Welcome Guest!
 II Errancy
 Previous Message All Messages Next Message 
[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
	
 Previous Message All Messages Next Message 
  Check It Out!

  Topica Channels
 Best of Topica
 Art & Design
 Books, Movies & TV
 Developers
 Food & Drink
 Health & Fitness
 Internet
 Music
 News & Information
 Personal Finance
 Personal Technology
 Small Business
 Software
 Sports
 Travel & Leisure
 Women & Family

  Start Your Own List!
Email lists are great for debating issues or publishing your views.
Start a List Today!

© 2001 Topica Inc. TFMB
Concerned about privacy? Topica is TrustE certified.
See our Privacy Policy.