Forums

Reasons for Joy; In Gentleness, and Respect.

Profile of ParaclitosLogos

Show Posts

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - ParaclitosLogos

16
You moved the goal post, after beeing shown of your mistake:

So , where is the apology for falsely  attempt to pressume to read my mind and assert with out evidence that I am prepared to declare that I can demonstrate that a man came back from the death, 2000 years ago?

I've not attempted to read your mind, though.

As for the issue of demonstration, this was addressed some time ago:

Still, as it goes, phrasing what one is doing as "inference to the best explanation" wouldn't help matters (you're probably reading more into my "demonstrates" than is there), and would enable me to fairly make the same observation. Folks, yourself included, are prepared to declare that they can demonstrate (or, in your case, 'infer to the best explanation') that their particular religious hero returned from the dead two millennia ago, whilst being routinely ignorant of basic historical background from the period (ad hoc Googling notwithstanding, of course!). That's astonishing, and typifies the problematic phenomenon of not knowing the extent of one's ignorance.

Are you now conceding that you do agree with the Resurrection arguments you provided, which earlier you declared was none of my business?

If you don´t issue the apology , it will be openly obvious to everyone you are being dishonest.

As soon as I've reason to provide one, you'll be sure to receive it.


You moved the goal post, after beeing shown of your mistake:

Quote
In fact, it couldn´t be the case that I have claimed a demonstration of any kind (with respect to this subject), since, I have explicitly said that the Resurrection argument defended by Dr. Craig is an inference to the best explanation, which is widely known to be based  on non-demonstrative reasoning (a fact that seems to be ignored by some. An example of some not knowing how little they know?), that much I do know.

So , where is the apology for falsely  attempt to pressume to read my mind and assert with out evidence that I am prepared to declare that I can demonstrate that a man came back from the death, 2000 years ago?

If you don´t issue the apology , it will be openly obvious to everyone you are being dishonest.

17
(I thought you had nothing else to add...?)


What remains unsubstantiated is your attempt to read my mind and assert with out evidence that I am prepared to declare that I can demonstrate that a man came back from the death, 2000 years ago.

I've not attempted to read your mind, though.

And the claim that the accusation of misrepresentation remains unsubstantiated is a fallacious argument from ignorance, and shifting the burden of proof.

It's not to argue from ignorance to suggest that a claim is unsubstantiated, as should be obvious. I don't see how it is my burden to establish your claim that I've misrepresented you. :S

What I said was "What remains unsubstantiated is your attempt to read my mind and assert with out evidence that I am prepared to declare that I can demonstrate that a man came back from the death, 2000 years ago"

I did not mention missrepresentation.

I've not attempted to read your mind, though.

Furthermore, such claim was shown to be factually false, which you seem to have ignored and be ignoring, for some strange reason.

Rather, this was addressed some time ago:

Still, as it goes, phrasing what one is doing as "inference to the best explanation" wouldn't help matters (you're probably reading more into my "demonstrates" than is there), and would enable me to fairly make the same observation. Folks, yourself included, are prepared to declare that they can demonstrate (or, in your case, 'infer to the best explanation') that their particular religious hero returned from the dead two millennia ago, whilst being routinely ignorant of basic historical background from the period (ad hoc Googling notwithstanding, of course!). That's astonishing, and typifies the problematic phenomenon of not knowing the extent of one's ignorance.



You moved the goal post, after beeing shown of your mistake:

Quote
In fact, it couldn´t be the case that I have claimed a demonstration of any kind (with respect to this subject), since, I have explicitly said that the Resurrection argument defended by Dr. Craig is an inference to the best explanation, which is widely known to be based  on non-demonstrative reasoning (a fact that seems to be ignored by some. An example of some not knowing how little they know?), that much I do know.

So , where is the apology for falsely  attempt to pressume to read my mind and assert with out evidence that I am prepared to declare that I can demonstrate that a man came back from the death, 2000 years ago?

