tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post5198717264488917799..comments2024-03-28T08:35:59.048-07:00Comments on Metacrock's Blog: What is the "Courtier's Reply?"Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)http://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comBlogger37125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-43675920603389177742012-05-19T04:06:51.105-07:002012-05-19T04:06:51.105-07:00Quote: "We know next to nothing about Thallus...Quote: "We know next to nothing about Thallus or his works. We don't even know if he wrote only one book or several. The only information we have about him, even his name, comes entirely from Christian apologetic sources beginning in the late 2nd century, and that information is plagued with problems."<br /><br /><b>It's not a valid move to try and cast suspicious on a source just becuase he was Christian. Africanus was a major historian and an authority, so you have to come with more.If you read the materiel I linked to you know we know some things about Thallus. Some of the guys you listed are second century or latter so that's not a valid arguemnt either.</b><br /><br />Quote: "How someone could call Thallus "the most celebrated of the pagan chronographers of the imperial period" is incomprehensible. The man and the book are equally shadowy to us."<br /><br /><br /><b>He's no a major source of evidence either. Celsus is a lot more important. In the fact Apostolic fathers are more important than any of the pagans.</b><br /><br />Quote: "... we know for a fact that Phlegon wrote in the 140's AD, and was fond of fantastic stories, so it would not be surprising to find him borrowing this one from Christian literature. But Martin Routh noticed some telling details: the sentence mentioning Phlegon is grammatically and logically out of place."<br /><br /><b>who said that? what are his credentials? which text?</b><br /><br />and so forth. You are desperate to use 'sources' such as these. And your efforts to discredit Philo don't work. <br /><br /><b>I guess that means you are pretty desperate too. most of the names in your list of argument fro silence were extremely obscure and ot first century and they are people now little about.</b><br /><br /><br /><br />Further, the DSS were hidden after the fall of Jerusalem - a generation or two after the supposed Jesus. These manuscripts generally date between 150 BCE and 70 CE. <br /><br /><b>that's total bull shit. The sites was by different groups at different times.It was even Roman Garrison at one point in second century. Some of the major DSS were hidden way before Jesus' time. <br /><br />How did the DSS even get into the discussion? I didn't make any claims regarding them.<br /><br />I find it interesting that you didn't answer any of the major points I made All the improtant stuff that really proves my you avoid like the pleasge. you just attack the week supplemental stuff that isn't a major pillar of the evidence.<br /><br />the Clesus/Talmud connection proved Jesus existed. That by itself destroys the Jesus myth bull shit. so until you answer that you said nothing.<br /><br />you also better answer those apologetic fathers.<br /><br />Josephus. the brother passage is never attacked no one think it's a forgery that proves Jesus existed.<br /><br />the vast majority of scholars agree that Josephus did talk about Jesus and the TF is just barely tweaked not made up.</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-6982834853943679742012-05-18T08:12:56.757-07:002012-05-18T08:12:56.757-07:00Quote: "We know next to nothing about Thallus...<i>Quote: "We know next to nothing about Thallus or his works. We don't even know if he wrote only one book or several. The only information we have about him, even his name, comes entirely from Christian apologetic sources beginning in the late 2nd century, and that information is plagued with problems."</i><br /><br /><i>Quote: "How someone could call Thallus "the most celebrated of the pagan chronographers of the imperial period" is incomprehensible. The man and the book are equally shadowy to us."</i><br /><br /><i>Quote: "... we know for a fact that Phlegon wrote in the 140's AD, and was fond of fantastic stories, so it would not be surprising to find him borrowing this one from Christian literature. But Martin Routh noticed some telling details: the sentence mentioning Phlegon is grammatically and logically out of place."