tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post4702779003064538317..comments2024-03-25T17:35:02.238-04:00Comments on Debunking Christianity: The Most Asinine Christian Argument I've Probably Ever HeardUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger46125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-32792733079031519472008-01-07T10:54:00.000-05:002008-01-07T10:54:00.000-05:00Just reread my post and noticed it required clarif...Just reread my post and noticed it required clarification. <BR/><BR/>("Good" and "Bad" would be God's position on heath. 'Good' and 'bad' without quotes is our position on heath.)<BR/><BR/>01. God Exists<BR/><BR/>02.a Good heath is "Good" in God's eyes. Only good heath is possible. <BR/><BR/>02.b Bad heath is "Good" in God's eyes. Only good heath is possible. <BR/><BR/>02.c Good heath is "Good" in God's eyes. Both good heath and bad heath are possible. <BR/><BR/>In 02.a we can assume that good heath is what God want's because that's the only option we have. 02.b seems illogical since we can have nothing but good heath. Why would God create such a situation? In 02.c we can appreciate good heath since bad heath exists.<BR/><BR/>Of course, if you assume that Good and Evil transcends God, this argument wouldn't be valid.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-8010554875985119432008-01-06T21:52:00.000-05:002008-01-06T21:52:00.000-05:00I seem to have missed a large amount of this, but ...I seem to have missed a large amount of this, but the most telling comment I've read is the following:<BR/><BR/>"His conclusion was this: supposing an atheist accepts the biconditional [that objective evil exists iff God exists] and tries to get a certain argument from evil off the ground, she presupposes God."<BR/><BR/>Okay, but so what? This is how philosophy has worked since at least Socrates: step 1, assume your opponent's premise; step 2, show a contradiction; step 3, conclude that your opponent must be wrong somewhere along the line. This is how the PoE works - at what point does the atheist (or whoever) argue a self-defeating system? In fact, the author seems to have made a stronger argument against Christianity than for it. When he isn't inventing atheist straw men, all he's doing is arguing in favor of (yes, in favor of) the PoE's ultimate effectiveness. Allow me to explain:<BR/><BR/>His contradiction follows from assuming that objective evils exist (from which it follows that such a property as objective evil exists) and that God exists <=> objective morality exists - so what has he proven, by the end of his article? That the theist must either surrender the fact that objective evils exist or the biconditional. If they choose to surrender the former, they've essentially abandoned their theism. If they choose the latter, they have some options. Assuming that God's existence doesn't imply an objective morality is equally detrimental to their overall goal. According to Vallicella, then, in order for a theist to maintain his view, he must reject the idea that an objective standard of evil implies God's existence. This, though, has been a rhetorical (although, as John points out, fallacious) staple of Christian apologetics for a long while, so in the end Vallicella's article only helps the atheist and it's hard to see what the hell he thinks he's talking about when he says the theist can calmly ignore anything.<BR/><BR/>This entire discussion borders on the absurd...Elihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03543293341085230171noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-62851537883944789982008-01-06T19:47:00.000-05:002008-01-06T19:47:00.000-05:00Scott: "No other health would be possible. To reph...Scott: "No other health would be possible. To rephrase, can God decide that good heath is "good", but exclude the possibility of anything but "bad" heath?"<BR/><BR/>M: "No."<BR/><BR/>Then, if God exists and only good heath exists, we can come the conclusion that good heath is 'Good' in God's eyes. <BR/><BR/>What other conclusion can we come up with?<BR/><BR/>While we may not appreciate good heath without experiencing bad heath, this does not prevent us knowing good heath would be "Good" in God's eyes.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-23984226153946523602008-01-06T16:32:00.000-05:002008-01-06T16:32:00.000-05:00m, I recommend you read a little *less* moral phil...m, I recommend you read a little *less* moral philosophy, and do some thinking from first principles. John's point about the internal inconsistency of the theist position (should one Lewis's duff argument) is solid, and we're now onto slightly different (if related) ground.<BR/><BR/>You seem to be suggesting that we need an external objective standard to call something "bad", otherwise we are in the realm of subjectivity, as if that were an individual thing. With actions, however, this is not the case - you need to get at least 2 people to arrive at some sort of consensus - the actor (if you like) and the poor sod who has to deal with the downstream effects. You are also discounting the fact that we are inherently an empathetic species. If I see a kid with a broken leg, I feel sad for him, and want to help him.