John, this is the Lowest of the Lows.

[lohell13]

Wow boring...fundamentalists arguing with themselves...rather watch paint dry.

[Theology1O1]

Who cares whether this guy is capable of debunking TAG or not. It is still a terrible argument, and it is a waste of time. Anyone that debates TAG, is pretty much just feeding philosophical trolling.

[TheVodkaHaze]

Typical Secularist responce.

[chuckawobbly]

Oh look a rock! That is proof of God!

That is your argument, THeologica37, that... is.. your... argument...

[Theologica37]

Where did I say there is a rock?

[chuckawobbly]

lol you deleted all his comments, but the other guy was right when he called you an idiot.

[Theologica37]

Which is why I deleted them. I'm sure genuine skeptics certainly wouldn't like to be portrayed as mindless drones who leave comments claiming these things.

When did I say anything about rocks?

[jdnmlm]

But you didn't seem to mind leaving comments that point towards John being an idiot on his page.

You are an idiot.

delete my comment too!

[Theologica37]

John was indeed incapable of consistency it seemed. I answered all three of his questions, and posed 6 to him. He stumbled through one of them and said "I'll get to the other ones later", and failed to do so. The questions directly showed his position on ethics and philosophy of religion as farce.

He relies on his ignorance to the different theological positions on scripture to say I lied about a scriptural translation-- there-by not having to address his exegetical and logical fallacies.

[DeistPaladin]

Debating with you is like shooting fish in a barrel, except that the fish think they're winning.

[Theologica37]

Hey John.. slow down for a second. Really think before answering this: What points have you actually made? Your latest video, and the ones before it, either relied straight from skepticsannotated (an absolutely laughable source), on baseless adhominem fallacy or on distorting the details to argue (in vein) that I quote mined.

I'm Catholic. I used a Catholic translation of scripture. Check my previous videos. Your main claim is a completely farce. You don't know what you're talking about.

[DeistPaladin]

Go hide under a rock in shame.

I'm done with you.

[Theologica37]

You don't have an answer, do you? The fact is I always use the NAB, cited the NAB and had a link in the sidebar from the very beginning. You arrogance is only matched by your ignorance of the different translations of scripture.

Your only claim, that I "lied" and all of the blood sweat, tears and emotion you've spouted to support it are all an utter farce. It is laughable to accuse a Catholic, who quotes a Catholic translation of scripture that he has always uses in his videos, of quote mining.

[Theologica37]

So, if you would like to support any of your vacuous philosophical positions, or go back to the text and do exegesis (apart from reading from skepticsannoted or other laughable sources) let me know. You again left 3 quotes unanswered.

The other thing you completely failed to realize was that my criticism of you reduces your system to an inability to say anything of moral worth-- thereby making the entire potential semantics you would employ for a fundie argument useless its relativistic ethics.

[DeistPaladin]

I have already answered all of your "arguments", such as they were. The fact that you bring them up again is called "Argumentum Ad Neuseum".

As I said, I'm done with you. The fact that you deleted my comments and whined about my lack of civility proves you know you lost.

Q.E.D.

[Theologica37]

I will continue to delete any comments where you act childish or where what you tried to argue cannot be seen.

There is no "lack of civility" in doing this, it is your lack of civility that would cause this to happen.

You did not address 5/7 arguments in this video, nor did you defend your own deceit in trying to say (in vein) that I chose a translation to use. Again, just open your eyes and go look at a previous video-- I'm Catholic, I always use this Catholic translation, cease that idiocy.

[DeistPaladin]

If my arguments were indeed childish or wrong, you should have kept them and proudly displayed them. Instead, you deleted them? Hmmmm.

As I said, Q.E.D. Feel free to believe you won if you like.

[Theologica37]

John, slow down for a second -- think slowly. Don't just immediately begin typing because you feel like you have to respond.

Just how "childish" is it for me to delete child-like comments?..

Again, I would love to actually debate you. You've yet addressed your vacuous ethical worldview and instead of responding to the beginning sentences around the single sentence exegesis you laughable were guilty in your first video, you immediately began spouting this "Oh well, you're lying!! Liar!!" farce.

[Theologica37]

Just as evidence and further proof of your hypocrisy I'm going to leave those two comments I accidentally didn't remove to prove my point. They remain as testimony to your continued inconsistency and desperately making things up to run away from engaging counter arguments or defending your laughable one sentence jump to next chapter exegesis copied from fundie websites.

