You truly are a dimwit.
Let us see if he can substantiate that
Read the original post. It never claimed to call the Chritian worldview wrong - another one of your terrible straw men. It said on the Christian worldview, tsumanis must be a necessary ingredient to a perfect world (whether by present reality or outcome).
I quote: "If this is where logic takes a Christian, then they can keep their God in all his maximal perfection. And while they’re at it, they can package up all the pain and suffering and send it return post to the pearly gates. Not needed here, thanks."
So is Johnny P saying that the Christian World view is right but he rejects it? Seriously?
That was it. But you have misunderstood the argument and talked absolute shit. I could pick apart every word of your last post as being fallacious. You truly are misguided and have a very poor grasp of logic and what I was actually saying.
Bring it. If you can. Nothing but opportunity. This blog is open. My e-mail is available. What's keeping you?
I concluded "They realise that this judgement by God to actualise this particular world must be supremely wise and must result in the most loving world. This includes every piece of suffering and death experienced by every animal and plant in the history of the world.
i didn't conclude God did not exist or Christians are wrong, so Marcus can take back half the misrepresented SHIT he spewed in half his posts.
First, that kind of language really professional? Well maybe for Johnny P!. If he were not saying that Christianity is wrong, then why is Johnny P an atheist? If Christianity is not wrong than go join a church and serve God as you should be doing anyway.
God knows the outcome of this world and chose it over the outcome of every other possible world. He is perfect / all-loving, therefore that choice is perfect / all-loving. You cannot argue that.
I never said that was not true, I also never said you were completely wrong.
Marcus has agreed it - he chooses perfectly. Therefore, the choice is the one that includes tsunamis and cancer. Therefore, these ingredients are necessarily part of the ensemble that is this world.
Again that is the way God has chosen to do things, given that God could have done anything he wanted. . If Johnny is not arguing that this worldview is wrong than why does he reject it?
Jesus, other Christian philosophers can agree with this, but somehow Marcus is too up his own arse to interact appropriately with the argument.
If you are saying that Christianity is not wrong, you aren't makiing an argument and you are being irrational to say:
"If this is where logic takes a Christian, then they can keep their God in all his maximal perfection. And while they’re at it, they can package up all the pain and suffering and send it return post to the pearly gates. Not needed here, thanks."
Apparently, the argument only works is I prove I am peer-reviewed or that I have university qualifications. I must remember to ask Jesus for his uni qualification next time he gives me a vision in which he puts a syllogism across to me. But Marcus demanded it, Jee! It must be the way!
No, I demanded that you make and support an argument that's rational and coherent and you haven't. You've even backed away from the point you made in the first post. Classic.
And Mariano, I wasn't referring to Loftus, but my own arguments. Not a single person who has read all the posts and seen the argument through (including a Christian theologian friend) thinks that Marcus is in any way correct or well-argued. They are all rather less complimentary.
"a Christian theologian friend" whom remains nameless. Just like the books and credentials you have pretended to have. You do understand the values of references right? Johnny P loves to drop that he's written books and imply he has some professional standing in Philosophy yet won't provide any proof while attacking me and my fitness to discuss such matters. I don't really remember saying that his credentials make his arguments true or false. It came up because he wanted peer-reviewed articles from scientists who agree that there was a historical Adam and Eve and he even insulted anyone who thinks that way if they were peer-reviewed or not. If you are going to call anyone into question, you should be prepared to be called into question.
Please read all the posts Mariano and see if you REALLY agree with Marcus. He couldn't argue his way out of a paper bag without fallacy or misrepresentation.
The fact he still demands me to define perfect, when I am not the person arguing Gods perfection - I neither believe in God or perfection (I don't need to - it's not an argument about MY beliefs - I could not exist and the argument would stand) - shows how he doesn't know his arse from his elbow. Christians, however, so think God is perfect, ergo the rest of the argument.
What argument? I thought you said Christianity wasn't wrong? Again your arguments do not follow God's perfection because the world has been subjected to imperfection by the will of He who is perfect.
The help is for you. I'm sure, deep inside, you CAN be rational. You just need a little help. Try arguing evidence up, not bible down. Try being humble. Try being mature. Try not to hide behind rhetoric from the start. Try to read and comprehend what you are arguing against. Try not to straw man. Be a better man. If there is a God, and if he is going to judge something he has infallibly set in motion, then he will most certainly judge you as a lost cause; a wasted mind.
Oh, and glad to see you are still hiding behind childish videos. *Guffaw guffaw* *facepalm* Nice touch. How old are you? Would a professional philosopher or theologian do that?
How old are you? Where did you go to school? I'm an engineer. I'm not a philosopher. I believe the Bible and if that means you are wrong, then you are wrong. Notice that all the science I can confirm and test does not conflict with the Bible nor contradict any of its truth claims. I cannot say the same thing about the things you have written. Your arguments get facepalms and laughs because that is what they deserve.
Apostle Paul has more than refuted you. I can just sit back and laugh.
He's playing the hip "youth minister" apologist I think. Not well, but that's what he's playing.
Wow, Ryan, Johnny asked for help, and you've added nothing of value.
Back to Johhny P for a moment: Looks like he can't substantiate his claims. It comes down to no argument at all and his opinion.
What had happen' was.....: Epic Fail: Tisk Tisk, Johnny P