<BR/><BR/>Now that seems like plenty, and no "objective" transcendent thingy is required to make a call as to whether or not consensus has been reached.<BR/><BR/>The existence or otherwise of some "objective moral standard" (the shape of which, incidentally, you are unable to demonstrate) is entirely unnecessary.<BR/><BR/>In fact, it seems from your argument that the real reason you wish there to be an *actual* objective moral standard is that you dislike the alternative, namely that when we label something as "good" or "bad", we are humans applying a label that has as much meaning as "sexy", "funny", "ugly" or whatever. The only difference in the "good" and "bad" thing is that we take the opinions of those affected by the thing in question into consideration.<BR/><BR/>We're humans. We're smart chimps. This is what we do. If you're proposing some superior level of measurement, it is up to you to demonstrate it, not just voice your horror at the situation as-is.<BR/><BR/>(It's "dependent", by the way).<BR/><BR/>-AShanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11064454267395375567noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-75105751688892187492008-01-06T15:59:00.000-05:002008-01-06T15:59:00.000-05:00Not even slightly. It's even enshrined in the one ...<B>Not even slightly. It's even enshrined in the one thing that Jesus plausibly got right: the "Golden Rule". The bottom line is that things (like cancer, malaria, volcanoes, mudslides) are not "evil" in and of themselves (how the heck do you "objectify" such things?), but in the effects they have on human beings (or rational beings if you prefer).</B><BR/><BR/>How do you objectify the effects these things have on people then? You claim no objectivity, but you seem to suggests an objective basis for calling <I>something</I> bad. <BR/><BR/><B>Similarly for actions: it is not a matter of whether *I* regard an action as moral or otherwise, but how it will be regarded by the other people it affects.</B><BR/><BR/>What makes it any different? Unless you are trying to say objectively that other people's opinions are somehow better than your own.<BR/><BR/><B>Your use of the word "subjective" implies "personal preference", but that is not what we are talking about here. Neither are we talking about something "objective" like temperature, which can be measured (and you can't slag me for using crap analogies when you're using crapper ones ;-)</B><BR/><BR/>I suggests reading up on moral philosophy because subjective, while it does mean "personal", objective is not meant to mean something that is measurable or testable, but something that is right or wrong <I>independantly</I> of human perception; that means a transcendant source of that morality.<BR/><BR/><B>We are talking about the *effects* these have on people (or other plausibly sentient beings), so it is purely in the *human* sphere. It is entirely correct for John to label Lewis's argument "asinine" for that reason. No objective observer or validator is required - we do this for ourselves.</B><BR/><BR/>So it's subjective.<BR/><BR/><B>Otherwise you might wish to speculate on whether Supernova 1987A was "an evil" (it would have been pretty miserable if you'd been anywhere near it) or "a good" (which it certainly has been for earth-based astronomers and physicists).</B><BR/><BR/>I could speculate on whether something was evil or not dependant on if I believe there is an objective source from which to gather that that something is evil.<BR/><BR/>You are confusing the object by which the morality is applied from the source it is taken from...and I don't even know why you are doing this.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-51229474973480892932008-01-06T15:54:00.000-05:002008-01-06T15:54:00.000-05:00However, if there was a substance that melted at a...<B>However, if there was a substance that melted at a temperature of 72 degrees, would that substance cease to melt since no other temperatures existed?<BR/><BR/>What about the idea of loud or soft sounds? The human eardrum bursts in the presence of direct and continuous exposure to sounds over 140db. If every sound occurred at a volume of 140db, would human eardrums suddenly stop bursting when a sound was produced?<BR/><BR/>The same could be said about good and evil. Good would have the same properties as it did without evil. We just wouldn't have a name for it as there would no need to quantify it. </B><BR/><BR/>Your analogies fail because they don't represent the claims I'm actually making. All I'm saying is that in the absence of a distinction in relation to said object, there is no distinction therefore to be made and the object becomes unrealized, especially in regards to things of value.<BR/><BR/>So good could exists without evil, which is nothing I am denying. What I'm saying is that Evil and Good are Epistemologically necessary for one another. But in saying that something is epistemologically necessary, then it must also be admitted that it is ontologically necessary.<BR/><BR/><B>We're not talking about knowing, were talking about existing. </B><BR/><BR/>Well, I'm talking about knowing in this example.