tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post3890982197652323772..comments2023-12-01T18:05:24.875-05:00Comments on Debunking Christianity: David Wood Is No Longer Worth My TimeUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger60125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-19648219479540403932007-03-16T20:56:00.000-04:002007-03-16T20:56:00.000-04:00Sophia, you said "Many people, including noted sci...Sophia, you said "Many people, including noted scientists, philosophers, writers, artists, etc., have believed in the Fall, which is an integral part of the Judeo-Christian tradition."<BR/><BR/>This is the argumentum ad populum. Many people also believed the earth was flat, that Zeus was the ruler of the universe, and that demons caused illness. Whether people recognize a delusion or not is beside the point. <BR/><BR/>I don't think that all Jews and Christians are "insane," merely that they are misguided and misinformed. My comment was badly worded perhaps. However, some people are open to considering new evidence; David Wood is not as he has made abundantly clear here and on his own blog. <BR/><BR/>It is a mark of being out of touch with reality that one consistently rejects concrete evidence against their position, and that NOTHING anyone could say would change their mind. I don't think you will find many atheists who would take that approach.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-83728986517847529442007-03-16T16:34:00.000-04:002007-03-16T16:34:00.000-04:00In the link I just provided David said this to me:...In the link I just provided David said this to me:<BR/><BR/><I>Your constant resistance here can only be interpreted as an acknowledgement that you just don't have any answers, that you really are inconsistent, and that the Argument from Evil is indeed filled with internal problems. But of course, this won't bother you at all. After all, you don't care if your own position is filled with problems, so long as you can continue to complain about theism.</I><BR/><BR/>I'm done here.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-42201092555428138332007-03-16T16:27:00.000-04:002007-03-16T16:27:00.000-04:00Whether the argument from evil is an atheist argum...Whether the argument from evil is an atheist argument is very important to Mr. Wood. For if it is an atheist argument then he can turn around and say atheists cannot make it, <A HREF="http://www.problemofevil.org/2007/02/argument-from-evil-internal-problem-for.html" REL="nofollow">here</A>.<BR/><BR/>If he wants to make the distinction that it's not an atheist argument until an atheist uses it, then what he's doing is the same thing he's doing when he says the design argument is an answer to the problem of evil.<BR/><BR/>These are separate arguments. What if I said the problem of evil shows his omni-God false, and he responds by saying the resurrection proves that God exists? We could have a debate like that you know. I would never deal with the evidence for the resurrection and would never deal with the problem of evil.<BR/><BR/>But we wouldn't be dealing with the same issue. Until we decide to stick with one argument at a time, we're talking past each other. This is what Mr. Wood does. If he wanted to deal with morality for an athiest, or the design argument, then his Blog should be titled as such. I have continually wanted to stay focused on the problem of evil.<BR/><BR/>Yes, the atheist has difficulties too, but we're not dealing with those difficulties. So pointing these difficulties out says nothing whatsoever about his difficulties, which would arise even if there were no atheist around to press this argument.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-26626700797843448712007-03-16T15:59:00.000-04:002007-03-16T15:59:00.000-04:00Oh, and another thing. I am "refuted" easily.Fuck ...Oh, and another thing. I am "refuted" easily.<BR/><BR/>Fuck that.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-42222225361749948662007-03-16T15:45:00.000-04:002007-03-16T15:45:00.000-04:00DagoodS, I appreciate your comments. But as you sa...DagoodS, I appreciate your comments. But as you said, you haven't followed our discussions. If you had, then what you said would have more weight.<BR/><BR/>There is only so much ignorance and mischaracterization that I can take, leaving aside the debate about whether the PoE is an atheist argument, and leaving aside the burden of proof argument. I mentioned other things in my Blog entry, which I'm sure you've read. With him it seems as though it was everyday.<BR/><BR/>Please re-read my original Blog entry here and tell me how much you could take of that. He said I never offered a serious argument, and that I'm arguing I wish I never existed. He's not doing this with you, is he? Back seat drivers and grandstand observers can always say they'd do differently, now can't they?