In the scriptures, there is the account of a rich young ruler who could not leave his great wealth in order to follow Jesus and walk in truth (Matthew 19.16-26). It seems that his possessions and status as a wealthy person had influenced him to the point where this became his false sense of identity. Apparently, he could not imagine life apart from this great wealth, even though deep down he seemed to know that walking with Christ in truth was probably the better choice. This was evidenced by the ruler's sadness as he walked away from Jesus.
In a similar manner, we each have a tendency to attach our sense of value and importance to various material things and even abstract things, as opposed to acknowledging our highest value in light of God's love. Things like wealth, careers and academic titles can become too important to us and idolatrous. However, far from being the true essence of our lives, these types of trappings can limit us from experiencing the meaningful and liberating understanding that comes from knowing complete redemption and the fulness of the love of Christ.
I had presented Professor Law with a pretty straightforward outline of how he completely missed the central six-point argument of The God Delusion in his 1.5 hour long review of the book. In the video-taped presentation, Law had admitted that he was not well prepared:
"So, I'm now going to turn to an assessment of Dawkins' main argument against the God Hypothesis, and, to be honest, I haven't had enough time to think about this myself. So if it appears that I am struggling, it is because I am."
Yet, for some reason, Law is still unwilling to admit that his review of the argument of The God Delusion was extremely inadequate. In order to clarify this fact, I summarized the issue as a logical argument:
A Logical Proof that Stephen Law Failed to Adequately Evaluate The God Delusion
1. Philosophical arguments (such as whether or not God exists) are defined by specific propositions and a conclusion.
2. The logical consequence of an argument is evaluated based on comparing the relationship between the specific premises and the conclusion.
3. Dawkins' central philosophical argument against God's existence includes six distinct propositions and a conclusion in The God Delusion.
4. In his evaluation, Stephen Law does not address Dawkins' six specific premises and does not ask whether there is any logical consequence between the six premises and the conclusion.
5. Therefore, Stephen Law had failed to adequately evaluate Dawkins' central argument in The God Delusion as a philosophical argument.
If there is a problem with the logical form of the argument, then this could be objectively pointed out. If any of the premises are not true, these could be identified by anyone. However, if both the form is valid and the premises are true, then the conclusion is resolute.
When I first asked Law to admit that his review of The God Delsuion was inadequate, he offered a somewhat evasive maneuver. Law began implying that he would not engage with me primarily because I was not a published academician. After telling me to "sod off" he offered some excuses for not answering my question:
"I think you are both a bit of a lightweight and not very pleasant. So I'll decline. (March 6, 2013 at 4:28 PM)
"And I'll look forward to seeing your stuff in print. Or not." (March 7, 2013 at 12:09 PM)
This is a poor excuse for many reasons but one stands out in particular. On October 7 2012, I had asked Law if he believed Dawkins' central argument in The God Delusion was a logical argument that offered a sense of logical consequence. He refused to offer a direct answer, stating, "I think Dawkins argument is non-scientific, and probably flawed..." (October 7, 2012 at 10:34 AM)
So, here is a summary:
1. Law claims that he will not evaluate my brief and simple logical arguments primarily because I am not published.
2. However, back in October 2012, Law refused to offer his opinion on the logic of Dawkins' book, which is quite published and highly promoted as a secular work.
3. Therefore, there is a high level of inconsistency evident in Law's answers.
This leads me to different conclusions:
1. Is it possible that Law is refusing to answer my question regarding his evaluation of The God Delusion primarily because admitting such a mistake would be seen as a threat to his academic reputation?
2. Is it possible that Law's sense of identity is so enmeshed with his status as secular professor that to admit such a mistake would be too great a blow to his sense of self worth?