If you don´t issue the apology , it will be openly obvious to everyone you are being dishonest.

18
(I thought you had nothing else to add...?)


What remains unsubstantiated is your attempt to read my mind and assert with out evidence that I am prepared to declare that I can demonstrate that a man came back from the death, 2000 years ago.

I've not attempted to read your mind, though.

And the claim that the accusation of misrepresentation remains unsubstantiated is a fallacious argument from ignorance, and shifting the burden of proof.

It's not to argue from ignorance to suggest that a claim is unsubstantiated, as should be obvious. I don't see how it is my burden to establish your claim that I've misrepresented you. :S

What I said was "What remains unsubstantiated is your attempt to read my mind and assert with out evidence that I am prepared to declare that I can demonstrate that a man came back from the death, 2000 years ago"

I did not mention missrepresentation.

Furthermore, such claim was shown to be factually false, which you seem to have ignored and be ignoring, for some strange reason.

I`m waiting for your apology.

19

It´s not a matter of agreeing, it´s a matter of showing the evidence, where is it?

Where is the evidence that justifies stating weather I am Prepared to Declare such and such (as you initially stated), or not?

Please, show it.

As I said, it's already been discussed. If you need to revisit my posts, you're free to do so; I'm minded not to repeat myself still further.

To show evidence is not to discuss, it is to provide the actual evidence, for others to see.

You have imagined yourself in possession of some, but, there isn´t any, thus, you refuse to provide it.

Evidence is frequently shown through discussion, such as it has been in this case.

You have misrepresented me on account of poor reasoning,  you have refused, irrationally, to update your position, about my 1st person state of mind,  according to the relevant evidence, thoroughly provided by me, presuming, from ignorance, that you are off the hook, and, exhibiting bad form in the process.

So you claim, and repeatedly, but I've no reason to agree with you.

As for updating my position about what you believe, I'm unable to, since you won't tell me what you believe.

You should not have presumed you had privileged access to my inner state of mind with out asking, and worst, after being informed of your mistake, not taking notice of it.

Only I've not done that. Rather, I've made a claim about your "psychological state" merely insofar as I've drawn a fair assumption about what you believe based on what you've said. I've given you plenty of opportunities to confirm whether that assumption is correct, or not. You've declined to take any of them. It's unclear what else I'm supposed to do, other than maintain that your accusation of my having misrepresented you is, currently, unsupported.


By the way, didn't you say you were done with this discussion several posts ago? What happened?

Since, you have not provided evidence that justifies your missrepresentation of my personal state of mind, I have nothing else to add.

And I will again note that this accusation of misrepresentation remains unsubstantiated.

What remains unsubstantiated is your attempt to read my mind and assert with out evidence that I am prepared to declare that I can demonstrate that a man came back from the death, 2000 years ago.

And the claim that the accusation of misrepresentation remains unsubstantiated is a fallacious argument from ignorance, and shifting the burden of proof.


In fact, it was shown to be false, since IBE´s are based on non-demonstrative reasoning, and, the due apology has not  been put forward, by you, yet.

20

It´s not a matter of agreeing, it´s a matter of showing the evidence, where is it?

Where is the evidence that justifies stating weather I am Prepared to Declare such and such (as you initially stated), or not?

Please, show it.

As I said, it's already been discussed. If you need to revisit my posts, you're free to do so; I'm minded not to repeat myself still further.

To show evidence is not to discuss, it is to provide the actual evidence, for others to see.

You have imagined yourself in possession of some, but, there isn´t any, thus, you refuse to provide it.

Evidence is frequently shown through discussion, such as it has been in this case.

You have misrepresented me on account of poor reasoning,  you have refused, irrationally, to update your position, about my 1st person state of mind,  according to the relevant evidence, thoroughly provided by me, presuming, from ignorance, that you are off the hook, and, exhibiting bad form in the process.