The hilarity in all of this is breath taking. Your arrogance is matched only by your ignorance and evasive bigotry.

[Theologica37]

See how his comment was deleted? What did he say John?

.. Have you any care for consistency? It is VERY CLEAR why there are comments of yours missing. Three clear places in this VERY comment section bare witness to it. You are again, dead wrong and caught dead in your tracks trying to use a scapegoat and run from the argument.

5/7 remain. Your position is circular. You've only in classical fundie evasion dodged them, resorted to adhominem fallacy. I await to have an actual argument with you.

[ScientificMethodist]

Wow man, you are the master of ad hominems, insults and put-downs. I was amazed.

[Theologica37]

So am I falsely called a liar, and after answering all questions posed to me-- pose some of my own and get ignored I'm supposed to...?

It is one thing to call him a retarded pigeon, I get this. Surely you understand the humor and sarcasm involved with something like that. But this was in response to being called a liar, and my supposed "lying" obviously due to John's ignorance.

You've called me an idiot as well, does this mean I get to childishly complain too?

[ScientificMethodist]

"You've called me an idiot as well, does this mean I get to childishly complain too?"

Please re-read above post. You are hallucinating if you thought I called you an idiot.

[Theologica37]

You are hallucinating if you think my videos are the only place where you can call people idiots.

Needless to say, its not like I am too impressed with your character.

I personally find it a significant claim to call someone a liar: I standby everything I have said in this video or other videos.

John does not know elementary logic, ethics, metaphysics, or the verses in question. I certainly am not going to let his ignorance be used against people to call anyone, much less myself, a "liar".

[ScientificMethodist]

Wow, you really keep track of people who insult you don't you? I did not even remember calling you an idiot until you reminded me.

[Theologica37]

It just so happened that I realize your hypocrisy after seeing a specific comment-- yes.

Needless to say, your account is but 2 weeks old. Chances are you are just another troll that is embarrassed to comment under the account I might know/ already have refuted.

[Theologica37]

Read very carefully.

"If you want to say that there's something other than the physical universe. . .

This illustrates your presumed naturalism nicely. You claim that classical accounts of God's being are "secondary attributes" (this is completely ridiculous but we'll ignore this) due to a lack of physicality. Your argument is begging the question, and inherently cyclical-- what you've concluded, you HAVE NOT argued for-- the necessity of physicality. Argue this first, do not conclude with it.

[ProfMTH]

I've done three videos on the topic, Theologica. You're a smart boy ... I think. I find it extremely difficult to believe that you don't know what the argument is.

"You claim that the classical accounts of God's being are 'secondary attributes' ... due to a lack of physicality."

I never make that claim. But I'm sure you know that. Don't waste my time or yours misrepresenting the argument, Theologica. Either refute it -- and that requires honesty -- or give it up.

[antipelagian]

"I never make that claim"

Are you saying this because Theologica didn't state your claim verbatim? Because he stated your position accurately. I cite at least one example in Ontology & Feces.

Funny, you said you didn't make the claim, but you also didn't say that it wasn't your position.

[Theologica37]

Prof, you're being ridiculous.

I distinctly remember reading your defense of your "argument" (that I again will add comes with no scholarly citation of any kind) and you specified what would be a "primary attribute" which is a completely arbitrary distinction of a necessary being-- honestly this is a disturbingly simple metaphysical mistake. Nonetheless, you demanded that physical makeup be articulated, or most recently, that it be defined by space.

This is your unargued presupposition.

[Theologica37]

So.. I am asking you TO ARGUE said presupposition. I will not be held accountable for the cyclical nature of your personal revelations that apparently you've pondered up by your own intuition-- needless to say, this is not the way philosophy works in an academic setting. However, I was kind (and still ask for) you to rephrase/rearticulate your beliefs and more importantly-- ARGUE the critical premise on which it all hinges: monism, metaphysical naturalism.

We await this defense.

Thank you.

[ProfMTH]

"you demanded that physical makeup be articulated"

Not even once, Theologica. If that is truly what you remember, your memory has failed you terribly. However, if, as I suspect, you're just making it up, you're just demonstrating yet again that you have little or no regard for the truth.

"This is your unargued presupposition."

