Coggins7 wrote:How interesting that each and every person who has responded to this thread thus far are precisely among those who have demonstrated again and again that they cannot handle serous, extended philosophical argument.
Now they come here whining about how difficult it is to have a discussion in this forum.
Will wonders never cease.
We try again and again to ask you questions, like charley brown waiting to kick a football. We think that its going to be the day we finaly get an answer besides dismissals of the question.
You dance around, a post of masturbatory quality emerges and once again the football is yanked out from our availability. No question, just a string of calls to repentance and misunderstood, twisted logic.
And crawling on the planet's face Some insects called the human race Lost in time And lost in space...and meaning
Does that mean you take all precaution to submit your own beliefs to the constraints of logic and evidence?
1. Logic is not a proper template or reference for the validation of all possible phenomena or truth claims, and the severe limitations inherent in logical analysis delimit its use outside the spheres for which it is particularly suited.
2. What counts as evidence within one frame of perceptual reference may be of little use in another. What would count as evidence that the body will be physically resurrected is not the same as what would count as to what the mass and chemical composition of Jupiter is.
The face of sin today often wears the mask of tolerance.
Hmm. When you say, in your response, that everyone who has responded to the thread "thus far" cannot handle serous [sic] philosophical discussion, I'll take it that you're speaking for yourself. You're clearly not speaking for, or accurately about, the previous posters.
Oh please. Dude couldn't handle the Beckwith thread past his first response.
I don't know. There's a huge flaw in Beckwith's argument, and it's readily apparent to me that the Dude sees it, but you don't. No offense, but I've never engaged in an extended philosophical discussion with you because there's never been an opportunity to do so.
Does that mean you take all precaution to submit your own beliefs to the constraints of logic and evidence?
1. Logic is not a proper template or reference for the validation of all possible phenomena or truth claims, and the severe limitations inherent in logical analysis delimit its use outside the spheres for which it is particularly suited.
2. What counts as evidence within one frame of perceptual reference may be of little use in another. What would count as evidence that the body will be physically resurrected is not the same as what would count as to what the mass and chemical composition of Jupiter is.
So, what? Illogical belief systems are valid when the Cost/Utility ratio is cratering?
Do you really believe this or are you truly uneducated?
And crawling on the planet's face Some insects called the human race Lost in time And lost in space...and meaning
I didn't read that thread. But I *have* read the Dude on hundreds of other threads, and know that he is one of the most substantive posters on the LDS-related boards. If he was not similarly savvy on that particular thread, that doesn't generalize to anything at all.
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 face of sin today often wears the mask of tolerance.
Coggins7 wrote: 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 you 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?
Last edited by cacheman on Sun Jun 24, 2007 5:27 am, edited 1 time in total.