Many of my comments (including replies to DR’s bone-headed attempts at rebuttal) are still *ahem* “awaiting moderation”. I think we can take it by now that that means DR has decided that they will never see the light of day.
As before, I have edited DR’s OP and anyone who wants to read ’em in full (and weep) may go to the link on my last post.
Moving on to the second programme let me point out a few more things (I won’t comment on the repeat mistakes he made from the first):
1) Matt evaluates his own reason as the standard and rejects my idea that Jesus is the standard –
How have you come to the conclusion that Jesus is good?
4) Then Matt reached a new low in seeking the prove that the Bible was wrong. He claimed that because Jesus spoke about salt losing its savour, then the Bible is proved wrong!
I agree. This was not a good example. A better example would have been his mistaken reference to Abiathar instead of Ahmelech at Mark 2 23-28.
5) Matt then brought things back to a more logical aspect when he pointed out that if God was real he should reveal himself in a way that is clear and accessible to all. The answer to that is He has. God has revealed himself in a way that is clear and accessible to all – through Jesus Christ. That was why I wrote Magnificent Obsession – to point to Jesus. Matt and others keep looking away or shutting their eyes.t
If he is so clear & accessible, why are there so many sects of Christianity? It has always been true of Christianity that its adherents have been deeply divided as to what they believe. Even the earliest Christians were at loggerheads.
7) Then we had another one of those evasive and self-contradictory ‘don’t know’ confusing statements.
David, this is either wilfully dishonest or an illustration of the Kraft-Dunning principle of almost tragic proportions.
Talk about pre-suppositions! You have got it so firmly lodged in your head that anyone who asserts “I do not believe P” must as a matter of simple logic be saying “I do believe ~P” that it seems nothing and nobody will be able to make you see your error.
That is why (I suppose) you thought that asking whether the number of gumballs must be either odd or even would “destroy [his] argument in one sentence”. Give me strength! That is not destroying his whole argument! That is the very premise upon which his whole argument turns! It is extraordinarily simple but it seems to be more than a wee bit complicated for you.
If you have no way to count the number of gumballs in the gumball machine then the answer to the question “Is the number odd or even?” is “I DON’T KNOW” (which makes in a KNOWN unknown, BTW). Is anyone apart from David finding this concept at all difficult?
Let’s try it again:
Fred and Sue are outside the shop, looking in at the gumball machine.
Fred “Do you believe that the number of gumballs is odd?”
Sue “No. I don’t know”
Fred “Aha! So you MUST believe that the number is even!”
Sue “No. I don’t know.”
Fred “I am embarrassed for you! How completely illogical of you! There are only two possibilities – so if you don’t believe that it is an odd number, you are compelled to believe that it is an even number.”
Philosophy 101 – which one is actually being logical, Fred or Sue? (And you can take it from me, it is only one of them).
Update – 18 June 2015
There has been a flurry of renewed activity on DR’s post for the first debate here
I have posted a couple of responses to that pretentious ass Paul Handley. They have not been allowed past the moderator (i.e. DR). Here are the posts. Figure out for yourselves why DR has decided they should not appear:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
JUNE 9, 2015 AT 8:52 PM
I’m not sure what it would mean for something to be “implacably” a philosophy but anyway, if atheism is a philosophy, then being a non-Muslim is a religion.
What makes a person an atheist is not believing in God, that’s all. Some go further and positively believe that God does not exist but that is not a necessary condition of atheism.
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
JUNE 9, 2015 AT 9:00 PM
I’m an atheist. Some of my beliefs are connected with my atheism, some aren’t. For instance, I believe that it won’t rain tomorrow. Is that part of my “atheist philosophy”?
I assume you’re a Christian. Is everything you believe, from 2 + 2 = 4 to Paris being the capital of France, part of your Christian philosophy?