So you claim, and repeatedly, but I've no reason to agree with you.

As for updating my position about what you believe, I'm unable to, since you won't tell me what you believe.

You should not have presumed you had privileged access to my inner state of mind with out asking, and worst, after being informed of your mistake, not taking notice of it.

Only I've not done that. Rather, I've made a claim about your "psychological state" merely insofar as I've drawn a fair assumption about what you believe based on what you've said. I've given you plenty of opportunities to confirm whether that assumption is correct, or not. You've declined to take any of them. It's unclear what else I'm supposed to do, other than maintain that your accusation of my having misrepresented you is, currently, unsupported.


By the way, didn't you say you were done with this discussion several posts ago? What happened?

Since, you have not provided evidence that justifies your missrepresentation of my personal state of mind, I have nothing else to add.

21

It´s not a matter of agreeing, it´s a matter of showing the evidence, where is it?

Where is the evidence that justifies stating weather I am Prepared to Declare such and such (as you initially stated), or not?

Please, show it.

As I said, it's already been discussed. If you need to revisit my posts, you're free to do so; I'm minded not to repeat myself still further.

To show evidence is not to discuss, it is to provide the actual evidence, for others to see.

You have imagined yourself in possession of some, but, there isn´t any, thus, you refuse to provide it.

You have misrepresented me on account of poor reasoning,  you have refused, irrationally, to update your position, about my 1st person state of mind,  according to the relevant evidence, thoroughly provided by me, presuming, from ignorance, that you are off the hook, and, exhibiting bad form in the process.

You should not have presumed you had privileged access to my inner state of mind with out asking, and worst, after being informed of your mistake, not taking notice of it.


22
I don´t have to confirm anyhing the burden is yours.

Nevertheless, I made very explicit my position.

It´s just poor reasoning, on your part, sorry to say.

You do have to confirm something if you want to support your accusation of misrepresentation. The onus is on you to support that claim, which you've hitherto failed to do.

You've not made explicit your position, having said it's none of my business.

Anyway, you're welcome to think my reasoning is poor. I'm welcome to repeat, equally, that your accusation of misrepresentation is unsupported. And so it goes.

It´s not so easy.

Yes, you do have to confirm your initial remark, which you haven´t done.

I think my "initial remark" is justifiable. Confirmation is only something you can provide, but refuse to.

Here is yet another fallacious argument, namely, an argument from Ignorance.

Since, it hasn´t been shown (well, it has been shown, but, it seems, for some strange reason, you are impervious to evidence) to be false that you have missrepresented me, then, you haven´t missrepresented me.

But I've not made such an argument. Rather, I've said that your suggestion I've misrepresented you is unsupported, which it is.

You are just shifting the burden.

The onus is on you to support the claim of misrepresentation, which you've hitherto failed to do.

Not, it´s not justified, you have provided no evidence, since there is none, of weather I am prepared to declare anything or not.

But there is, as discussed.



Where is it?

No, there isn´t.

We've already discussed it. You don't need to tell me you don't agree, because I know that already.

It´s not a matter of agreeing, it´s a matter of showing the evidence, where is it?

Where is the evidence that justifies stating weather I am Prepared to Declare such and such (as you initially stated), or not?

Please, show it.

23
I don´t have to confirm anyhing the burden is yours.

Nevertheless, I made very explicit my position.

It´s just poor reasoning, on your part, sorry to say.

You do have to confirm something if you want to support your accusation of misrepresentation. The onus is on you to support that claim, which you've hitherto failed to do.

You've not made explicit your position, having said it's none of my business.

Anyway, you're welcome to think my reasoning is poor. I'm welcome to repeat, equally, that your accusation of misrepresentation is unsupported. And so it goes.

It´s not so easy.

Yes, you do have to confirm your initial remark, which you haven´t done.

I think my "initial remark" is justifiable. Confirmation is only something you can provide, but refuse to.

