yesterday evening my wife and i were invited to friends house for new year's eve.
we met them when i was a christian and we have kept in touch.
they had a few other friends there as well, including the new church pastor and his wife.
"we don't know what we can't know" = it's a mystery
I accept that this crudely describes the argument. As I said before if we are just crudely reframing the opposing view then Cofty's is "if god exists he dun it". It's an assertion. It's not based on anything logical.
yesterday evening my wife and i were invited to friends house for new year's eve.
we met them when i was a christian and we have kept in touch.
they had a few other friends there as well, including the new church pastor and his wife.
because *there might* be some unknown cost associated with him preventing them from drowning?
Can you point to what this may be exactly in the case of God?
What part of "unknown" is unclear to you?
yesterday evening my wife and i were invited to friends house for new year's eve.
we met them when i was a christian and we have kept in touch.
they had a few other friends there as well, including the new church pastor and his wife.
bohm -
Your point is that weak analogies exist??
yesterday evening my wife and i were invited to friends house for new year's eve.
we met them when i was a christian and we have kept in touch.
they had a few other friends there as well, including the new church pastor and his wife.
You have argued for 80 pages that drowning a quarter of a million people is a loving act if seen from some other perspective. Cofty
Actually I came into this after page 50.
Let's recall that I have not at any point argued for the existance of God, let alone made the argument you claim. My sole point is that the OP is logically flawed.
yesterday evening my wife and i were invited to friends house for new year's eve.
we met them when i was a christian and we have kept in touch.
they had a few other friends there as well, including the new church pastor and his wife.
You must be surrounded by weak-minded people, flamegrilled.
jgnat - I know what you mean. But I'll log off soon and do some work.
yesterday evening my wife and i were invited to friends house for new year's eve.
we met them when i was a christian and we have kept in touch.
they had a few other friends there as well, including the new church pastor and his wife.
If we saw a person allow dogs to be drowned by the thousands, and he was able to prevent it at no significant cost or effort, would we be justified in concluding there was a problem in claiming he loved every single dog? (bohm)
Again your scenario implies an unsubstantiated premise. i.e. that there would be no significant cost to preventing it. We are simply not in a position to know that.
yesterday evening my wife and i were invited to friends house for new year's eve.
we met them when i was a christian and we have kept in touch.
they had a few other friends there as well, including the new church pastor and his wife.
I know you were making a demonstration, flamegrilled, but at your own admission I'm a fairly intelligent woman. Your dissiing of my approach pretty well kills any desire on my part to engage you in dialogue. I don't care if you feel the same way. Man up and deal with the issues put before you.
It was evident from your first comment that you were not interested in dialogue so nothing much has changed. My estimate of your intelligence was made prior to your declaring the analogy as weak. If you truly didn't understand the analogy and its limitations then I may have been wrong about that. Either you didn't bother to consider it or you are just jumping on the bandwagon of Cofty's posse who cry "weak/broken analogy" every time they don't like a conclusion.
yesterday evening my wife and i were invited to friends house for new year's eve.
we met them when i was a christian and we have kept in touch.
they had a few other friends there as well, including the new church pastor and his wife.
Since we ae drowning in metaphors here is one more. Consider a woman who discovers after her wedding, that the man she had come to know as loving and generous was actually an abusive and violent husband.
It's difficult to know what you are arguing for at times Cofty. An absence of God, or an abusive god?
You claim that you have all the facts necessary to make a life and death decision, but if God exists then by definition you are missing information which may be relevant. That is not so in the case of the wife of an abusive husband.
yesterday evening my wife and i were invited to friends house for new year's eve.
we met them when i was a christian and we have kept in touch.
they had a few other friends there as well, including the new church pastor and his wife.
So which ego goes first, flamegrilled? I offer an alternative analogy and you flame it. Argumentative, no attempt at dialogue.
I agree jgnat. It's not productive. I am simply demonstrating how unproductive it is. I am accused of having weak analogies, and weak they would be if I were trying to apply them to the "big picture". It seems impossible to reason here on a single point at a time without multiple people deciding that you should have actually tackled several points, or all of them, at the same time. The reason is clearly that acknolwedging one rational point at a time undermines Cofty's assertions. If anybody will actually engage in dialogue then I am happy to do that, but I am not going to repeatedly defend my analogies from willful misapplication of them.
yesterday evening my wife and i were invited to friends house for new year's eve.
we met them when i was a christian and we have kept in touch.
they had a few other friends there as well, including the new church pastor and his wife.
I am finding it difficult to maintain that generous opinon. Cofty
LOL. Once we all get over our egos we might be able to have a reasoned conversation.
But our egos would not be the only hindrance would they?
