he says this:
Originally Posted by troxel Meta:
now you doing a bait and switch. you admit it's ok for historical research on the actual group that started believing in Jesus but can't be used to prove God. That's a bait and switch because I didn't say it was proving God.
atheists like yourself use a childish silly and straw man understanding of what believe means and how to defend it. Big proofs are just accumulations of a lot of little proofs. No one thing by itself proves anything. Enough little things together prove bigger things, enough bigger things together prove still greater things. It all fits together in a scholarly life.
you are treating belief in God as though ti's just a matter of a single fact, you are just adding a fact to the universe. It's much more than that.It 's a value system a way of life it's an approach to learning, and much more all at once. You can't just slap it on with one fact or beat it up with one fact.
Asking the binary existence of nonexistence of a god to be anything other than a single statement is special pleading, no matter how 'special' you say your god is. You can add traits to this god, but there's no magical point at which it becomes a way of life and is no longer subject to logic.In other words he's begging the question. He expects the privileged nature of his position (he wises) to be so strong that the non existence of God is a fact. He can thus assert that fact to beat any Christian argument automatically.
Begging the question is a form of circular reasoning and still a fallacy.
Asking the binary existence of nonexistence of a god to be anything other than a single statement is special pleading,
what? What is this load of cobblers? binary existence of non existence? This is worthy of the Derrida award.