Freethought & Rationalism Archive

theghostinthemachine · 07-20-2003, 01:05 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by rainbow walking
I of course said that the last response would be my last, so forgive me for going against my word here, but Rainbow Walking has apparently decided to put his own spin on the matter...

rw: Listen dude, you are the one who followed me here and decided to interfere in my attempt to clarify a technical question. I made every effort to do so as discretely as possible but you decided to jump in and state your position and include things like this:

No, I did not follow you here, I have lurked in these forums for quite some time.

Quote:

rw: This was entirely inappropriate. I was very respectful in my inquiry and stated only the fact that my opponent was insisting the evidential argument had to be inductive. I mentioned no names or details. Had your intent only been to assist me in this clarification, rather than to argue your entire position again with the obvious insult at the end, we wouldn't be at odds as we now are. But perhaps you have a blind spot and are genuinely unaware of the line you crossed here. Almost all of us do and I'm certainly no exception.

No Rainbow, I clarified matters. I did not insult you. The other posters did not understand your questions, and I simply clarified some issues.

Quote:

ghost: Be that as it may, the heat is not what is starting to bother me. I have been polite with you, I have attempted to explain the difference between the evidential problem of evil and the logical problem of evil to no avail, and I am a little confused as to why you are starting to act like a baby with statements like "if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen" and "...I will rip them to shreds in short order, as I have done thusfar." This is immature Rainbow, and touting yourself as the winner is as well. I obviously do not agree with your assesment of the debate, but I am willing to leave the rhetoric out and let the arguments speak for themselves; something you apparently cannot, or will not do.

rw: No sir, you have not been polite. Polite would have been to stay out of this thread, call your technical foul in the debate and take your two point shot if it was warranted. Calling me names is adding injury to insult.

Take responsibility Rainbow. I have been polite, and I see no problem with involving myself in this thread since I am the one you are debating. And I did not call you any names, I said that you were starting to act like a baby with certain statements that seem immature.

Quote:

ghost: You need someone to explain it to you then, because you are failing to see the difference. Why is it, Rainbow, that there is a evidential problem, and a logical problem?

rw: Because theists have been successful at instilling some probable doubt via arguments based on greater good, unknown purposes, necessity of learning, etc. etc. Because most, if not all, of the evidences argued are probablistic in nature and because most, if not all, of the deductive arguments presented have erred in being grounded in alternate states of affairs that were too exclusive. I'm sure there are other reasons as well.

ghost: And why is it Rainbow, that there are deductive arguments and inductive arguments?

rw: Because deductive arguments draw stronger conclusions than inductive arguments which is why I chose the deductive form. But they are more exacting.

And we agreed to debate the evidential problem of evil which is not a deductive argument, and nor can it be stated deductively while remaining evidential.

Quote:

ghost: And why is it Rainbow, that every single philosopher I have read when arguing the evidential problem of evil states that it is an inductive argument?

rw: Is it your contention that all the philosophers you've read are infallible? That they know the nature of every single argument of evil that can be raised? That there are no exceptions to the rule? Hell...is there even a rule? That's all I've been asking all along. Conventional opinions are not rules.

It is my contention that those philosophers, most of whom have Ph.D's are more trained in philosophy that both you and me, and are certainly more qualified to speak on the subject.

Quote:

ghost: And why Rainbow, is every logic textbook that I have read, quick to point out that Modus Tollens is a deductive form?

rw: Never said it wasn't.

No, but you said that you were arguing evidentially by a deductive form.

Quote:

ghost: Just because the convention huh? I guess just because the convention has been to use reason and logic to argue, it does not mean that we must use reason and logic to argue. I guess just because the convention has been to use deductions in mathmatics, does not mean that mathmatics must use deductions. If you use a deductive argument, you are no longer arguing evidentially Rainbow, you are deducing a logical conclusion that is guaranteed! But I guess Rainbow can just make up his own conventions as we go along. I am glad you never debated Greg Bahnsen!

rw: I'm not challenging every convention under the sun. It use to be conventional thinking that the earth was flat and the center of the universe also. Neither am I making up a convention but presenting an exception.