Here is yet another fallacious argument, namely, an argument from Ignorance.

Since, it hasn´t been shown (well, it has been shown, but, it seems, for some strange reason, you are impervious to evidence) to be false that you have missrepresented me, then, you haven´t missrepresented me.

But I've not made such an argument. Rather, I've said that your suggestion I've misrepresented you is unsupported, which it is.

You are just shifting the burden.

The onus is on you to support the claim of misrepresentation, which you've hitherto failed to do.

Not, it´s not justified, you have provided no evidence, since there is none, of weather I am prepared to declare anything or not.

But there is, as discussed.



Where is it?

No, there isn´t.

24
I don´t have to confirm anyhing the burden is yours.

Nevertheless, I made very explicit my position.

It´s just poor reasoning, on your part, sorry to say.

You do have to confirm something if you want to support your accusation of misrepresentation. The onus is on you to support that claim, which you've hitherto failed to do.

You've not made explicit your position, having said it's none of my business.

Anyway, you're welcome to think my reasoning is poor. I'm welcome to repeat, equally, that your accusation of misrepresentation is unsupported. And so it goes.

It´s not so easy.

Yes, you do have to confirm your initial remark, which you haven´t done.

I think my "initial remark" is justifiable. Confirmation is only something you can provide, but refuse to.

Here is yet another fallacious argument, namely, an argument from Ignorance.

Since, it hasn´t been shown (well, it has been shown, but, it seems, for some strange reason, you are impervious to evidence) to be false that you have missrepresented me, then, you haven´t missrepresented me.

But I've not made such an argument. Rather, I've said that your suggestion I've misrepresented you is unsupported, which it is.

You are just shifting the burden.

The onus is on you to support the claim of misrepresentation, which you've hitherto failed to do.

Not, it´s not justified, you have provided no evidence, since there is none, of weather I am prepared to declare anything or not.

25
I don´t have to confirm anyhing the burden is yours.

Nevertheless, I made very explicit my position.

It´s just poor reasoning, on your part, sorry to say.

You do have to confirm something if you want to support your accusation of misrepresentation. The onus is on you to support that claim, which you've hitherto failed to do.

You've not made explicit your position, having said it's none of my business.

Anyway, you're welcome to think my reasoning is poor. I'm welcome to repeat, equally, that your accusation of misrepresentation is unsupported. And so it goes.

It´s not so easy.

Yes, you do have to confirm your initial remark, which you haven´t done.

Here is yet another fallacious argument, namely, an argument from Ignorance.

Since, it hasn´t been shown (well, it has been shown, but, it seems, for some strange reason, you are impervious to evidence) to be false that you have missrepresented me, then, you haven´t missrepresented me.

You are just shifting the burden.


26
It´s an invalid inference.

No, it's a reasonable assumption. When I've observed you present Resurrection arguments in the past, it's been implicit that you've agreed with those arguments, and so I've drawn a (pretty typical) assumption that you do agree with them. Now, perhaps that assumption is incorrect, which is certainly a possibility, and that in making that assumption I've made claims about what you believe that misrepresent you, which is also a possibility.

But at the moment my assumption being incorrect is just a possibility, and therefore whether I've misrepresented you is likewise, because you refuse to confirm where you stand on those arguments. Thus, you've hardly any business asserting I've misrepresented you, no?

I have explained plenty, if it went over your head, I´m sorry.

You've explained everything in detail, save what matters. I suspect that the issue isn't one of comprehension, but an odd caginess surrounding confirmation of your (dis)agreement with these arguments. 

Additionally, you are the one who made the claim about my own psychological state, based on a bad inference, you have done nothing to show that it is true, rather, you have irrationally refused to assent to the truth of the matter. It´s your burden, not mine.

I've made a claim about your "psychological state" merely insofar as I've drawn a fair assumption about what you believe based on what you've said. I've given you plenty of opportunities to confirm whether that assumption is correct, or not. You've declined to take any of them. It's unclear what else I'm supposed to do, other than maintain that your accusation of my having misrepresented you is, currently, unsupported.