</i><br /><br />and so forth. You are desperate to use 'sources' such as these. And your efforts to discredit Philo don't work. Further, the DSS were hidden after the fall of Jerusalem - a generation or two after the supposed Jesus. These manuscripts generally date between 150 BCE and 70 CE.Analysthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12576054799471594617noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-68369581462956545802012-05-18T07:32:07.785-07:002012-05-18T07:32:07.785-07:00here's my answeron evidence that he existed<a href="http://metacrock.blogspot.com/2012/05/major-evidence-that-jesus-really.html" rel="nofollow"><b>here's my answeron evidence that he existed</b></a>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-53899395147190253462012-05-18T05:49:21.018-07:002012-05-18T05:49:21.018-07:00noting in the dead sea scrolls? depends upon you e...noting in the dead sea scrolls? depends upon you expect to find. Nothing about Jesus of cousre, he lived a 100 years latter.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-58306371762546308872012-05-18T05:48:09.825-07:002012-05-18T05:48:09.825-07:00You didn't say you wanted evidence on him exis...You didn't say you wanted evidence on him existing. You said "is there evidecne he rose from the deas." I hesnse I sent you to the resurrection pages. Now you coplain that he didn't exist.<br /><br />Obviously if he rose form the dead he had to exist. Did you even read the stuff on the resurrection pages?<br /><br />I am going to answer in the main blog spot, it will be the major article for today, May 18, 2012. I was wondering what to do it on today anyway.<br /><br />It's manifestly bunk that there is no evidence he existed, and the things you list are not things historians would accept. Mythers have created their phony historical stadnards. Pleases see the major page of the blog latter to day for more.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-17597022675274184612012-05-17T08:26:03.182-07:002012-05-17T08:26:03.182-07:00I took a brief look. Nothing there deals with the ...I took a brief look. Nothing there deals with the real problem: Every piece of evidence confirms that gospel Jesus never existed.<br /><br />Quote:<br />The following is a list of writers who lived and wrote during the time, or within a century after the time, that Christ is said to have lived and performed his wonderful works:<br /><br />Josephus, Philo-Judaeus, Seneca, Pliny the Elder, Suetonius, Juvenal, Martial, Persius, Plutarch, Justus of Tiberius, Apollonius, Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, Quintilian, Lucanus, Epictetus, Silius Italicus, Statius, Ptolemy, Hermogones, Valerius Maximus, Arrian, Petronius, Dion Pruseus, Paterculus, Appian, Theon of Smyrna, Phlegon, Pompon Mela, Quintius Curtius, Lucian, Pausanias, Valerius Flaccus, Florus Lucius, Favorinus, Phaedrus, Damis, Aulus Gellius, Columella, Dio Chrysostom, Lysias, Appion of Alexandria.<br /><br />Enough of the writings of the authors named in the foregoing list remains to form a library. Yet in this mass of Jewish and Pagan literature, aside from two forged passages in the works of a Jewish author, and two disputed passages in the works of Roman writers, there is to be found no mention of Jesus Christ.<br /><br />Philo was born before the beginning of the Christian era, and lived until long after the reputed death of Christ. He wrote an account of the Jews covering the entire time that Christ is said to have existed on earth. He was living in or near Jerusalem when Christ's miraculous birth and the Herodian massacre occurred. He was there when Christ made his triumphal entry into Jerusalem.<br /><br />He was there when the crucifixion with its attendant earthquake, supernatural darkness, and resurrection of the dead took place -- when Christ himself rose from the dead, and in the presence of many witnesses ascended into heaven. These marvelous events which must have filled the world with amazement, had they really occurred, were unknown to him. It was Philo who developed the doctrine of the Logos, or Word, and although this Word incarnate dwelt in that very land and in the presence of multitudes revealed himself and demonstrated his divine powers, Philo saw it not.<br /><br /><i>From "The Christ" -- John E. Remsberg</i><br /><br />(There's also nothing in the Dead Sea Scrolls.)Analysthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12576054799471594617noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-25125208938118363112012-05-17T06:20:42.011-07:002012-05-17T06:20:42.011-07:00see my resurrection pages on Doxa<a href="http://www.doxa.ws/Jesus_pages/Resurrection/Res_submen.html" rel="nofollow"><b>see my resurrection pages on Doxa</b></a>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-2927663124687716022012-05-16T09:16:49.551-07:002012-05-16T09:16:49.551-07:00Jesus was such a compelling figure and there is so...<i>Jesus was such a compelling figure and there is some decent evidence he rose from the dead.