Reciprocating Bill
Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006
|
| Quote (Daniel Smith @ Jan. 29 2009,19:25) | | The reason I ask for details is because I don't believe that nature can build life or any of its subsequent systems. It's a legitimate question. I believe that certain hypothetical past events could not possibly have happened, and when someone claims that they actually did happen, I'm perfectly within my rights in asking for details as to how they happened. |
You certainly are. I only suggest you hold your own explanation to the same standard. Beyond that, I'm not going 'round the "details" mulberry bush any longer, Daniel.
| Quote | | On the other hand, it has never been disputed that God can build life. You've made it abundantly clear yourself that a supernatural mechanism can do anything. So your reason for asking for details can't be because you don't believe it's possible. |
*Slaps forehead*
Neither can it be disputed that Superman derives his powers from proximity to a yellow sun. It doesn't follow that one is compelled to believe that Superman actually exists and acts in the world. The predicates of God I've discussed flow from definitions and concepts common to our culture. It doesn't follow from the fact that we can postulate such an agent, or from my discussion of those predicates, that an agent exists that meets that description, or that by slinging those predicates you've actually explained anything.
| Quote | | There must be some other reason... But what is it? You've stated that it's because you are trying to show me a hypocrite for asking for details from all of you. But my reasons are legitimate. This leads me to believe that the sole reason you ask for details from me is because I asked you first, which seems a tad childish. |
Show me where I used the word "hypocrite" in this discussion. What I said is that you employ a ridiculous double standard. You would also have to be an advocate of uniform standards of reasoning and evidence before the use of that ridiculous double standard would render you a hypocrite. But you patently aren't an advocate of such standards, and indeed your last post, in which you excuse yourself from thinking critically about your own hypothesis because I have drawn out a few logical consequences from the commonly understood concept of "God" and/or the supernatural, exemplifies that.
(You've certainly called me a hypocrite).
--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.
"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace
"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington
|
