I got this from a post in an archived forum, a huge debate between Boris and dumaurier:
Boris, your arguements against the perspectives that i present are often contradictory to your own ideas. You contradict yourself often. Now, it can become highly frustrating talking to you at times because you do not try to understand what is said in the arguement i have presented for your examination. You seem to jump to conclusions without stopping to ponder, without truly examining the depth of what is presented before your eyes (as in my post concerning the three kinds of formations where you really didn't try to understand what was said but simply lashed out with one personal opinion after another with nothing better to propose.)
In brief, i am under the impression that you are simply trying to defend your points of view and not truly willing to closely examine the perspective i present for your scrutiny. This is due to the fact, i believe, that your one aim is to prove everybody else wrong and you right.
This is the root of the god problem. Both sides of the argument seem to be saying this to one another. This proves the argument moot due to irreconcilable differences. One argument says "the act of making a decision without further evidence is retarded" and the other says "done deal, why don' t you get it?".
Isn't the second argument nullified because it's based on an assumption. Try this: The game is "detect the truth". I say "God is the creator of the universe and omnipresent and bla blah typical christian god. Is that true?" Okay, there are three possible intinctual answers to a logical statment "true", "false" and "no decision made". Now, think of it as a Venn Diagram, half the circle is yes, half is no and outside the circle is "no decision". Does not "no decision" encompass both yes and no, making it absolutely infallible?
I'm getting a little confused by myself at the moment, trying to say too much at once. Can anyone else formalize a rational argument based in the above?
Boris, your arguements against the perspectives that i present are often contradictory to your own ideas. You contradict yourself often. Now, it can become highly frustrating talking to you at times because you do not try to understand what is said in the arguement i have presented for your examination. You seem to jump to conclusions without stopping to ponder, without truly examining the depth of what is presented before your eyes (as in my post concerning the three kinds of formations where you really didn't try to understand what was said but simply lashed out with one personal opinion after another with nothing better to propose.)
In brief, i am under the impression that you are simply trying to defend your points of view and not truly willing to closely examine the perspective i present for your scrutiny. This is due to the fact, i believe, that your one aim is to prove everybody else wrong and you right.
This is the root of the god problem. Both sides of the argument seem to be saying this to one another. This proves the argument moot due to irreconcilable differences. One argument says "the act of making a decision without further evidence is retarded" and the other says "done deal, why don' t you get it?".
Isn't the second argument nullified because it's based on an assumption. Try this: The game is "detect the truth". I say "God is the creator of the universe and omnipresent and bla blah typical christian god. Is that true?" Okay, there are three possible intinctual answers to a logical statment "true", "false" and "no decision made". Now, think of it as a Venn Diagram, half the circle is yes, half is no and outside the circle is "no decision". Does not "no decision" encompass both yes and no, making it absolutely infallible?
I'm getting a little confused by myself at the moment, trying to say too much at once. Can anyone else formalize a rational argument based in the above?