If you promise not to post any quibbling about the nature of God until I prove to you that He exists
then we have a deal.
I might quibble about the definition of "quibbling", but otherwise, fine, we have a deal ... on the basis that your proof does not rely, at all, on any equivocal claim related to a purported nature of your god. For the purposes of the discussion, you will have to make concrete your conception of your god's nature (or, more simply, just not rely on claims with respect to that nature).
I'll even ignore that you used "He" rather than "it", which would be more appropriate for a being that is immaterial and, therefore, cannot have testicles or ovaries. I can't say fairer than that.
Logged.
Um, okay? Should I applaud or something. This seems rather petty on your part.
Now, no more from you about the nature of God
...including speculation about His gender.
It's not speculation. There is no reason to believe that your god is male. It never claims to be male, so you are merely making an assumption. If you are Pathos, then you need to tell me, as Pathos, that specuation about your god's gender is not accepted. Otherwise you can point to the rule that I am breaking. If there is one, I am not aware of it. If there is no rule, which seems to be the case given that I search the rules and guidelines and found no mention of the word "gender", then as a fellow member of the forum you need to know that you cannot lay down the rules arbitrarily (I doubt that you could do so as a moderator either).
I find your imperiousness offensive and inappropriate. Can we get on with the proper discussion and leave such nastiness behind?
neo - here, a virtual handshake.
*handshake*
Unfortunately I'm a little tone deaf to the subtle sensitivities of engaging with vociferous anti-theist
counter-apologists who, in the vast array of human personality types, sometimes include folks like yourself
who are a little more genteel and more easily offended.
I apologise for any imperiousness or offensiveness that may have bothered you.
Moving forward, you promised not to quibble about
the nature of God in deference to my point about the hypocrisy of debating and gnat straining matters of Gods nature when it suits you, then calling "time-out"
and totally
rejecting all references to the bible because..."atheists don't take the bible as authoritative".
That's bad faith dialogue - a bait & switch.
So I 'logged' and expect you to keep your promise. No more quibbling, or disingenuous strawman arguments about the Biblical God and His omnipotence, omniscience, immanence, morality, justice, etc. in response to which the biblical theist is not -
according to you - allowed to defend. You can't attack the theology of the bible then demand a totally secular defence - especially when you (and others like you) plainly misstate what it is we believe. (See Bunyips error in relation to God coming into existence.)
Nextly, for the record, I have no connection to any of the Moderation team or the pseudonyms used. I have no knowledge about who they are or whether any of them other, than Michael S, are volunteers who simultaneously post under other handles. I'm certainly not Pathos because that would mean I banned myself for a week last year.
Finally, you should know that I'm not, and don't pretend to be, the sort of apologist WLC would be proud to have as a representative of Reasonable Faith. I'm post-denominational. I'm not studying at Biola. I left school at 16. I don't really 'specialise' in any particular field of apologetics. I'm rather indifferent to academia and pedagogy. I'm an exceedingly amateur arm-chair apologist who hangs out in what Tim McGrew calls "the intellectual shallow end of the pool". I've been called a fundy but I'm not "born again". I'm not especially 'driven' to try and save souls - Jesus alone does that.
But I am fiercely passionate - ready, willing and determined - when it comes to defending my OWN views against unprovoked attack in the public square contest of ideas in respect to the true and essential Good News of Jesus Christ.
...who gave Himself to help us see that sin is not terminal, death is not the end, and hope is available to those who are are hurt, lost, suffering, depressed, scared and alone on that
Road to Jericho we call life.