</i><br /><br />What is it?Analysthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12576054799471594617noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-16941524845414680572010-12-25T04:08:36.330-08:002010-12-25T04:08:36.330-08:00That last anonymous poster bumped about 40 points ...That last anonymous poster bumped about 40 points off my IQ. I can not believe how stupid people can be, and they wonder why we get a bit shitty with them. I swear he was the newest species to evolve, the homo ignoramus.SPRnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-52531619129878296652010-06-08T03:59:08.933-07:002010-06-08T03:59:08.933-07:00If I were to approach you on the street and said a...If I were to approach you on the street and said a giant panda bear visited me in the night and told me he is the creator of the universe it would then be up to me to prove it. I would think though you would assume I was crazy. This is the argument you present. You claim to know but can't prove it. You claim to understand god then turn around and say we can't understand god.<br /><br /><br /><b>the way you think about rligion is really idiotic. it's manipulated and brain washed by a bunch of childish fools who are counting on your simplistic thinking to reduce complex and highly intelligent ideas to stupidity through ignorance. You are just like an illiterate guy laughing at books becuase you can't understand them.<br /><br />dumb little anecdotes and bad analogies are ot proof.</b><br /><br /> "The worse thing is that by comparing belief in God to belief in unicorns, you have shown that you don't know, or care to know, what belief in God actually is. What you are rejecting is a straw unicorn." This is a utterly stupid point. <br /><br /><b>Its' obvious, the greatest in human history have always been God believers. From Newton to Alston the major thinkers in all eras of human history have believed in God. The list great thinking atheists is pathetic. Brutrand Russell and Mark Twain, big deal!</b><br /><br /><br />Claiming that god can't be understood for some arguments then turning back around and stating that the person just doesn't understand god is illogical.<br /><br /><br /><b>that's a simpleton's bull shit. you are just saying "God can't be over my head I don't believe in hummm ahahahah HU Duh!</b><br /><br /><br /><br /> I hope you can see this. Comparing unicorns to god is a good way to show how illogical your point of view is. I claim unicorns exist, however, I can't prove it. This is the same argument you are making.<br /><br /><br /><b>no it' snot, it's argument from analogy. I hope your little inferior brain can understand the concept I know being an atheist proves you are intellectually inferior to me. But try to think real hard, analogizes are not poof. comparing is analogy. so comparing doesn't prove, see?<br /><br />let's do it agin becasue you know you can't think well:<br /><br />(1) Analogies don't prove things<br /><br />(2) comparison is analogy<br /><br />(3) the compression of God to Unicorn is comparison, which is analogy, which doesn't prove things, therefore, it's not proving anything.<br /><br />it's a bad analogy anyway because a unicorn is a thing, it's made of patching to things together, a horse and horn. God is not a thing, God is the basis of things, not a thin himself. God is not made of patching things together but is a whole concept that can't be deconstructed.</b><br /><br /> I would like to end by saying that I truly wish in my lifetime that religion would die out. The world would be so much better. <br /><br /><br /><b>but it's not ever gonna. Go read "why God wont go Away" by Andrew Newberg and you will find that God is a percent part of human thought it cannot be taken away.<br /><br />if you bothered to tryt o learn tings one of the first things you would see as just obvious is that religious people are smarter, atheism is a hate group. it brain washed you because you are feeling bad about yourself and you need the fix of bullying some group so you have put yourself by putting them down. you probalby have a putrid home life and no father. Or a weak father. you need to open your eyes to the true nature of learning.</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-61299601311207471472010-06-08T03:59:02.785-07:002010-06-08T03:59:02.785-07:00We can clearly show prayer does not work.
