Anointed One was to be after
      the sixty ninth week and during the seventieth week. ... The expression,
      "And shall have nothing," seems to refer to the city and its Temple. ... The
      Temple and the city were nothing to Christ after their rejection of him. And
      it was because of this cutting off of the Messiah that the destruction of the
      city and its sanctuary was determined. ... Dr. Edward J. Young ... writes:
      "They seem to indicate that all which should properly belong to the
      Messiah, he does not have when he dies. This is a very forceful way of
      setting forth his utter rejection, both by God and man. ... The prophecy
      indicates that the destruction was to be accomplished by the people of the
      Prince, namely, the Romans under the command of the general Titus. As a
      matter of fact, the Roman soldiers destroyed the city and its sanctuary
      directly against his wishes. And that destruction was certainly as a flood,
      for the city and its Temple were completely destroyed. ... (Dan. 9:27). That
      firm covenant is none other than that which Christ made with many. ...
      (Matt. 26:28). We know that Christ by his death caused the sacrifice and
      oblation to cease by fulfilling the shadow and becoming the substance. ...
      (Heb. 7:27). When Christ died upon the Cross the veil of the Temple was
      rent in twain. Gone was the old system with its shadows. ... Jesus caused
      the sacrifice and oblation to cease by the destruction of the Temple and the
      city and by the dispersion of the Jews. This is true even unto this day. Thus
      the prophecy of Daniel 9:24-27 finds its fufillment in the atoning sacrifice
      of Christ and the destruction of Jerusalem. ... The only valid objection
      against this general interpretation is that the destruction of Jerusalem did
      not occur within he seventieth week-within the period of seven years. The
      seventy weeks extended to about 33 A.D. The destruction of Jerusalem, of
      course, came in 70 A.D. A close examination of the passage in Daniel does
      not disclose ant statement that the people of the prince were to cause this
      destruction within the seven years. Within the seven years the destruction
      of the city *was determined* by its rejection of Christ and his apostles.
      Because of this rejection "the people of the prince that shall come shall
      destroy the city and the sanctuary." Christ himself stated that for a short
      period after his death he would send his prophets: "Wherefore, behold, I
      send unto you prophets and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye
      shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your
      synagogues, and persecute them from city to city." [Mt 23:34] This actually
      happened before the seven year period was up. After the stoning of
      Stephen, the Church was scattered abroad and the message went to the
      Samaritans and Gentiles. Jerusalem, by the crucifixion of Christ and the
      persecution of his followers, overflowed the cup of iniquity. Jerusalem was
      nothing but a stinking carcass. As Jesus stated: "For wheresoever the
      carcass is, there will the eagles be gathered together." [Mt 24:28] Jerusalem
      became a "carcass" during the seventieth week. It was only a matter of time
      when the "eagles" would come with the outward destruction. Daniel
      prophesied that the events he enumerated were to occur in the continuous
      period of 490 years. Would not God have revealed to him that the last
      seven years were not to be joined to the 483? Did not God know that the
      Jews would reject his Son? The Scriptures and history have revealed that
      the prophecy of Daniel has been wonderfully fulfilled. The Scriptures do
      not tell us that the seventieth week has been postponed. If it were
      postponed, I repeat, we would still be in our sins and without hope. If one
      can believe Luke, that the abomination of desolation is the Roman army
      [Lk 21:20] ..." (Kik J.M., "Matthew Twenty-Four: An Exposition,"
      Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing Co: Philadelphia PA, 1948, pp.46-53.
      Emphasis in original)
      Stephen E. Jones http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones
      Moderator: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CreationEvolutionDesign
      --------------------------------------------------------------------------
    • elf
      ... ELF: (3) assumes that the event of the (supposed) prophecy - the birth of the Messiah who was in fact god himself - in fact occurred, and thus (3)
      Message 2 of 7 , Jan 14, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        >
        >
        >Expressed in logical premises and conclusions syllogistic format (I this
        >together in 5 minutes, so it could no doubt be tightened up but it would
        >not change its basic structure) my claim simply is:
        >
        >1. Naturalism is the claim that "nature is all there is" (i.e. the
        >supernatural does not exist);
        >
        >2. Naturalism would therefore be refuted if the supernatural exists;
        >
        >3. The supernatural does in fact exist in the form of Fulfilled
        >Biblical prophecy, that cannot plausibly be explained naturalistically
        >(e.g. Mic. 5:2 and Dan. 9:24-27)
        >
        >4. Therefore naturalism is false.
        >
        >So the premise (1) does *not* contain the conclusion (4). And (2) follows
        >from (1) by definition. Only (3) needs to be established, which is what I
        >am prepared to debate.
        >
        >It is up to my opponents at (3) to provide a naturalistic explanation
        >that: a) fits all the facts; and b) is more plausible than my supernatural
        >explanation; without c) begging the question by ruling out supernatural
        >explanations; and my claim that Naturalism is false, fails. But otherwise
        >it stands.