I'm quite happy to leave matters there, if you like.

What you did , then, was an attempt to an IBE, that fails to explain what I have exposed of my own position on the matter, and, general intentional attitude towards it, namely, that my defending and explaining the argument do not imply my being prepared to declare what you have asserted.

Your IBE fails. Either way, it is not a good inference. And you have provided no reason to think you did not missrepresent me, specially, after all I have explained.

You're free to express what I did in whatever philosophical jargon you like, but it's of no moment.

I've paid very close attention to what you've said in respect of arguments for the Resurrection you've previously presented, but you've not once addressed the matter of confirming whether you agree with them or not. As we've discussed already, until you do so, accusations that I've misrepresented you can be dismissed as easily as they are asserted.


You are being irrational.

It´s thoroughly absurd to purport to have a privilege epistemic position on my state of mind, based on a bad inference, and total lack of charity.

You are defending a completely incoherent position.

If this was a legal case you would have to pay or go to jail, you didn´t provide one iota of evidence for your claim, and, I am the ultimate judge of what I am prepared to do or not.

I've not claimed to have a "privilege[d] epistemic position on [your] state of mind". Rather:

I've made a claim about your "psychological state" merely insofar as I've drawn a fair assumption about what you believe based on what you've said. I've given you plenty of opportunities to confirm whether that assumption is correct, or not. You've declined to take any of them. It's unclear what else I'm supposed to do, other than maintain that your accusation of my having misrepresented you is, currently, unsupported.

There's little else to say. As I mentioned earlier, I'm quite happy to agree to disagree on whether I've misrepresented you.
I don´t have to confirm anyhing the burden is yours.

Nevertheless, I made very explicit my position.

It´s just poor reasoning, on your part, sorry to say.

27
It´s an invalid inference.

No, it's a reasonable assumption. When I've observed you present Resurrection arguments in the past, it's been implicit that you've agreed with those arguments, and so I've drawn a (pretty typical) assumption that you do agree with them. Now, perhaps that assumption is incorrect, which is certainly a possibility, and that in making that assumption I've made claims about what you believe that misrepresent you, which is also a possibility.

But at the moment my assumption being incorrect is just a possibility, and therefore whether I've misrepresented you is likewise, because you refuse to confirm where you stand on those arguments. Thus, you've hardly any business asserting I've misrepresented you, no?

I have explained plenty, if it went over your head, I´m sorry.

You've explained everything in detail, save what matters. I suspect that the issue isn't one of comprehension, but an odd caginess surrounding confirmation of your (dis)agreement with these arguments. 

Additionally, you are the one who made the claim about my own psychological state, based on a bad inference, you have done nothing to show that it is true, rather, you have irrationally refused to assent to the truth of the matter. It´s your burden, not mine.

I've made a claim about your "psychological state" merely insofar as I've drawn a fair assumption about what you believe based on what you've said. I've given you plenty of opportunities to confirm whether that assumption is correct, or not. You've declined to take any of them. It's unclear what else I'm supposed to do, other than maintain that your accusation of my having misrepresented you is, currently, unsupported.

I'm quite happy to leave matters there, if you like.

What you did , then, was an attempt to an IBE, that fails to explain what I have exposed of my own position on the matter, and, general intentional attitude towards it, namely, that my defending and explaining the argument do not imply my being prepared to declare what you have asserted.

Your IBE fails. Either way, it is not a good inference. And you have provided no reason to think you did not missrepresent me, specially, after all I have explained.

You're free to express what I did in whatever philosophical jargon you like, but it's of no moment.

I've paid very close attention to what you've said in respect of arguments for the Resurrection you've previously presented, but you've not once addressed the matter of confirming whether you agree with them or not. As we've discussed already, until you do so, accusations that I've misrepresented you can be dismissed as easily as they are asserted.


