Reconciling 6 Days with 13.7 Billion Years

[BeyondET]

3 hours ago, Tristen said:

 

“You were pretty quick to respond to the thread second post”

That is just a matter of timing – i.e. I responded when I saw the post. I am usually late to the party.

But I didn’t realize there are different rules for me. Apparently, I am expected to wait a cooling-off period before I’m permitted to respond to a thread. Is that so?

 

“so an open forum means to jump in and throw a wrench in the peace”

Or ... , one could say that “an open forum means” everyone with access to the forum is permitted to express their views on the thread. It is possible to have respectful disagreement without any wrenches being thrown “in the peace”. That negative sentiment did not come from my side of the discussion. I simply expressed, and defended, my position – as you did.

 

“I get you don't agree with it but the title seemed pretty clear what it is about”

Yes – it is a thread about origins – namely, promoting and defending the position that the secular narrative can be “reconciled” to the Bible. That is a topic of interest to me. I therefore scrutinized the provided information and posted my assessment.

Any suggestion that my engagement here was not appropriate is not fair-minded.

 

“Im learning discussions are more likely to be productive with like minded most of the time”

Of course. Nevertheless, I would point out that you also decided to respond to my posts. So it wasn’t just me throwing wrenches.

You may be “like minded”, but what if you are all wrong? What if there are aspects of the topic you haven’t considered?  What if your arguments are weak, or your reasoning is flawed? Yes, you’ll be in agreement, but you’ll also be trapped in an echo-chamber of error. Many non-Christians are in agreement against Christ and His Gospel. Should they only converse with those who are “like minded”?

We learn, and come closer to the truth, through an open exchange of ideas. Engaging with those who disagree with us gives us the opportunity to test the rational strength of our own position.

Proverbs 27:17 - As iron sharpens iron, So a man sharpens the countenance of his friend.

What if you encounter a non-Christian who brings up the same arguments against your position as I have raised? Do you send them away from the conversation without a satisfying answer?

1 Peter 3:15 - But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear

 

“Debating with someone who will not consider anything else, is beating your head against the wall. Most of the time it turns into slug match who enjoys that”

You are again employing Innuendo – i.e. insinuating that I am unwilling to “consider” your position.

In reality, I have demonstrated that I am eagerly prepared to “consider” everything you care to present. “Consider” means to test, to think about, to carefully examine the provided arguments and thereby reach a rational conclusion on the matter. I have done that.

 

Anyways, I pray you and your loved ones have a peaceful and joyous Christmas.

 

 

Marry Christmas as well, thank you.

Edited December 24, 2022 by BeyondET

[Guest]

23 hours ago, Tristen said:

"You were pretty quick to respond to the thread second post”

That is just a matter of timing – i.e. I responded when I saw the post. I am usually late to the party.

But I didn’t realize there are different rules for me. Apparently, I am expected to wait a cooling-off period before I’m permitted to respond to a thread. Is that so?

The cooling off period is for me.

23 hours ago, Tristen said:

 “so an open forum means to jump in and throw a wrench in the peace”

Or ... , one could say that “an open forum means” everyone with access to the forum is permitted to express their views on the thread. It is possible to have respectful disagreement without any wrenches being thrown “in the peace”. That negative sentiment did not come from my side of the discussion. I simply expressed, and defended, my position – as you did.

I don't want to get discussions devolve into personal attacks.

23 hours ago, Tristen said:

 “I get you don't agree with it but the title seemed pretty clear what it is about”

Yes – it is a thread about origins – namely, promoting and defending the position that the secular narrative can be “reconciled” to the Bible. That is a topic of interest to me. I therefore scrutinized the provided information and posted my assessment.

Any suggestion that my engagement here was not appropriate is not fair-minded.

“Im learning discussions are more likely to be productive with like minded most of the time”

Of course. Nevertheless, I would point out that you also decided to respond to my posts. So it wasn’t just me throwing wrenches.

You may be “like minded”, but what if you are all wrong? What if there are aspects of the topic you haven’t considered?  What if your arguments are weak, or your reasoning is flawed? Yes, you’ll be in agreement, but you’ll also be trapped in an echo-chamber of error. Many non-Christians are in agreement against Christ and His Gospel. Should they only converse with those who are “like minded”?