you me...We can clearly show prayer does not work.<br /><br /><br /><b>you mean by little childish lies like on that stupid ass amputees website. those people are fools.<br /><br />"close your eyes real tight, say "God I demand a chocolate milk shake right now, if a Milkshake does not appear then there prayer doesn't work." how stupid can you get? Only an imbecile would think that means anything. 15 studies specifically on prayer prove it works. real scientific studied not little dumb dumb meaningless tricks.</b><br /><br /><a href="http://www.webspawner.com/users/apologete2/" rel="nofollow"><b>Scientiifc investigation of Prayer</b></a><br /><br /> Humans invented religion to help understand the world in a time when dragons existed and the earth is flat. Why do you think religion is dying out? It is dying because everyday we are learning more from SCIENCE. Religion in no way helps us understand, anything.<br /><br /><b>what makes you think religion is dying out. atheism is dying out. Before the 0's America had 3%. In 08 the Pew studies showed it has 1.5% in America. that's going down! Religion is not going down. People are shifting form Christianity to neg pagan or Unitarian or other but they not giving up religion.</b><br /><br /> Courtiers reply is a great way of explaining a common Theist argument that because I don't believe in god, I can't possibly understand him.<br /><br /><br /><b>It's imbecilic. It's judgeming something you know nothing about and refusing to learn abou tit. It's an Orwellian ploy right out of animal farm. Go rad Animal Farm b Geroge Orwell you will see atheism in action.</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-65704790459688594542010-06-08T03:57:43.963-07:002010-06-08T03:57:43.963-07:00Anonymous said...
What possible evidence is t...Anonymous said...<br /><br /> What possible evidence is there for the existence of Jesus? None<br /><br /><b>wrong! there's a huge amount.that's why no historian doubts it. Only dummies doubt Jesus existence in history.</b><br /><br /><a href="http://www.doxa.ws/Jesus_pages/HistJesus_index2.html" rel="nofollow"><b>proof Jesus lived as a man in history</b></a><br /><br /> What evidence is there for miracles? None<br /><br /><br /><a href="http://www.doxa.ws/other/Miracles.html" rel="nofollow"><b>a huge amount of evidence for miracles</b></a><br /><br /> I would suspect that if evidence existed, then religion would be on the rise and the scientific community would generally accept it. This is not the case.<br /><br /><br /><b>qahahaha you idiot! 3% of the world pop is atheist idiots. 90% believe in god you simpleton!<br /><br />science community is made of dunderheads that's why they are no in philsophy</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-53396087125209149732010-06-07T00:27:16.557-07:002010-06-07T00:27:16.557-07:00What possible evidence is there for the existence ...What possible evidence is there for the existence of Jesus? None<br />What evidence is there for miracles? None<br /><br />I would suspect that if evidence existed, then religion would be on the rise and the scientific community would generally accept it. This is not the case. <br /><br />We can clearly show prayer does not work. <br /><br />Humans invented religion to help understand the world in a time when dragons existed and the earth is flat. Why do you think religion is dying out? It is dying because everyday we are learning more from SCIENCE. Religion in no way helps us understand, anything. <br /><br />Courtiers reply is a great way of explaining a common Theist argument that because I don't believe in god, I can't possibly understand him. <br /><br />If I were to approach you on the street and said a giant panda bear visited me in the night and told me he is the creator of the universe it would then be up to me to prove it. I would think though you would assume I was crazy. This is the argument you present. You claim to know but can't prove it. You claim to understand god then turn around and say we can't understand god. <br /><br />"The worse thing is that by comparing belief in God to belief in unicorns, you have shown that you don't know, or care to know, what belief in God actually is. What you are rejecting is a straw unicorn." This is a utterly stupid point. Claiming that god can't be understood for some arguments then turning back around and stating that the person just doesn't understand god is illogical. I hope you can see this. Comparing unicorns to god is a good way to show how illogical your point of view is. I claim unicorns exist, however, I can't prove it. This is the same argument you are making. <br /><br />I would like to end by saying that I truly wish in my lifetime that religion would die out. The world would be so much better.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-7024980867573922962008-11-17T09:22:00.000-08:002008-11-17T09:22:00.000-08:00Anonymous said... Actually, what the courtiers ...Anonymous said...<BR/><BR/> Actually, what the courtiers reply says is this:<BR/><BR/> Don't tell me that I don't know what I am talking about because somebody once wrote a book that I didn't read.