Food for thought.

[ToddNotTodd]

I agree with you when you say God could have created a world wherein the flood was not necessary.

Yay me?

I'm guessing you won't take the next step and say that given the above, your god can't be considered good by any definition that we humans use.

 

[HitchSlap]

I'm guessing you won't take the next step and say that given the above, your god can't be considered good by any definition that we humans use.

Game.

Set.

Match.

 

[anonymous person]

Yay me?

I'm guessing you won't take the next step and say that given the above, your god can't be considered good by any definition that we humans use.

No, I won't say that.

Why not? You ask...

I'm glad you asked. I won't because I do not want to commit an informal fallacy.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

No, I won't say that.

Why not? You ask...

I'm glad you asked. I won't because I do not want to commit an informal fallacy.

And that fallacy is?

 

[anonymous person]

And that fallacy is?

Non sequitur

 

[HitchSlap]

Non sequitur

Not in the least.

 

[bhsmte]

Non sequitur

A little brush up on the meaning of these terms would be helpful for you.

 

[anonymous person]

More than one person here during this discussion has asked me a particular question regarding my view that God had morally sufficient reasons for causing the flood and then when I have provided an answer, they respond to it by saying, "well you have not given us evidence that a flood even happened!"

Ok well, this is called moving goalposts guys.

Instead of actually addressing what I said, some have moved goalposts and then said, "well, you have not proven a flood happened."

If that is what you guys actually want to talk about then that is fine. I see no reason to discuss it until we all agree that God could have had morally sufficient reasons for causing one.

So in essence, what I am asking for is for people to stop jumping here and there and all over the place with questions about this and that, and that we stay focused on one particular topic until it has been hashed out.

Can you guys agree to that?

 

[quatona]

More than one person here during this discussion has asked me a particular question regarding my view that God had morally sufficient reasons for causing the flood and then when I have provided an answer, they respond to it by saying, "well you have not given us evidence that a flood even happened!"

Ok well, this is called moving goalposts guys.

Instead of actually addressing what I said, some have moved goalposts and then said, "well, you have not proven a flood happened."

If that is what you guys actually want to talk about then that is fine. I see no reason to discuss it until we all agree that God could have had morally sufficient reasons for causing one.

So in essence, what I am asking for is for people to stop jumping here and there and all over the place with questions about this and that, and that we stay focused on one particular topic until it has been hashed out.

Can you guys agree to that?

I´m not "you guys". Nobody here is.
There do have been responses to the very issue you addressed.
If you want to use the fact that there were some goalposts moving also as an opportunity to dodge those points made, ok.

 

[anonymous person]

I´m not "you guys". Nobody here is.
There do have been responses to the very issue you addressed.
If you want to use the fact that there were some goalposts moving also as an opportunity to dodge those points made, ok.

So all of you all are women?

 

[anonymous person]

I apologize for assuming everyone here was a man.

Secondly, I wrote what I did to those who did what I have said they have done, not to those who have not.

If what I have said does not apply to you then just disregard it.

 

[quatona]

So all of you all are women?

I´m sure the point didn´t fly over your head as high as you pretend it did.

 

[quatona]

I apologize for assuming everyone here was a man.

No problem.

Secondly, I wrote what I did to those who did what I have said they have done, not to those who have not.

If what I have said does not apply to you then just disregard it.

Ok, so back to your claim that you wanted to discuss and the points that were raised in response to it.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

More than one person here during this discussion has asked me a particular question regarding my view that God had morally sufficient reasons for causing the flood and then when I have provided an answer, they respond to it by saying, "well you have not given us evidence that a flood even happened!"

You never bothered to elucidate what those "morally sufficient reasons" are.

Ok well, this is called moving goalposts guys.

Instead of actually addressing what I said, some have moved goalposts and then said, "well, you have not proven a flood happened."

In order for us to "shift the goalposts," you would first have to shoot a goal. You haven't even touched the ball.

If that is what you guys actually want to talk about then that is fine. I see no reason to discuss it until we all agree that God could have had morally sufficient reasons for causing one.

And those "morally sufficient reasons" are?

 

[anonymous person]

No problem.


Ok, so back to your claim that you wanted to discuss and the points that were raised in response to it.

My claim was that some were moving goalposts.

 

[anonymous person]

You never bothered to elucidate what those "morally sufficient reasons" are.

If I do will address them instead of replying, "we have no evidence of a flood!!"

In order for us to "shift the goalposts," you would first have to shoot a goal. You haven't even touched the ball.

Sure I have. You posts in response to the one's I have written are proof of this. Unless of course your posts up till now we're not addressed to what I have written but to something else.

And those "morally sufficient reasons" are?

I can think of one. Would you like to hear it?

 

[quatona]

My claim was that some were moving goalposts.

No, that was already the dodging claim.
Your claim in discussion (which you just complained hasn´t been addressed is "that God had morally sufficient reasons for causing the flood".
This has been addressed in several posts, but you (the guy who recently whined about his efforts not being appropriately dignified, and how he would always do it) prefer to talk about other posts instead.

I, for one, am waiting for you to come up with those "sufficient reasons".

 

[anonymous person]

No, that was already the dodging claim.
Your claim in discussion (which you just complained hasn´t been addressed is "that God had morally sufficient reasons for causing the flood".
This has been addressed in several posts, but you (the guy who recently whined about his efforts not being appropriately dignified, and how he would always do it) prefer to talk about other posts instead.

I, for one, am waiting for you to come up with those "sufficient reasons".

Ok. Well I will ask you the same question I asked the other person.

Will you address what I actually write, or are you going to retort that I have not proven a flood to have ever even taken place?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Ok. Well I will ask you the same question I asked the other person.

Will you address what I actually write, or are you going to retort that I have not proven a flood to have ever even taken place?

You can probably move on to your response...the fact that you (nor anyone else) has ever proven the biblical flood happened is pretty much a given.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

If I do will address them instead of replying, "we have no evidence of a flood!!"

So you concede that you haven't? Kinda undermines your "shifting the goalposts" accusation.

Sure I have. You posts in response to the one's I have written are proof of this. Unless of course your posts up till now we're not addressed to what I have written but to something else.

Where?

I can think of one. Would you like to hear it?

Didn't you already elucidate it? Isn't that what you are claiming?