        ELF:
        (3) assumes that the event of the (supposed) prophecy - the birth
        of the Messiah who was in fact god himself - in fact occurred, and thus (3)
        presupposes two things (a) that a birth occured AND that it was a
        supernatural birth of a god. Ergo anyone who accepts the debate on your
        terms has already accepted the existence of the supernatural by accepting
        the existence of a supernatural god-man.

        But it's the existence of the supernatural you're supposedly
        trying to prove, so you can't just assume as a premise the existence of the
        supernatural - that is begging the question.

        And I could kick myself for not noting this before -- but you have
        another insurmountable problem.

        Let me remove a bit of verbage and make an edit or two to make the
        problem clear"

        "It is up to my opponents to [prove] [naturalism] [by disproving]
        my claim that Naturalism is false, otherwise my claim [that Naturalism is
        false] stands."

        ====

        I. Argumentum ad Ignorantiam: (appeal to ignorance) the fallacy that a
        proposition is true simply on the basis that it has not been proved false
        or that it is false simply because it has not been proved true. This error
        in reasoning is often expressed with influential rhetoric.
        A. The informal structure has two basic patterns:

        Statement p is unproved.
        Not-p is true.

        Statement not-p is unproved.
        p is true.
        B. If one argues that God or telepathy, ghosts, or UFO's do not exist
        because their existence has not been proven beyond a shadow of doubt, then
        this fallacy occurs.
        C. On the other hand, if one argues that God, telepathy, and so on do exist
        because their non-existence has not been proved, then one argues
        fallaciously as well.
        II. Some typical ad ignorantiam fallacy examples follow.

        In spite of all the talk, not a single flying saucer report has been
        authenticated. We may assume, therefore, there are not such things as
        flying saucers.

        No one has objected to Lander's parking policies during the last month of
        classes, so I suppose those policies are very good.

        Since the class has no questions concerning the topics discussed in class,
        the class is ready for a test.

        Biology professor to skittish students in lab: There is no evidence that
        frogs actually feel pain; it is true they exhibit pain behavior, but as
        they have no consciousness, they feel no pain.

        Johnson: It is impractical to send more men to the moon because the money
        spent for that project could be spent on helping the poor..

        Hanson: It is not impractical.

        Johnson: Why?
        Hanson: Just try to prove that I wrong.
        (Hanson is defending his claim by an ad ignorantiam, i.e., his claim is
        true, if Johnson cannot refute him.)

        [rest of article following tag line]
        [http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/ignorance.html%5d


        Your claim, succinctly stated, is that if the person arguing
        naturalism can't "prove you wrong", that then naturalism is false.

        A classic Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam.

        No one with the least feeling for logic is going to waste his time
        arguing under your terms.

        logically yours,

        elf


        Is an essential (as in inherent, "involved in the constitution or
        essential character of something : belonging by nature or habit")
        part of the nature of a human person to be a contingent (as in not
        logically necessary) being?

        That would seem to be part of our constitution.

        But God, so say the Christian theologians, is a logically
        necessary being.

        So Christ, in the hypostatic union, must be wholly logically
        necessary and wholly logically unnecessary. X and not-X.

        But Christ *is* God by the Trinitarian formula.

        So God is both X and not-X.

        Which makes the Christian God a logical impossibility.

        =========

        "The Soviet news agency Tass declared Saturday that the abominable snowman,
        thought by some to stalk the Himalayan Mountains, does not exist.

        Quoting arguments by Vadim Ranov, a man described as a well-known Soviet
        explorer, Tass said that no remains--skull or individual bones--had ever
        been found.

        Alleged yeti tracks spotted in the mountains are more likely to be those of
        other animals distorted by bright sunrays, Tass said.

        Accounts by 'eye witnesses' are the fruit of their imagination,' the
        official news agency said." (New York Times)
        (Be sure to note why this argument is not a case of the ad verecundiam
        fallacy.)

        "Our universe, however, did begin with the primordial explosion, since we
        can obtain no information about events that occurred before it. The age of
        the universe, therefore, is the interval from the big bang to the present."
        (Scientific American)

        III. The uses of the ad ignorantiam in rhetoric and persuasion are often
        similar to the technique of "raising doubts." E.g., suppose you wanted to
        convince a police officer not to give you a ticket by using this technique.
        "I'm sure you know how unreliable radar detectors are. Why, I saw an a news
        program a tree was timed at 50 mph, and Florida, at one time, threw out
        such evidence in court. I certainly wasn't going that fast. Some other
        driver must have sent back that erroneous signal. You probably timed the
        car passing me which looked like mine."
        IV. Non-fallacious uses of the ad ignorantiam: in science, the law courts,
        and some specific other situations, one must, for practical reasons, assume
        that something is false unless it is proved true and vice-versa. E.g., "the
        assumption of innocence until proved guilty" is a practical, not a logical,
        process. Obviously, someone can be legally innocent, but actually guilty
        of a crime.

        In many instances, if a decision must be made and we cannot prove something
        in spite of serious attempts to do so, then we presuppose as a pragmatic
        consideration, without deductive proof, that whatever that something is,
        is probably the case.