<BR/><BR/><BR/><B>but that is nothing more than being stupid. what if we were talking about math? you say something about imaginary numbers, I don't know what they are but I said "don't tell me what I don' tknow I know imaginary numbers are stupid even if I don't know what they are." Don't you agree that would be ignorant?</B><BR/><BR/> If you have a good counter argument - present the argument. Don't present me with an endless litany of names and quotes, present me with an argument.<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><B>how can you know if it is a good counter argument if you don't know the original argument?</B><BR/><BR/> If all you do is present me with the fact that I haven't read every book ever on a given subject, all you are doing is using the courtiers reply, which is nothing more than using cosmo to defend the idea that the emperor is not indeed, naked.<BR/><BR/><BR/><B>you are just being dense atheioid. no one is just saying 'You haven't read this book>" obviously we are saying you don't understand our arguments because you don't know what our beliefs are. Obviously you have to know that to attack it.</B><BR/><BR/> Obviously, this is problematic for theists because generally when they spout off a list of names they assume I haven't read - they haven't read them either.<BR/><BR/><BR/><B>that's where you are full of shit because I have read them. I have masters in theology and a Ph.D. (abd) in history of ideas. Like most atheists you don't know what you are talking about.</B><BR/> 2:53 AM <BR/>Anonymous said...<BR/><BR/> Kirsten<BR/><BR/> Okay, what you posted:<BR/><BR/> Atheist: "Your God is just a big sky daddy."<BR/><BR/> Theist, "No, God is the Ground of Being."<BR/><BR/> Atheist: "Now you're using the Courtier's Reply. I don't care what you say your God is like."<BR/><BR/> Is not the courtiers reply, it is quibbling. Whether your god is a sky god or a ground god doesn't change the need to prove the god actually exists.<BR/><BR/><BR/><B>and yet...that's the way most of them use it most often.</B><BR/><BR/> The courtiers reply lies in appealing to random authorities in the hopes than nobody read them in a bid to avoid actually having to come up with an argument.<BR/><BR/><BR/><B>we aren't siting random authorities are we? all of this is stems from the fact that atheists are very ignorant and can't think so they don't know what intellectual discussion is and they don't know what knowledge is. We are talking about the major thinkers that give Christianity its ideas. So its very stupid of atheist to think they can know about Christianity if they don't its major ideas.</B><BR/><BR/> It is in avoiding actually arguing your case via repeated appeals to authority.<BR/><BR/><BR/><B>they are so cute when they think they can think</B><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/> Now, whether your god is a sky daddy, a ground mommy or a water great-great-great grandson (At least one theory of God could be that he is the time travelling ultimate product of evolution) this figure requires evidence.<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><B>you say that because you don't nkow what the terms mean so you don't know what ground of bein gis so you don't understand why it makes a difference.</B><BR/><BR/> Without the evidence, arguing over God's nature is simply establishing what you need to prove. Once you have established this you still need to prove it.<BR/><BR/><BR/><B>tha's the rub isn't it? because the evidence is there in theology. see? you refuse to read it because you say it's stupid you don't have to read then you make super ignorant comments like this because you being an atheist you are idiot and don't understand intellectual life you don't know what evidence is.<BR/><BR/>the very thing you refuse to read because you say it's stupid is the evidence, dumb dumb.</B>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-27885987209759147662008-11-17T03:10:00.000-08:002008-11-17T03:10:00.000-08:00KirstenOkay, what you posted:Atheist: "Your God is...Kirsten<BR/><BR/>Okay, what you posted:<BR/><BR/><B>Atheist: "Your God is just a big sky daddy."<BR/><BR/>Theist, "No, God is the Ground of Being."<BR/><BR/>Atheist: "Now you're using the Courtier's Reply. I don't care what you say your God is like."</B><BR/><BR/>Is not the courtiers reply, it is quibbling. Whether your god is a sky god or a ground god doesn't change the need to prove the god actually exists.<BR/><BR/>The courtiers reply lies in appealing to random authorities in the hopes than nobody read them in a bid to avoid actually having to come up with an argument.<BR/><BR/>It is in avoiding actually arguing your case via repeated appeals to authority. <BR/><BR/>Now, whether your god is a sky daddy, a ground mommy or a water great-great-great grandson (At least one theory of God could be that he is the time travelling ultimate product of evolution) this figure requires evidence.