Kelsey: "Special pleading does not disqualify you from providing
evidence for God's existence."
Omprem: There is no special pleading only stating the truth.
Kelsey: "Provide evidence that anything exists outside of time and
space."
Omprem: Another tired plea for the supremacy of empiricism in areas
that are beyond its jurisdiction. Learn how to apply those methods you
claim to know about.
On May 1, 5:42 pm, Neil Kelsey <
neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On May 1, 2:07 pm, omprem <
omp...@magma.ca> wrote:
>
> > Kelsey: "Existence, however, is within the limits of empiricism."
>
> > Omprem: Empiricism relies on difference: there must be A and non-A for
> > empiricism to function. God is One without an other therefore
> > empiricism cannot be used to know God.
>
> Special pleading does not disqualify you from providing evidence for
> God's existence.
>
> > Far from being a red herring, 'empiricism' addresses directly the
> > illogical foundation of your plea for empirical evidence of God's
> > existence.
>
> > You are committing the logical error of equivocation in that you use
> > 'existence' to mean existence within time and space, whereas God is
> > existence without time and space, in fact, God is the source of time
> > and space.
>
> Provide evidence that anything exists outside of time and space.
>
> > On May 1, 4:06 pm, Neil Kelsey <
neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 1, 12:10 pm, omprem <
omp...@magma.ca> wrote:
>
> > > > Kelsey: "You have failed to convince me that God exists" is not a
> > > > belief system."
>
> > > > Omprem: You have just committed the logical error know as the red
> > > > herring by introducing irrelevant material to draw attention away from
> > > > the message of the post.
>
> > > On the contrary; it is not logical to believe something without
> > > evidence, which is the subject of your post - atheists are not
> > > logical. No Red Herring, at all.
>
> > > > Incidentally, in seeking empirical proof you commit another logical
> > > > error of overgeneralization as you seek to apply empiricism to that
> > > > which is beyond the limits of empiricism.
>
> > > Existence, however, is within the limits of empiricism. Your Red
> > > Herring about empiricism failed.
>
> > > > ******************************************************************************
> > > > Omprem: " If they [the errors of fact and logic upon which atheism is
> > > > based] are addressed, atheism will disappear."
>
> > > > Kelsey: "Go ahead, tell us why believing God exists despite your sad
> > > > lack of valid evidence that he does is an "error of fact and logic."
> > > > Atheism seems like a rational position to me."
>
> > > > Omprem: Deja vue all over again. See above.
>
> > > What, you mean your Red Herring about empiricism?
>
> > > > You have just recommitted
> > > > the logical error of red herring in attempting to shift the
> > > > conversation to an irrelevant topic.
>
> > > Evidence that something (God) exists is a reasonable requirement,
> > > therefore atheism is a logical stance, and since your topic is
> > > "Atheism and logic," and your contention is that atheists are not
> > > logical, this exposes YOUR red herring - logic is NOT an irrelevant
> > > topic, and I WASN'T shifting the conversation.
>
> > > > On May 1, 2:44 pm, Neil Kelsey <
neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On May 1, 11:32 am, omprem <
omp...@magma.ca> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Atheists should pay attention to the errors of fact and logic that
> > > > > > comprise the
> > > > > > atheist belief system.
>
> > > > > "You have failed to convince me that God exists" is not a belief
> > > > > system.
>
> > > > > > If these are not addressed, atheism will remain
> > > > > > a fringe religion for the disaffected.
>
> > > > > I see you're still as unclear about what atheism is as you always
> > > > > were. Atheism is not a relgion, and the number of people who are
> > > > > atheists is growing.
>
> > > > > > If they are addressed, atheism will
> > > > > > disappear.
>
> > > > > Go ahead, tell us why believing God exists despite your sad lack of
> > > > > valid evidence that he does is an "error of fact and logic." Atheism
> > > > > seems like a rational position to me.
>
> > > > > > Tough choice.
>
> > > > > Not really.- Hide quoted text -