        At one time scientists concluded that DNA would not crystalize because
        after extensive testing, there was no proof that it would. This conclusion
        is not fallacious even though now it is known that DNA will crystalize.

        There is no fallacy in the following passage:

        "Today we can be confident that a sample of uranium 238, no matter what its
        origin, will gradually change into lead, and that this transmutation will
        occur at a rate such that half of the uranium atoms will have become lead
        in 4.5 billion years. There is no reason to believe that the nature of rate
        of this process was any different in the very remote past, when the
        universe was new." Schramm, Scientific American (January, 1974), 67.
      • elf
        ... ELF: Proper usage is to capitalize when referring to a speccific god, so above yes I did make a typo and fail to capitalize in the phrase in fact God
        Message 3 of 7 , Jan 15, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          STEVE:

          >I always find it interesting when my atheist/agnostic opponents cannot even
          >bring themselves to capitalise "God", when that is just proper English
          >usage:

          ELF:
          Proper usage is to capitalize when referring to a speccific god,
          so above yes I did make a typo and fail to capitalize in the phrase "in
          fact God himself" above, but in the phrase "supernatural birth of a god"
          there is no rule requiring the word to be capitalized.

          Are you already reduced to grammar flames?

          STEVE:
          >whether or not one believes He exists.
          >
          >The `body language' message I receive is not of an atheist/agnostic serene
          >in his disbelief in God, but rather of someone who thinks God is real
          >enough to be cause them to put God's name in lower case, to try to make
          >Him seem less real!

          ELF:
          The body language message you are getting from me is that I was
          writing at midnight my time and the spell checker doesn't catch
          capitalization errors.

          The "body language message" I'm getting from you is that you're
          reduced to grammar flames.


          >EC>Ergo anyone who accepts the debate on your
          > >terms has already accepted the existence of the supernatural by accepting
          > >the existence of a supernatural god-man.
          >
          >No, (3) is my "Argument from Evidence"! It is up to Elf (or anyone) to
          >provide counter arguments and evidence to rebut it.

          ELF:
          If one has already yielded the conclusion by accepting that there
          was a supernatual Messiah born who could have been the subject of a
          prophecy, then he can't be too bright, since one has already admitted to
          the existence of the supernatural, eh?

          STEVE:
          >If Elf (or anyone)
          >doesn't, then it stands. That is normal scientific practice that a theory
          >that
          >accounts for the evidence, and is published openly inviting refutation,
          >stands until it is refuted by better evidence and arguments.

          ELF:
          Lets try a different tack. Let's say I *were* going to debate the
          subject, my first argument would be that Daniel isn't a prophecy *because*
          the Jesus of the gospels was never born, the events supposedly of his life
          depicted in the gospels never happened, ergo Daniel fails as a prophecy
          because *even if* it's a prophecy of a Messiah, *that Messiah* was never born.

          Which means that right out of the starting gate all of those
          arguments you have locked and loaded and ready to go now are aimed at a
          non-existent target.

          Do you understand now?

          <snip>


          ciao

          elf
        • pk4_paul
          ... a theory that ... refutation, ... debate the ... *because* ... his life ... prophecy ... never born. ... those ... at a non-existent target. ... Paul: Elf
          Message 4 of 7 , Jan 15, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            > STEVE:
            > >If Elf (or anyone)
            > >doesn't, then it stands. That is normal scientific practice that
            a theory that
            > >accounts for the evidence, and is published openly inviting
            refutation,
            > >stands until it is refuted by better evidence and arguments.
            >
            > ELF:
            > Lets try a different tack. Let's say I *were* going to
            debate the
            > subject, my first argument would be that Daniel isn't a prophecy
            *because*
            > the Jesus of the gospels was never born, the events supposedly of
            his life
            > depicted in the gospels never happened, ergo Daniel fails as a
            prophecy
            > because *even if* it's a prophecy of a Messiah, *that Messiah* was
            never born.
            >
            > Which means that right out of the starting gate all of
            those
            > arguments you have locked and loaded and ready to go now are aimed
            at a non-existent target.
            >
            > Do you understand now?

            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 McLaughlin
            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
            Message 5 of 7 , Jan 16, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              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. 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.

              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. 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. He will not admit to
              ANY fallacies in his own "arguments", no matter how obvious and glaring they
              are. What's the point of continuing discussions with him?
            • elf
              ... 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
              Message 6 of 7 , Jan 16, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                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
              • pk4_paul
                ... argument ... the ... one of Elf s ... theologians, ... that the ... name with ... conveniently ... hasn t read ... numerous ... have any ... back for ...
                Message 7 of 7 , Jan 16, 2004
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In CreationEvolutionDesign@yahoogroups.com, elf
                  <mischief.haler@c...> wrote:
                  > 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?

                  Paul: If you do you have a difficult time demonstrating it. Your
                  tactic of choice is to post a URL which you think saves you the work
                  of having to explain things in your own words. Contending that
                  Christ was never born is a matter of supporting evidence of which
                  there is a great shortage. The position makes you look silly but
                  that's OK with me if you want to continue it.
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.