<BR/><BR/>Without the evidence, arguing over God's nature is simply establishing what you need to prove. Once you have established this you still need to prove it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-72907566945498626512008-11-17T02:53:00.001-08:002008-11-17T02:53:00.001-08:00Actually, what the courtiers reply says is this:Do...Actually, what the courtiers reply says is this:<BR/><BR/>Don't tell me that I don't know what I am talking about because somebody once wrote a book that I didn't read.<BR/><BR/>If you have a good counter argument - present the argument. Don't present me with an endless litany of names and quotes, present me with <I>an argument.</I><BR/><BR/>If all you do is present me with the fact that I haven't read every book ever on a given subject, all you are doing is using the courtiers reply, which is nothing more than using cosmo to defend the idea that the emperor is not indeed, naked.<BR/><BR/>Obviously, this is problematic for theists because generally when they spout off a list of names they assume I haven't read - they haven't read them <I>either.</I>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-88528789097286611492008-08-25T12:28:00.000-07:002008-08-25T12:28:00.000-07:00I've been gone a few days; hope people are still r...I've been gone a few days; hope people are still reading comments here--<BR/><BR/>Loren,<BR/><BR/>All I can say is that if atheists want to keep their arguments to just this: I don't believe in God, prove there's a God-- then the Courtier's Reply might have some merit if the theists then went on to discuss, not evidence for God, but various understandings of the nature of God-- because the theists would then not be answering the atheists' question. (The fact that atheists define "evidence" so narrowly that one prove Abraham Lincoln ever lived, let alone that there's a God, within the confines of that definition, is beside the point here).<BR/><BR/>But the atheistic arguments against God go far beyond, "I don't see any evidence for God." They include, as has been said, "Belief in God is like belief in unicorns." This is another topic entirely, having to do with the nature of belief, and whether religious experience is equatable with imagination (my understanding is that different areas of the brain are in use during religious experience than are in use in imaginative episodes). But if we theists then try to address the nature of belief, and the difference between imagination and religious experience-- the Courtier's Reply is nothing more than a refusal to listen.<BR/><BR/>Further, atheists attack different ideas/conceptions of God for all kinds of reasons, most of which boil down to, "your god is nothing more than a big sky daddy." Then, when theists say, "No, God isn't-- here's all the reasons why"-- it is completely unfair to come back with the Courtier's Reply, because it's not the existence of God that is in question now, but the nature of God. <BR/><BR/>If atheists want to attack theist's ideas <I>about</I> God, rather than just whether or not God exists, and then use the Courtier's Reply tactic when theists answer, surely you can see that this is just a shutdown of all discussion?<BR/><BR/>Atheist: "Your God is just a big sky daddy."<BR/><BR/>Theist, "No, God is the Ground of Being."<BR/><BR/>Atheist: "Now you're using the Courtier's Reply. I don't care what you say your God is like."<BR/><BR/>But it was the atheist who started the argument with a statement about what God is like!<BR/><BR/>The tactic is simply evasive, a pseudo-clever insult, and is a way of attacking theists without having to listen to their defenses.Kristenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08252374623355509404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-85069766748696433692008-08-21T19:22:00.000-07:002008-08-21T19:22:00.000-07:00As to sophistication, you ought to look at what th...As to sophistication, you ought to look at what the fancier astrologers say, as opposed to reading the newspaper Sun-Sign columns. They talk about trines and sextiles and decans and other such fancy stuff. An astrologer can even make the argument that critics of astrology are ignoring all this wonderful sophistication. Which is the sort of argument that the Courtier's Reply is directed at. In effect, don't brag about what a wonderful theoretical superstructure you have; show that your subject matter is real.<BR/><BR/><BR/><B>I know what astrologers say. I know more than the stupid deals in the paper. that does not answer mya argument. Look you are arguing from analogy. you thing if x,y, and z are stupid and illogical, and you don't them, then p,d,q which also don't like must also be stupid. If thing you don't like is stupid than everything you don't like is stupid. that is not an argument doesn't prove anything and it's a fallacy.