<BR/><BR/>I trashed him in our debate on October 7th. I smoked him. But since few people have ever seen it he can proclaim victory all he wants to, starting with claiming I had to prove my case, and you remember that discussion because you entered it. It's not that I care who won it. I didn't initially. But he's running around acting like he did. That's what irritates me. <B>I challenge any fair minded person, Christian or non-Christian, to watch the debate and to conclude he won it.</B> That's what irritates me, especially when he wrote what he did about Weisberger and Jeffry's comments. <BR/><BR/>Since David holds the copyright to it, and since I told him how to post it on YouTube, the only reason it's not there right now is because he hasn't yet done it. [No, I'll not mischaracterize why he hasn't put it there. I'll not claim that it's not there because he lost the debate, or that he cannot handle the evidence, or that he never offered a serious argument, like he has with me. I don't know why it's not there. But I can't put it there].<BR/><BR/>Don't tell me all of this wouldn't bother you, either. <BR/><BR/>I've had enough of it. The Triablogue thing was the clincher, the straw that broke the camel's back. If you would like to continue on where I left off, be my guest. I'll sit back and watch. He's dense, bullheaded, and blinded by his faith. Dr. Weisberger has followed what we have each said and she concluded I am wasting my time with him. You can either take her advice, read what she has read, or learn on your own, but he's all yours. <BR/><BR/>There are actually more than ten total things David argues where he is simply uniformed (including my original Blog entry here). He cannot state my argument when he attempts it (would you like to state an argument for him to continually mischaracterize it?); he argued I can't complain about evil in the world if I enjoy my life (this is nonsense); he argued I can't press this argument if I don't have an absolute moral standard to do so (ridiculous); he argued that in the debate I had to nearly prove my side of the debate question based upon the wording of the debate (stupid and uncharitable); he argued that giving a razor blade to a child is non-analogous to God giving us free will even though we equally abuse that gift so badly (without so much as an argument); he continued to argue that the design argument is an answer to the problem of evil, even though the debate assumes the existence of his omni-God and asks him to explain evil if God exists (ignorant); he continually claims that existing is "better" than non-existing when we're talking about humans in this world of suffering, (without offering an argument); he argues that free will is an inherently good thing without an analysis of what free will is, and without acknowledging that none of us have this kind of abstract free will in the first place (uninformed); and he has said he was not concerned that much with animal suffering (callous).<BR/><BR/>Now granted, the way I just described each of these above things is a paraphrase of what he has said. Without going into a long discussion of what he's said I can only state the botton line when describing them so briefly, and I admit this. He'll state the same things and not admit this, which is the difference that makes all of the difference.<BR/><BR/>Now, take any of these issues up with him that you want to. Rise above the fray if you can. <BR/><BR/>Or end up wallowing in the mire.<BR/><BR/>I wish you both good luck.<BR/><BR/>Nothing personal with anyone here.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-59815548431839994282007-03-16T12:52:00.000-04:002007-03-16T12:52:00.000-04:00David Wood said - "Here's the deal. Some theists (...David Wood said - "Here's the deal. Some theists (like myself) believe in God based on evidence."<BR/><BR/>And I believe in The Great Pumpkin based on evidence (the inspired writings of Charles Shultz).<BR/><BR/>RandyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-76876466391103186142007-03-16T11:39:00.000-04:002007-03-16T11:39:00.000-04:00Ahhhh, the brilliant refutations one finds on "Deb...<I>Ahhhh, the brilliant refutations one finds on "Debunking Christianity," where universes can pop into existence uncaused, but man cannot fall from grace; where amazingly complex structures can form without a designer, but God cannot honor our decision to live apart from him... </I><BR/><BR/>Ahhh, the brilliant David Wood, who apparently believes in such things as<BR/><BR/>1) Gods who can create whole universes can pop into existence uncaused.<BR/><BR/>2) Sons can be born from virgin mothers.