Another question would be, "What is ultimately more important: maintaining certain appearances, or walking in truth?" Because neither Professor Law nor any of his atheist defenders have offered a single reason as to why my logical argument should be considered faulty, and because Law's own excuses are demonstrably inconsistent, I would have to offer that that Law is in a state of denial that is both harmful to his person and to his career. As someone engaged in the teaching of philosophy, it seems to me that walking in truth would be more beneficial in the long run, both to Law as a person and with regard to his academic career. I pray that Law does come to understand that humility and admitting errors offer a better path than pride and denial. We all have a tendency to fall into this trap. May God give us grace to walk in His truth and humility.
"For lofty is Yahweh - and the humble he sees - and the proud he knows from afar." Psalm 138.6
Painting of Christ And The Rich Young Ruler by Heinrich Hofmann
Addenda:
In his video-taped assessment, Stephen Law basically ignored half of Dawkins' central argument in The God Delusion and did not once comment on the logic of the argument structure. So far, in defending Law's assessment, we have the following excuses from atheists at my blog:
1. Law was not obligated to list and address Dawkins' six-point argument because fitting six summarized points onto one slide screen would be inconvenient (therefore the latter three points may be completely ignored).
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2013/03/how-to-analyze-philosophical-argument.html?showComment=1363957570510#c5996788530541390607
2. Law did not need to include three premises out of six because they were unquestionably and obviously true points.
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2013/03/how-to-analyze-philosophical-argument.html?showComment=1363971553614#c6758844226743334739
3. Law was only obligated to list and evaluate the premises that he personally felt were questionable, the rest he was justified in ignoring.
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2013/03/how-to-analyze-philosophical-argument.html?showComment=1363986594699#c3315182043451265643
I posted a comment at Professor Law's blog and offered him a fair opportunity to defend his assessment and he ignored my comment:
http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=1905686568472747305&postID=1862177871830595660&page=1&token=1364043227246
This is much the same as he ignored my question back in October 2012 on whether or not Dawkins offered a logical argument in The God Delusion, as quoted in the following post:
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2013/02/remember-when-wl-craig-refuted-god.html
Romans 1.18 pretty much spells it out: people who have already made up their mind about God's existence are more interested in suppressing truth than seeking it.
Tags: pride limits truth awareness, object lesson of pride and denial, logic reveals denial,
If you are so desparate that you decided to ignore any argument from anyone who disagrees with you, so be it. No matter what anyone says, you will cling to your false interpretention of reality. The flaws in your position have been demonstrated in the two previous articles.
ReplyDelete>The flaws in your position have been demonstrated in the two previous articles.
Delete- So far, not one link or one example to refute the following argument:
A Logical Proof that Stephen Law Failed to Adequately Evaluate The God Delusion
1. Philosophical arguments (such as whether or not God exists) are defined by specific propositions and a conclusion.
2. The logical consequence of an argument is evaluated based on comparing the relationship between the specific premises and the conclusion.
3. Dawkins' central philosophical argument against God's existence includes six distinct propositions and a conclusion in The God Delusion.
4. In his evaluation, Stephen Law does not address Dawkins' six specific premises and does not ask whether there is any logical consequence between the six premises and the conclusion.
5. Therefore, Stephen Law had failed to adequately evaluate Dawkins' central argument in The God Delusion as a philosophical argument.
Oh, and by the way, it appears that you were quite wrong regarding Law's stance about being a published academician, as noted in our exchange at the previous article:
">Hm... Accusing a person of valueing academic credentials above the content of the discussion is not slander? Notice you never provided any evidence of that, you just "feel" it is this way.
- So, apparently, in your opinion Law is not so much concerned about my academic stature and should be willing to discuss his logic. That is reassuring. Perhaps I will bring up my argument again at his blog."
Well, I did attempt to engage in a polite debate with Law again, but he referred back to his excuses about me being not published. It's all right here:
"Yep I am ignoring Rick Warden for the reasons I mentioned in previous reply to his comment here..."
http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/2013/03/us-tv-series-closer-to-truth-11-ten.html
I prefer to rely on logical arguments, not just academic posturing. But Professor Law is free to choose the ground (or sand) upon which he stands. :)
As noted in the article, not being published were key points for Law:
"I think you are both a bit of a lightweight and not very pleasant. So I'll decline. (March 6, 2013 at 4:28 PM)
"And I'll look forward to seeing your stuff in print. Or not." (March 7, 2013 at 12:09 PM)
Denial is not a river in Egypt. If you at least payed attention to half of what is said to you it would be a huge improvement. I am tired of repeating the same thing again and again so that you would just ignore it or acknowledge it and forget about this just a couple of posts later on.