<BR/><BR/><B>If only good heath was possible, can it be anything but "good" in God's eyes?</B><BR/><BR/>It would lose it's qualification for "good". What is "good" without "bad"?<BR/><BR/><B> No other health would be possible. To rephrase, can God decide that good heath is "good", but exclude the possibility of anything but "bad" heath?</B><BR/><BR/>No. <BR/><BR/><B>This appears to be a rather illogical scenario.</B><BR/><BR/>How so?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-46156563346844267562008-01-06T15:47:00.000-05:002008-01-06T15:47:00.000-05:00M: "If, for instance and hypothetically speaking, ...M: "If, for instance and hypothetically speaking, if there was only one temperature on our planet (72 degrees or something) and there was never an experience other than that temperature, than qualities of "hot", "cold", and even the label of "72" would be unealized concepts and unknown to the people that experience it. "<BR/><BR/>However, if there was a substance that melted at a temperature of 72 degrees, would that substance cease to melt since no other temperatures existed?<BR/><BR/>What about the idea of loud or soft sounds? The human eardrum bursts in the presence of direct and continuous exposure to sounds over 140db. If every sound occurred at a volume of 140db, would human eardrums suddenly stop bursting when a sound was produced?<BR/><BR/>The same could be said about good and evil. Good would have the same properties as it did without evil. We just wouldn't have a name for it as there would no need to quantify it. <BR/><BR/>M:"...but we do need to experience bad health in order to even know what we are experiencing is 'good'."<BR/><BR/>We're not talking about knowing, were talking about existing. <BR/><BR/>If only good heath was possible, can it be anything but "good" in God's eyes? No other health would be possible. To rephrase, can God decide that good heath is "good", but exclude the possibility of anything but "bad" heath?<BR/><BR/>This appears to be a rather illogical scenario.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-185192887166668982008-01-06T14:54:00.000-05:002008-01-06T14:54:00.000-05:00m,If one is to claim that something is "wrong" or ...m,<BR/><I>If one is to claim that something is "wrong" or "right" they require an objective basis.</I><BR/><BR/>Not even slightly. It's even enshrined in the one thing that Jesus plausibly got right: the "Golden Rule". The bottom line is that things (like cancer, malaria, volcanoes, mudslides) are not "evil" in and of themselves (how the heck do you "objectify" such things?), but in the effects they have on human beings (or rational beings if you prefer).<BR/><BR/>Similarly for actions: it is not a matter of whether *I* regard an action as moral or otherwise, but how it will be regarded by the other people it affects.<BR/><BR/>Your use of the word "subjective" implies "personal preference", but that is not what we are talking about here. Neither are we talking about something "objective" like temperature, which can be measured (and you can't slag me for using crap analogies when you're using crapper ones ;-)<BR/><BR/>We are talking about the *effects* these have on people (or other plausibly sentient beings), so it is purely in the *human* sphere. It is entirely correct for John to label Lewis's argument "asinine" for that reason. No objective observer or validator is required - we do this for ourselves.<BR/><BR/>Otherwise you might wish to speculate on whether Supernova 1987A was "an evil" (it would have been pretty miserable if you'd been anywhere near it) or "a good" (which it certainly has been for earth-based astronomers and physicists).<BR/><BR/>Cheers,<BR/>-AShanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11064454267395375567noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-28027542935539656062008-01-06T13:15:00.000-05:002008-01-06T13:15:00.000-05:00By Irishfarmer:I think the problem, John, that peo...By Irishfarmer:<BR/><BR/><I>I think the problem, John, that people have with your argument is the way you word it. You speak of evil as if it has an objective existence outside of Christian beliefs. "What about the kind of pain that turns our stomachs?" What about it? According to you, it only matters if it would logically turn the stomach of a Christian, or a person with Christian-like beliefs.</I><BR/><BR/>I agree.<BR/><BR/>John,<BR/>How DO you measure evil? What constitutes suffering? <BR/><BR/><I>What counts as evil in my atheist worldview is a separate problem from the Christian problem of evil.</I><BR/><BR/>Can you really say you have a purely atheist view when you were raised in a culture with predominantly Christian values?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-73889160575683869812008-01-06T13:10:00.000-05:002008-01-06T13:10:00.000-05:00Not at all. All that is required is for us to dist...<B>Not at all. All that is required is for us to distinguish a difference, and that can be entirely based on human experience (even idealism). It most certainly does not require some objective determinant to "exist" anywhere other than in our minds.<BR/><BR/>Would you argue that the fact that some jokes are funnier than others, and some are not funny at all, indicates that there must exist a Perfect Comedian?