Robert, You said I supported Believer's idea that you were a re-named poster from the past. I specifically said I disagreed with Believer on that point. You continued to lump me in with that idea, rather than repenting of your lie/error and apologizing. I'm not surprised. It is difficult for a proud man to admit mistakes. Sadly, that seems to be your pattern, moving from board to board, always...more

Robert,
You said I supported Believer's idea that you were a re-named poster from the past. I specifically said I disagreed with Believer on that point. You continued to lump me in with that idea, rather than repenting of your lie/error and apologizing. I'm not surprised. It is difficult for a proud man to admit mistakes.

Sadly, that seems to be your pattern, moving from board to board, always arguing with your brothers, never satisfied until you've belittled them. Being right is more important to you than showing love. That's a shame. We might have had productive, edifying conversation, but according to your online history, you wouldn't have enjoyed that.

Go ahead and proclaim yourself the winner. I'll waste no more time on you. "Reject a divisive man after the first and second admonition, knowing that such a person is warped and sinning, being self-condemned." (Titus 3:10-11,
NKJ)less

By the way, you are being misleading, presenting only partial facts, when you state all the logicians you queried stated your argument is valid. Some, like Peter Fosl, said it was VALID but not necessary SOUND. Here are Fosl's own words (from http://www.outersystem.us/creationism/gras.html): (BEGIN QUOTE) I'll be pleased to add my professional voice to the issue and assure anyone willing to l...more

By the way, you are being misleading, presenting only partial facts, when you state all the logicians you queried stated your argument is valid. Some, like Peter Fosl, said it was VALID but not necessary SOUND. Here are Fosl's own words (from http://www.outersystem.us/creationism/gras.html):

(BEGIN QUOTE)
I'll be pleased to add my professional voice to the issue and assure
anyone willing to listen that it's a valid argument.

A straightforward modus ponens.

As you say, soundness the question. In particular the truth of the
first premise.

The second premise is pretty uncontroversial.

Regarding the first premise, a material implication can be true
under two circumstances: (1) if the antecedent is false; and (2) if
both antecedent and consequent are true. A material implication is
false when the antecedent is true and the consequent is false.

In this case, it seems pretty uncontroversial that the antecedent
(which is the same as the minor premise) is true. So, the question
becomes whether the consequent is also true. And, of course, that's
where the controversy lies. Is the text wrong? How can we decide?
One thing's for sure, however, this argument doesn't decide it. It's
logically possible that the antecedent is true but the consequent
false. That is, it's logically possible that empirical evidence
shows that the world is more than a few thousand years old but that
the empirical evidence is wrong or misleading.

You're going to have to appeal to matters beyond this argument to
settle things. For example, you're likely to have to settle the
question: Does empirical evidence defeat Scriptural evidence or
otherwise theological evidence (revelation, for example).

I suspect that your adversaries would maintain that it does not. You
may wish to argue that it does. But that, my friend, is a rather
large issue.

Perhaps the example of Galileo and the Church may help you.
Galileo's claim based on empirical evidence that the moon's surface
has craters was contradicted by the Church arguing that Aristotle
and theology prove that the moon's surface is smooth. Which is the
more compelling position? (Ask Neil Armstrong.)

One story, probably fictitious, has it that a Cardinal remarked that
even if he saw the craters with his own eye he would deny their
reality because when one weighs the evidence of the senses against
the truths of the Church, the senses lose.

Your position might be to hold that the senses and empirical
evidence generally should trump theology when it comes to matters of
physical fact, a position with which I largely agree. (See the
Toolkit entry on the mystical.)

But, again, your argument doesn't prove this. Rather, it assumes it. (END QUOTE)less

"Run off if you will" Yes, to my wife, to dinner, to things far more important than you. Why should I waste any more time on someone who won't apologize when their falsehood is pointed out? Nope, I can't think of a good reason. Have fun arguing, and don't forget to declare yourself the winner. Oh wait, you did that when you walked in the door.

One last thing. You wrote: "Does mathetes "trust Believer with his life" to the extent of accepting his ipse dixit factual claims regarding my participation on this website, or will he continue to implicitly endorse Believer's claims risk the consequences of partaking in his alleged sin?" Brother, your pride is showing. Not many people on these discussion boards speak Latin. If you want to be ...more

One last thing. You wrote:
"Does mathetes "trust Believer with his life" to the extent of accepting his ipse dixit factual claims regarding my participation on this website, or will he continue to implicitly endorse Believer's claims risk the consequences of partaking in his alleged sin?"