That's why I included hours and hours of detail discussions from Hebrew-Greek Scholar Dr. Heiser. If you think that's too long to spend on God's word that's your problem and I can learn nothing from you.

23 hours ago, Tristen said:

We learn, and come closer to the truth, through an open exchange of ideas. Engaging with those who disagree with us gives us the opportunity to test the rational strength of our own position.

Proverbs 27:17 - As iron sharpens iron, So a man sharpens the countenance of his friend.

What if you encounter a non-Christian who brings up the same arguments against your position as I have raised? Do you send them away from the conversation without a satisfying answer?

1 Peter 3:15 - But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear

“Debating with someone who will not consider anything else, is beating your head against the wall. Most of the time it turns into slug match who enjoys that”

You are again employing Innuendo – i.e. insinuating that I am unwilling to “consider” your position.

This may come as a shock, Dr. Heiser doesn't support the Gap Theory. Only the Bible is important to him. He does support a difference between the Bible and science. The Bible is not a science book so he sees no reason to shoehorn science into the Gap. He modified the earliest manuscripts to eliminate the Hebrew marks over the Hebrew letters which were added later.

23 hours ago, Tristen said:

In reality, I have demonstrated that I am eagerly prepared to “consider” everything you care to present. “Consider” means to test, to think about, to carefully examine the provided arguments and thereby reach a rational conclusion on the matter. I have done that.

I disagree with this as I can list over 40 scholars who adhere to the Gap Theory.

23 hours ago, Tristen said:

 Anyways, I pray you and your loved ones have a peaceful and joyous Christmas.

Thank you. Merry Christmas to you and those you love.

SObG

Edited December 24, 2022 by Saved.One.by.Grace
Two words added for clarity

[Tristen]

On 12/24/2022 at 4:33 PM, Saved.One.by.Grace said:

The cooling off period is for me.

I don't want to get discussions devolve into personal attacks.

That's why I included hours and hours of detail discussions from Hebrew-Greek Scholar Dr. Heiser. If you think that's too long to spend on God's word that's your problem and I can learn nothing from you.

This may come as a shock, Dr. Heiser doesn't support the Gap Theory. Only the Bible is important to him. He does support a difference between the Bible and science. The Bible is not a science book so he sees no reason to shoehorn science into the Gap. He modified the earliest manuscripts to eliminate the Hebrew marks over the Hebrew letters which were added later.

I disagree with this as I can list over 40 scholars who adhere to the Gap Theory.

Thank you. Merry Christmas to you and those you love.

SObG

 

“The cooling off period is for me”

Lol – fair enough.

@BeyondET was insinuating something about my motives based on how “quickly” I responded to the thread. In reality, that was merely a coincidence of timing. But the implication of BeyondET’s comments is that I am supposedly obliged to wait for the thread to get going before responding. I do not think that is a fair-minded suggestion.

 

“I don't want to get discussions devolve in to personal attacks.”

Neither do I.

But the way to avoid a discussion devolving into “personal attacks” is to stick to logic, and to avoid fallacy and posturing. Rational conversation becomes impeded when people too readily associate themselves personally with their own opinions – and so interpret disagreement as a “personal attack” – and so react with emotional, irrational statements, in some desperate attempt to ‘win’ the contest, rather than giving fair consideration to the opposing arguments.

 

“That's why I included hours and hours of detail discussions from Hebrew-Greek Scholar Dr. Heiser. If you think that's too long to spend on God's word that's your problem and I can learn nothing from you.”

So you say you want to avoid discussions devolving into personal attack, but then you immediately insinuate that, since we disagree, I must be unwilling to “spend” an appropriate amount of time “on God’s Word”.

Do you understand that this Innuendo is about me personally – and not actually addressing any argument I’ve presented? That’s how it all starts – i.e. how conversations unravel into an exchange of “personal attacks”. If you really “don't want to get discussions devolve in to personal attacks”, you would learn to refrain from this kind of response.

