Is attacking definitions not allowed in PPR?

Post Reply New Topic

I challenged the Christians to define 'loving' when applied to God.

Earlier. I challenged 91 on the definition of cause, beginning, etc. (in the context of cosmological argument).

In all cases, the Christians seem disguised.

Is there any un-written rule in PPR saying that attacking the opponents' definitions are not allowed?

Is that the cause of the problem when I outright ask them to clarify (often giving examples why those cannot make sense) rather than playing their game?

If they don't have an acceptable answer and are too dishonest to admit it (glares at 91) they will likely accuse you of using "jargon" or being "legalistic."

Of course not. Definitions should be clearly stated where necessary. Just avoid pedantry over spelling mistakes

In PPR, definition attacks you...

...nah. Nothing wrong with the questions you asked - the value of this forum is in giving everyone reason and chance to examine their undefined assumptions. On the particular question of love as applied to God, I'm simply not sure that I could formulate an answer adequate to the question. The answers I thought of fall too far short of the reality - like a pet explaining the owner's love (to use the only analogy I can think of).

Here is an example of how things can begin going too far:

You are very free to challenge my definitions as I will not infrequently question yours.

BUT - In ALL cases the Christians seemed disguised?

A. I am a Christian.

B. I gave you with expansions and examples the straightest answer you will find from anyone here on anything.

C. I have learned this: if the structure of my mind and the facts available to me prevent me from understanding fully what someone is saying, that does NOT mean he is lying or confused or stupid or inconsistent.

If you want to question further anything I said to you, I will be happy to try to clarify.

But if that process does not lead to full understanding, do not accuse me of fudging and I will not accuse you of blatant insincerity.

From what we said earlier it is clear that some of your thought processes are not available to me and some of mine hidden from you.

This has nothing to do with whether the subject is religion, politics, linguistics, economics, or the mating call of the three-wattled trogon - FM receivers cannot receive AM broadcasts.

@Orwell

This must be your way of dodging the point I made. How is it not overly legalistic to state: that a premise which always renders an argument invalid cannot be described as an invalid premise? Tell me, is this an improper inference? Please note, that I am probably about to be attacked for using the appropriate terms by the person who created this thread. So yeah, how would you like me to respond, with total jargon (and be accused of hiding behind it) and proper terms or conversely, in plain language? How you answer this question may not be how everyone else thinks I should.

In General Statement

As to the OP, can you repeat the question you had about the cosmological argument (PM me if you like).

I get asked a lot of questions, then often people miss the point, then I take them through it, then they attack the way I walk with them and finally, when (if) they realize might be wrong, they usually insult me or just keep positing a response to half of what they think I said.

Considering how many strident atheists there are, being a active theist on this forum usually means that just about anything you say will result in a level of outrage akin to my stepping on your children (not that there are any objective moral values though ). There are so many more of you than me, so I simply cannot respond as well as I would like to everyone.