No, it's not. As noted, either your memory fails you OR it's a presupposition you desperately wish were mine despite the fact that it is not -- a straw man.

[StephenDaniel]

This is actually really funny to watch.

DeistPaladin made two videos showing you (and everyone) that you lied, citing videos with YOUR VOICE on them, and you're STILL trying to lie your way out of it. Shameless.

[Theologica37]

This is the thing "Stephen Daniel" The idea that i "lied" appears to be nothing more than a weak excuse for John to ignore the arguments against his position-- a cop out of the worst sort.

It is typical child-like tactics of the worst sort.

Accuse the person of lying and run away.

[StephenDaniel]

But hes not really running away, he dealt with your video response in his first video and at the end of it he proved that you lied and then it looks like you freaked out and it just went spiraling down from that point.

Also, why quote from the "NEW" american bible? Being a christian, wouldnt you want a more primitive and accurate translation as to what was actually written down? It sounds to me like you quote from that one because its easier to refute when reading a more liberal translation.

[StephenDaniel]

But at any rate here's the reading from your book:

Deut. 21:14

"However if later, YOU (the slaveowner) loose liking for her, you shall grant her her freedom, if she wishes it."

What part of that verse translates in any way that the woman's thoughts or feelings matter at all? This is saying that if you don't like her or aren't interested anymore, let her go if she wants to. But if she wants to and you still like her, tough luck for her.

Great job trying to spin this verse though.

[Theologica37]

No Stephen, stop confusing yourself. Try continuing to the clarification in Duet 22. v22-27 specifically teaches that the guilt of rape is worthy of stoning.

John also took this out of context, and claimed v 28 (Ibid), was teaching rape, and yet it does not specify that it was not consensual-- as it does in the previous TWO teachings. This seems to make very clear that in this situation it is consensual and not rape.

And again, you're not exactly taking into account the women being spoken of.

[StephenDaniel]

Again, why do you quote from the NAB when every other version before (and probably after) that makes it crystal clear that Deut. 22:22-27 is referring to adultery, not rape. NOT rape.

The only thing that you could remotely point to is the in verse 27 where nobody heard the betrothed woman cry out and the man is put to death, but it has nothing to do with rape, its adultery because verse 28 says that if an unmarried virgin is raped then she has to marry her rapist and pay a fine to her father.

[DeistPaladin]

I've already addressed all the "arguments" you present both in this video and in your sidebar. You're rehashing the same talking points, ignoring that they've already been shot down. No need to respond except to ask you and all viewers to re-watch my responses.

It's not your choice of translation of scripture that makes you a liar. It's the fact you quote-mined that scripture that makes you a liar.

I've already shot down your use of TAG but there are more holes to point out.

[DeistPaladin]

Oh, and one more thing. The rule against using ad hominems is not an admonishment to play nice, as you seem to think. You can use insults in arguments. You just can't use them in place of an argument.

When you lied in presenting an argument and I pointed out your argument was a lie and that you, therefore, are a liar, that's quite appropriate. It both destroys your argument and your credibility.

Your casual dismissal of me because I'm skeptical of the historical Jesus is an ad hominem.

[Theologica37]

This is very typical fundamentalist evasion tactics. Call the other person a liar, present little to no contextual argument.. and claim victory.

The text says that due to it being a marriage, women are not to be enslaved. You, for the uptenth time, missed that the women in context come from a nation that wages war and refuses peace.

And no, you have not responded to the arguments. You've ignored my questions and points against your belief system.

You have some explaining to do.

[DeistPaladin]

I haven't called you a liar. I proved you a liar. You got busted for quote mining. Now you've lied about why you were called a liar. Deeper and deeper.

I've already dealt with your other points.

Your questions about my belief system is scheduled for video #3. It's a non sequitur, basically boiling down to "Oh yeah, well what about YOUR beliefs? Huh, huh?" but I've been meaning to restart my Deism FAQ series anyway.

[Theologica37]

Ignorantly shouting "liar" due to not knowing the difference between Biblical translations is hardly "proving" me as a 'liar'.

No you have not dealt with the other points.

I have never said "what about your beliefs".

Grow up, and answer the questions.

[Theologica37]

It is documented that you claimed that you would. They are actual arguments, that are not semantics based, translation based, bare faced assertions like your apologetic has been-- and I don't need to falsely whine about you doing something circumstantially. You have said that 'god' is not perfect. You would use a derivate concept to define a supposedly necessary being-- you don't know what you're talking about. You severely need to restate yourself, or retract these contradictory views.

