Dr.Henry_Killinger said:
See, this is the difference between you and me. You go into this with the mentality that this is a competition. That's why you cannot even comprehend your own mistakes in logic, because you think there is a winner and a loser. If you don't even realize this, you can't learn from those mistakes. The addendum I made clarifies my position, but the argument or counter argument you made is false on all accounts, and the fact that you are now focusing on that instead of defending your orginal argument makes this more than obvious. So rather than going home with my ball like you keep praying, oh the irony, I do, I'm just going to sit here and continue to point out to you that your argument is wrong and why it is wrong. Because I am teaching you and I do not care about winning and losing. In my opinion, we all are losers for having participated in this pointless discussion but I digress. And to be honest, it is typical that you attack the main premise and try to tear it down because of I didn't state an assumption. I bet you were thanking God, I stated that so you could get your Internet Rep for the day. Part of you knows your argument is crap, and you realize that you can no longer defend it. But rather than admit your mistakes you focus on my own. And its funny, you think you have the "upper hand" now, but since I've admitted my faults, you have no choice but to address your own or repeat yourself. At least if you want to stop from committing even more fallacies like strawman and ad hominem. Come on try it. I've exposed how faulty your logic is, show me how P1 could still possibly be true. I noticed you aren't talking about the word count any more. What happened to "If hate is mentioned in the bible, "god" hates something." you changed it to ""If the bible says god/lord/jesus hates X". Ironically, you omit that specification as well, implying it is assumed, just like the initial premise. Except in your case it is not a mistake of omission...well it is, you just haven't recognized it yet. I'll wait. Even if you get over that hurdle, you now have to back up the "Amended" P1, because the word count evidence is no longer applicable to occurences of the phrase. You've gone from a P1 based on faulty evidence to a stronger P1 based on no evidence. |
First things first:
1. You have little to no understanding of logic, as I've pointed out several times and you've actually admitted. I think it's time to stop pretending this is a teaching moment for anyone but yourself.
2. Debate is about winning. Always.
Now that we've settled the facts of the matter, I am still left absolutely aghast at what little effort has been made to address my actual argument. I'll recite it again, once more, so that you can actually confront it.
P1) If the Bible says any of the following identifiable terms: God, Jesus, Lord, which are applicable to the supernatural deity central to Christianity, followed immediately by hates X or any implication thereof wherein X represents anything, literally anything, then god hates X.
P2) The Bible says god hates X.
C) Ergo, god hates X.
Straight up modus ponens here, nothing deceptive or tricky...should be followable by anyone - so that establishes validity. Now onto soundness...
P1 is rather obviously true since it's the basis for everything Christianity. Arguing against it would be arguing against the Bible as a source, which pulls a rug out from the entire exercise.
P2 is justified in several locations, but I'll provide only one because it's all I need.
"There are six things that the Lord hates, seven that are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil, a false witness who breathes out lies, and one who sows discord among brothers." (Proverbs 6:16-19)
Now P2 is established and the conclusion follows as a matter of necessity since this is a deductive syllogism.
The fault does not appear to be in the argument itself, it appears to be in your own mind.