Delete>Denial is not a river in Egypt.
DeleteExactly.
- Anonmous, you are ahead of Law in one thing. You have at least acknowledged that Dawkins had forwarded a six-point central argument in his God Delusion Book.
Law never did so and did not address certain propositions in that six-point argument. Law's *summary* evaluation ends at Dawkins' point 4:
"3. The temptation is a false one because the designer hypothesis immediately raises the larger problem of who designed the designer."
Law does not consider how the first three premises and second three premises are supposed to form a logical "argument" and never uses the word logic once during the 1.5 hour long lecture. If he did, do point out the timing of the comment. That would certainly add some credibility to your claims.
As it stands, all we have is a "logical" argument partially rewritten as a summary and never logically evaluated.
You have been assuming that a created hack summary of an argument is a valid substitute for evaluating actual premises of an argument. It is not. You are basically offering that point 2 of my argument is false. It is not:
2. The logical consequence of an argument is evaluated based on comparing the relationship between the specific premises and the conclusion."
Law never actually evaluated Dawikn's central argument. He just offered some lines about the beginning of it. It's gratuitous Dawkins' fawning in a pretense of academic rigor.
If William Lane Craig had done the same in one of his books atheists would have been all over his case. But because Dawkins and Law are considered veritable high priests of secular atheism, no one wants to dare admit the obvious faults. I have no such illusions and I'm willing to be objective in my evaluations.
Law does not consider how the first three premises and second three premises are supposed to form a logical "argument" and never uses the word logic once during the 1.5 hour long lecture
DeleteSinking to new lows; "He didn't use the word I think is important, therefore he did it wrong!"
2. The logical consequence of an argument is evaluated based on comparing the relationship between the specific premises and the conclusion."
As pointed out, a *formal* argument holds this to be true. Dawkins' summary, and hence Law's treatment, are not part of a formal argument, but an informal one. Your type mismatch here is truly impressive.
If William Lane Craig had done the same in one of his books atheists would have been all over his case.
Atheists are all over his case, because he frequently misrepresents, quote-mines, and ignores facts in counter to his arguments. There's a reason the man is controversial, after all.
I have no such illusions and I'm willing to be objective in my evaluations.
Oh, right -- calling law a "veritable high priest" smacks of objectivity. The fact that you can't recognize your biases, or deliberately choose not to, does not make you objective; your pride is limiting your awareness of the truth, indeed.
Instead of acknowledging his mistake, he has come up with some pretty poor excuses that only serve to underscore that his pride is most likely the main reason for digging in his heals.
ReplyDeleteRarely have I seen a better example of projection.
If there is a problem with the logical form of the argument, then this could be objectively pointed out. If any of the premises are not true, these could be identified by anyone. However, if both the form is valid and the premises are true, then the conclusion is resolute.
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2013/03/three-questions-stephen-law-wont-answer.html?showComment=1363579616439#c5885384076919521989
You haven't engaged with my answer; you've declined to do so on the grounds that I am not an appropriate interlocutor.
I prefer to rely on logical arguments, not just academic posturing.
Actually, you prefer to rely on an overblown version of "civilized" behavior, that allows you to misrepresent and engage in hypocritical behavior with impunity. When you don't like someone's counters to your logical arguments, you dismiss them as inappropriate interlocutors and march on repeating yourself as if you'd never been challenged.
Go back and look, Rick, at, say, the discussion of Michael Salman. Look at how hard you fought that argument, falling back on ever-narrower, ever more extreme points, and ask yourself if you were being truthful, or prideful.
It would do your soul some good.