<BR/><BR/>??!</B><BR/><BR/>I would find that to be a bad analogy as I distinguish between certain things being subjective and other things as not being subjective. The content of humor is explicitly subjective to an individual and has no objective basis. If one is to claim that something is "wrong" or "right" they require an objective basis. <BR/><BR/>Certainly you can distinguish between differences, but how this has an affect on their value is a totally different story. Also, you cannot claim that an objective source is our own minds, since our minds clearly do not fit within the context of "objective".<BR/><BR/>The only way the analogy of humor actually has any merit is if you believe that the subjectivity regarding humor is in the same light as morality, which then I would say disqualifies you from making any meaningful judgement of value <I>other than</I> simply how you feel about said object or person.<BR/><BR/>So basically, your opinions on morality hold no more judgement in value than my tastes in ice cream.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-91624491332931984042008-01-06T11:10:00.000-05:002008-01-06T11:10:00.000-05:00m said:It seems that if the distinction of said ex...m said:<BR/><I>It seems that if the distinction of said experiences in reference to their VALUE is purely subjective, then Lewis' argument seems to hold water in that something objective is required for that value to be established.</I><BR/><BR/>Not at all. All that is required is for us to distinguish a difference, and that can be entirely based on human experience (even idealism). It most certainly does not require some objective determinant to "exist" anywhere other than in our minds.<BR/><BR/>Would you argue that the fact that some jokes are funnier than others, and some are not funny at all, indicates that there must exist a Perfect Comedian?<BR/><BR/>??!Shanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11064454267395375567noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-5493893454100113652008-01-06T08:46:00.000-05:002008-01-06T08:46:00.000-05:00Hi guys, fascinating to read about some of the 'pr...Hi guys, fascinating to read about some of the 'pros & cons' on this particular issue, but the one that stands out most in my view is Irish farmers, he says: If you're going to claim that evil is an 'internal consistency' in the Christian faith, then you aren't being very consistent. Then he goes on to say: you'd be better off wording it this way. "What about the kind of evil that turns the stomachs of those with Christian-like values?" We can all look back in time & say, this was evil! He/she was evil! That was evil! But surely the key question should be this. The recognition of evil, in the past or in the present,is not a simple matter. Rather than seeing evil, we can see only what others have seen & defined as evil. If our visual recognition of evil depends on our definition of it, then an examination of the words we use to describe evil should lead us to an answer to the basic question, what or who is evil? So what words do we use to make our definition? What labels? And beyond this, from what vocabularies are these words drawn?<BR/>Here's a brief drescription of some of the terms used through the ages, that may appear as being evil during that particular period; crazy, lunatic, insanity, irrationality, deranged, hysteria, weird, take your pick!...Different historical periods, cultures, classes, sexes & professions all have their own vocabularies within which these groups render their particular experience of the world. These vocabularies form an entire language, a discourse. Evil has been described & constituted by as many discourses as all other areas of human experience. Insanity has it's theology, it's morality, it's natural science, it's sociology, it's psychology & it's politics. Anyway hope this is helpful in going some way to providing you all with an explanation of the term EVIL!...SadEvilTanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15524446081916598786noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-85022641632707330712008-01-06T07:54:00.000-05:002008-01-06T07:54:00.000-05:00MLewis claims that such a standard exists and that...M<BR/>Lewis claims that such a standard exists and that the he believes in said standard.<BR/><BR/>CARR<BR/>Lewis also claims to know what that standard was.<BR/><BR/>How? According to him, he needed a god to tell him what is was, and no god has ever done any such thing.<BR/><BR/>M<BR/>Futhermore, if you are going to claim that merely because people disagree on which Being is the standard, this therefore means that there is no such standard, I would stray away from such a non-sequitor.<BR/><BR/>CARR<BR/>So M doesn't even bother trying the impossible task of showing that any alleged being has told us absolute moral standards.<BR/><BR/>But without an absolute moral standard from an (alleged) beings about, for example contraception, people like Valicella claim we cannot say that machine-gunning pregnant women is an unacceptable method of birth control.<BR/><BR/>Which shows what idiocy their beliefs are, as there is no being to give these absolute moral values.