What over 4 years of exchanges on RF has taught me.

[ParaclitosLogos]

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.

[Lucian]

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?

[ParaclitosLogos]

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.

[Lucian]

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.

[ParaclitosLogos]

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.

[Lucian]

(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

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.

My claim hasn't been falsified, on the contrary. I'm prepared to apologise for misrepresenting you, should I find reason to think I've done so.

[ParaclitosLogos]

(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.

[Lucian]

(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.

Quite a lot of discussion has gone on since then. You can revisit it if you like, but know I'll just be copying and pasting my prior responses should you repeat yourself.

I`m waiting for your apology.

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

[ParaclitosLogos]

(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:

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.

[Lucian]

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.

[ParaclitosLogos]

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:

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.

[Lucian]

I don't see the benefit of posting the same post twice, albeit this time with a quote. This is coming close to spamming, OM.

In any case, see my last post for my response, where I also ask you a question you've not addressed in your last.

[ParaclitosLogos]

I don't see the benefit of posting the same post twice, albeit this time with a quote. This is coming close to spamming, OM.

In any case, see my last post for my response, where I also ask you a question you've not addressed in your last.

And yet, no apology.

[Lucian]

I don't see the benefit of posting the same post twice, albeit this time with a quote. This is coming close to spamming, OM.

In any case, see my last post for my response, where I also ask you a question you've not addressed in your last.

And yet, no apology.

Like I said, I don't currently see a reason to provide one.

[ParaclitosLogos]

I don't see the benefit of posting the same post twice, albeit this time with a quote. This is coming close to spamming, OM.

In any case, see my last post for my response, where I also ask you a question you've not addressed in your last.

And yet, no apology.

Like I said, I don't currently see a reason to provide one.

That doesnt speak well about you.