<BR/><BR/>3) The entire pantheon of the animal kingdom can exist for 40 days on a single boat.<BR/><BR/>4) God needs to send his son down to Earth to die to "cleanse" everyone else of their filthy sins, which are the result of their nature, given to them by this same God.<BR/><BR/>5) When someone makes an argument for something, they still have the "burden of proof" for the conclusion of that argument, apparently regardless of the truth or falsity of the premises of the argument, and the logical validity of the argument itself.<BR/><BR/>6) People can be ressurected from the dead.<BR/><BR/>Yep, David, your intellect is truly a force to be reconned with.Einzigehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06406227217230727209noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-39707904604029375012007-03-16T09:49:00.000-04:002007-03-16T09:49:00.000-04:00Thanks, Sophia De Morgan, for the follow-up.Maybe ...Thanks, Sophia De Morgan, for the follow-up.<BR/><BR/>Maybe I am incredibly thick, but the waters still seem muddy to me.<BR/><BR/><B> Sophia De Morgan: </B> <I> The burden of proof the atheist wants to give the theist is "Explain all evil/suffering" so even if the theist offers some good theodicies, she can’t absolutely prove that every instance of suffering is really justified. If however, the burden of proof rests on the atheist, the atheist can make a good case for gratuitous/pointless suffering but can't absolutely prove that there isn't a reason for it. </I><BR/><BR/>Again, that seems to be saying (to me) that if the theist has the burden of proof, she will fail, but if the atheist has the burden of proof, he will fail. That whoever has the burden of proof will lose the argument due to the impasse. (And, again, I am talking about every argument, not just this specific debate.)<BR/><BR/>I guess I will have to wander off unsatisfied. Perhaps it will be cleared up in the future.<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>However, can I make an observation that will probably be roasted by all? I have not followed the interchange on David Wood’s blog. I was actually interested in this minute subsection on Burden of Proof for another reason, and was genuinely curious as to what exactly David Wood meant.<BR/><BR/>Obviously had I jumped in with what it appeared to me David Wood was saying, I would have been informed that I was “mischaracterizing” his argument. Fair enough. But that is what I understood him to be arguing. Instead, I asked before leaping, and I am still informed that this is a mischaracterization of his argument (which is fine) <B>but I can’t seem to get clarification on what his argument is! </B> (And maybe this is just me. Maybe my mind won’t “click” on this, and everyone else will move on, fully understanding what David Wood means by this.)<BR/><BR/>In reviewing this blog entry and the comments, I get the distinct impression there have been numerous accusations of people mischaracterizing someone else’s argument. Accusations from both sides. Having asked just this one question on this one issue, and being left in the same daze I started, I can see how such mischaracterizations could easily occur.<BR/><BR/>Now my suggestion that will get me in trouble, I suspect. Rather than accuse the other person of mischaracterizing my argument, can I take responsibility that it was <B>my</B> fault for not being clear, and refrain from the initial reaction of “you mischaracterize what I say,” instead attempt to re-phrase it or make it more clear, in the mindset that the other person is being genuine in framing my statements, and it was my inadequacy that brought about the situation?<BR/><BR/>In other words…uh…consider the other person better than myself? And yes, I mean that for both sides.<BR/><BR/>You may now throw tomatoes. :-)DagoodShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04557451438888314932noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-33946276506994882862007-03-16T07:36:00.000-04:002007-03-16T07:36:00.000-04:00I don't have anything cogent to add to this. I di...I don't have anything cogent to add to this. I did want to remark that whenever any of you use the POE acronym I automatically fill it in with "Purity of Essence" from Dr. Strangelove.