International creationism

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
and so I claim to have seen his proof

and considered it not a proof

And what was your reasoning, oh great and infallible Jon Miller? "Your proof is wrong 'just because'"? Or do you not bother recalling the details of your many victories on the field of debate, since they are too unnumerable to mention?

it is obvious from my post that I disagree that he 'proved' that an omnipotent deity is a logical impossibility

Well, sure, obvious to anybody who is as infallible as you are, I suppose. Y'see, normally when somebody claims to have (but in fact has failed to) prove something, the response would be "Your proof was in error, here's my cite of the debate," as I did with Lincoln's trying to fall back on his circular "information" argument. However, it did not occur to me that you (in your infallible glory) may dismiss proofs on a whim, thus your saying "I missed that proof" is equivalent to saying "I did not understand your proof, thus it was clearly in error." Obviously the fault lies with me, since I did not recognize the self-evident infallibility that is Jon Miller, the only person alive who can claim that a post essentially saying "Consistency is good" is "unreasonable" (thereby justifying ad hominems, of course).

[Jon Miller]

What I claimed is that you misunderstood me

and this seems to be an ad hominem as well

"Unlike some people, I prefer to reserve judgment on a proof until I've actually seen the proof."

all I was stating is that I disagreed with him, I had not gotten to the point where I said why I disargeed with him

such a thing is allowed you know

Jon Miller

[Ramo]

"Logic dictates 1 != 2, but if God is omnipotent surely he can make 1=2. By doing so He would defy the laws of nature and make the whole universe a rather strange place. Just because it is a strange place does not mean it cannot be made a 'real' place.

All He need to do is change change the basics of logic. Presumably an omnipotent God can just change the laws of logic to make the dilema go away."

I don't buy the argument fully, but it is an interesting exit clause. It continues along the lines of asking how and if the laws of nature can change

Any proof requires assuming the axioms of a logical system beforehand (for instance, the invalidity of contradiction, which is universal in logical systems we generally use). Therefore, asserting a contradiction is logically invalid under any reasonable logical system.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
I just disagree with you, and get frustrated with being deliberately misunderstood (Although as I posted I get misunderstood often and so it is probably partially my fault)

I started out this evening being frustrated with you (pissed off might be a better term, but it's difficult to apply to an opponent in an online "debate") when your first post in reference to me included this little tidbit...

Originally posted by Jon Miller
if you don't understand this from your years of life, than you are an idiot

...though you later "justified" your use of strong language by claiming that I was being unreasonable (though how saying "Consistency is good" is unreasonable is beyond me), and apparently this also justified your repeated claims that I am illiterate.

I'm not particularly offended, though, just as I wasn't particularly offended at Lincoln calling me "high" in the Great Information Debate; ad hominems never offend me in online debates, and rarely faze me in real-life arguments either. Their use just causes me to be extremely disappointed in whoever resorted to them, since it really just shows that the person isn't capable of reasonable debate. Flame wars are one thing, but turning a debate into a flame war is inexcusable.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
and this seems to be an ad hominem as well

Ad hominems are used in debates, while flames are used in flame wars; our discussion had stopped being a debate several pages ago. I try to be polite to people, but when they start being impolite then I respond *** for tat.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by loinburger


And what was your reasoning, oh great and infallible Jon Miller? "Your proof is wrong 'just because'"? Or do you not bother recalling the details of your many victories on the field of debate, since they are too unnumerable to mention?



Well, sure, obvious to anybody who is as infallible as you are, I suppose. Y'see, normally when somebody claims to have (but in fact has failed to) prove something, the response would be "Your proof was in error, here's my cite of the debate," as I did with Lincoln's trying to fall back on his circular "information" argument. However, it did not occur to me that you (in your infallible glory) may dismiss proofs on a whim, thus your saying "I missed that proof" is equivalent to saying "I did not understand your proof, thus it was clearly in error." Obviously the fault lies with me, since I did not recognize the self-evident infallibility that is Jon Miller, the only person alive who can claim that a post essentially saying "Consistency is good" is "unreasonable" (thereby justifying ad hominems, of course).