<BR/><BR/>you keep ignoring the one crucial fact, by not knowing about theology you get the ideas you attack wrong so your augments are wrong because you don't understand what you are attacking.</B><BR/><BR/>Astrologers also argue that "the stars incline, but do not compel", and they sometimes point to eminent scientists who had been astrologers, like Johannes Kepler. They also point to such phenomena as the Moon making tides, and complain about how closed-minded the mainstream scientific community allegedly is about astrology.<BR/><BR/><B>again, argument from analogy. that simply has nothing to do with my arguments.</B><BR/><BR/>Also, I searched for the modal-logic version of the Ontological Argument, and I don't know if I found your version. However, it's as fallacious as all the other arguments -- it jumps from possibly existing to necessarily existing.<BR/><BR/><BR/><B>No it does not! you clearly don't understand it. you do not understand it. I'll put up my version of it in the main blog spot.<BR/><BR/>it is not a fallacy. All kinds of logicians declare it valid.</B><BR/><BR/>And the same argument applies for an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnimalevolent being also.<BR/><BR/><BR/><B>no they don't.</B>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-51916642508378122332008-08-21T19:20:00.000-07:002008-08-21T19:20:00.000-07:00"it jumps from possibly existing to necessarily ex...<I>"it jumps from possibly existing to necessarily existing."</I><BR/><BR/>That's where they all lose me. I'm fully open to the idea of God, but as soon as someone says a god <I>just has</I> to exist I just don't see it.<BR/><BR/>That and the fact that I still see nothing in my life that I would call a god of any kind. Maybe someday I will, who knows?Mike aka MonolithTMAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08385705390882035829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-70809097694289397962008-08-21T10:07:00.000-07:002008-08-21T10:07:00.000-07:00As to sophistication, you ought to look at what th...As to sophistication, you ought to look at what the fancier astrologers say, as opposed to reading the newspaper Sun-Sign columns. They talk about trines and sextiles and decans and other such fancy stuff. An astrologer can even make the argument that critics of astrology are ignoring all this wonderful sophistication. Which is the sort of argument that the Courtier's Reply is directed at. In effect, don't brag about what a wonderful theoretical superstructure you have; show that your subject matter is real.<BR/><BR/>Astrologers also argue that "the stars incline, but do not compel", and they sometimes point to eminent scientists who had been astrologers, like Johannes Kepler. They also point to such phenomena as the Moon making tides, and complain about how closed-minded the mainstream scientific community allegedly is about astrology.<BR/><BR/>Also, I searched for the modal-logic version of the Ontological Argument, and I don't know if I found your version. However, it's as fallacious as all the other arguments -- it jumps from possibly existing to necessarily existing.<BR/><BR/>And the same argument applies for an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnimalevolent being also.Lorenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13984896453534621864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-83109704636194711972008-08-20T08:41:00.000-07:002008-08-20T08:41:00.000-07:00As much as I hate to be an atheist arguing against...As much as I hate to be an atheist arguing against atheists. We know, with absolute certainty that Batman and Superman, and the Star Trek and Star Wars universes do not exist, they are, and always been portrayed as, works of fiction.<BR/><BR/>We do not know with absolute certainty that a god does not exist. The Courtier's Reply would only work if we changed the original story to be about an invisible naked emperor.Mike aka MonolithTMAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08385705390882035829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-74828622004960422852008-08-20T08:28:00.000-07:002008-08-20T08:28:00.000-07:00The problem is not the sophistication (or lack the...The problem is not the sophistication (or lack thereof) of the subject matter, but ignorance of subject matter. In order to even have an intelligent discussion of the subject matter, you first have to be educated about it so that you even know what you are talking about. This is the fundamental problem with the militant atheist approach that says that one can pontificate about a subject that they are not informed about. Certainly they can pontificate all they want, but they just look like fools when they do so.