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-24456288491634959572007-03-15T22:49:00.000-04:002007-03-15T22:49:00.000-04:00Dagoods,Okay, I see what you’re saying. There are ...Dagoods,<BR/>Okay, I see what you’re saying. There are a lot of variables involved in the PoE, and as far as what John and David have been arguing, they do seem to be at an impasse. The burden of proof the atheist wants to give the theist is "Explain all evil/suffering" so even if the theist offers some good theodicies, she can’t absolutely prove that every instance of suffering is really justified. <BR/>If however, the burden of proof rests on the atheist, the atheist can make a good case for gratuitous/pointless suffering but can't absolutely prove that there isn't a reason for it. Also, the argument from evil has a lot of assumptions that make it even less persuasive to the theist. One thing that David has pointed out to John is that the theist doesn't use pain and pleasure as the most important measures of the goodness of the world; rather the theist holds that the development of specific virtues are worth a world with suffering. These value differences have a crucial impact on whether or not a theist will be persuaded by the arg from evil. So again, standstill.<BR/>Perhaps potentially though, the one bearing the burden could win based on some probability calculations which would include the variables that come into play with the PoE. That was a short answer, but you raised a good question that would be very interesting to explore further...perhaps in an upcoming post on David's PoE site.<BR/><BR/>Anon,<BR/>The theist wouldn’t disagree with God’s desire to do away with evil, and according to Christian theology God eventually will, but God may have a purpose for allowing evil to temporarily exist even if this holds a tension with his loving nature.<BR/><BR/>I think this will probably be my last post b/c I have to get back to my studies and then to sleep. Thanks for the exchange. Cheers.Sophia De Morganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15962818596752551743noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-69896558300606317662007-03-15T21:06:00.000-04:002007-03-15T21:06:00.000-04:00Sophia De Morgan:There also is another unstated as...<B>Sophia De Morgan</B>:<I>There also is another unstated assumption in the argument you cited, namely that God doesn’t have a sufficient reason to allow suffering, and that’s where theodicies do come in to offer what might be some of those reasons.</I><BR/><BR/>Isn't this really a disagreement with premise 5?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-46349361785035654562007-03-15T20:30:00.000-04:002007-03-15T20:30:00.000-04:00Sophia De Morgan,Thank you for the response. Yes,...Sophia De Morgan,<BR/><BR/>Thank you for the response. Yes, I knew that David Wood indicated the Burden of Proof in the debate itself was on John W. Loftus.<BR/><BR/>What I was looking for was what Mr. Wood’s perspective was as to the Burden of Proof within every debate regarding the Argument from Evil<BR/><BR/>My impression was that the Burden of proof was ALWAYS on the person arguing against God’s existence using this argument. And, that if the Burden was on the theist, the theist would fail.<BR/><BR/>In other words, my impression was that David Wood was saying whoever has the Burden of proof will always fail. <BR/><BR/>To explain why I thought it was much broader than the formal debate itself, if you will forgive me, I will give three lengthy quotes from Mr. Wood within the response to this entry.<BR/><BR/><B>David Wood: </B> <I>A huge part of the analysis concerns burden of proof. Here's why. If we assume from the beginning that the atheist bears the burden of proof to show that the argument really does what he claims it does, then if we end up at a standstill on some point, the argument fails, because the atheist hasn't proved that it succeeds. But if we assume that the theist bears the burden of proof when the atheist makes the argument, then if we end at standstill, the theist loses, because he has failed to show whatever it is he's required to show.</I><BR/><BR/><B>David Wood: </B> <I>In a debate on whether the Argument from Evil proves the non-existence of God, the atheist is making the argument, and therefore bears the burden of proof.</I><BR/><BR/><B>David Wood: </B> <I> The conclusion of the Argument from Evil is that God doesn't exist. … Notice that, in such a situation, the only person advocating a position, the only person trying to prove a view, is the atheist. So here, the atheist is the only one making a positive claim, and the only one who bears the burden of proof.</I><BR/><BR/>So, if you would be so helpful, or if David Wood would care to answer, I would certainly appreciate it.<BR/><BR/>Not just in the formal debate, but in any debate regarding the Argument from evil, is he saying that whoever has the Burden of Proof will automatically fail?DagoodShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04557451438888314932noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-87912100434299857942007-03-15T19:44:00.000-04:002007-03-15T19:44:00.000-04:00Mrs. Wood. It's not beyond me to be wrong or to mi...Mrs. Wood. It's not beyond me to be wrong or to misunderstand David. I am surely wrong about some things, and maybe you're right about this. It's just that in an atmosphere where I feel we're both on the attack we are not inclined to give each other any benefit of the doubt. That's the kind of atmosphere I am not interested in, no matter who created it. It's simply not healthy. Surely you understand.