Pages

Thursday, August 03, 2006

Loftus on Anderson on Exbeliever

Evan has posted James' critique of exbeliever's rather poor argument against AFR below.

I thought I should employ John Loftus' little quip on Reppert's blog since it appears now that Loftus is batting for the other team. Loftus writes,

"I am finding that logic doesn't help us in the quest for metaphysical truths, anyway."

As always, thanks for the help John. This little claim will make for great blog fodder for years.

Just to bring it home, let me argue for the metaphysical truth of God's existence:

1. Bluebirds are pretty.

2. Ice cream is yummy.

3. Therefore, God exists.

Thanks John for making our lives easier.

5 comments:

  1. Manata,

    Are you mocking me? I'm gonna kick you in the tail, you little geek. I'm gonna beat you with a stick like a Pinata. How's that logic for ya? Just because ice cream is yummy doesn't necessarily mean God exists. I mean, some people don't like ice cream anyway, so you're argument is fallacious. Stay on your own turf and don't mess with me....

    ReplyDelete
  2. Loftus, I have read both of those books and your use of them to support your claim is laughable.

    The other problem, in your hypothetical, is that yes the logic us usefull and the evidence is all around you, the problem is that you hate God and seek to distort and supress His clear evidence.

    You fail to even *think* the problem may not be one of evidence or rational arguments but of your sinful condition, your hate of God, and your desire to be your own little god.

    You're no different than Adam and Eve.

    So, the problem with unbelievers is not arguments or evidence, but it IS UNBELIEVERS.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Which one of these guys would ever look at the logical evidence for Christian theism and come to any other conclusion than the one their atheistic presuppositions allow? Loftus sees the problem and comes to the conclusion that logic doesn't help us in the quest for metaphysical truth. Based on what? That it leads to the conclusion there is a God. There is the pretense of wanting "truth" (whatever that is in the naturalist worldview), but when the evidence leads us some place else besides the presupposed end, well, we don't like that. In reality it's a bunch of bunk (debunk, that is. heh heh)...

    ReplyDelete
  4. John Loftus said:

    All you and I are doing when we argue is confirming what we already believe. You and I each live in the universe next door. So stop being frustrated with me, and stop laughing. It just reveals you are unaquainted with what I'm saying. Get an education. At least then you will understand why we cannot reason with each other, rather than insisting till you're blue in the face that I should agree with you because what you believe is more "logical" and more reasonable. It just isn't. And while you may go on believing after getting educated, your degree of ill founded confidence with be gone.

    Then why are you here trying to reason with Paul, o educated one?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Do you need to confirm what you already believe is true? Why? Just askin'

    ReplyDelete