You are being irrational.

It´s thoroughly absurd to purport to have a privilege epistemic position on my state of mind, based on a bad inference, and total lack of charity.

You are defending a completely incoherent position.

If this was a legal case you would have to pay or go to jail, you didn´t provide one iota of evidence for your claim, and, I am the ultimate judge of what I am prepared to do or not.



28
It´s an invalid inference.

No, it's a reasonable assumption. When I've observed you present Resurrection arguments in the past, it's been implicit that you've agreed with those arguments, and so I've drawn a (pretty typical) assumption that you do agree with them. Now, perhaps that assumption is incorrect, which is certainly a possibility, and that in making that assumption I've made claims about what you believe that misrepresent you, which is also a possibility.

But at the moment my assumption being incorrect is just a possibility, and therefore whether I've misrepresented you is likewise, because you refuse to confirm where you stand on those arguments. Thus, you've hardly any business asserting I've misrepresented you, no?

I have explained plenty, if it went over your head, I´m sorry.

You've explained everything in detail, save what matters. I suspect that the issue isn't one of comprehension, but an odd caginess surrounding confirmation of your (dis)agreement with these arguments. 

Additionally, you are the one who made the claim about my own psychological state, based on a bad inference, you have done nothing to show that it is true, rather, you have irrationally refused to assent to the truth of the matter. It´s your burden, not mine.

I've made a claim about your "psychological state" merely insofar as I've drawn a fair assumption about what you believe based on what you've said. I've given you plenty of opportunities to confirm whether that assumption is correct, or not. You've declined to take any of them. It's unclear what else I'm supposed to do, other than maintain that your accusation of my having misrepresented you is, currently, unsupported.

I'm quite happy to leave matters there, if you like.

What you did , then, was an attempt to an IBE, that fails to explain what I have exposed of my own position on the matter, and, general intentional attitude towards it, namely, that my defending and explaining the argument do not imply my being prepared to declare what you have asserted.

Your IBE fails. Either way, it is not a good inference. And you have provided no reason to think you did not missrepresent me, specially, after all I have explained.


29

I explained what I was doing, already, with respect to the resurrection argument. If you are just going to ignore what I say about my own intentions, I have nothing else to say to you.

I gave my testimony on my position with detail, you simply ignored it.

I didn't ignore what you said, but your comments did not go to the issue at hand. The issue is whether you actually agree with the arguments for the Resurrection you've previously advanced, because whether you do, or do not, determines whether I've misrepresented you. So far, for all you've written, you've refused to clarify whether you do agree with those arguments, declaring that it's none of my business. Thus, I'm more than entitled to say that your accusation of misrepresentation on my part is unsupported.

I said "You made an (incorrect) inference on the basis of my attempts to correct others from missunderstanding and missrepresenting the actual argument (just like you did by making it incorrectly to be a demonstration)."

Where does it say that I don´t endorse the argument ? where does it say that I endorse it?
it doesn´t.

As I've said, your reproduction of such arguments implied that you accept them, and hence my assumption that you did so. I'm now trying to work out whether that assumption was correct, and therefore whether I've misrepresented you. But, for whatever reason, you won't tell me. This is the crux of the matter, which is, I'm afraid, all on you.

You have misrepresented me, because, my dealings with the arguments were never constituted by a claim about myself being prepared to declare that I could infer nor demonstrate , that a man came back from the death 2000 years ago.

But in presenting those arguments, it was implicit that you were agreeing with them, at least where I've seen you make them; thus, I reasonably assumed (and earlier expressed) that you were agreeing with them. You've since accused me of misrepresenting you, but in such circumstances that can only be true if my assumption was erroneous. Until you're prepared to say whether or not it was erroneous, you've no grounds for accusing me of misrepresentation.