Immobilize up there has nothing but declarations and personal attacks. "You're stupid because I'm an atheist and everything I say is right and you're always wrong because I'm an atheist and I'm smarter than you". That's what it comes down to. And it's all couched in extreme pride and arrogance.
DeleteHm... Where to begin?
Delete1. Imnotandrei is not an atheist
2. He has not even once called Rick "stupid" to my knowledge (unlike me, who just losses their patience and does so)
So do you really feel that insecure in any theistic debate that you think that your opponent is throwing at you personal attacks and that you are intellectually inferior to them?
"You're stupid because I'm an atheist and everything I say is right and you're always wrong because I'm an atheist and I'm smarter than you".
DeleteRick and I have a long history. Go back and look, if you're interested in engaging. Otherwise, indeed, all you'll see is assertion.
(Also, as Anonymous noted; presuming I'm an atheist is not a safe assumption.)
Rick claimed no one had engaged with his argument; I linked to my engagement. This does not speak well of his honesty, and you can go look at the evidence.
And it's all couched in extreme pride and arrogance.
Give me an example of "arrogance" there; I'm honestly curious what you consider arrogant behavior there.
Otherwise, you seem to be the one putting words in another person's mouth and acting from a position of having "nothing but declarations and personal attacks."
Searlas Alsander,
DeleteImmobilize up there has nothing but declarations and personal attacks.
- Ultimately, that does seem to be the tactic of Imnotandrei, as documented here:
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2013/02/slander-logic-and-venn-diagrams.html
Imnotandrei states: "Rick claimed no one had engaged with his argument..." and then he links to a lame argument using birds that has nothing to do with the argument at hand. Typical. Besides the fact that his argument is lame, I've already made it clear that I feel no obligation to engage with people who repetitively post false slanderous comments.
The following is the argument at hand and the featured argument of this article. As of today, no one has presented a fault with it:
A Logical Proof that Stephen Law Failed to Adequately Evaluate The God Delusion
1. Philosophical arguments (such as whether or not God exists) are defined by specific propositions and a conclusion.
2. The logical consequence of an argument is evaluated based on comparing the relationship between the specific premises and the conclusion.
3. Dawkins' central philosophical argument against God's existence includes six distinct propositions and a conclusion in The God Delusion.
4. In his evaluation, Stephen Law does not address Dawkins' six specific premises and does not ask whether there is any logical consequence between the six premises and the conclusion.
5. Therefore, Stephen Law had failed to adequately evaluate Dawkins' central argument in The God Delusion as a philosophical argument.
Anonymous had made the following claim:
Delete">Hm... Accusing a person of valueing academic credentials above the content of the discussion is not slander? Notice you never provided any evidence of that, you just "feel" it is this way.
I've documented how Law continues to do precisely that:
"Yep I am ignoring Rick Warden for the reasons I mentioned in previous reply to his comment here..."
http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/2013/03/us-tv-series-closer-to-truth-11-ten.html
As noted in the article, not being published were key points for Law:
"I think you are both a bit of a lightweight and not very pleasant. So I'll decline. (March 6, 2013 at 4:28 PM)
"And I'll look forward to seeing your stuff in print. Or not." (March 7, 2013 at 12:09 PM)
Delete
Is Anonymous now ready to admit that Law ignores the content of logical arguments if the person posting the comment is not academically published?
As further noted in the above article, Law's rules are hypocritical because he refuses to analyze the logic of The God Delusion, some pulp fiction that is both published and widely reviewed by scholars, including William Lane Craig, who, for one, was not afraid to offer an honest assessment of its faulty logical framework.
Besides the fact that his argument is lame, I've already made it clear that I feel no obligation to engage with people who repetitively post false slanderous comments.
DeleteIf it's lame, why haven't you refuted it?
And if you feel no such obligation, why should Stephen Law be obliged to engage with someone who repetitively posts badgering questions, ignoring answers, and claiming to want a "civil" dialogue? Guess what, Rick -- "civil" doesn't mean "using only nice words." Going up to someone and saying "Unless you answer my questions, it shows you can't answer them and don't use logic!" over and over again isn't civilized; it's harassing.