 

For your following comment I have included the path of discourse for context.

So I said to BeyondET, “We learn, and come closer to the truth, through an open exchange of ideas. Engaging with those who disagree with us gives us the opportunity to test the rational strength of our own position.

Proverbs 27:17 - As iron sharpens iron, So a man sharpens the countenance of his friend.

What if you encounter a non-Christian who brings up the same arguments against your position as I have raised? Do you send them away from the conversation without a satisfying answer?

1 Peter 3:15 - But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear

BeyondET said, “Debating with someone who will not consider anything else, is beating your head against the wall. Most of the time it turns into slug match who enjoys that”

Then I said to BeyondET, You are again employing Innuendo – i.e. insinuating that I am unwilling to “consider” your position.

Then you said, This may come as a shock, Dr. Heiser doesn't support the Gap Theory”

What is more of “a shock” to me is you posting responses that are seemingly unrelated to the quotes you are supposedly responding to.

Either way, I don’t care about motives (nor credentials) – I only care about the rational quality of the supporting arguments.

 

“He does support a difference between the Bible and science. The Bible is not a science book so he sees no reason to shoehorn science into the Gap”

So what do you think?

I agree that the Bible is not intended to be a science text. Nevertheless, as the Word of God, I would expect the Bible to be accurate when making straight-forward claims about nature and history. Genesis 1 is most plainly understood as an historical account.

As someone who spent the better part of a decade attaining credentials and a career in “science”, I have not found anything in “science” that rationally obligates me to distrust the Genesis 1 account of history. That is, when you break down the logic that contributes to the secular narrative of history, there is literally nothing that logically compels us to the idea that the universe is billions of years old. So, contrary to propaganda, the plain understanding of the Genesis 1 account of history can therefore be believed without any intellectual compromise. And therefore, if you want me to consider an alternate interpretation of Genesis 1, I will require a very compelling argument as to why I can’t simply trust what is written. Otherwise, I have no agenda within myself that would afford me the right to deviate from the most straight-forward understanding of the text.

The Bible means what it says. The Bible does not anywhere claim that the creation is 14-or-so billion years old. That idea is absolutely being shoehorned into, or maybe even replacing, the Biblical account of history. It seems like we are drifting towards replacing the Biblical account with the secular narrative, then simply waving away the Biblical narrative as entirely symbolic – since “The Bible is not a science book”.

As such, you’ll need a lot more in the way of supporting arguments if you want me to even consider disregarding what the Bible actually says, in favor of some unnecessary replacement story. I’ve decided that I’m going to trust what God says, as plainly written. You want to claim that I’ve misinterpreted the passage – OK, show me.

 

“He modified the earliest manuscripts to eliminate the Hebrew marks over the Hebrew letters which were added later”

OK??? This might be the start of an argument. But nothing rational for me to respond to yet.

 

“In reality, I have demonstrated that I am eagerly prepared to “consider” everything you care to present. “Consider” means to test, to think about, to carefully examine the provided arguments and thereby reach a rational conclusion on the matter. I have done that.

I disagree with this as I can list over 40 scholars who adhere to the Gap Theory.”

Again, this feels like a random statement; given the quote you were supposedly responding to.

I can also list at-least “40 scholars” who interpret Genesis 1 as I do.

So what are the logical implications of our respective abilities to list “scholars” that agree with us? Real answer – bubkus, nada, null, zero, nothing; utter irrelevance.

Only the rational quality of the relevant supporting arguments is pertinent to the truth about origins, and how to interpret Genesis 1. All our Appeals to Expertise are empty, meaningless bluster.

 

[BeyondET]

42 minutes ago, Tristen said:

 

“The cooling off period is for me”

Lol – fair enough.

@BeyondET was insinuating something about my motives based on how “quickly” I responded to the thread. In reality, that was merely a coincidence of timing. But the implication of BeyondET’s comments is that I am supposedly obliged to wait for the thread to get going before responding. I do not think that is a fair-minded suggestion.

 

“I don't want to get discussions devolve in to personal attacks.”

Neither do I.