<BR/><BR/>I wish you both happiness and love.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-62562637373161437502007-03-15T19:29:00.000-04:002007-03-15T19:29:00.000-04:00Dagoods,From reading David’s relevant posts, I’d s...Dagoods,<BR/>From reading David’s relevant posts, I’d say that you have misunderstood his take on the burden of proof. He’s simply arguing that since the particular topic of the debate was does suffering make God’s existence implausible and John had the affirmative position, John had the responsibility to defend his argument and its successfulness. David, in the negative position, could present an alternative hypothesis as you mentioned or simply make objections to John’s argument. David made objections, so John had to respond to those objections in order for his argument to stand. If John did answer all these objections, then the final question of who won the debate would be based on who had stronger reasons.<BR/><BR/>Curiosis,<BR/>Your scenario is the same as Weisberger's and suffers from the same flaw apart from its obvious intent to insult; it is a strained analogy. This has been more than sufficiently addressed.<BR/><BR/>Anon,<BR/>I find it amusing that in the article you cited, there is a quotation from William Lane Craig referring to PoE as "atheism's killer argument" since John has been accusing David of being on a lower tier of thinkers for saying this.<BR/>There also is another unstated assumption in the argument you cited, namely that God doesn’t have a sufficient reason to allow suffering, and that’s where theodicies do come in to offer what might be some of those reasons. I do agree that Christian apologists have to respond to arguments against God’s existence, certainly no one denies that.<BR/><BR/>es,<BR/>Many people, including noted scientists, philosophers, writers, artists, etc., have believed in the Fall, which is an integral part of the Judeo-Christian tradition. The fact that you indiscriminately imply that all Jews and Christians are insane shows your own bias.Sophia De Morganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15962818596752551743noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-32251780861321978222007-03-15T18:49:00.000-04:002007-03-15T18:49:00.000-04:00David wrote: Ahhhh, the brilliant refutations one ...<I>David wrote: Ahhhh, the brilliant refutations one finds on "Debunking Christianity,"</I><BR/><BR/>David, why would I bother to waste my time with refuting your "evidence." Any sane person can see it's nonsense. That you can't merely shows how deeply immersed in your delusion you are. I pity you but you cling tightly to your delusion out of need. Nothing RATIONAL anyone can say to you would change your mind.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-60579479130890164292007-03-15T17:27:00.000-04:002007-03-15T17:27:00.000-04:00http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/allpossibleworl...http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/allpossibleworlds.html<BR/><BR/><I>Assumption (1): God exists.<BR/> Assumption (1a): God is all-knowing.<BR/> Assumption (1b): God is all-powerful.<BR/> Assumption (1c): God is perfectly loving.<BR/> Assumption (1d): Any being that did not possess all three of the above properties would not be God.<BR/>Premise (2): Evil exists.<BR/>Premise (3): An all-knowing being would be aware of the existence of evil.<BR/>Premise (4): An all-powerful being would be able to eliminate evil.<BR/>Premise (5): A perfectly loving being would desire to eliminate evil.<BR/>Conclusion (6): Evil does not exist. (from (1),(3),(4),(5))<BR/>Contradiction: But evil does exist. (from (2))<BR/>Conclusion (7): There is no being that is all-knowing, all-powerful, and perfectly loving. (from (2),(3),(4),(5))<BR/>Conclusion (8): God does not exist. (from (7),(1d))<BR/><BR/>The argument's logic is ironclad, and its simple but far-reaching conclusion is that the existence of evil in the world disproves the existence of an omniscient, omnipotent, perfectly loving god. The only way to refute the problem of evil without surrendering the assumption that such a god exists is to deny one of its premises. </I><BR/><BR/>I thought this was a pretty good summary. Any comments?<BR/>Surely it's up to the theist to prove one of the premises wrong?