tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post7339518278153201517..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Filed Under F for FrivolousRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-89752992459064632372008-04-23T16:08:00.000-04:002008-04-23T16:08:00.000-04:00Good work, Paul - on another note - can you send m...Good work, Paul - on another note - can you send me your links compilation on The Philosophy of the Christian Religion? We had it on the <A HREF="http://www.christianskepticism.org" REL="nofollow">ChristianSkepticism </A>site, but the original source seems to have dropped it.<BR/><BR/>jadelongmire at gmail dot com<BR/><BR/>Thanks!panta dokimazetehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09724337187019929599noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-2095249384689990412008-04-22T12:49:00.000-04:002008-04-22T12:49:00.000-04:00I also made further points that undermine the clai...I also made further points that undermine the claim, so even if the dog point doesn't work, the argument got handled in other areas.Errorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10615233201833238198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-7998039231522145842008-04-22T12:45:00.000-04:002008-04-22T12:45:00.000-04:00thn,I don't much care if you reject the dog analog...thn,<BR/><BR/>I don't much care if you reject the dog analogy. The *relevant* points work.<BR/><BR/>We are all agreed that a God exists.<BR/><BR/>When I deny their view I do not deny that God exists, I deny their conception of God is correct. But, they are correct when they state: There is such a being as God and he exists.<BR/><BR/>I reject your empiricism. All that was was, as is your wont, and *assertion.*<BR/><BR/>And, if you do not think that God can be empirically verified then you think it is pointless to argue with us, yet you do it anyway. So if you can do it, so can we.<BR/><BR/>And, we do make empirical claims that were, and will be, verified.<BR/><BR/>Also, we cannot empirically verify the trith of your empiricism, and so you can't argue for it.<BR/><BR/>So, you've not dealt with the problem. But, thanks for identifying yourself as one of "those" that thinks the ridiculous "one step farther" argument is a good one.Errorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10615233201833238198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-13001083188770478262008-04-22T12:34:00.000-04:002008-04-22T12:34:00.000-04:00I reject the dog analogy even when qualified as ro...I reject the dog analogy even when qualified as roughly. It's more as if you had a description of a dog that was not specific enough as to its features to identify according to the dog breed definitions. If your respective arguments can never eventually be empirically confirmed, it's pointless to argue, since it will never end. If you had an actual dog you wouldn't *need* the description (whether that description was written or handed down orally via supposedly infallible dog describers). You would even be able to decide if the dog were a new breed. Same with the math problem - there is an end point.thnuhthnuhhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07825488332154700881noreply@blogger.com