But the way to avoid a discussion devolving into “personal attacks” is to stick to logic, and to avoid fallacy and posturing. Rational conversation becomes impeded when people too readily associate themselves personally with their own opinions – and so interpret disagreement as a “personal attack” – and so react with emotional, irrational statements, in some desperate attempt to ‘win’ the contest, rather than giving fair consideration to the opposing arguments.

 

“That's why I included hours and hours of detail discussions from Hebrew-Greek Scholar Dr. Heiser. If you think that's too long to spend on God's word that's your problem and I can learn nothing from you.”

So you say you want to avoid discussions devolving into personal attack, but then you immediately insinuate that, since we disagree, I must be unwilling to “spend” an appropriate amount of time “on God’s Word”.

Do you understand that this Innuendo is about me personally – and not actually addressing any argument I’ve presented? That’s how it all starts – i.e. how conversations unravel into an exchange of “personal attacks”. If you really “don't want to get discussions devolve in to personal attacks”, you would learn to refrain from this kind of response.

 

For your following comment I have included the path of discourse for context.

So I said to BeyondET, “We learn, and come closer to the truth, through an open exchange of ideas. Engaging with those who disagree with us gives us the opportunity to test the rational strength of our own position.

Proverbs 27:17 - As iron sharpens iron, So a man sharpens the countenance of his friend.

What if you encounter a non-Christian who brings up the same arguments against your position as I have raised? Do you send them away from the conversation without a satisfying answer?

1 Peter 3:15 - But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear

BeyondET said, “Debating with someone who will not consider anything else, is beating your head against the wall. Most of the time it turns into slug match who enjoys that”

Then I said to BeyondET, You are again employing Innuendo – i.e. insinuating that I am unwilling to “consider” your position.

Then you said, This may come as a shock, Dr. Heiser doesn't support the Gap Theory”

What is more of “a shock” to me is you posting responses that are seemingly unrelated to the quotes you are supposedly responding to.

Either way, I don’t care about motives (nor credentials) – I only care about the rational quality of the supporting arguments.

 

“He does support a difference between the Bible and science. The Bible is not a science book so he sees no reason to shoehorn science into the Gap”

So what do you think?

I agree that the Bible is not intended to be a science text. Nevertheless, as the Word of God, I would expect the Bible to be accurate when making straight-forward claims about nature and history. Genesis 1 is most plainly understood as an historical account.

As someone who spent the better part of a decade attaining credentials and a career in “science”, I have not found anything in “science” that rationally obligates me to distrust the Genesis 1 account of history. That is, when you break down the logic that contributes to the secular narrative of history, there is literally nothing that logically compels us to the idea that the universe is billions of years old. So, contrary to propaganda, the plain understanding of the Genesis 1 account of history can therefore be believed without any intellectual compromise. And therefore, if you want me to consider an alternate interpretation of Genesis 1, I will require a very compelling argument as to why I can’t simply trust what is written. Otherwise, I have no agenda within myself that would afford me the right to deviate from the most straight-forward understanding of the text.

The Bible means what it says. The Bible does not anywhere claim that the creation is 14-or-so billion years old. That idea is absolutely being shoehorned into, or maybe even replacing, the Biblical account of history. It seems like we are drifting towards replacing the Biblical account with the secular narrative, then simply waving away the Biblical narrative as entirely symbolic – since “The Bible is not a science book”.

As such, you’ll need a lot more in the way of supporting arguments if you want me to even consider disregarding what the Bible actually says, in favor of some unnecessary replacement story. I’ve decided that I’m going to trust what God says, as plainly written. You want to claim that I’ve misinterpreted the passage – OK, show me.

 

“He modified the earliest manuscripts to eliminate the Hebrew marks over the Hebrew letters which were added later”

OK??? This might be the start of an argument. But nothing rational for me to respond to yet.

 

“In reality, I have demonstrated that I am eagerly prepared to “consider” everything you care to present. “Consider” means to test, to think about, to carefully examine the provided arguments and thereby reach a rational conclusion on the matter. I have done that.

I disagree with this as I can list over 40 scholars who adhere to the Gap Theory.”