Then you are making up rules as you see fit. What rule is next? This is not a rational discourse in debates Rainbow.

Quote:

ghost: Yes, and it is the case that A is both A and ~A. Wink, wink. You made a better Christian than you do an atheist Rainbow. Can you cite one reliable source that states that the evidential problem of evil is deductive as you claim?

rw: I never said the evidential problem of evil is deductive. I said my evidential argument is deductive. I'm still a better christian than you are, even though I'm an atheist...so what's the point?

Now you are a Christian and an atheist? It is not about being a better Chrsitain Rainbow. And you cannot state a evidential argument deductively, but here you are saying " I never said the evidential problem of evil is deductive" and then saying "I said my evidential argument is deductive." Well, it is not evidential if it is deductive.

Quote:

Ghost: I have not promised anything Rainbow, but it is almost universally agreed upon by philosophers, both atheist and theist, that the logical problem of evil no longer poses a problem for the theist, and that it is much easier to refute than the evidential problem of evil.

rw: Then you should have no trouble trouncing me in the debate. But I must say, you seem to be getting off to a rather slow start. In fact, if you get any slower you'll be in reverse.

It is too bad that you need to turn to insults Rainbow. You could always stop the rhetoric and let the arguments speak for themselves...or you can continue to declare your self appointed victory. The choice is yours.

Quote:

ghost: No, you can make up your own rules...but I am sure that even your atheist friends would think that was dishonest.

rw: Sure. That's why I came here to solicit their expert advice...to help me be dishonest. I've made up no rule because there is no official rule that I've yet to see. There is only conventional opinions.

The very definition of evidential predicates what type of argument it must be! You are trying to change the definition, and make up your own terms.

Quote:

ghostYes, please come and see how well your atheist friend argues his case.

rw: They already know how well I argue my case...and so will you...soon enough. In fact, I argue my position so well that I have very few atheist friends...and even fewer theistic ones. I have forgotten more about being a smartass than you'll ever learn...and that, too, is why I have few atheist friends. But, unlike you, my worldview does not depend on surrounding myself with people who believe and think exactly as I do. Practically the only thing I have in common with the rest of the denizens here is a lack of belief in any God or gods. [/B]

Then I feel sorry for you Rainbow. However, you should not be so quick to judge others. Smartasses are a dime a dozen, fortunately for both of us, Jesus paid our price. Again, good luck in the debate.

Regards,

~ Jimmy

rainbow walking · 07-20-2003, 08:39 AM

Originally posted by theghostinthemachine [/i]
No, I did not follow you here, I have lurked in these forums for quite some time.

rw: Which does not confer upon you the right to interfere in my queries.

No Rainbow, I clarified matters. I did not insult you. The other posters did not understand your questions, and I simply clarified some issues.

rw: I am quite capable of clarifying the issues without your interference. And you did not simply clarify but went on to conclude your clarification in a very insulting manner.

Take responsibility Rainbow. I have been polite, and I see no problem with involving myself in this thread since I am the one you are debating. And I did not call you any names, I said that you were starting to act like a baby with certain statements that seem immature.

rw: I'm not the one evading responsibility here since I neither invited nor requested your assistance nor was the insult and insinuation that accompanied your interference necessary. And when someone declares, "You're acting like an immature baby..." they are name calling. Take responsibility dude.

And we agreed to debate the evidential problem of evil which is not a deductive argument, and nor can it be stated deductively while remaining evidential.

rw: Only by definition. Care to count the myriad ways in which the attributes of a god and the concept of evil have been redefined by the theist?

It is my contention that those philosophers, most of whom have Ph.D's are more trained in philosophy that both you and me, and are certainly more qualified to speak on the subject.

rw: Indeed they are qualified but they are not infallible.

No, but you said that you were arguing evidentially by a deductive form.

rw: Yes, that's what I said.