<BR/><BR/><BR/>M<BR/>The fact that God allows X child to burn may simply not have an affect on the status of His righteousness.<BR/><BR/>CARR<BR/>What a load of utter trash!<BR/><BR/>M clearly would worship Satan if Satan existed and said he was righteous, because M would simply not care if Satan allowed children to burn to death.Steven Carrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11983601793874190779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-53685637181311716742008-01-06T07:05:00.000-05:002008-01-06T07:05:00.000-05:00The problem with the PoE argument, imho, is that C...The problem with the PoE argument, imho, is that Christians can and do claim that God's "good" is not the same as our human ideas of "good". That is of course unanswerable by atheists, since we cannot know what God might consider to be good, especially if (as many Christians also claim) God's goodness is only complete in the afterlife, where all the burning kids (if they're Christians) presumably get especially nice treats in Heaven.<BR/><BR/>This does, however, leave such Christians in what would I would consider an embarrasing position: that since there is no correspondence between God's "good" and our "good", or at most an incomprehensible one ("God's ways are mysterious") there's no point in worriting ourselves about burning babies and such, unless God tells us to do so. And that renders ideas about God's "omnibenevolence" pretty meaningless too, at least in our sinful mortal sense that burning babies is not necessarily a sign of "benevolence".<BR/><BR/>But if getting your ticket to Heaven is the only important thing, who cares about such petty details?zilchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01695741977946935771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-48380709789074587502008-01-06T06:31:00.000-05:002008-01-06T06:31:00.000-05:00I see Steve Hays at Triablogue is already repeatin...<B>I see Steve Hays at Triablogue is already repeating the slander I said that Christians repeat - that atheists believe that children and marshmallows are fundamentally the same thing , and so burning one is the same as burning the other.</B><BR/><BR/>Perhaps you don't, but if you believe morality to be subjective, then you are merely not being consistent with the belief that Mr. Hays is stating.<BR/><BR/>You cannot sit there and make a distinction of value between one preference or the other when you believe all there are are preferences.<BR/><BR/><B>One problem with the problem of evil is that many Christians are so evil themselves that they cannot recognise evil when they see it.</B><BR/><BR/>I don't see how this is an argument for the Problem of Evil.<BR/><BR/><B>If their god allows a child to burn to death in a Kenyan church while screaming for help, they think their god is righteous for allowing that to happen.</B><BR/><BR/>While some Christians may assert that because God allowed X child to burn makes Him righteous, does not mean that all Christian believe this way.<BR/><BR/>The fact that God allows X child to burn may simply not have an affect on the status of His righteousness.<BR/><BR/><B>One point of the problem of evil is to show that many Christians worship Satan, but call him God.</B><BR/><BR/>Sorry, I don't understand what you're trying to get at here.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-5324938390315767072008-01-06T06:27:00.000-05:002008-01-06T06:27:00.000-05:00Lewis, of course, had never in his life heard one ...<B>Lewis, of course, had never in his life heard one objective moral value given to him by any alleged god.</B><BR/><BR/>So are you stating that "hearing" is the only way to experience things?<BR/><BR/><BR/><B>So how did he claim to know that it was wrong for the Nazis to kill Jewish children and right for the Jews to kill Canaanite children?</B><BR/><BR/>Lewis claims that such a standard exists and that the he believes in said standard.<BR/><BR/><BR/><B>And how can people like Valicella say something is wrong when they claim themselves that they cannot do that unless an alleged god gives them absolute moral values - which no god has ever done?</B><BR/><BR/>Refer to my questions and answers above. Futhermore, if you are going to claim that merely because people disagree on which Being is the standard, this therefore means that there is no such standard, I would stray away from such a non-sequitor.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-37588784065895476962008-01-06T05:47:00.000-05:002008-01-06T05:47:00.000-05:00I see Steve Hays at Triablogue is already repeatin...I see Steve Hays at Triablogue is already repeating the slander I said that Christians repeat - that atheists believe that children and marshmallows are fundamentally the same thing , and so burning one is the same as burning the other.<BR/><BR/>One problem with the problem of evil is that many Christians are so evil themselves that they cannot recognise evil when they see it.<BR/><BR/>If their god allows a child to burn to death in a Kenyan church while screaming for help, they think their god is righteous for allowing that to happen.