Confused Christians

Here is one of many pointless conversations with a Religious Apologist. Am I being trolled? You decide.

The story begins with me suggesting that if there is evidence to support the existence of God, it would be interesting to see it. A religious apologist provides a link to “20 arguments for God’s Existence” by another religious apologist (Peter Kreeft). This is a series of inductive arguments and analogies – it’s certainly not evidence. So...

#

Posted By

Date

Time (UK)

Comment

The Religious apologist reminds me that I am ignoring the 20 arguments for God article that he provided. He reminds me four times...

1	A Religious Apologist	12 Sep 2013	1:03AM	But of course you ignored my further evidence--let's get back to that link again: http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm
2	A Religious Apologist	12 Sep 2013	1:40AM	How would one verify such by the scientific method? Does one test with God's input and one without? That's the limit of this particular verification process regarding cosmological issues. That's not to say that there is no evidence for God beyond this particular unsuitable process: http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm
3	A Religious Apologist	14Sep 2013	1:19AM	you ignore other evidence not straitjacketed by the limited tool of science and its limited verification processes: http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm
4	A Religious Apologist	14Sep 2013	1:19AM	Again I've offered [a non-scientific explanation for intelligence] over and over which you've ignored--here's one link to consider, among many. As usual I've had to offer such multiple times, still hoping that you might respond to such on topic: http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm

So I decide to post a refutation for each of the arguments,

5

JimC

14 Sep 2013

6:54PM

A link was provided in a separate thread to “20 arguments for God's Existence.” Peter Kreeft is a professor of philosophy and a Christian Apologist. He is the author of “The Handbook of Christian Apologetics". It would be impossible to discuss all 20 arguments in a single thread so I suggest we look at them one at a time. Let's begin with the “The Argument from Change” which is number one on Peter Kreeft's list...

...when I got as far as number 5, a Christian Evangelist joins the debate...

6	A Christian Evangelist	30 Sep 2013	4:44PM	I've been away from this Board awhile. It seems to have changed for the worse. The topic “The Argument from Change” is an example. One internet article is used to answer some other interent article. Internet articles on controverted subjects are notoriously poor.
7	JimC	30 Sep 2013	5:03PM	A Religious  Apologist  presented a web site few weeks ago which he said provided "evidence for God". I don't blame him for posting an "Internet article" as you put it but it seemed to me there was no evidence in the article - just some analogies and inductive arguments. So I ignored it.  A  Religious Apologist then posted comments aimed specifically at me for ignoring the article. He did this four times. So rather than being criticised for ignoring so-called "evidence" I felt bound to respond. His article contained 20 "arguments" so I felt each should be examined individually rather than generally. The arguments so far have been flawed logically, and I've explained why. We've done 5 out of 20 so far.  Having been criticised for ignoring the article, I am now criticised for responding! Quelle Surprise! However you do have a point about long posts. Perhaps I should post my explanations off the board and provide links – then people don’t have to read long, boring posts.

The Religious Apologist joins in again – but he seems to have forgotten that I only responded to his link to Peter Kreeft’s website after he posted comments on four occasions, aimed at me, for ignoring it. He also seems to think that his loss of memory qualifies my post as a fallacious Straw Man argument!

8

A Religious Apologist

1 Oct 2013

1:59 AM

I didn't post comments aimed at you for "ignoring the article"--you are attacking me on a false premise--so you get a straw man for your misrepresentation. I critiqued the fact that you made dismissive, unsubstantiated posits regarding the content of the article, which you failed to support. Please note the difference.

Hmmm. He's forgotten what he said 2 weeks previously. So I am bound to remind him. This happens a lot in various debates. By the time I’ve reminded him of what he actually said, the debate has given up the will to live. Perhaps I’m being trolled. Anyway...

9	JimC	1 Oct	7:53AM	You did post comments aimed at me for "ignoring the article" which you referred to as "evidence". This happened four times over a seven day period, including twice in a single post.
10	A Religious Apologist	4 Oct 2013	12:509 AM	Do you see what you just did? My critique all along was that you were ignoring EVIDENCE! I did link to the article for that evidence but "evidence" itself was the issue--hence my point above!

Bizarre.  It seems that A Religious Apologist has forgotten his comments on 12th and 14th and blissfully unaware that the Kreeft article provides no evidence at all! Just weak analogies and inductive arguments.