The following is the argument at hand and the featured argument of this article. As of today, no one has presented a fault with it:
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2013/03/three-questions-stephen-law-wont-answer.html?showComment=1363579616439#c5885384076919521989, and http://templestream.blogspot.com/2013/03/three-questions-stephen-law-wont-answer.html?showComment=1363612203350#c4631095078944438232, if you prefer the argument coming from someone you don't dismiss out of hand as a "slanderer".
So, that's not "no one", Rick.
So, are you going to claim those aren't arguments? Or are you going to claim that you get to judge what is and isn't a "fault"? Or are you going to admit that you made an inaccurate statement?
R:Is Anonymous now ready to admit that Law ignores the content of logical arguments if the person posting the comment is not academically published?
DeleteLet us quote Law s point of view:
"Hi Rick
I can and do respond to blog comments quite happily if at least one of two criteria are met:
(i) the comment is intellectually pretty clear, interesting and robust,
OR
(ii) while perhaps naive, muddled and/or amateurish, the person making the comment is clearly a decent chap engaged in a largely open-minded and honest pursuit of the truth.
After previous interactions with you, Rick, I have come to the conclusion you fail to meet either of these criteria. Indeed, I think you are both a bit of a lightweight and not very pleasant. So I'll decline."
Conclusion: Law ignoring Rick has nothing to do with academic credentials
>Let us quote Law s point of view:
Delete- The points you mention are in addition to the reasons had I just quoted:
"I think you are both a bit of a lightweight and not very pleasant. So I'll decline. (March 6, 2013 at 4:28 PM)
"And I'll look forward to seeing your stuff in print. Or not." (March 7, 2013 at 12:09 PM)
"So I'll decline."
i.e. for these reasons, I'll decline.
Now, onto your addition quotes:
(i) the comment is intellectually pretty clear, interesting and robust,
So, a summarized logical five-point argument outlining how a professor of philosophy completely botched an evaluation of The God Delusion is not...
"clear, interesting and robust"?
Let's begin with the first word and take them one at a time:
1. Logical arguments happen to be very clear. This comment on Law's is especially hypocritical because I am the one attempting to apply clear logic to his amorphous arguments.
2. A philosophy professor completely missing the central six-point argument in his 1.5 hour long review of a philosophical argument is quite interesting.
Of course, this is not very flattering for either atheists or the professor himself.
3. What is the definition of robust? Basically powerful and strong.
So.... a logical summarized argument that apparently not one person at my blog or Law's blog can attack is not robust?
How much more ridiculous can the excuses be?
If this is not ridiculous,
The fact that the rules and principles of logic are employed demand that the argument is robust. The conclusion is a logical necessity. How much more robust can you get?
- If the argument presented (and summarily deleted) at Law's blog is not robust, then do offer at least one valid criticism:
A Logical Proof that Stephen Law Failed to Adequately Evaluate The God Delusion
1. Philosophical arguments (such as whether or not God exists) are defined by specific propositions and a conclusion.
2. The logical consequence of an argument is evaluated based on comparing the relationship between the specific premises and the conclusion.
3. Dawkins' central philosophical argument against God's existence includes six distinct propositions and a conclusion in The God Delusion.
4. In his evaluation, Stephen Law does not address Dawkins' six specific premises and does not ask whether there is any logical consequence between the six premises and the conclusion.
5. Therefore, Stephen Law had failed to adequately evaluate Dawkins' central argument in The God Delusion as a philosophical argument.
Oh, wait, we must be back to the beginning of the circle of denial. If professor Law says these are valid reasons for shunning a commenter, then they must be. Why... because he is a published professor.
Law has a right to censor comments, to shun people and do whatever he wants at his blog. But these types of paltry excuses only fool somnambulist zombies who have long ago given up on sincere attempts at objective critical thinking and will do or say anything to aid their cause.