[DeistPaladin]

This is what I mean by "Oh yeah, well what about YOUR beliefs?"

And again, you're not a liar because of your choice of scriptural translation.

It's the quote mining that makes you a liar.

[Theologica37]

I read the surrounding verses to you, that is not mining. This is the problem when you parrot arguments from fundie sources like skepticsannotated.

Once again, my pointing out flaws in your position is OF A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT CONTEXT than scriptural analysis. I cannot believe I have to explain this to you. I even said in the video that the following is a different subject, by some of your ignorant theological assertions. Its of a different context that you've yet to answer-- do so.

[Theologica37]

I have not quote mined. The context is a barbaric nation that wages war and refuses peace.. the women in this context are far from the norm.

YOU SIR are the one that missed that part, and are more properly charged with "quote mining".

Your only slightly relevant charge is the other bit, that you left out that reads "you shall not enslave them". It is not my fault you left this out. My adding it did not change the context of an arranged marriage.

You're done; stop pleading via petty semantic.

[Theologica37]

Again, the quote mining bit is hardly of any substance, seeing as how I was the one providing the audience with the surrounding verses that your fundie website left out.

Again, if anyone is guilty of quote mining-- it is you sir, for ignorantly parroting a source which does not provide the political context. You merely read the verse, superimposed words not found there-in, and blindly jumped on.

Are we clear? Are you actually going to defend your beliefs now?

We are all waiting, John.

[Theologica37]

A non-sequitur fallacy is similar to a missing the point fallacy. Needless to say, my arguments against your position are only missing the point if you are so egocentric as to only want to address your parroted arguments. This would make your own initial arguments "non-sequitur" too then.. by your false definition.

Perhaps this is why you don't reason consistently.. you don't even know what the context of a logical fallacy is.

Please think through your responses this time, John

[Theologica37]

OK JOHN HERE YOU GO. PROOF ONCE AGAIN THAT YOUR EXCUSES ARE UTTERLY RIDICULOUS.

Go to "view all comments". ProfMTH, antipelagian and I were going back and forth. You will notice alot of his comments are missing too. It looks like I forgot to delete one of them. SEE HOW ITS \/ 6 THUMBS DOWN? Now John, try to thumb it up? Notice that you can't? See how you're wrong... again? In fact there are two of them! Another from Jemerson85.

Once again, this evasive scapegoat is proven incorrect.

[Neoscotist]

@DeistPaladin

To assume the worse of another is cynical. Doesn't occur to you that he always quotes the new international bible? Why can't it be a mistake? why must it be deliberate lie?

it s*seems* you want only to smear him, not the noblest behavior, paladin.

[DeistPaladin]

@Neoscotist He's not a liar because he quoted the New American Bible. He's a liar because he quote-mined the New American Bible. He also compounded the lie by lying about why he got busted for lying. He continues to repeat this lie about his lie even after being corrected numerous times. Frankly, I suspect he's a pathological liar because he lies at points where a rational person should expect to get caught. See my video exposing him as a liar (which this one responded to).

[Theologica37]

I've only ever used to American Bible in my videos-- its not a lie, your argument is proven bunk. I obviously wouldn't quote protestant canons of scripture, for they are incomplete. Quote mining would be going out of your way to find a translation, I've only ever used the NAB and I've proven this stone cold for you.

On further idiocy: I said that I didn't delete your comments except*(this signifies a condition john) for when you cursed and/or were deliberately being coy and ridiculous.

[DeistPaladin]

@Theologica37 No, quote mining is taking quotes out of context to misrepresent a book or speaker. That's what you did with the NAB.

And first you denied deleting my comments. Then you admit you did but only because I was being, in your view, "childish". So either you were lying then or you're lying now.

And stop calling me "John". I have no wish to be friends with a sleazy apologist like yourself.

[Theologica37]

Aside from the continued asinine circular reasoning here, are you ever going to answer the questions and issues with your worldview I pose in this video against your worldview?

You believe in an impersonal God, and yet believe that reason is a gift from God to us. Further you believe that there are real moral values (the presupposition of saying God is evil) and yet believe that morality is relative-- this makes your arguments utterly arbitrary and self refuting. Can you even begin to respond?