Then you are making up rules as you see fit. What rule is next? This is not a rational discourse in debates Rainbow.

rw: No, this was an inquiry launched to determine the rule of definition in relation to the evidential problem. It has now become an irrational discourse due to the manner and content of your interference.

Now you are a Christian and an atheist? It is not about being a better Chrsitain Rainbow. And you cannot state a evidential argument deductively, but here you are saying " I never said the evidential problem of evil is deductive" and then saying "I said my evidential argument is deductive." Well, it is not evidential if it is deductive.

rw: And all-good doesn't mean all-good when a god is defined as all-good cause we can redefine all-good to allow for evil. And evil isn't really evil because there might be some unknown reason that an all-good god would wish to confuse us in its definition by causing it to mean greater good...yadayadayada.

It is too bad that you need to turn to insults Rainbow. You could always stop the rhetoric and let the arguments speak for themselves...or you can continue to declare your self appointed victory. The choice is yours.

rw: No, the choice was not mine. I am what I am. When you resort to impolite name calling, insinuation and arrogant interference...you made the choice for both of us.

The very definition of evidential predicates what type of argument it must be! You are trying to change the definition, and make up your own terms.

rw: Yes, yes, yes...and God is not really omnipotent in that sense because we can redifine that to mean whatever we want it to mean and there is no rule that says we can't because it might probably be possibly true.

Then I feel sorry for you Rainbow. However, you should not be so quick to judge others. fortunately for both of us, Jesus paid our price. Again, good luck in the debate.

rw: Check your own references and behavior. With what judgment ye mete it shall be meted unto you. Take no thought for tomorrow for sufficient unto today is the evil thereof. A theist who depends on luck? I know, I know...that was a low blow. Alright ghost...see you on the other side and good luck to you as well.

Smartasses are a dime a dozen,

rw: Then you should be content not to have to contend with any more than 1.2 cents worth

Bill Snedden · 07-20-2003, 11:27 AM

This is not the place to be airing personal disagreements. Please keep the conversation civil at all times.

If there is any further discussion regarding the content of an inductive vs. a deductive argument, you may certainly continue it here and continue to solicit "outside" opinions. Personal conversations of the sort in which you have been engaging are better handled by email or PM unless you wish to engage in a formal debate and in which case you may set that up with Dr. Rick, Nightshade, or Silent Dave.

Thank you.

rainbow walking · 07-20-2003, 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bill Snedden
This is not the place to be airing personal disagreements. Please keep the conversation civil at all times.

If there is any further discussion regarding the content of an inductive vs. a deductive argument, you may certainly continue it here and continue to solicit "outside" opinions. Personal conversations of the sort in which you have been engaging are better handled by email or PM unless you wish to engage in a formal debate and in which case you may set that up with Dr. Rick, Nightshade, or Silent Dave.

Thank you.

rw: Quite right Bill, and my apologies to all for having allowed this to digress into such. I also appreciate the assistance and links provided by everyone and again apologize for not clearly stating the question at the outset...fact is, I wasn't sure what the question boiled down to. Now I realize it's a matter of definition, which I think Bill said as much...but sometimes, (in my case more often than not), I start asking questions before I'm even entirely certain of exactly how to ask them...which is why I appreciate the intellectual quality of this site and its participants as they assist me in recognizing the bottom line...

theghostinthemachine · 07-20-2003, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bill Snedden
This is not the place to be airing personal disagreements. Please keep the conversation civil at all times.

If there is any further discussion regarding the content of an inductive vs. a deductive argument, you may certainly continue it here and continue to solicit "outside" opinions. Personal conversations of the sort in which you have been engaging are better handled by email or PM unless you wish to engage in a formal debate and in which case you may set that up with Dr. Rick, Nightshade, or Silent Dave.

Thank you.

Duly noted. I apologize. Rainbow and I are both somewhat stubborn I guess. Rainbow is very intelligent,adn it is not his intelligence that I question; and we can both agree to settle matters in the debate. I aplogize Rainbow if you felt that I did insult you, that was certainlyt not my intention

See you at CARM!