I think my meaning was clear

if oyu failed to follow, I am sorry

I was not dismissing his proof on a whim, I was implying that the previous discussion did not end in the triumph of his proof in the way he thought it had

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by loinburger


Ad hominems are used in debates, while flames are used in flame wars; our discussion had stopped being a debate several pages ago. I try to be polite to people, but when they start being impolite then I respond *** for tat.

you were the one who brought up ad hominems

Jon Miller

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
you were the one who brought up ad hominems

Yes, I know. I said that you were using them.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by loinburger


I started out this evening being frustrated with you (pissed off might be a better term, but it's difficult to apply to an opponent in an online "debate") when your first post in reference to me included this little tidbit...



...though you later "justified" your use of strong language by claiming that I was being unreasonable (though how saying "Consistency is good" is unreasonable is beyond me), and apparently this also justified your repeated claims that I am illiterate.

I'm not particularly offended, though, just as I wasn't particularly offended at Lincoln calling me "high" in the Great Information Debate; ad hominems never offend me in online debates, and rarely faze me in real-life arguments either. Their use just causes me to be extremely disappointed in whoever resorted to them, since it really just shows that the person isn't capable of reasonable debate. Flame wars are one thing, but turning a debate into a flame war is inexcusable.

I was not implying you were an idiot

I don't think you are an idiot, I just think that if you didn't understand what I said you were an idiot

I think that you do understand what I said, it was just not inlcuded in your argument for whatever reason (maybe even because it would invalidate oyur argument, but maybe it was an honest mistake)

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

if oyu read what I said

you would see that before the line oyu quoted I said

"I agree that language in general is not always clear and that the Bible in particular has many passages that could be taken different ways (as anything that is written or communicated in any fashion)"

it is a fact that if oyu do not beleive that communication can be understood in different ways that you are, to put it bluntly, an idiot

however, I was not claiming that you were an idiot, I was merely claiming that my statment was already known to all who are not idiots

you seem to have a chip on your shoulder

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

to put it another way

I said if oyu do not beleive A, then you are an idiot

I never said that Loin did not beleive A

and so I never said that Loin was an idiot (or at least I did not then)

the only way you could construe me calling oyu an idiot is if you don't beleive A

which wasn't my intention

(A is that anything that is communicated may be interpreted in different ways)

Jon Miller

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
you seem to have a chip on your shoulder

Your statement could have been taken any number of ways (most of them bad, since your post had very little to do with mine), so I reserved judgment on it to see how you'd respond in your next post, especially since I've not known you to resort to such contemptuous behavior in the past. Since in your next post you did not attempt to retract or clarify your statement, but instead seemed to be trying to justify it (by claiming that I was somehow being unreasonable, though I still fail to see how consistency is unreasonable), I figured that you'd probably intended your statement to be an ad hominem after all. When you then called Gnu dense and then questioned my literacy, all doubt left my mind, so I treated your ad hominems as an invitation to a flame war. By this point there were three ad hominems on the board (since the previous two had been solidified by your questioning my literacy), so I had no compunctions against answering *** for tat -- you'd had your chance to behave reasonably, and you'd blown it.

[CyberGnu]

And yet it still did not pertain to loins post...

Come on, Jon, you have to realize that it is insulting to answer a post with a non-sequiteur, and then end with 'if you don't get this you are an idiot'.

[CyberGnu]

Damn, I'm getting slow... Should always hit 'reload' before typing a reply, shouldn;t I?

[Jon Miller]

you said "**** you too." first, which was the first attack

I could see no reason for that, so I questioned oyur literacy (I should have said something like, you appeared to have misread me, do you care to read over that again?)

I already apologised for my statement to Gnu

Jon Miller