When Debate Doesn't Make Sense

[_gramps]

Coggins7 wrote:

...What would count as evidence that the body will be physically resurrected...

What would count as evidence that the body will be physically resurrected? Lay it on us, brother.

[_Mercury]

What he demonstrated on that thread, again and again and again, was that he is unwilling to engage in substantive philosophical reflection and argument at any depth. He was never even able to get past the fundamental logical point made by Beckwith and Light regarding the contradictions in Dawkin's basic position on the subject at hand in that thread.

The "fundamental logical point" has a serious flaw, and I'm surprised you can't see it. Dude hasn't had any trouble getting past that point; rather, he's asking to defend it. And you have so far refused to, which suggests to me you accept Beckwith's point "en si" without perhaps even understanding the basis of his logic. The solution of course is to answer Dude's question. How are Dawkins' premises contradictory?

by the way, isn't ironic that you've chosen to adopt the logic of someone who has repeatedly argued that the LDS concept of God is itself illogical? Beckwith's logic in that particular point isn't very good, either. Here he's merely circular, however.

So, are you up to defending Beckwith, or are we to assume that you are just repeating things you have read?

Aside from a google search feverishly dashed out while retreating into his typical cut and run behavior, I doubt cogs knowledge of a majority of the information he believes he has a grasp of actually can be considered structured.

Hes a complaining little baby who enjoys getting his ass kicked. Why? because he honestly believes he is the hard s*** apologist he envies.

Coggys world is wrapped up in this self image and without it he is an empty shell of an alcoholic.

[_Polygamy Porter]

Coggins7 wrote:

...What would count as evidence that the body will be physically resurrected...

What would count as evidence that the body will be physically resurrected? Lay it on us, brother.

...and then show me the stone box.

[_Mercury]

Coggins7 wrote:

...What would count as evidence that the body will be physically resurrected...

What would count as evidence that the body will be physically resurrected? Lay it on us, brother.

Ya gotta read the scriptures gramps! Its right in there, plain as can be. Why, if that's not enough evidence then I don't know what evidence is!

[_Polygamy Porter]

Coggins7 wrote:

...What would count as evidence that the body will be physically resurrected...

What would count as evidence that the body will be physically resurrected? Lay it on us, brother.

Ya gotta read the scriptures gramps! Its right in there, plain as can be. Why, if that's not enough evidence then I don't know what evidence is!

Or as the chapel Mormon worker bees on Mormon.org say soooo often, you need to pray about it!

[_Coggins7]

Tell me why Dawkins' premises are contradictory, and I'll explain it to you. It is kind of obvious.

[/quote]


Here, let's let Beckwith spell it out yet again:

But Dawkins, in fact, does not actually believe that living beings, including human beings, have intrinsic purposes or are designed so that one may conclude that violating one’s proper function amounts to a violation of one’s moral duty to oneself. Dawkins has maintained for decades that the natural world only appears to be designed. He writes in The God Delusion: “Darwin and his successors have shown how living creatures, with their spectacular statistical improbability and appearance of design, have evolved by slow, gradual degrees from simple beginnings. We can now safely say that the illusion of design in living creatures is just that—an illusion.”

But this means that his lament for Wise is misguided, for Dawkins is lamenting what only appears to be Wise’s dereliction of his duty to nurture and employ his gifts in ways that result in his happiness and an acquisition of knowledge that contributes to the common good. Yet because there are no designed natures and no intrinsic purposes, and thus no natural duties that we are obligated to obey, the intuitions that inform Dawkins’ judgment of Wise are as illusory as the design he explicitly rejects. But that is precisely one of the grounds by which Dawkins suggests that theists are irrational and ought to abandon their belief in God.

So if the theist is irrational for believing in God based on what turns out to be pseudo-design, Dawkins is irrational in his judgment of Wise and other creationists whom he targets for reprimand and correction. For Dawkins’ judgment rests on a premise that—although uncompromisingly maintained throughout his career—only appears to be true.

And?

[_gramps]

Coggins7 wrote:

...What would count as evidence that the body will be physically resurrected...

What would count as evidence that the body will be physically resurrected? Lay it on us, brother.

Ya gotta read the scriptures gramps! Its right in there, plain as can be. Why, if that's not enough evidence then I don't know what evidence is!

Or as the chapel Mormon worker bees on Mormon.org say soooo often, you need to pray about it!

Ah yes!

The "evidence" of champions: prayer and the scriptures, the universal confirmation tools.

It was staring me right in the face and I missed it. Thanks for clearing that up.

Muchas gracias, brothers!

[_Runtu]

And?

Repeating your cut and paste does not show that you comprehend his point. Come on, Cogs. Step up to the plate.

[_Coggins7]

You should also go back and read and digest the extended arguments of myself and Light on the other thread dealing with Beckwith, in which this point is articulated every which way but loose over and over again as Dude and others their pretend they just don't' get it.

[_Runtu]

You should also go back and read and digest the extended arguments of myself and Light on the other thread dealing with Beckwith, in which this point is articulated every which way but loose over and over again as Dude and others their pretend they just don't' get it.

I did read it. Why can't you just explain simply and concisely Beckwith's syllogism? It's not a difficult thing I'm asking for.