[DeistPaladin]

@Theologica37 Rewatch my videos. I've already answered these questions.

[Theologica37]

The former you completely ignored, the latter you tried to bolster with an appeal to two contradictory ethical positions-- both are untenable and don't resurrect your hypothesis. You gave lip service to these issues, you hardly answered them; your worldview remains in shambles if you believe that you have the framework to support the aforementioned assertions.

[DeistPaladin]

@Theologica37 No, I completely answered both questions. Apparently you need to rewatch my videos again. Perhaps if YouTube had a slow motion viewing feature, that might help.

[Theologica37]

Which video (specify beginning, middle, end) do you attempt to address these problems?

[DeistPaladin]

@Neoscotist Additionally, he has been deleting my comments, then lied when he denied doing so, then admitted he'd been deleting my comments claiming that it was because they were "childish". The man is as shamelessly amoral as he is pompous. I'm ashamed I spent so much time debating him, offering him so much dignity and undeserved credibility.

[Theologica37]

It is not quote mining to use a scriptural text that I always use. I am a Catholic, it should not surprise you that i wouldn't use a protestant translation-- you made this claim originally to say that I looked for a specific version of scripture-- you were wrong.

Secondly, I have absolutely no recollection of you "shooting down" the Transcendental Argument. You can't even grasp basic syllogistic logic-- I doubt very seriously you can argue that means from which the processes are consistent.

[DeistPaladin]

I see you've been busy deleting some of my comments.

This is also a deceptive tactic.

Sleazebag!

[Theologica37]

I deleted comments whos thumbed down amount was >6 making them so that they could not be read anyway.

So are you ever going to follow up on the content in this video? Or are you going to just keep playing this desperate evasion card and claiming I lied about the translation and so forth.

Its humorous, when people messaged me about your video. I show them the situation and the original videos, verses and your source and almost immediately they cease claiming me as dishonest,,et all excuses.

[DeistPaladin]

Comments given so many thumbs down might still be readable if others give them thumbs up, counteracting the efforts of Christian fanatics. Your deleting my comments is pure cowardice, reflecting that you know you lost the debate.

I've already answered all your points. The latest video answers the last one, which was a red herring anyway.

And since you are a proven liar, I won't believe anything you say about private messages without proof.

[Theologica37]

There is no "debate" John. You claimed I lied because I used a specific translation. You were dead wrong.

What little points you made considering the context of the scripture (that you just jumped one to another without an ounce of exegesis) I can read from any fundie website. You failed to respond to a contextual reading, and thus no argument happened. I would love to actually debate you on these topics, it is evident that you've but laughable understanding of philosophy or ethics.

[Cyrathil]

"I deleted comments whos thumbed down amount was >6 making them so that they could not be read anyway."

I specifically look for the thumbed down to oblivion comments, they generally are the most interesting. It's a simple fix. Go up to the "options" at the top of the page, and select "all comments" where it says "show ".

[StephenDaniel]

@Theologica37

Deleting comments? Seriously? Not only that, you're making excuses of them being "insulting" and "unreadable".

I can't think of a more childish way of losing a debate. I've been following you two since the beginning and seen all of these original videos and sorry to say...you have been shown up big time.

Big time.

[Theologica37]

Lol.

It took him 3 months to answer basic theological questions.

He accused me of "lying" to quote from a Catholic translation of scripture. I'm Catholic. See the absurdity?! The links where in the sidebar the whole time. He was just angry that the rendering showed his argument to be a complete farce.

Think for a second. In this "debate" what points has he made? Feel free to list them below.

He resorts to adhominem, accuses me of lying in desperation and fails to defend his position.

[Theologica37]

Stephen: Relay for us his main argument, please? If there is this "debate" that took place by his taking a single sentence in one book, and then jumping to the next chapter, taking one sentence and jumping to the next chapter--- LITERALLY. That was his exegesis. Talk about top-notch scholarship.

Please relay for us his main point or things he argues.

[Theologica37]

Comments involving insults are also removed the when I see them. Either from the side I would support or others. I try to do this on all of my videos.

[jemerson85]

Prof, I have no problem saying it directly to you.

I think you're overrated.

And I've posted many comments that you haven't been able to adequately address. One example that comes to mind is your recent failure to support the assertions you made regarding the origin of Israel's monotheism. You consistently attempt to pass your personal speculation off as fact. And if I ever get a camera, then I'll start making videos. For now, you can just address my comments.