Again, this feels like a random statement; given the quote you were supposedly responding to.

I can also list at-least “40 scholars” who interpret Genesis 1 as I do.

So what are the logical implications of our respective abilities to list “scholars” that agree with us? Real answer – bubkus, nada, null, zero, nothing; utter irrelevance.

Only the rational quality of the relevant supporting arguments is pertinent to the truth about origins, and how to interpret Genesis 1. All our Appeals to Expertise are empty, meaningless bluster.

 

Hope your day has been wonderful my friend, Merry Christmas. I apologize to you and I love you sorry I offended you.

Edited December 25, 2022 by BeyondET

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, Tristen said:

“The cooling off period is for me”

Lol – fair enough.

 

14 minutes ago, Tristen said:

@BeyondET was insinuating something about my motives based on how “quickly” I responded to the thread. In reality, that was merely a coincidence of timing. But the implication of BeyondET’s comments is that I am supposedly obliged to wait for the thread to get going before responding. I do not think that is a fair-minded suggestion.

@BeyondET can speak for @BeyondET

14 minutes ago, Tristen said:

 “I don't want to get discussions devolve in to personal attacks.”

Neither do I.

Sticking to Logic does not avoid personal attacks. Whatever gives you that idea?

14 minutes ago, Tristen said:

But the way to avoid a discussion devolving into “personal attacks” is to stick to logic, and to avoid fallacy and posturing. Rational conversation becomes impeded when people too readily associate themselves personally with their own opinions – and so interpret disagreement as a “personal attack” – and so react with emotional, irrational statements, in some desperate attempt to ‘win’ the contest, rather than giving fair consideration to the opposing arguments.

If you want to dismiss every post that doesn't meet your ideals of logic, when you attack people's arguments as irrational, I don't see a future for us having a dialog. We can end this right now if you want.

14 minutes ago, Tristen said:

“That's why I included hours and hours of detail discussions from Hebrew-Greek Scholar Dr. Heiser. If you think that's too long to spend on God's word that's your problem and I can learn nothing from you.”

So you say you want to avoid discussions devolving into personal attack, but then you immediately insinuate that, since we disagree, I must be unwilling to “spend” an appropriate amount of time “on God’s Word”.

Did you watch any of the videos I provided or did you dismiss them out of hand?

14 minutes ago, Tristen said:

Do you understand that this Innuendo is about me personally – and not actually addressing any argument I’ve presented? That’s how it all starts – i.e. how conversations unravel into an exchange of “personal attacks”. If you really “don't want to get discussions devolve in to personal attacks”, you would learn to refrain from this kind of response.

I'm trying to have a civil conversation with you but you seem unwilling.

14 minutes ago, Tristen said:

For your following comment I have included the path of discourse for context.

So I said to @BeyondET, “We learn, and come closer to the truth, through an open exchange of ideas. Engaging with those who disagree with us gives us the opportunity to test the rational strength of our own position.

Proverbs 27:17 - As iron sharpens iron, So a man sharpens the countenance of his friend.

What if you encounter a non-Christian who brings up the same arguments against your position as I have raised? Do you send them away from the conversation without a satisfying answer?

1 Peter 3:15 - But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear

@BeyondET said, “Debating with someone who will not consider anything else, is beating your head against the wall. Most of the time it turns into slug match who enjoys that”

Then I said to, You are again employing Innuendo – i.e. insinuating that I am unwilling to “consider” your position.

Then you said, This may come as a shock, Dr. Heiser doesn't support the Gap Theory”

What is more of “a shock” to me is you posting responses that are seemingly unrelated to the quotes you are supposedly responding to.

Either way, I don’t care about motives (nor credentials) – I only care about the rational quality of the supporting arguments.

“He does support a difference between the Bible and science. The Bible is not a science book so he sees no reason to shoehorn science into the Gap”

So what do you think?

I agree that the Bible is not intended to be a science text. Nevertheless, as the Word of God, I would expect the Bible to be accurate when making straight-forward claims about nature and history. Genesis 1 is most plainly understood as an historical account.

