Hey hey my dear
Help me to understand you correctly - i do not wish to be erroneous.
So far we had a conversation where you argued that there is just as much proof for a creature you made up compared to God who is real to many.
No. I didn't. As I have repeatedly explained to you. You have entirely misrepresented my position. Even worse, you asked me in your previous post if you had my position correct, and I said point blank, NO. Then immediately afterward, you restate that it is my position, even after I have told you it is not.
I have shown you that how the argument that was first brought up by the person to whom I was responding was a tautology, and how my response was an analogy, AND a metaphor, AND therefore ALSO a tautology.
You have made no attempt to actually understand what it is I was trying to argue. Instead, you'd rather focus on the misrepresentation of what I'm arguing because you perceive it to be an easy argument to defeat. Well, no kidding it's an easy argument to defeat, because it is a strawman representation of my position. It's the entire point of making a strawman argument--they are easy to defeat. The problem is that it's entirely irrelevant to what I'm ACTUALLY presenting to you.
So, let's count up how many times you are factually incorrect and/or disingenuous in your summary of what wee have discussed. It's quite staggering:
So far we had a conversation where you argued that there is just as much proof for a creature you made up compared to God who is real to many.
1. No. I didn't.
You said you can posit it (.eg to put forward as fact or as a basis for argument.) Was posit the wrong choice of word?
2. No. I didn't. And no, it wasn't.
You tried to label it a logical tautology, we discovered it was not.
3. No. We didn't. And I elaborated quite fully, how it was a tautology.
When faced with the actual meaning of a logical tautology you suggest the below.
4. You imply that I didn't understand what a tautology is. When in reality, you are the one who does not. You even had to go look up the definition. Unfortunately, you stopped there. You didn't go on to read how there are many ways to structure a tautology, nor did you read the part which explained which structure I was using.
46 - "You understand that this is an analogy, right?"
5. You imply that I was backtracking on my claim of a tautology. I was not. It was both a tautology AND an analogy. And I explained this to you very clearly.
46 - "I'm doing so by way of metaphor."
6. Same error as #5.
Dont worry my dear, i record all our conversations. I know what you said and asked you many questions to explain what was meant.
7. You clearly do not know what I asked, nor did you even attempt to understand what was meant.
Now you have explained yourself, i am challenging it. I want to test your statement.
8. No, you want to test the statement that you made up for me. Not the statement I actually made.
I have disproved your creature ie you made it up recently and do not believe it exists in reality. I know God exists and have experienced Him.
9. No.
I disproved my creature, as it was intended to be fictitious in the first place.
My position is God is real and can be known. Your position is He is akin to your fictitious creature.
10. No. I have not made any statement in this entire conversation which indicates whether I claim god is real or not. You have simply made this assumption based on what I have put down for my religion indicator. I call myself an atheist, but I suspect that the way you would classify me would be agnostic, based on the way creationists usually define the terms. But that's another argument we will not get into.
46 - "In fact, all I did was directly change the subject of the argument (from god to lepricorn), and the ability of the subject (from logic defying, to creationist blinding). They are, for all intents and purposes, the exact same argument."
So how is it the same arguement?
11. I have already shown you multiple times, therefore I can only assume this question is disingenuous.
You say now it is an analogy (.eg a comparison between one thing and another, typically for the purpose of explanation or clarification.)
12. You imply that my argument has changed; that I am wiggling my way to a position I think I can defend better. This is not correct. It always was an analogy. It always was metaphor. It always was tautology. My position has remained as consistent as your defiance to understand it.
Show me how a leprechaun (who can blind creationists to evolution) is a good comparison - and arguement - between the Christian God?
13. Why would I do that? It was never my point.
46 - "I CAN ....and IF I DID, it would be no different from somebody claiming that there exists a supernatural being who created the entire universe."
14. Another statement taken out of context, complete with ellipses to boot.
I am waiting for you to do what you said you can do?
Cheers my dear
15. No, you are waiting for me to argue your strawman version of what I said.