[ProfMTH]

"I think you're overrated."

And I've already indicated how much weight your opinion carries with me. Lest I was too subtle, let me make it crystal clear: zero weight. You produce nothing on here, seek deference to your mere claims, and have yet to make a persuasive argument for anything that I've seen.

I'm glad we were able to be frank with one another. :-)

[jemerson85]

My opinion apparently carried enough weight to inspire two subsequent responses from you in the last several hours. It's ironic how something you supposedly care absolutely nothing about motivates you to respond. But hey, your baseless assertions are about par for the course.

[muertos06]

Lmao the pigeon!!!

[infinitusverum]

"if you see a comely woman among the captives and become so enamored of her that you wish to have her as wife"

"After she has mourned her father and mother for a full month, you may have relations with her,"

But what if she doesn't want to be his wife?

or

have relations with him?

Just a question is all-

Agnostic Theist here asking a question.

[Theologica37]

Bare in mind, this is a completely different historical context. We might very well note that arranged marriages were common, and in the time we might expect to be hearing of these happenings-- however, John Armstrong completely ignores this and twists the text beyond all belief. The women are specifically members of a barbaric nation that refuses peace and wages war beyond reason. But, John doesn't like that little qualifier.

[grandconjunct]

Double facepalm!

[havock89]

Hahaha. When that pigeon pic came up? Pure comedy! I was laughing for quite a while.

Enjoyable as ever theological37.

[AbdielAbiram]

rofl retarded pigeon

[raoskaos]

You are really a petty and poor human being...

The irony of apologists has always amazed me.

[havock89]

How so?

[jemerson85]

Theologica, why don't you take on ProfMTH?

[antipelagian]

Prof's an easy, easy, easy target. I just did a 3-part series called "Err-Man's Bluff".

Prof is way below Theologica37.

[jemerson85]

I'm not disputing that, I'm just curious as to why Theologica hasn't really taken him on yet. ProfMTH bears more influence on the skeptical YouTubers than DeistPaladin does.

[antipelagian]

I can't answer for theologica...but I would like to see many others make a spectacle of Prof.

Prof ignores anyone that poses a good rebuttal...he highlights the worst of the worst...or weakest of the weak...kind of like a school-yard bully.

[jemerson85]

"I would like to see many others make a spectacle of Prof."

I agree. I think he's pretty overrated. And there are very few Christians that take the time to put him in his place.

[ProfMTH]

"Prof ignores anyone that poses a good rebuttal."

Translation: Antipelagian feels ignored because his video response to my "What is god?" series was only worth some text responses and his latest videos make arguments I addressed in previous videos.

Please tell me, Antipelagian, whose work -- other than your own -- offers these "good rebuttal[s]" that you allege I ignore? Please name names. And of the Christians to whom I have responded, please name the "weakest of the weak." Thanks.

[Theologica37]

Prof, I can appreciate your analysis on the text of scripture but I do have to side with Anti here-- your philosophical assertions on the issue of "Gods' ontology" were at best question begging, and at worst reeking of deplorably bad metaphysics.

Perhaps you could rephrase the argument without bringing unargued materialistic presuppositions to the table?

Thanks. Feel free to take up as many comment boxes as you need, we have not written you off just yet-- please explain yourself.

[ProfMTH]

"your philosophical assertions on the issue of 'God's ontology' were at best question begging, and at worst reeking of deplorably bad metaphysics."

Then offer a refutation of the video, Theologica. Put your money where your mouth is.

[Theologica37]

Prof, its not my job to piece together your argument. As I stated, can you please restate that argument in a way that is not question begging?

You assume materialism throughout, without a spec of argumentation.

Provide the argumentation.

[ProfMTH]

"Prof, it's not my job to piece together your argument."

You needn't piece together anything. I've done three videos on the ontology of "god." If your claim is that there is something other than the physical universe, the burden of proof is yours to account for this something else positively and coherently. If you can do it, then you should do it. If you can't do it, you should stop desperately trying to make your failure my fault. In sum, put up or shut up, Theologica.

[Theologica37]

Nor did I claim to peice together anything, I said.. and you quoted me "Its not my job to piece together your argument".