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-84834532026779690532007-03-15T16:00:00.000-04:002007-03-15T16:00:00.000-04:00Here is my take on who should have the burden of p...Here is my take on who should have the burden of proof...<BR/><BR/>Take one person (let's call him David) who states that there is an invisible pink unicorn in his garage.<BR/><BR/>Another person comes along (we'll call him John) who says that David must be mistaken because invisibility is impossible and unicorns don't exist.<BR/><BR/>David says that John has the burden of proof because he is the one making a claim. But what David fails to realize is that John's claims are not original claims, but are, in fact, refutations of David's original claim.<BR/><BR/>David claims that invisible pink unicorns exist. He must prove that. He must be able to provide evidence that his claim is correct when John says that invisibility and unicorns are not real.<BR/><BR/>David cannot assume that he is right and then use that assumption to push the burden of proof onto someone else.Curiosishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14499563937438812742noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-64429102751975602072007-03-15T10:28:00.000-04:002007-03-15T10:28:00.000-04:00Thank you, Adam for the summation on the Argument ...Thank you, Adam for the summation on the Argument from Evil. You reflected my thoughts on the subject superbly.<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>David Wood,<BR/><BR/>I have a question to see if I correctly understand your position. I am NOT stating this is your claim (in case I mischaracterize it in any way) I am not demanding this be your position, I am not attempting to claim this is your position in order to back you into a corner where I already have a pointed argument gun waiting to fire.<BR/><BR/>I am simply attempting to see if I am clear on your position. If I am not, any enlightenment would be helpful. To anyone else reading, what I am about to say is NOT necessarily David Wood’s claim, so please do not assume that it is.<BR/><BR/>(Hopefully that is an adequate disclaimer. If not, I can provide more.)<BR/><BR/>Like Rich, I am surprised by the heavy emphasis on “Who has the Burden of Proof?” A question that came to mind, for me, was “Prove to whom?” Who is the one that makes the determination that the claimant’s position is proven?<BR/><BR/>So, in reading your posts regarding Burden of Proof, I was looking for an answer to that question, and I think I see what you are saying in this regard, but I want to be clear.<BR/><BR/>I <I>think</I> you are saying that all the opponent has to provide, in response to the proposal, is a logically possible alternative, and as long as it is logically cohesive, the proponent’s argument will fail. The “Burden of Proof” is not so much attempting to convince one side or the other, or a neutral party, as much as the proponent must demonstrate that the other person’s position is logically impossible. As long as the opponent provides a response that conforms to the rules of logic, the Burden fails.<BR/><BR/>Do I have that right?<BR/><BR/>It <I>seems</I> you are saying that you believe there is a logical possibility of a God* and therefore, from the existence of that God, the Burden will fail and the argument will fail.<BR/><BR/>Equally, it seems you are saying that on the other hand you see a logical possibility of there not being such a God, and from the non-existence of that God, the Burden would fail for the theist as well.<BR/><BR/>*for our purposes, I am presuming a monotheistic, powerful, benevolent God. Obviously a deistic God, or polytheistic or Evil God does not have a Problem of Evil.<BR/><BR/>It would look like:<BR/><BR/>Skeptic: Argument from Evil<BR/>Theist: Logical possibility of God.<BR/>Because the skeptic has the Burden of Proof—Failure!<BR/><BR/>Alternatively:<BR/><BR/>Theist: God is powerful and benevolent.<BR/>Skeptic: Argument from Evil (logical possibility of no God)<BR/>Because the theist has the Burden of Proof—Failure!<BR/><BR/>Simply put, are you saying that since there is a logical possibility of both sides, whoever has the Burden of Proof is doomed to failure? Does it come down to the coin toss, as it were?<BR/><BR/>(And you may be claiming “plausibility” rather than “possibility” and if so, I still need clarification. Please re-read my comment and insert “plausible” wherever you see “possible.” Thanks.)DagoodShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04557451438888314932noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-49827849203915701172007-03-15T08:39:00.000-04:002007-03-15T08:39:00.000-04:00My $0.02 worth:I'm not interested in debates betwe...My $0.02 worth:<BR/><BR/>I'm not interested in debates between atheists and apologists. At best, they show who is the better debater. At worst, it's an utter waste of time.