Translation for the impaired: Law considers your arguments crap and you yourself a dishonest spamer not worth the time. Hence he refuses to debate you.
DeleteWe already know that you are dishonest since there is NOTHING that could even hypothetically make you renounce your belief in god.
Why your argument is crap was also pointed out to you numerous times, but you just ignored criticism again and again.
Translation for the impaired: Law considers your arguments crap...
DeleteSo, aside from Law's opinion and yours, where is the actual fault in the following argument? Still waiting to see it. :)
A Logical Proof that Stephen Law Failed to Adequately Evaluate The God Delusion
1. Philosophical arguments (such as whether or not God exists) are defined by specific propositions and a conclusion.
2. The logical consequence of an argument is evaluated based on comparing the relationship between the specific premises and the conclusion.
3. Dawkins' central philosophical argument against God's existence includes six distinct propositions and a conclusion in The God Delusion.
4. In his evaluation, Stephen Law does not address Dawkins' six specific premises and does not ask whether there is any logical consequence between the six premises and the conclusion.
5. Therefore, Stephen Law had failed to adequately evaluate Dawkins' central argument in The God Delusion as a philosophical argument.
But, wait, but wait, Stephen Law doesn't agree...
yada, yada, yada...
Summary:
Don't confuse atheists with the facts, they have already made up their minds...
"The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God."
Kind of sums things up pretty well.
R:So, aside from Law's opinion and yours, where is the actual fault in the following argument? Still waiting to see it. :)
DeleteLook on the two previous threads. I am tired of repeating the same thing
>Look on the two previous threads. I am tired of repeating the same thing
Delete- Which specific premise or premises do you believe are not true? You can't simply state that information. So sad.
The flaws in your premises were pointed out to you several times. At every occasion you ignored this. If you are really interested, look at the comments you left unanswered at the two previous threads. I am tired of being a parrot and copy-pasting the same things a dozen of times.
Delete- Which specific premise or premises do you believe are not true? You can't simply state that information. So sad.
DeleteOh, right; you're the one who believes in spamming your own and other people's blogs.
OK:
"A Logical Proof that Stephen Law failed to Adequately Evaluate The God Delusion
1. Philosophical arguments (such as whether or not God exists) are defined by specific propositions and a conclusion.
No; logical syllogisms are defined that way. Formal philosophical arguments *can* be structured that way, but arguing that they all are is not a given.
2. The logical consequence of an argument is evaluated based on comparing the relationship between the specific premises and the conclusion.
This is the place where you usually fail, but I am willing to accept this, if by this you are discussing the formal validity of a formal argument; in informal argument, you do not always have this connection.
3. Dawkins' central philosophical argument against God's existence includes six distinct propositions and a conclusion in The God Delusion.
Actually, his *summary* of his position contains them. A summary, by definition, is not the complete argument. It leaves out details and connective tissue. So, if you place it to the challenge of a formal proof, it will probably fail, as much of the detail required to make a proof (or a formal argument) *valid* is contained within the summary.
Indeed, you've often complained when people judged your summaries harshly, claiming that you did not want to write a book. Now, you're complaining because Dawkins did write a book, but you're judging it based on a summary.
I am deleting your point 4, because I am not prepared to dive down that rabbit hole.
5. Therefore, Stephen Law had failed to adequately evaluate Dawkins' central argument in The God Delusion as a philosophical argument.
Given that statements 1, 2, and 3 do not rise to the level of logical proof you claim, there is no reason to accept your statement #5. Your argument fails."
So, 1 and 3 are incorrect, and 2 does not rise to the standards you're trying to reach. I don't even touch 4.
Anonymous also said these same things, quoting me.
So, there you go. Saying that "no one has presented..." or "You can't simply state..." after this point will be lying, Rick. Pure and simple.
Unlike Stephen Law, I accept comments and questions from any person, whether academically published or not, so long as the person does not use slander or profanity. Any and all questions related to logic, philosophy, religion and politics are welcome without discrimination.