Brother, your pride is showing. Not many people on these discussion boards speak Latin. If you want to be understood, why not say whatever it is you want to say in words which everyone can understand? But if you are just trying to show off, by all means, carry on. (tips hat to Rev)

Exhibit B: the acronym of your argument shows a massive ego. "GRAS" = "Gene Robert's Argument Supreme" Seriously, are you for real? God exalts the humble, brother. While you are demanding others repent of their alleged sins, you best pause and take a look in the mirror.less

There you go again, Robert, putting words into my mouth which I never uttered. How else could you write: "with the implicit endorsement of "Prophet" and "Mathetes" " I guess you don't read what people actually write, so let me try to spell it out in small words for you: I disagreed with Believer's contention that you are the same poster who we dealt with some months back. That's right, DISA...more

There you go again, Robert, putting words into my mouth which I never uttered. How else could you write:
"with the implicit endorsement of "Prophet" and "Mathetes" "

I guess you don't read what people actually write, so let me try to spell it out in small words for you:
I disagreed with Believer's contention that you are the same poster who we dealt with some months back. That's right, DISAGREED. By definition, that is not an "implicit endorsement" of Believer's assertion.

Since twisting people's words to fit your own ends seems to be your stock-in-trade (gathered from your conversations/debates with others), I won't bother waiting for an apology. In fact, I don't expect anything from you except continual strife. Your online presence indicates you spend an inordinate amount of time arguing with your brothers in Christ. Must not leave you much time for sharing Christ with those who are perishing.less

LS, you are correct there is a pattern, eerily similar to a previous poster who tirelessly argued that Jesus never existed, no matter the evidence presented or the atheist scholar quoted who agree that Jesus and His crucifixion are a historical fact. However, I do not believe this is the same poster. Robert Baty has been shopping his Goliath around the internet anywhere he can find a blog or ch...more

LS, you are correct there is a pattern, eerily similar to a previous poster who tirelessly argued that Jesus never existed, no matter the evidence presented or the atheist scholar quoted who agree that Jesus and His crucifixion are a historical fact.

However, I do not believe this is the same poster. Robert Baty has been shopping his Goliath around the internet anywhere he can find a blog or chat room in which to make his argument. More than once he has been positively identified as a troll (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)). His Goliath has been effectively rebutted by a number of people; most specifically cited his fallacy of equivocation. Jerry McDonald got Baty to admit that the Word of God is inerrant. Well, if God's Word is without error, it's teaching that the world was created in six days about 6000 years ago must be correct, no matter how the evidence is interpreted by man's mind corrupted by sin. Inerrant means inerrant, unless you don't really believe the Bible is what it says it is or means what it says it means.

As for Baty calling Believer a liar, I know I'd trust Believer with my life. Can't say the same for Baty.less

Dwights, you said: "By the way, just because you were a former member of the RCC doesn't mean you understood it or were taught correctly about it" So you believe a person can be RCC and yet not understand the doctrines of the RCC correctly? Then how do you know that YOU understand them correctly?

Ifeelfine, Believer speaks the truth: we have been over this before. Some scholars do not call Gen. 2 so much a recap as a close-up of Day 6. It's right there in the Hebrew language. Shall we go over it again?

That is all you ever do, Rev: mess with what other people say. When are you going to offer something of substance to the discussion? Seems all you know how to do is mock.

Clover001, Like Dorothy and the great and powerful Oz, you have peeked behind the curtain and discovered who Rev really is. Carry on. (I just had to say it...)

LSP, "For example, even if God were to come down from the clouds to a crowd of atheists and show some unequivocal sign, those atheists would still have the free will to serve him. Some may still say "no" due to anger, not wanting to serve something, etc. However, like the friend example, they'd still know God existed and thus could make a more informed decision. " Isn't that exactly what God d...more

LSP,
"For example, even if God were to come down from the clouds to a crowd of atheists and show some unequivocal sign, those atheists would still have the free will to serve him. Some may still say "no" due to anger, not wanting to serve something, etc. However, like the friend example, they'd still know God existed and thus could make a more informed decision. "

Isn't that exactly what God did? He came to earth and did various miracles in front of people who didn't believe He was God in the flesh. When killed, He came back from the dead and appeared in front of many witnesses (500 at one time). You and I have not seen Him, but neither have we seen the battle of Thermopylae. We rely on the testimony of ancient documents, and the documentary evidence is better for Jesus than for most Greek history.

PS: Thank you for demonstrating that people who disagree can still have civil discourse.less

LSP, you wrote: "My point is that if God truly cared, he'd provide evidence that couldn't be interpreted any other way. He'd dispense with the faith baloney, descend from the sky and say "look everyone. I exist. If you don't follow me you guys are all going to hell. I love you and don't want this to happen." ... "My point: If God truly loved us, he'd be doing everything in his power to get us to b...more

LSP, you wrote: "My point is that if God truly cared, he'd provide evidence that couldn't be interpreted any other way. He'd dispense with the faith baloney, descend from the sky and say "look everyone. I exist. If you don't follow me you guys are all going to hell. I love you and don't want this to happen." ... "My point: If God truly loved us, he'd be doing everything in his power to get us to be saved rather than hiding behind a murky glass of ambiguous evidence."

This is exactly what God did - He did everything in His power to convince us of His existence and His love. He came down from heaven and became a man named Jesus. He said, "The Father has sent me, and I'm the only way to the Father." Then He died to take the punishment for our offences, and then the Father raised Jesus from the dead, proving/vindicating everything Jesus had said and done. All these events were observed by many in Jerusaelm, and the enemies of Jesus could not deny/disprove what had happened.less