<BR/><BR/>The problem of evil isn't mine. I don't have to reconcile the existence of evil with my secular and naturalistic world view. The problem is exclusively on the theist's side and all the answers I've heard them give are in my opinion risible.<BR/><BR/>The argument from evil is not an argument I would ever make. Instead of trying to stake a claim on the argument from evil and assume the burden of proof, it suffices to point out that the apologist's answers to the problem of evil are not convincing, compelling, coherent, you name it.<BR/><BR/>I have no idea who David Wood is, other than apparently an apologist of sorts. I'm not interested in visiting his haunts on the Internet and his latests snarks on this site make this is an easy decision.elwedriddschehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04618405641828051472noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-42218823956736492802007-03-15T04:56:00.000-04:002007-03-15T04:56:00.000-04:00Libertarian free will is a false view of free will...Libertarian free will is a false view of free will. It is irrational and most importantly unbiblical.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-10554150477911175192007-03-15T03:57:00.000-04:002007-03-15T03:57:00.000-04:00Since I have no expectation of getting one from Da...Since I have no expectation of getting one from David Wood, does anyone have a quick summary of how thoughtful Christians are currently resolving the problem of evil. Something other than free will, since true free will itself seems contrary to reason, and I can imagine a better world with free will.<BR/><BR/>I'm with es on this, post something ludicrous/ridiculous you shouldn't be surprised if you get laughs or ridicule. And that four evidences link is amazingly bad. <BR/>Note: simplification but probably not a strawman.<BR/>1: Paul said so. <BR/>2: Man is often bad. <BR/>3: God exists.<BR/>4: Man is sometimes great. <BR/><BR/>It might have taken some thought and creativity to think of them, but not enough.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-42479336639822032912007-03-15T02:54:00.000-04:002007-03-15T02:54:00.000-04:00I don't know if he's wasting your time or vice ver...I don't know if he's wasting your time or vice versa, but it would surely be a waste of <I>my</I> time to sort through all this crap. :)Blue Devil Knighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12045468316613818510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-12658295546219332012007-03-15T02:40:00.000-04:002007-03-15T02:40:00.000-04:00Its always the same, John. What's really sick is t...Its always the same, John. What's really sick is that these invertebrates 1) hold the highest offices in our country and 2) set the terms of debate in every election.<BR/><BR/>And we cant even get a single honest, succinct answer out of them. Atlas Shrugged. In fact, maybe he should shrug.<BR/><BR/>And why are we debating? <BR/><BR/>Faith: Belief in something without, or even in spite of, evidence. And these people donr even know what they're worshiping! Check my bolg to find out what kind of figure they honor. The man most like the Judeo-Christian god is none other than Josef Stalin. What kind of respectable figure is he?MiSaNtHrOpEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05442797823821862195noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-24362090630219661402007-03-15T01:59:00.000-04:002007-03-15T01:59:00.000-04:00David, you are always welcome to comment here any ...David, you are always welcome to comment here any time you'd like to do so.<BR/><BR/>But I will not comment on your Blog anymore. <BR/><BR/>You don't understand why I won't, do you?<BR/><BR/>That's another problem I have with you.<BR/><BR/>You just don't get it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-76526338365962408412007-03-15T00:05:00.000-04:002007-03-15T00:05:00.000-04:00All right, Johnny boy. I guess this is good-bye. S...All right, Johnny boy. I guess this is good-bye. Steer clear of my site, and I'll steer clear of yours. It's been fun. Have a good life everyone. You guys don't like Jesus, so I'll leave you with some words by Epictetus (not exact, since this is from memory; I memorized these before I became a Christian):<BR/><BR/>"Even as the sun does not wait for prayers and incantations to rise, but rises of its own accord and shines over all, so you also should not wait for clapping of hands and shouts and praise to do your duty. No, do good of your own accord, and you will be loved like the sun."<BR/><BR/>"If any be unhappy, let him remember he is unhappy by reason of himself alone."David Woodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10613366053392696689noreply@blogger.com