You don't seem to understand the problem with the way you're presenting this prof. I will address these issues in other comments as you seemingly got angry and left many.

[ProfMTH]

"I will address these issues in other comments as you seemingly got angry and left many."

What are you talking about? Meh.  Who cares really? As I said, Theologica, if you can refute the "What is god?" video, please do so. If not, then stop pretending your inability is my problem.

[Theologica37]

The argument (as is the case with most arguments uncited/supported by academic sources or criteria) does not follow with validity. In fact, it seems rather clear that its' premises (which you were not so kind to express) are inconsistent with themselves-- and missing the point.

You did not argue the pivotal premise. It is for this reason that I asked if perhaps you would be willing to re articulate your thoughts.

You refused to do so, for whatever reason, and pointed me back to the video.

[antipelagian]

Prof: "Please tell me, Antipelagian, whose work -- other than your own -- offers these "good rebuttal[s]" that you allege I ignore?"

Me: I'm honored...are you saying I'm unparalleled? Quite generous, indeed, sir!

[ProfMTH]

Come now, don't be craven. Man up and name the names. Who are these "weakest of the weak" to whom I respond? Veritas48? Jemerson (to whom I'm continually responding in comments -- he doesn't make videos)? Your new friend Fivepointbaptist? Kabane (the only Christian with the balls to respond to my "Jesus Is Not the Messiah" series)? If not any of them, then who, Antipelagian? Put yourself on the record here. :-)

[ProfMTH]

Not willing to name the names of those Christians you claim are "the worst of the worst" and "the weakest of the weak," eh, Antipelagian? I can't say that I'm surprised by your cowardice.

[antipelagian]

You prominently feature, with regularity, Christians with weak arguments...why would I have to name names? Other times, you don't cite any one Christian in particular, but will claim a certain weak position is what is held by many Christians and then proceed to knock that over.

You do have the option of taking on exegetes to demonstrate *your* claim certain Scriptures are in contradiction.

[ProfMTH]

"why would I have to name names?"

You're afraid to name names. Cowardice is such a repugnant characteristic in a human being. Too bad for you.

[jemerson85]

Prof, last time I checked, you're the one that backed down from the potential opportunity to debate William Lane Craig simply because you couldn't be bothered to provide a curriculum vitae. That couldn't be cowardice though, could it? LOL.

[ProfMTH]

As I believe I told you at the time, it was lack of interest, particularly in sharing my c.v. with your friends at Craig's operation. Poor Jemerson. You never let an opportunity for a rheorical strike out pass you by.

[jemerson85]

You said you'd be willing to debate William Lane Craig over the Resurrection. The individuals at Reasonable Faith are not my personal friends. I don't know any of them. They merely requested your curriculum vitae in order to verify that you actually hold a place in academia as you like to tout.

But hey, it's no suprise that it interests you more to post videos bashing Dr. Craig on the internet than to put your money where your mouth is and enter into the intellectual ring with him.

[antipelagian]

I'm afraid to name names. I'm so scared that I personally messaged the last guy about his rebuttal to you. Let me make it simple: other than Kabane, I'm aware of no one you've responded (by vid) to that was particularly compelling. If I remember correctly, you and Veritas lobbed a couple of softballs at each other. Other than Kabane, I could summarize the list by saying: et al.

Which videos are you most proud of? Generally, the stronger the opponent, the better one will think of his work.

[antipelagian]

Now that I gave you the "et al"...I guess that's your go ahead to make a response vid and tell everyone how arrogant I am...you'll be certain to couch the disagreement in an incorrect way first, then drop the "antipelagian is an arrogant whatever" afterward.

That is almost always effective.

[ProfMTH]

"other than Kabane, I'm aware of no one you've responded (by vid) to that was particularly compelling."

Thanks. Duly noted.

"you and Veritas lobbed a couple of softballs at each other"

Translation: we managed to have civil exchanges without the invective and ad hominem you seem to thrive on. But it's noted that you regard him and the others as the "weakest of the weak." Thanks for finally butching up and naming names.

[antipelagian]

Terrible translation. I don't use ad hominem...although I will name call. Further, I never even came close to implying Veritas is the "weakest of the weak"...I just think he held back on you. Big, big, big difference.

Of course, you know there is a difference.

Lastly, how about answering my question:

Which of your videos (lets say 3) do you think are your strongest and display you dealing with what you would consider a strong opponent?

