A misunderstanding on your part, that you choose to continue with. No doubt hoping to deflect from your original fallacious dismissal of Capracus' claim. ... from you on this matter is based on your misunderstanding.
If you can't grasp it then you can't grasp it. Yet you grasping it or not is ultimately irrelevant to your initial fallacious dismissal. Your continuing evasion of that point is noted. And continues to be disappointing.
Just think of what you are saying in any other scenario. I say that I am the president of the USA and proceed to give a series of unusual directives (such as "replace all the books in your library with phrenology text books or face the consequences"). I employ an unending series of special pleadings to explain what I am doing on sciforums and why I have chosen to confront you with these directives I want you to abide by. Two questions : Do you follow any of those directives (or choose to respond as if they were directives given to you by the president .... such as posting "#dumptrump Why does this fool want to replace all the books in my library with phrenology text books?" to your twitter feed or whatever). If you choose not to (and thus effectively establish that you know I am not the president of the USA), can you justify your position if I add the (whimsical) condition that any references to pre-existing knowledge about the president are prohibited from discussion?
The point is whether you can dismiss the claim that you are the president of the USA by saying "well at least the President would abstain from writing such nonsense on an online media platform" or some such. If the President, or more specifically your concept of the President (and thus removing it from issues of actual knowledge of the actual President), is one where the President is actually capable of such then your dismissal is fallacious. If the President does X and you say that they should at least be able to do Y, but doing X is actually within their capability, then not doing Y is no proof, evidence, nor even valid argument dismissing the claim. P1: the President can do X or not-X P2: the President is not doing X C1: the person not doing X can not be the president. Do you not see even yet how your dismissal, your C1, is fallacious. And before you go on about knowledge, this relies on no knowledge whatsoever. It merely relies on the premises that you bring to the table. Whether it actually relates to the President, whether the premises are true (knowledge) or not, is irrelevant to the fallacious nature of the conclusion you reach. Of course, bring in knowledge to be able to dismiss the claim, I have never said otherwise. The issue I raised was your very specific dismissal of Capracus' claim to be God simply because, as you wrote in post #2 of this thread: "At the very least, one would hope an omnimax personalty would be capable of holding their own on an online discussion forum." That really should be the end of the story. But for some reason you keep harping on about irrelevancies, leading to misunderstandings on your part, instead of actually addressing that issue. The rest of your post is irrelevant (as have been most of your responses) as it is based on your continuing misunderstanding to the point I raised, deliberate or otherwise.
Actually the point was knowing whether a person is the president. If you know I am not, you dismiss any subsequent claims I make. Your action in response to my claim (ie, whether you act as if you are actually contronted by the president or whether you act as if you are actually confronted by an online crank) simultaneously determines what you are dismissing or accepting (president>online crank or president<online crank). Furthermore, it is interesting to note that your first response in justifying your dismissal/acceptance within this scenario is to resort to bringing pre-existing knowledge about the president to the discussion. Actually that is common sense, but I use the word "resort" to highlight how even you find it impossible to abide your own whimsical house rules you introduced to this discussion. It i
It’s more that they want to talk personal philosophy and history, but like a conversational buzzkill, you absolutely refuse to do it. As evidenced by the premise of this thread, there are many aspects of religion that need no help from atheists to achieve dumb down status, theists drove them into the gutter long ago. But we know that none of that president nonsense is true because the humanly testable evidence says otherwise. An omnimax God on the other hand can do anything, in any fashion, regardless if it makes any sense or not, because its actions can only be restrained and verified by itself.
At least as far my dialogue with you is concerned, it is you who owns all the buzzkill and refusal to talk philosophy and history. Just examine this thread to see how you handle the historical subject of ir/rational revelation/enlightenment when it is brought to your attention. .... thus spake the tumescent atheist. All of which is easily refuted on the authority of special pleading and the prohibition on introducing existing "knowledge" to contextualize the claims being made ... all this being said just to bring to your attention how sub-moronic the house rules are for this game you insist on playing.
Don't be silly. What you said was inherently nonsensical. What should be obvious is that when everybody tells you it isn't obvious, it isn't obvious.
If you think it's silly to read stuff other than a few select passages from the person you are trying to character assassinate, that's your prerogative. Swish!
No, the point I made had little to do with that... and was simply about your dismissal of Capracus' claim on the basis that God would be able to hold His own in an online discussion forum. You have chosen to drag it beyond that into realms that were never in the original. Irrelevancy after irrelevancy. As ever, the remainder of your post is based on your continuing misunderstanding - deliberate or otherwise (although given the ample opportunity to address the misunderstanding you are leaving little room to assume that it isn't deliberate). So when you choose to get off your self-gratifying merry-go-round, let me know. But if you're just going to continue to spout irrelevancy after irrelevancy then count me out of humouring you further.
Do the math. Your posts are getting shorter. I can't read more than you post. That's your typical MO. 1. Post a lot of gibberish, trying to appear clever. 2. Bicker when your silliness is exposed. 3. Run away.
Remarkably similar to your assessment of my online antics in the guise of the president ... If these implications were never your intention, it is simply because you didn't invest sufficient thought into the implications of your words. Which, funnily enough, was the same ultimatum I delivered to you when you originally introduced this ridiculous framework for so-called discussion.
So are yours. But then my original bone of contention was that you couldn't be arsed to read what I responded to. Hence it's your prerogative.... horses and water and all that
But without proper references by the person who is posting the inadequate few selected passages, how is one to research? You want others to prove you right and relieve you of that responsibility. Kinda silly ain't it? Are you serious???
You still don't get it, do you? If you claim that all dogs are brown, that's all I need to respond to. Whomever else you've been talking to is not remotely relevant.
Example: It's everybody else's fault this guy has posted nothing thread relevant on this thread. They're being censored, or something. Picked on. Rules are being enforced that prevent them from making sense or posting relevance. So the continual attack and disparagement and so forth is reaction only - therefor it's not trolling and vandalism as it otherwise would appear, and there is no agenda. It's a template: bullshit "if", pivot to attack, no thread relevance. Repeat indefinitely - literally hundreds of times on this forum, and how many others? This marks an agenda. They have an agenda, and honest discussion is not it.
