|
[walt.l-@gmail.com] Euthyphro Dilemma
|
Errancy Archive
|
Jul 22, 2007 16:52 PDT
|
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [errancy] Euthyphro Dilemma
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 14:53:55 -0500
From: "Walt Lechman" <walt.l-@gmail.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?
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?
| | | | MATT
| | | | | | The kind of debates you are referring to generally, if ever, prove
anything except who is best able to present their case on the
day [e.g. by your criteria William Lane Craig would have won his
case over nearly ever debate he has participated in and would
'roast' any atheist on this list!]
|
SAM
The fact is that debate is all about who can better present his or
|
|
|
her
| | | | | | case, your misplaced confidence in Craig, notwithstanding.
|
MB
I don't agree that debate is all about who can better present his or
|
|
her
| | | | case, nor that my confidence in Craig is misplaced. It would be shallow
indeed to think that because on the day, X presented a better case for
|
|
Y
| | | | than Z did for ~Y that Y is true and ~Y is false. Real debate is about
getting to that truth and doing so in a way that can persuade your
opponent
to recognise and adopt it. That is what logic has the power to do and
|
|
it
| | | | is
that approach I take, rightly or wrongly, to any debate I involve
|
|
myself
| | | | in.
| | MATT
| | Real debate that actually can make a difference involves in-depth
discussion over whatever times it takes to decide the issue one
way or the other or to simply agree to disagree.
|
SAM
I agree with this to a point, which is why I prefer this format of
|
debate,
| | but there's nothing in there that requires that one party actually
|
intend
| | to persuade the other, which is the point with which you originally
took
issue, as we can see when we consider this subthread. So far, you
|
haven't
| | shown that anyone must necessarily have that intent.
|
MB
If there is no intent to persuade then why bother at all? If I see a
skeptic
on this list present what they believe to be a cast-iron contradiction
|
|
in
| | | | the Bible but that I think is not why in the world would I expend the
time,
energy and effort to respond to them if I did not have the intention of
persuading them that they were wrong and that they should think about
|
|
it
| | | | as
I do, whilst at the same time being open to them persuading me that I
|
|
am
| | | | wrong and should think about it as they do? What a complete waste of
time,
energy and effort to engage in that task with anything less than the
intent
to persuade.
|
Walt:
If you're here to persuade us, Matt, then why do you not back up your
|
"How
| | It Could Have Been," "How It Might Be," hypothetical nonsense with some
evidence that said nonsense is true in reality rather than just in your
mind
of imagined possibilities?
|
MB
The vast majority of the posts I have made since my return have had the
intent to persuade my opponent on some point or another. Maybe if you get
off your 'crusade-box', and start serious interaction with my remarks
you'll
be able to see where that is been done.
|
Walt:
The only crusade I'm on is to get you to answer objections to your claims
coherently. You've yet to do that. Instead, you dance around issues by
either evading them, simply asserting your beliefs, or answering questions
with questions.
---
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
|
|
 |
|