If this issue boils down to your aversion to making your (dis)agreement with these arguments known (and I expect it does), then that's fine. But don't then expect me to accept I've misrepresented you, because you've done nothing to show that's the case.


You have seen me do what? defend that 1 Cor 15:3-8 does not imply non bodily resurrection? or that IBE´s are based on non-demonstrative reasoning? or that 1 Cor 15 as a whole defend bodily resurrection, or that Paul´s antropology includes everything, the mind,  the soul, the spirit, the body.  You have seen me attack awful invalid or weak arguments against certain Christian claims from the Bible. You have seen me clarify what is an IBE, or what is the criteria of authenticity used by Dr. Craig, and so on, or that the Pre-markan passion narrative is still widely accepted in scholarship,etc...

It´s an invalid inference.

P1. OM clarifies, explains and defends what is the correct (in his view) understanding of Rx argument, given by Dr. Craig.

P2. OM defends that given the critically ascertained facts the Rx argument IBE inference is a good one.


P3.  OM is prepared to claim that he can infer or demonstrate that a man came back from the death, 2000 years ago

P3, does not explicitly follow from P1 nor P2,  you have made several assumptions in your inference.


P4. OM accepts as a good argument Dr. Craig´s Rx argument


P3, still, does not explicitly follow from P1, P2 and P4, you have made several assumptions in your inference


P5. You have OM testimony, and rather thorough explanation of why his involvement on P1, P2, and, P4 does not imply P3.


P3, definitely does not follow from P1,P2, P4, and, P5


I have explained plenty, if it went over your head, I´m sorry. Additionally, you are the one who made the claim about my own psychological state, based on a bad inference, you have done nothing to show that it is true, rather, you have irrationally refused to assent to the truth of the matter. It´s your burden, not mine.



30

I explained what I was doing, already, with respect to the resurrection argument. If you are just going to ignore what I say about my own intentions, I have nothing else to say to you.

I gave my testimony on my position with detail, you simply ignored it.

I didn't ignore what you said, but your comments did not go to the issue at hand. The issue is whether you actually agree with the arguments for the Resurrection you've previously advanced, because whether you do, or do not, determines whether I've misrepresented you. So far, for all you've written, you've refused to clarify whether you do agree with those arguments, declaring that it's none of my business. Thus, I'm more than entitled to say that your accusation of misrepresentation on my part is unsupported.

I said "You made an (incorrect) inference on the basis of my attempts to correct others from missunderstanding and missrepresenting the actual argument (just like you did by making it incorrectly to be a demonstration)."

Where does it say that I don´t endorse the argument ? where does it say that I endorse it?
it doesn´t.

As I've said, your reproduction of such arguments implied that you accept them, and hence my assumption that you did so. I'm now trying to work out whether that assumption was correct, and therefore whether I've misrepresented you. But, for whatever reason, you won't tell me. This is the crux of the matter, which is, I'm afraid, all on you.

You have misrepresented me, because, my dealings with the arguments were never constituted by a claim about myself being prepared to declare that I could infer nor demonstrate , that a man came back from the death 2000 years ago.

A fair representation would have been to state that OM has defended what he thinks is the correct understanding of the argument, and, he has defended that given the critically ascertained facts the inference is a good one. Without making any claims of being prepared to declare anything.  It is clear, this is not the one you gave,  nor is it close nor similar, thus, you have an unfair one.

There are a couple of somewhat technical reasons for this:

One, it is an open matter of what IBE´s provide, is it justification? is it confirmation? is it a reason to act?

Other reasons of similar kind are due to the  difficulty in answering the question of what is in essence the exercise of providing a  historical argument.

My positions is that I have addressed the argument, with a positive outlook, but, I have not made any claims of weather being prepared or not to declare I can make an inference, nor demonstrate that a man came back from the death , 2000 years ago.

And , what I personally do with all these matters, plays no part (of the kind you want to saddle me with) in my involvement in such discussions.

Pages : 1 [2] 3 4 ... 327