[antipelagian]

I've given you 3 days to come up with 3 videos that best demonstrate your ability to take on strong opponents...you can't think of any, either, can you?

[Theologica37]

ProfMTH doesn't exactly know his philosophy. Its all rather basic textual criticism with Prof.. I tend to let people who parrot Bart Ehrman's arguments be addressed by other people.

For example; when speaking of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, Prof believes that Alvin Plantinga is one of the main modern proponents of the argument.

.. I challenge anyone to find any substantial argumentation from Plantinga on such topics.

[jemerson85]

I know you tend to stick to philosophy, but seeing how you've handled textual issues such as this issue with DeistPaladin, I think you'd do well to take ProfMTH down on some of his textual criticisms. There aren't enough individuals addressing his videos.

[ProfMTH]

Theologica, where exactly did I call Plantinga "one of the main modern proponents" of the kalam cosmological argument?

[Theologica37]

In your video entitled "Evidence of God" at 2:25 you claim that "modern 'Christian Apologists' have baptized an Islamic version" (of the Cosmological Argument). You have picture of Craig, .. and then one of Plantinga.

..lol

Calling Plantinga a "Christian Apologist" seems a bit in poor taste, but needless to say I am very familiar with Plantinga's writings and there exists no extensive defense of the argument.

Craig, yes; Plantinga.. hardly.

One could list dozens of better examples.

[ProfMTH]

So I never called him "one of the main modern proponents" of the kalam cosmological argument, you're merely going by a picture of him that I put up as an example of a modern Christian apologist. OK.

"Calling Plantinga a 'Christian apologist' seems a bit in poor taste."

While I would certainly agree that the label "Christian apologist" is not a positive one, it is accurate in reference to Plantinga. If you deem accuracy to be in poor taste, well, that would very much be your problem.

[Theologica37]

The point remains, Plantinga does not argue the Kalam. To put him in the context of the conversation is improper, and exposes your ignorance to the subject.

Plantinga is one of the most esteemed Anglo-American philosophers of the last half-century. To merely call him an apologist is intellectually dishonest.

[ProfMTH]

"The point remains."

Your "point" was to attribute a statement to me that I did not make. Color me unimpressed.

[Theologica37]

I also find your argument, in that video, that one needs to provide a "positive ontology" for God rather humorous.

As I recall, when asked what would constitute a "positive ontology" you responded with mere unargued materialist presuppositions.

Prof, there is legitimate secular philosophy left to be had in academia-- my issue is that you embrace the previously described apologetic(s) ..instead.

Try citing William Rowe in conversations with Christians instead of.. lol.. Bart Ehrman.

[ProfMTH]

"I also find your argument, in that video, that one needs to provide a 'positive ontology' for God rather humorous."

Good. Refute it then.

"...when asked what would constitute a 'positive ontology' you responded with mere unargued materialist presuppositions."

Your bad memory or penchant for dishonesty is catching you up. I have repeatedly said that I'm not rejecting anything a priori. I'm merely waiting for someone who posits the existence of this "god" to positively and...

[ProfMTH]

...coherently account for what it is. If you want to say that there's something other than the physical universe, the burden is on you to positively and coherently account for it.  That no one has managed to do this is not my fault.

[Theologica37]

Prof, read very carefully now.

When asked to give an example of what would constitute a "positive ontology" you answered via materialism. This is question begging. Your argument is a bare assertion, unless you can fill in the holes.

..Once again, this is not my job.

It is for this reason that I recommended sticking with academic sources for arguments, instead of stumbling through unarticulated ones of your own. I appreciate new ideas, but at some point we need to be honest-- we are layman.

[cguevara12]

lol

You like Star Trek palm face. xD

Good video btw.

[Theologica37]

Its the only appropriate depiction of the circumstances.

This time it was a double facepalm.

[ncs901]

And for some reason nearly every video he makes is 5 stars...I guess that's just youtube for ya...

[Theologica37]

Ignorance is bliss.

Its typical fundie hit and run evasion tactics. Call the other person a liar, ignore all forms of rational discourse or textual analysis and claim victory. It is nothing short of despicable. I very much look forward to his "taking down" (words cannot describe how funny this is) of the Transcendental Argument. I'm sure it will be wonderful.

[havock89]

He doesnt have a hope. As I said before, this is pure comedy!