Texas hospitals are running out of drugs, beds, ventilators and even staff

[Mountain Man]

To present it as something I came up with is to miss the entire point, the entire challenge of the question...

Here's the part you're missing that is leading you into presenting stupid, not at all challenging arguments: I'm not asking a hypothetical "gotcha" question.

When an atheist says, "If God was real then he would present sufficient evidence to prove himself to me," and I ask, "What if he already has, but you've stubbornly rejected it?" it's not hypothetical. The intent is to cause someone to think back about all the evidence and arguments for theism and Christianity they've encountered over the years and take a second look, perhaps, with a slightly more open mind.

So when you come along and wiping the spittle from your lips and say, "Oh yeah? Well, what about this hypothetical diety whose name I just pulled out of my backside?" ... it just makes you look ignorant, man.

[Charles]

Here's the part you're missing that is leading you into presenting stupid, not at all challenging arguments: I'm not asking a hypothetical "gotcha" question.

When an atheist says, "If God was real then he would present sufficient evidence to prove himself to me," and I ask, "What if he already has, but you've stubbornly rejected it?" it's not hypothetical. The intent is to cause someone to think back about all the evidence and arguments for theism and Christianity they've encountered over the years and take a second look, perhaps, with a slightly more open mind.

So when you come along and wiping the spittle from your lips and say, "Oh yeah? Well, what about this hypothetical diety whose name I just pulled out of my backside?" ... it just makes you look ignorant, man.

Still not accepting the challenge. If you presuppose your evidence, your arguments are of the right sort, that the method you use is the right one you are already starting to beg the question. And if you are comparing that not to anything that could actually be a deity having actually revealed itself to you while you refused to listen but instead insist on going for the idea it is something I made up, you are not even starting to actually answer the question I asked but a straw man version.

Thanks for providing even more evidence that you cannot confront the question. And need I reapeat that a question is not an argument? And the fact that you cannot or will not answer does nothing to change that.

[Mountain Man]

...going for the idea it is something I made up...

Which brings us back to...

First, who is "Abracadabra"? Second, what proofs are there of his existence? And third, what reasons do you think I should devote my life to him instead of Yahweh?

[Charles]

Which brings us back to...

First, who is "Abracadabra"? Second, what proofs are there of his existence? And third, what reasons do you think I should devote my life to him instead of Yahweh?

It does not bring us back to that since I am long past that part (it was your misunderstanding from the start) but you simply refuse to answer. Here is what you left out this time:

Still not accepting the challenge. If you presuppose your evidence, your arguments are of the right sort, that the method you use is the right one you are already starting to beg the question. And if you are comparing that not to anything that could actually be a deity having actually revealed itself to you while you refused to listen but instead insist on going for the idea it is something I made up, you are not even starting to actually answer the question I asked but a straw man version.

Thanks for providing even more evidence that you cannot confront the question. And need I reapeat that a question is not an argument? And the fact that you cannot or will not answer does nothing to change that.

You see? You need to cut my posts because the actual content clearly shows that you are simply not willing to ask the actual question but want to go for the straw man version of the challenge.

And I have explained it to you previously as well:

It is not an argument, it is a question. Seemingly you find it reasonable to ask similar questions to others (using your God instead of Abrabadabra) but refuse to answer yourself.



I never claimed I hat met Abracadabra or know who he is. I was pointing to the possibility that he might have already revealed himself and his truth to you and you refused to listen. That has got nothing all all to do with what I might say. And whatever I can say or not does not adress the situation in question, the situation where Abracadabra has revealed himself to you beyond any doubt, but you refuse to listen.

At an earlier stage you were open to the possibility you could be wrong, you could have refused to hear the truth or to accept it. Seems you are finding yourself in a bit of trouble here.

So we are not back. You might be back in your old misunderstanding, confusion, straw man and whatever. I simply note you have not answered the question I actually asked. And when that is pointed out you go back to the same old mistakes rather than to simply accept the fact that you have no answer.

[Mountain Man]

I am long past that part...

Rather, you desperately wish you could get past that part because I think you're finally starting to realize that it's a straw man.

[Charles]

Rather, you desperately wish you could get past that part because I think you're finally starting to realize that it's a straw man.

Oh, the same old errror again. It's a question, not an argument. Is it so hard for you to grasp why I cannot tell you how a deity reveals itself to you independently of me, what I know, what I am able to grasp and the like?

But keep cutting my post to show you cannot confront the actual question and keep running with your false statements about what the question is about.

It all adds to my knowledge about how you cannot defend the very basics of your world view and try to twist and turn the challenge into something else when you cannot answer.

[Mountain Man]

It all adds to my knowledge about how you cannot defend the very basics of your world view...

You've not asked me to defend my worldview. You asked a stupid hypothetical "gotcha" question that is so flimsy and inept that it barely even has enough substance to qualify as a straw man fallacy.