<BR/><BR/>The Courtier's Reply argument is just a justification for ignorance.Mystical Seekerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10828225180668865911noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-77857532167409781322008-08-20T08:26:00.000-07:002008-08-20T08:26:00.000-07:00I disagree; I think that the Courtier's Reply is l...I disagree; I think that the Courtier's Reply is legitimate. It's a way of stating that claims of great sophistication in some subject matter are no substitute for establishing that that subject matter is real. Because if one does not do such establishing, then one might as well be talking about the outcome of a Superman vs. Batman contest or whether Star Trek or Star Wars ships are more powerful.<BR/><BR/><BR/><B>2 problems:<BR/><BR/>(1) Dawkins says Christians do or believe X, but the fact is they dont. he got wrong what they say. that means his point is wrong. We say "no we don't bleieve, that you need to know theology becuase taht would show you waht we believe" at that point to say "I don't to read theology because it's not estabished" is no better than saying "I dont' ahve to be right in the criticisms I make I can just stipulate that I'm right, so even when I'm wrong I'm right." <BR/><BR/>that is crap. that is no way to argue!<BR/><BR/>(2) It is established. The existence of God and the rationality of bleif is well established and has been for 1000 years. that's why you need to know theology, because that is where you learn about the establishing of the point.</B><BR/><BR/>Astrologers, Tarot-card readers, homeopaths, chiropractors, and theologians of religions one does not believe in can all claim great sophistication in their subject matter, but that's not usually considered arguments for their truth. In effect, we willingly apply the Courtier's Reply to such claims of sophistication.<BR/><BR/><B>No they can't. Complexity yes, sophistocation, no.<BR/><BR/>that's argument from analogy, which is a fallacy. modal logic is not on a par with tarot cards. modal logic is real logic, logicians and scientists accept it as valid.<BR/><BR/>modal logic proves the existence of God.</B>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-50129639993261565742008-08-20T05:12:00.000-07:002008-08-20T05:12:00.000-07:00I disagree; I think that the Courtier's Reply is l...I disagree; I think that the Courtier's Reply is legitimate. It's a way of stating that claims of great sophistication in some subject matter are no substitute for establishing that that subject matter is real. Because if one does not do such establishing, then one might as well be talking about the outcome of a Superman vs. Batman contest or whether <I>Star Trek</I> or <I>Star Wars</I> ships are more powerful.<BR/><BR/>Astrologers, Tarot-card readers, homeopaths, chiropractors, and theologians of religions one does not believe in can all claim great sophistication in their subject matter, but that's not usually considered arguments for their truth. In effect, we willingly apply the Courtier's Reply to such claims of sophistication.Lorenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13984896453534621864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-83481579009206575672008-08-18T21:02:00.000-07:002008-08-18T21:02:00.000-07:00H. Jasbalz,What you don't seem to understand is th...H. Jasbalz,<BR/><BR/>What you don't seem to understand is that "the Courtier's Reply" completely shuts down discussion or any possibility of it. All theists are confronted with "tell it to the hand, because the face is not listening." It's not just as Mystical Seeker says, that theism doesn't interest you; it's that you've already decided that theism belongs in the garbage dump. If you truly feel that way, ok-- but why be so rude as to point it out? And why expect anything in response other than indignation and affront?<BR/><BR/>The worse thing is that by comparing belief in God to belief in unicorns, you have shown that you don't know, or care to know, what belief in God actually is. What you are rejecting is a straw unicorn. <BR/><BR/>You see, we don't mind being told you think we're wrong. We mind being told you think we're ridiculous. If the tables were turned, you'd understand why.<BR/><BR/>What if I were to say, "all atheists' real problem is that they all had problems with their fathers or father figures; therefore they hate God"? Such a blanket statement would be inaccurate, insulting, dismissive and unfair. But that is what the "Courtier's Reply" slap in the face does to us.Kristenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08252374623355509404noreply@blogger.com