07-20-2003, 11:27 AM	#23
Bill Snedden Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Greensboro, NC, U.S.A. Posts: 2,597	Gentlemen - This is not the place to be airing personal disagreements. Please keep the conversation civil at all times. If there is any further discussion regarding the content of an inductive vs. a deductive argument, you may certainly continue it here and continue to solicit "outside" opinions. Personal conversations of the sort in which you have been engaging are better handled by email or PM unless you wish to engage in a formal debate and in which case you may set that up with Dr. Rick, Nightshade, or Silent Dave. Thank you.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-20-2003, 08:39 AM	#22
rainbow walking Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Erewhon Posts: 2,608	Originally posted by theghostinthemachine [/i] No, I did not follow you here, I have lurked in these forums for quite some time. rw: Which does not confer upon you the right to interfere in my queries. No Rainbow, I clarified matters. I did not insult you. The other posters did not understand your questions, and I simply clarified some issues. rw: I am quite capable of clarifying the issues without your interference. And you did not simply clarify but went on to conclude your clarification in a very insulting manner. Take responsibility Rainbow. I have been polite, and I see no problem with involving myself in this thread since I am the one you are debating. And I did not call you any names, I said that you were starting to act like a baby with certain statements that seem immature. rw: I'm not the one evading responsibility here since I neither invited nor requested your assistance nor was the insult and insinuation that accompanied your interference necessary. And when someone declares, "You're acting like an immature baby..." they are name calling. Take responsibility dude. And we agreed to debate the evidential problem of evil which is not a deductive argument, and nor can it be stated deductively while remaining evidential. rw: Only by definition. Care to count the myriad ways in which the attributes of a god and the concept of evil have been redefined by the theist? It is my contention that those philosophers, most of whom have Ph.D's are more trained in philosophy that both you and me, and are certainly more qualified to speak on the subject. rw: Indeed they are qualified but they are not infallible. No, but you said that you were arguing evidentially by a deductive form. rw: Yes, that's what I said. Then you are making up rules as you see fit. What rule is next? This is not a rational discourse in debates Rainbow. rw: No, this was an inquiry launched to determine the rule of definition in relation to the evidential problem. It has now become an irrational discourse due to the manner and content of your interference. Now you are a Christian and an atheist? It is not about being a better Chrsitain Rainbow. And you cannot state a evidential argument deductively, but here you are saying " I never said the evidential problem of evil is deductive" and then saying "I said my evidential argument is deductive." Well, it is not evidential if it is deductive. rw: And all-good doesn't mean all-good when a god is defined as all-good cause we can redefine all-good to allow for evil. And evil isn't really evil because there might be some unknown reason that an all-good god would wish to confuse us in its definition by causing it to mean greater good...yadayadayada. It is too bad that you need to turn to insults Rainbow. You could always stop the rhetoric and let the arguments speak for themselves...or you can continue to declare your self appointed victory. The choice is yours. rw: No, the choice was not mine. I am what I am. When you resort to impolite name calling, insinuation and arrogant interference...you made the choice for both of us. The very definition of evidential predicates what type of argument it must be! You are trying to change the definition, and make up your own terms. rw: Yes, yes, yes...and God is not really omnipotent in that sense because we can redifine that to mean whatever we want it to mean and there is no rule that says we can't because it might probably be possibly true. Then I feel sorry for you Rainbow. However, you should not be so quick to judge others. fortunately for both of us, Jesus paid our price. Again, good luck in the debate. rw: Check your own references and behavior. With what judgment ye mete it shall be meted unto you. Take no thought for tomorrow for sufficient unto today is the evil thereof. A theist who depends on luck? I know, I know...that was a low blow. Alright ghost...see you on the other side and good luck to you as well. Smartasses are a dime a dozen, rw: Then you should be content not to have to contend with any more than 1.2 cents worth

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.