ReplyDeleteUnlike Stephen Law,
DeleteWho accepts comments -- unless he's explicitly blocked you? If so, then there's a different argument to be had.
I accept comments and questions from any person, whether academically published or not
Funny -- he has no problem accepting my comments, and I have no publication record in philosophy.
so long as the person does not use slander
Ah, and here's your "get out of consistency free" card; "slander", to you, is a very flexible term. You accusing someone, via false logical reasoning, of not using logic, isn't slander. Someone saying an article of yours was discredited, is slander.
Essentially, "slander" to you appears to hinge on agreeing with your facts and reasoning or not. Not agreeing, and being willing to say so, counts as "slander".
So this boils down to "I accept questions or comments from anyone who doesn't call me on inconsistency, fallacious reasoning, or incorrect (and uncorrected) assertions."
or profanity. Any and all questions related to logic, philosophy, religion and politics are welcome without discrimination.
Unless they're from someone you decided had "slandered" you. You reserve the right not to answer interlocutors who you find inappropriate.
Just like Stephen Law.
As I've said before, and will keep saying while you try and claim the moral high ground -- you're claiming the exact same right that you try and deny him; that of judging the appropriateness of interlocutors in your own blog space.
Imnotandrei = habitual liar and slanderer:
Deletehttp://templestream.blogspot.com/2013/02/slander-logic-and-venn-diagrams.html
Lies about Law at this blog = 0
Tough questions I refuse to address = 0
I will address any questions at my blog posted by civilized non-slandering non-liars.
If not, someone can post a link and show where I have not.
The main problem here is that honest atheists are so few and far between at this blog. But that's not my fault.
Rick, posting a link to an article that has been heavily disputed doesn't really count as "proof".
DeleteLies about Law at this blog = 0
Because neither Professor Law nor any of his atheist defenders have offered a single reason as to why my logical argument should be considered faulty, and because Law's own excuses are demonstrably inconsistent, I would have to offer that that Law is in a state of denial that is both harmful to his person and to his career.
Reasons have been offered, his excuses are not inconsistent -- there are 2. And I am not even taking your carefully considered "opinions" as the slanders they are -- I'm letting you have them as opinions.
Tough questions I refuse to address = 0
Go back and look at lots of your previous threads, Rick. Here, you don't have many because people have given up asking you questions, since you don't answer.
I will address any questions at my blog posted by civilized non-slandering non-liars.
Well, it's a good thing you don't have to answer your own questions, then.
The main problem here is that honest atheists are so few and far between at this blog.
Let's see; almost every arguing opponent you've had has come away convinced you're a dishonest debater; so -- which do you think is more likely, that you somehow attract nothing but people who are dishonest, or that maybe you're doing something wrong?
I know your answer -- but it relies not upon logic, but upon axioms of faith.
But that's not my fault.
Actually, Rick, it is; I know plenty of people of faith who don't think that every person of different or non-faith who argues with them is dishonest. You are reaping what you sow. Call people "liars" and "slanderers" over a mistake, and what do you expect? They cut you no slack over your own mistakes -- well, that's not true; I try and cut you slack. Of course, it rarely does me any good, since you refuse to admit errors when you do make them, but, well, at least I can do it with a clear conscience.
The "mistake" is your opinion;
The flaws in your premises were pointed out to you several times. At every occasion you ignored this. If you are really interested, look at the comments you left unanswered at the two previous threads. I am tired of being a parrot and copy-pasting the same things a dozen of times.
ReplyDeleteImnotandrei = habitual liar and slanderer:
ReplyDeletehttp://templestream.blogspot.com/2013/02/slander-logic-and-venn-diagrams.html
Oh, and while we're at it.
Looking at the "habitual liar and slanderer" claim you make against me, it boils down to:
I made a mistake on one post.
I called you a liar because of factual misstatements you made in another post.
We disagree on a point of debate.
If that's what it takes to be a "habitual liar and slanderer", Rick, I'm not the slightest bit surprised that most of the people you argue with fall in that category. You certainly do, as well.