Satan and the Work Denying

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 33 here:

...satan does his work to deny the work of God.
...

For debate:

Please offer some means to confirm the statement is true and factual.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 30:

Theists are entitled to hold their worldview so long as no better worldview is presented.

That they fail to recognize a better worldview is their deal.

Science operates according to this principle all the time. The only way that a worldview can be justly challenged is if: 1) there is a better worldview alternative, or 2) the worldview depends on some logical impossibility or incoherence. Since Joey cannot demostrate either of these, it follows that all of his "worldview challenges" are unjustified.

I was unaware that EduChris has become a moderator. Congratulations.

Or not. I will continue to challenge any and all claims I deem ripe for challenge (with one notable exception due to moderator pressure) until such time I'm prevented from doing so.

Since theists do not posit God to be a "creature," if follows that Joey's argument here is based on a simple error on his part.

How does this show the claim in the OP is true and factual?

[EduChris]

...That they fail to recognize a better worldview is their deal...

In a debate about worldviews, you have an obligation to demonstrate the superiority of your worldview, or else demonstrate the incoherence of competing worldviews. To date, you have not fulfilled either of these basic obligations.

...I was unaware that EduChris has become a moderator...

Sarcasm aside, I was merely pointing out that your ubiquitous worldview challenges arise from a context of unmet obligations on your part. In other words, and regardless of how the moderators properly choose to handle their moderating chores, your incessant worldview challenges are logically unjustified--they fail to meet the criteria of debate.

[EduChris]

From Post 30:

Since theists do not posit God to be a "creature," if follows that Joey's argument here is based on a simple error on his part.

How does this show the claim in the OP is true and factual?

For any claim offered from within the context of a particular worldview, there is no obligation to prove that the claim is true and factual within some other competing (and unproven) worldview.

Even apart from your simple conceptual error, you have the burden in this case of demonstrating that the claim is either false or incoherent within its own worldview.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 32:

In a debate about worldviews, you have an obligation to demonstrate the superiority of your worldview, or else demonstrate the incoherence of competing worldviews. To date, you have not fulfilled either of these basic obligations.

Please link to the site or subforum rule/s in question.

Sarcasm aside, I was merely pointing out that your ubiquitous worldview challenges arise from a context of unmet obligations on your part.

Please link to the site or subforum rule in question.

In other words, and regardless of how the moderators properly choose to handle their moderating chores, your incessant worldview challenges are logically unjustified--they fail to meet the criteria of debate.

All I see is an attempt to declare I'm in violation of rules of your own making.

I reject your position here because I merely challenged a claim and have, under the rules of this site, no burden to support claims I've not made.

I object to your implication that I'm in violation of the rules, and will report any more implications or accusations you present against me that seek to impugn my integrity.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 33:

For any claim offered from within the context of a particular worldview, there is no obligation to prove that the claim is true and factual within some other competing worldview.

I never said there was. I challenged a claim. That you are unwilling to, or can't support that claim is not my problem.

Even apart from your simple conceptual error, you have the burden in this case of demonstrating that either the claim is either false or incoherent within its own worldview.

Please link to the site or subforum rule/s in question.

[EduChris]

From Post 33:

For any claim offered from within the context of a particular worldview, there is no obligation to prove that the claim is true and factual within some other competing worldview.

I never said there was. I challenged a claim. That you are unwilling to, or can't support that claim is not my problem.

If you are not challenging the claim from within its original worldview, then all the claimant need do is appeal to longstanding tradition and the absence of any known logical impossibility inherent within the claim (given the original worldview). Since such efforts are always rejected by you, it stands to reason that you are implicitly, if not explicitly, challenging the original claim from within the context of some other competing worldview.

Even apart from your simple conceptual error, you have the burden in this case of demonstrating that either the claim is either false or incoherent within its own worldview.

Please link to the site or subforum rule/s in question.

The moderators can handle the subforum rules. I am simply pointing out basic rules of logic--as Mithrae has also tried to do, God bless him.

[Mithrae]

As far as methodology goes, I don't think these threads have merit in arriving at the truth of the matter and are somewhat dubious as 'debate.'

I refer you to my comments above regarding reporting offending posts.

Until such time you report such, and we get a moderator ruling, I contend that your complaint here is without merit.

I haven't said that you violated any rules, and it's not the mods' job to critique posters' methods in either their search for truth or their debating and rhetorical style. It was only to be expected that you'd disagree with my comments, to the extent that they were understandable

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 36:

If you are not challenging the claim from within its original worldview, then all the claimant need do is appeal to longstanding tradition...

I don't doubt there's many out there who think just because something has been believed for a long time, that something must be true.

...and the absence of any known logical impossibility inherent within the claim (given the original worldview).

The absense of evidence (in the form of logical impossibility) should not, on that basis alone, lead us to conclude a claim is true and factual.

Since such efforts are always rejected by you, it stands to reason that you are implicitly, if not explicitly, challenging the original claim from within the context of some other competing worldview.

I'm challenging the claim from within the confines of the rules of this site. Thus far all I see is a lot of excuse making as to why the claim can't be supported - but of course that's only from my perspective, or as you say, worldview.

The moderators can handle the subforum rules. I am simply pointing out basic rules of logic--as Mithrae has also tried to do, God bless him.

I'll plow under any claims or notions to the contrary on that first'n then, except to note that while you assert a given "basic rule of logic", we're still no closer to arriving at the truth of the matter.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 37:

I haven't said that you violated any rules, and it's not the mods' job to critique posters' methods in either their search for truth or their debating and rhetorical style.

That's not how I read it, but I'll take your clarification to be just that.

It was only to be expected that you'd disagree with my comments, to the extent that they were understandable Smile

Perhaps we are restricted by our own notions of what constitutes proper debate.

[EduChris]

From Post 36:

If you are not challenging the claim from within its original worldview, then all the claimant need do is appeal to longstanding tradition...

I don't doubt there's many out there who think just because something has been believed for a long time, that something must be true.

The appeal to tradition (and also contempory scholarship) shows that the claimant adequately understands her own worldview. No worldview, including your own, can be "proven."

...and the absence of any known logical impossibility inherent within the claim (given the original worldview).

The absense of evidence (in the form of logical impossibility) should not, on that basis alone, lead us to conclude a claim is true and factual.

You are basing your conclusions from within your own worldview, which you cannot prove. Therefore, you are employing a double standard. You are so certain that your methods and your requirements and your standards are the only and absolute "gold standard" that you forget that it is logically impossible to empirically prove metaphysical frameworks.

Since such efforts are always rejected by you, it stands to reason that you are implicitly, if not explicitly, challenging the original claim from within the context of some other competing worldview.

I'm challenging the claim from within the confines of the rules of this site. Thus far all I see is a lot of excuse making as to why the claim can't be supported - but of course that's only from my perspective, or as you say, worldview.

Indeed. You are assuming that your unprovable worldview is the only one that need not be proven, and in this regard you are just like the fundamentalists you so often rail against.

The moderators can handle the subforum rules. I am simply pointing out basic rules of logic--as Mithrae has also tried to do, God bless him.

I'll plow under any claims or notions to the contrary on that first'n then, except to note that while you assert a given "basic rule of logic", we're still no closer to arriving at the truth of the matter.

How would anyone ever know that they had arrived at the "truth" of any matter? You can't prove a worldview--not your own, not another's. All you can do is compare and contrast, and see if you can detect any logical incongruities from within a worldview.