Now if you had asked, "On what basis do you believe that the God of the a Bible has presented sufficient evidence that any reasonable person should be able conclude that he does exist?", then we might have had something to talk about.

Instead, you just want to play games with stupid arguments and silly gotcha questions and then throw a hissy fit when I call you out and decline to play along. You are not an honest interlocutor.

[Charles]

You've not asked me to defend my worldview. You asked a stupid hypothetical "gotcha" question that is so flimsy and inept that it barely even has enough substance to qualify as a straw man fallacy.

Now if you had asked, "On what basis do you believe that the God of the a Bible has presented sufficient evidence that any reasonable person should be able conclude that he does exist?", then we might have had something to talk about.

Instead, you just want to play games with stupid arguments and silly gotcha questions and then throw a hissy fit when I call you out and decline to play along. You are not an honest interlocutor.

The question is a challenge to your world view since it leaves the question open whether you actually refused to hear the true from the true deity. Since you cannot answer, it is obvious you are challenged by the question. Yesterday you allow for the option, you could be wrong. When I digged into it, you started to twist and turn and try to change the entire challenge.

That you keep calling a question an argument, that you keep cutting my posts makes this even more obvious. It's been great fun, MM.

[Sparko]

That is presupposing the religions you know about somehow consider all possible options of what or who God could be. That is a rather naive and limiting line of thinking. A God could make himself known to you in other ways than having someone knock on your door. He could be ready to talk to you right now while you are too concerned about answering my post, defending your own religion and the like.

That's what Jesus did. He became one of us and taught us about God and what we should do. And performed miracles and fulfilled prophesies to prove it.

So basically no matter what MM or I answered you would just dismiss it with a handwave? I guess MM was right to not answer you, troll.

[Charles]

That's what Jesus did. He became one of us and taught us about God and what we should do. And performed miracles and fulfilled prophesies to prove it.

So basically no matter what MM or I answered you would just dismiss it with a handwave? I guess MM was right to not answer you, troll.

Still presupposing what Jesus did is the only way it could be done. That of course is question begging and a refusal to engage in the challenge and answer the question. The funny thing about what MM did is that not only did he not answer. He cut post, misrepresented the challenge, insist on calling a question an argument and the like. Somehow he must have a feeling that it does not look way to good that he is unable to answer. And initially he even allowed for the option he could be wrong... Then came all the twist and turns.

[Cow Poke]

Still presupposing what Jesus did is the only way it could be done. That of course is question begging and a refusal to engage in the challenge and answer the question. The funny thing about what MM did is that not only did he not answer. He cut post, misrepresented the challenge, insist on calling a question an argument and the like. Somehow he must have a feeling that it does not look way to good that he is unable to answer. And initially he even allowed for the option he could be wrong... Then came all the twist and turns.

Could we please move this silly attack on Christianity DERAIL to some other place? This is about TEXAS!

texas mask.jpg

[Maranatha]

Extremely insulting post without anything meaningful to contribute to the dialogue.

Do something meaningful, like respond constructively to post #257 on the topic of the thread.

Pretty sure New Zealand is not relevant to constructively discuss. Now you see the point.

[Sparko]

Still presupposing what Jesus did is the only way it could be done. That of course is question begging and a refusal to engage in the challenge and answer the question. The funny thing about what MM did is that not only did he not answer. He cut post, misrepresented the challenge, insist on calling a question an argument and the like. Somehow he must have a feeling that it does not look way to good that he is unable to answer. And initially he even allowed for the option he could be wrong... Then came all the twist and turns.

OK Let's see your exact wording of your "challenge" of what I would do...

"What if Abracadabra has already made himself and his eternal truth know to you but you rejected it because your "Christianity" is such a convenient justification for actions that Abracadabra has proven for you to be wrong?"

Well if I take that literally, then you have already answered for me. I would "reject it because [my] "Christianity" is such a convenient justification for actions"

You said so yourself. So what exactly IS your question?

[Charles]

OK Let's see your exact wording of your "challenge" of what I would do...

"What if Abracadabra has already made himself and his eternal truth know to you but you rejected it because your "Christianity" is such a convenient justification for actions that Abracadabra has proven for you to be wrong?"

Well if I take that literally, then you have already answered for me. I would "reject it because [my] "Christianity" is such a convenient justification for actions"

You said so yourself. So what exactly IS your question?

I am asking what would happen if the scenario is true. You could have claimed it could not possibly be true but you did not. You could have answered in numerous other ways.

CP has asked us to stop, so this is my last reply. I got what I needed long ago.

[Cow Poke]

I am asking what would happen if the scenario is true. You could have claimed it could not possibly be true but you did not. You could have answered in numerous other ways.

CP has asked us to stop, so this is my last reply. I got what I needed long ago.

To be clear, it's not my thread, so I have no authority to demand it stop, which is why I was merely asking.