|
[scotsma-@btinternet.com] Euthyphro Dilemma
|
Errancy Archive
|
Jul 22, 2007 16:52 PDT
|
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [errancy] Euthyphro Dilemma
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 21:46:07 +0100
From: "Matt" <scotsma-@btinternet.com>
Reply-To: erra-@iierrancy.com
| | | | | | | | | | SAM
It would, indeed, be delusional if you were correct, but you're not,
and
it doesn't even necessarily follow from what I wrote. You made it
|
|
|
up.
| | | | | | You know I've got you nailed and you can't have that. That
so-called
"Christian humility" gets pretty riled when you can't handle an
issue
|
and,
| | unfortunately, you have neither the maturity nor the strength of
|
character
| | to own up to your responsibilities, so you inflate some things,
|
|
|
ignore
| | | | | | others, and hope no one notices. You have misrepresented me on a
couple
of occasions and this is one of them. I have had to redirect you
|
|
|
back
| | | | to
| | what was actually written versus your "interpretation" of it and, as
|
|
|
a
| | | | | | result, some of your rather immature, snide commentary has come back
|
|
|
to
| | | | | | bite you. That's not a problem for me.
Through all of this, what we clearly see is you ducking any
|
responsibility
| | for the burden of proof for your claims and, particularly, the
burden
of
proof for the one thing that lies at the root of all of your
|
|
|
arguments,
| | | | | | i.e., the evidence for God.
|
MB
Yes, I'm so incapable of providing any evidence for God that I've
|
|
already
| | | | did so in other posts on this list! That in itself points that my
|
|
refusal
| | | | to
meet your request lies elsewhere than an inability or a lack of
willingness
to those demonstrating respect for their opponent.
|
Walt:
What evidence have you provided for God other than your "hypothetical"
nonsense?
|
MB
I have already pointed others to William Lane Craig's KCA and the logical
consequences he draws from its conclusions. Premise #1 of that argument
has
been challenged and is currently being explored and another objection has
been raised against it that as yet I have not replied to.
|
Walt:
So Craig's argument isn't as bullet-proof as you thought?
|
MB
I don't consider the KCA bullet-proof but certainly do think the Barker type
objections are but firing blanks.
| | Now, Matt, you have claimed that your hypothetical possibilities, along
with
your assumed definitions for God, are enough to render the Euthyphro
dilemma
as having failed.
In light of that, if I define God as an imagined being that does not exist
in reality, and as only a defined concept, then I could use such a
definition of God to render Craig's argument defeated.
Would you have a problem with this? If so, why?
|
MB
I don't think you ever understood what I was attempting to do with the ED
but I have conceded the argument in a recent post so discussion on it is now
redundant.
<snip for brevity>
Thanks
Matt
---
You've Got Questions. We've Got A Web Family (tm)
http://theskepticalreview.com http://iierrancy.com http://errantyears.com
To manage your list subscription: http://iierrancy.com/support.html
|
|
 |
|
