Sans_Deity wrote:His argument is ultimately flawed...but he never actually got to make it. Hopefully he'll call next week and we can continue.
Matt Slick wrote:Just did a gig on the atheist thing here on Sunday. I must say, the hosts
really don't like me to finish a thought.
If they had just been a little more patient, then I could have presented my
case for God's existence and they could have responded to what I WAS saying
instead of reading into the discuss what I was NOT saying. They did this
many times. But, that is pretty typical for atheists...no offense meant.
They also have not done their homework dealing with logic and
transcendentals, the latter I wouldn't expect them to know about. The
former, they should know better. They are not able to provide the necessary
preconditions for logical absolutes and just saying, basically, that people
made them up...doesn't cut it.
Too bad we ran out of time. Perhaps our next encounter might be more
productive. It'd be better if it were a formal, in person debate.
Kazim wrote:1. I was so eager to get to the fallacy that I jumped way ahead in the argument, claiming he was going to say things that he hadn't said yet. Not only did this come across as potentially rude, but it also allowed him to claim that he wasn't saying that at all.
2. Don was kind of out in left field when he denied that logic wasn't universal.
Kazim wrote:I had a long chat with Matt at dinner last night
Cephus wrote:Unfortunately, you were actually doing the right thing, you were just doing it before Matt Slick made the points that you were tearing down. It was funny, as we were listening to the show, my wife was laughing about how fast Matt was back-pedalling. You weren't rude, Matt Slick was. First off, he calls *YOUR* show, virtually without warning, and expects *YOU* to come up with something to talk about. Then he sits around and tells you what atheists are like. Then he acts entitled to spew his irrational nonsense over *YOUR* airwaves without any rebuttal. You're worried about you being rude?
GizmoIscariot wrote:The thing that I don't get about the transcendental argument is doesn't it rely on the concepts of absolutes? Or at least logic can't see God, therefore he can be there, therefore he is?
Law of Identity
1. Something is what it is and isn't what it is not. Something that exists has a specific nature.
2. For example, a cloud is a cloud, not a rock. A fish is a fish, not a car.
Kazim wrote:GizmoIscariot wrote:The thing that I don't get about the transcendental argument is doesn't it rely on the concepts of absolutes? Or at least logic can't see God, therefore he can be there, therefore he is?
No, I don't think that's right. I think it's more like this:
Logic exists and is absolute
A godless universe cannot explain the existence of any absolutes
Therefore this is not a godless universe.
Users browsing this forum: Rodneyvefs and 0 guests