As someone who spent the better part of a decade attaining credentials and a career in “science”, I have not found anything in “science” that rationally obligates me to distrust the Genesis 1 account of history. That is, when you break down the logic that contributes to the secular narrative of history, there is literally nothing that logically compels us to the idea that the universe is billions of years old. So, contrary to propaganda, the plain understanding of the Genesis 1 account of history can therefore be believed without any intellectual compromise. And therefore, if you want me to consider an alternate interpretation of Genesis 1, I will require a very compelling argument as to why I can’t simply trust what is written. Otherwise, I have no agenda within myself that would afford me the right to deviate from the most straight-forward understanding of the text.

The Bible means what it says. The Bible does not anywhere claim that the creation is 14-or-so billion years old. That idea is absolutely being shoehorned into, or maybe even replacing, the Biblical account of history. It seems like we are drifting towards replacing the Biblical account with the secular narrative, then simply waving away the Biblical narrative as entirely symbolic – since “The Bible is not a science book”.

As such, you’ll need a lot more in the way of supporting arguments if you want me to even consider disregarding what the Bible actually says, in favor of some unnecessary replacement story. I’ve decided that I’m going to trust what God says, as plainly written. You want to claim that I’ve misinterpreted the passage – OK, show me.

“He modified the earliest manuscripts to eliminate the Hebrew marks over the Hebrew letters which were added later”

OK??? This might be the start of an argument. But nothing rational for me to respond to yet.

Okay. You want to apply Logic to every argument. How about Game Theory, Calculus, Physics, et al. So only you can apply Science (Logic is a Science) and you set the rules. Why don't you create your own Thread and set your own rules. I think I made a mistake taking you off Ignore.

[Tristen]

2 hours ago, BeyondET said:

Hope your day has been wonderful my friend, Merry Christmas. I apologize to you and I love you sorry I offended you.

Merry Christmas to you - though Christmas is already yesterday here in Australia.

No need to "apologize". I was not "offended" whatsoever. Just pointing things out.

Cheers.

[Vine Abider]

5 minutes ago, Tristen said:

Merry Christmas to you - though Christmas is already yesterday here in Australia.

That's just hard to grasp - sort of a time warp thing, eh?

[Tristen]

2 hours ago, Saved.One.by.Grace said:

 

@BeyondET can speak for @BeyondET

Sticking to Logic does not avoid personal attacks. Whatever gives you that idea?

If you want to dismiss every post that doesn't meet your ideals of logic, when you attack people's arguments as irrational, I don't see a future for us having a dialog. We can end this right now if you want.

Did you watch any of the videos I provided or did you dismiss them out of hand?

I'm trying to have a civil conversation with you but you seem unwilling.

Okay. You want to apply Logic to every argument. How about Game Theory, Calculus, Physics, et al. So only you can apply Science (Logic is a Science) and you set the rules. Why don't you create your own Thread and set your own rules. I think I made a mistake taking you off Ignore.

 

“@BeyondET can speak for @BeyondET”

Of course.

Nevertheless, your comments were responding to my reply to@BeyondET’s post. That context was important to the correct interpretation, and proper understanding, of my comments.

 

“Sticking to Logic does not avoid personal attacks. Whatever gives you that idea?”

Because, logically speaking, the personal attributes of the person making the argument are not relevant to the truth of the topic being discussed. That is why Adhominem attacks and Appeals to Authority etc. are logically meaningless (and thereby recognized as logic fallacies).

 

“If you want to dismiss every post that doesn't meet your ideals of logic, when you attack people's arguments as irrational, I don't see a future for us having a dialog”

So firstly, I have not dismissed any post. I have, self-evidently, carefully responded to almost every comment on every post you have directed to me. That is the opposite of what “dismiss” means.

Second, they are not my “ideals of logic”. It’s just “logic”. The rules apply equally to everyone. If an argument breaches the rules of “logic”, then it does not make sense. That is, the conclusions don’t sensibly follow on from the arguments and premises. If “logic” is not being adhered to, the truth of the matter is not being entertained or approached. Has it occurred to you that you are defending a conversational method of “dialog” that defies “logic”?

