DDDx8 wrote:
Well, I tried making my argument that objects to a certain form. My argument is only concerned with free will definitions that implies accountability to a God with certain properties.
The problem is, and see my post above for a detailed breakdown, Christians can answer that in any number of ad-hoc ways.
In the process, they come off looking smart (or thinking they're smart, in the very least), and you come off looking ignorant because you didn't RTFM.
You have to nip that in the bud.
I did RTFM, and I'm telling you, this stuff is in there.
DDDx8 wrote:
This is my first attempt to put my argument in words, before it was just ideas in my head so of course there are a lot of things that need to be worked out. Studying is not really my thing, open discussions and discourse are but, if I find my self falling in the same holes over and over again....then maybe I'll study.
I was making arguments kind of like that twelve years ago or so. You pick things up over time, sure. And sometimes you do need to fall face flat into a pit, and be humiliated, before you'll get the motivation to seriously study.
There aren't very many competent apologists out there, but a good one would eat you for breakfast.
The holes are there; it would just be a very good idea to step back and go at this from another angle before you meet a competent Christian (rare, but it will happen eventually if you take this on).
No, I still need to talk about motivation because if I avoid it someone can come and say exactly what you said.
No, you need to avoid it, because it's basically part of the Christian definition of free will, and if you treat it like that your whole argument is a straw man:
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman
Even a novice will laugh you off the internet for doing something like that.
That's as bad as when Christians deny evolution by trying to bundle in abiogenesis and the origin of the big bang. Evolution has nothing to do with those things- if they had just RTFM they would know that. But they don't, and because of that they look like dishonest idiots (and some of them are, but most of them are just ignorant).
You really have to RTFM.
I just need to put it in my own terms and be clear by what I mean by it, because it does seem like it is a necessary factor of choice.
Of course it is- in reality. But not in Christian world.
This is because "free will" in the religious sense, like souls, isn't a real thing. It's a non-starter.
Like I've said: When, instead of forcing the Christian to step into the real world of logic, you go to where they are in Christian land, predicated on all of those logical contradictions, you lose the ability to have a coherent debate.
You've lost the moment you accept their illogical premises, even for the sake of argument. It's not possible to have a debate where the opponent gets exempted from the rules of logic- you're handing it to them. And more.
I think I just need to define those factors of choice words in my own terms and hopefully I'd be able to avoid "fate of the unlearned" arguments. That way I don't have to read anything thoroughly....yet. I'll keep in mind what you wrote as references of what to avoid when defining my terms.
-_-
It's not a long article. I just read it again in like five minutes right before I posted it for you to make sure it was going to give you what you needed to know.
You can't be this lazy if you're going to be serious about taking on Christian apologists. Knowing the other side's argument is just really basic level stuff.
If they go down the route of God being inherently illogical, I'll go down the route of saying that nothing about God, whether it be read, said, heard, or even revealed by God itself can be trusted if that is the case. I'll make a better case for why that is when I need to. So, hopefully the person accepts that God abides by logic or something otherwise It will be a different argument I'd have to present.
If you can get a Christian to agree that god abides by logic- and that if anything about god's nature is contradictory, then god doesn't exist- then you've virtually won already. They'll backslide fast when they think it will be a problem for them.
Getting them to unequivocally assert that and stand by it is easier said than done, FYI.
But here's the thing: They won't make the argument as transparently as I did. They will instead appeal directly to the qualities of god, and they'll win the argument because you already accepted those qualities as true.
I think I'm kinda trying to do this, but my argument only works with a God with certain properties and from what I am aware of Abrahamic Gods have the properties I am targeting.
The problem is the argument doesn't work with the standard god, because your whole concept is based on a straw man.
But even if it did work, and it was based on the real argument, they have an easy get out of jail free card by appealing to any of the qualities of that god that you already accepted as a premise.
Learn why the principle of explosion is true, and why it's impossible to have a coherent debate after accepting an internally contradictory premise.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion
This article is super short and simple. For the love of the flying spaghetti monster, please read it all.
If you don't understand it, tell me and I'll explain. And I can give you examples of how they can appeal to those illogical qualities of god to negate a logical contradiction within your argument.
But I think I can word it better to make it more generic so I can attack any God with these properties granted and at the same time bypassing whatever other baggage that comes with accepting their god specifically.
That's not how logic works. No matter how you word it, if those premises are in there, the argument is DOA.
I don't know when I will though, this is my first attempt putting my ideas out so I can only see the problems if people point them out.....or I study, but I don't see me studying much anytime soon.
It's fine for a first attempt, and I hope you keep trying.
If nothing else, this will be a good exercise for you- if you can follow my advice, study those fallacies, and understand why this argument is broken, you'll learn a lot from the postmortem.
But you are going to have to study a little.
I'm keeping it as simple as possible. I'm not going to tell you to read a book, or the Bible- just the cliff notes so you have an idea of what you're addressing.
I hope you'll consider it.