<BR/><BR/>One point of the problem of evil is to show that many Christians worship Satan, but call him God.Steven Carrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11983601793874190779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-80155357544118743152008-01-06T05:41:00.000-05:002008-01-06T05:41:00.000-05:00Lewis, of course, had never in his life heard one ...Lewis, of course, had never in his life heard one objective moral value given to him by any alleged god.<BR/><BR/><BR/>So how did he claim to know that it was wrong for the Nazis to kill Jewish children and right for the Jews to kill Canaanite children?<BR/><BR/>And how can people like Valicella say something is wrong when they claim themselves that they cannot do that unless an alleged god gives them absolute moral values - which no god has ever done?Steven Carrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11983601793874190779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-44237121676220038832008-01-06T05:28:00.000-05:002008-01-06T05:28:00.000-05:00m, you miss the point; indeed Lewis was the one ra...<B>m, you miss the point; indeed Lewis was the one raising idealised concepts (like the straight line) as ideals, allowing us to recognise the non-ideal.<BR/><BR/>It makes perfect sense for us to be able to distinguish between situations based on how they affect human relationships. That's the reference frame. The need for an external validator is the fallacy.</B><BR/><BR/>It seems that if the distinction of said experiences in reference to their VALUE is purely subjective, then Lewis' argument seems to hold water in that something objective is required for that value to be established.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-87656982579275536562008-01-06T05:22:00.000-05:002008-01-06T05:22:00.000-05:00Hawthorne says reductio ad absurdum arguments can ...Hawthorne says reductio ad absurdum arguments can be ignored?<BR/><BR/>How asinine!<BR/><BR/>And he still doesn't explain why we cannot know that machine gunning pregnant women is an unacceptable method of birth control until his alleged god gives a ruling on whether or not contraception is moral.<BR/><BR/>-------------------<BR/>M<BR/><BR/>Certainly, but we do need to experience bad health in order to even know what we are experiencing is "good"<BR/><BR/>CARR<BR/>But only a god can tell us what good health is...<BR/><BR/>Unless this is another of the Lewis-type asinine analogies.Steven Carrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11983601793874190779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-57713827948859291942008-01-06T03:37:00.000-05:002008-01-06T03:37:00.000-05:00Ex. Yes, I've seen the prosblogion discussion on i...Ex. Yes, I've seen the prosblogion discussion on it. Good stuff indeed.Will Hawthornehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13707984281579660082noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-9957822213973089752008-01-06T03:26:00.000-05:002008-01-06T03:26:00.000-05:00Loftus,did you read what I wrote?In its entirety. ...Loftus,<BR/><BR/><I>did you read what I wrote?</I><BR/><BR/>In its entirety. And I agree with a lot of it. But unfortunately you haven't addressed the specific argument that Vallicella made, which turns out to be much different than the "asinine" one you attributed to him. <BR/><BR/>Did you take the time to read it at his blog, or did you post your commentary in reaction only to the question on Prof. Reppert's site?Will Hawthornehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13707984281579660082noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-46393340577632697182008-01-06T03:24:00.000-05:002008-01-06T03:24:00.000-05:00Hi Will,I agree. I generally like B.V.'s blog. Als...Hi Will,<BR/><BR/>I agree. I generally like B.V.'s blog. Also: have you taken a look at the Prosblogion blog? Good stuff as well. As it happens, they're having an interesting discussion over there on B.V.'s argument.<BR/><BR/>Best,<BR/><BR/>EAexapologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09915579495149582531noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-25824990779028513652008-01-06T03:11:00.000-05:002008-01-06T03:11:00.000-05:00Got it, ex. Thanks. You might stop by Vallicella's...Got it, ex. Thanks. You might stop by Vallicella's blog to read the way he originally framed it. It's pretty interesting actually.Will Hawthornehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13707984281579660082noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-41690018602633858472008-01-06T03:09:00.000-05:002008-01-06T03:09:00.000-05:00Steven,"Is Hawthorne claiming that because reducti...Steven,<BR/><BR/><I>"Is Hawthorne claiming that because reductio ad absurdum arguments produce a contradiction, they can be 'calmly' ignored?"</I><BR/><BR/>Yes. <BR/><BR/><I>Just like this alleged god 'calmly' ignores the screams of a child burning to death in a Kenyan church?</I><BR/><BR/>How did you arrive at the knowledge that God "ignores" things, if he exists? And where's your "knock-down argument" exactly? There aren't even any premises and conclusions.Will Hawthornehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13707984281579660082noreply@blogger.com