Originally posted by seer
View Post
I pointed to the fact that you misrepresented my position, you claimed you had written about stuff that you had not written about, and then finally I pointed to the fact that you really have no foundation apart from your belief, which may be wrong. God may not exist, he may exist and disagree with you and so on.
And then, after all of that I get a change to talk about something I have already talked about at great lenght. While you get to say nothing about the points I just pointed to? Misrepresentations, wrong claims and so on? Who would be stupid enough to fall for that, seer, honestly, come on.
So I will ask you once again, seer, where is the reasoning behind your claims.
Three premises wont do
By the way I certainly know how an argument looks. What I also know and have consistently claimed is that it is a very long line of reasoning if you want to prove it step by step. To think three premises will do, is to think in very, very simple minded terms. You would need lots of arguments, lots of conclusions to use as premises in new arguments and so on. So I am not going for your simplification. I have already sketched my basic thinking on this in the following links:
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...f-ethics/page3
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post451896
Comment