Thirdly, you have recognized (or at-least stated) an important distinction in the above comment; namely that I am not personally attacking anyone, but rather criticizing the quality of the provided “arguments”.

Finally, it is next to impossible to have a “dialog” with someone who thinks the rules of logic do not apply to them. E.g. As with the previous post, you can claim to not want the conversation to descend into “personal attacks”, but then in the next sentence, make a comment that personally attacks your opponent. Apart from ignoring the comment, your opponent now has two choices; 1) reply in-kind, and attack you back (which you said you don’t want), or 2) spend time trying to explain to you that your personal attacks against them do not contribute anything of logical substance to the conversation.

 

“We can end this right now if you want.”

I think I have demonstrated a readiness to engage with you. Nevertheless, so long as you insist that the rules of logic don’t apply to you, then that will be the main focus of the conversation. We can’t have a productive conversation if only one of the sides of the debate is playing by the rules.

 

“Did you watch any of the videos I provided or did you dismiss them out of hand?”

The logic fallacy you are employing here is called a False Dichotomy.

I did neither. I have only been following the conversations I’m involved in. I was unaware you posted videos.

I did read through the article you posted in the OP. And I provided my assessment. Thus far you have demonstrated an unwillingness to fairly consider my arguments. So that was a waste of my time. Yet now you expect me to waste more of my time looking at more resources whilst you are free to simply sit back and paste links, rather than argue for yourself.

I will happily consider any arguments you wish to provide in defense of your own position. I am reluctant to waste more time on links because:

- Providing a thorough rebuttal will take a lot more time than the time it takes to watch the video,

- It would be poor form for me to rebut someone who is not in this conversation to defend their position, and

- You have shown zero inclination to consider any such effort on my part.

I suppose, if there is a particular point you think they make well, give me the link, and the time stamp where the point starts and ends. But apart from that, I have to respect my own time – especially if you can’t be bothered to do any of the work to defend your own position.

 

“Do you understand that this Innuendo is about me personally – and not actually addressing any argument I’ve presented? That’s how it all starts – i.e. how conversations unravel into an exchange of “personal attacks”. If you really “don't want to get discussions devolve in to personal attacks”, you would learn to refrain from this kind of response.

I'm trying to have a civil conversation with you but you seem unwilling.”

Except that I am responding civilly to pretty-much everything you post.

The context of the above statement was you claiming you wanted a conversation without personal attacks, but then went on to make a comment that was a personal attack against me. That is logically inconsistent and self-defeating.

Unless, of course, you want the right to attack others, but don’t want them to have the right to respond in-kind. Even so, I did not respond in-kind with a personal attack, but rather civilly pointed out the logical inconsistency of your position.

 

“Okay. You want to apply Logic to every argument. How about Game Theory, Calculus, Physics, et al. So only you can apply Science (Logic is a Science) and you set the rules. Why don't you create your own Thread and set your own rules”

I don’t have my “own rules”. I don’t get to “set” anything. Operating within the rules of logic is simply the only way to approach the truth of any matter. Logic is cold, and calculated, and devoid of emotion. Operating outside of the rules of logic not only wastes everyone’s time – but opens up the conversation to the possibility of personal, emotive, nonsensical, inconsistent arguments.

 

“I think I made a mistake taking you off Ignore.”

You have always been free to “ignore” me.

My main point is, if you truly want to have productive conversations with people (even those you disagree with), without all the emotional baggage, you’ll need to learn to avoid breaches of logic. Only when both sides of the argument are playing by these rules can anything of consequence be achieved through such conversations.

 

[Tristen]

2 minutes ago, Vine Abider said:

That's just hard to grasp - sort of a time warp thing, eh?

Yup - works both ways.

Even so, Merry Christmas to you - while it's still Christmas there anyway. As for me, only 364 more sleeps.

[Vine Abider]

4 minutes ago, Tristen said:

Yup - works both ways.

Even so, Merry Christmas to you - while it's still Christmas there anyway. As for me, only 364 more sleeps.

Ha!  And we're starting to say "Happy Incarnation" up here! (well okay, it's just me saying that . . .)