Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Bosse  (1) I have provided explicit arguments for my claims. |
Based on a dishonest and disingenuous twisting of what Clark said as anyone can see per the many quotes I provided.
Quote:
| (2) You seem not to interact with these arguments but rather simply assert that I am wrong.
|
It was enough to point out that your entire "refutation" is fallacious and is a straw man argument. Something I thought even armature logician like you would recognize.
Quote:
|
I quoted Clark's own words, and then commented on them arguing that they support my position. You never interacted with it. This seems to be your modus operendi.
|
What was there to interact with? I had already provided the entire quotation from which your cut and paste job was taken plus many more demonstrating your complete misreading of Clark which is without any justification at all. I certainly don't mind someone trying to refute Scripturalism, I welcome it, but I would think they should first have a working understanding of what it is they're refuting. Sadly, you don't have a clue.
Let me put it this way, if your reading of Clark were even remotely correct then I would refute Scripturalism too. Frankly, my 15 year old daughter would be able to refute Scripturalism.
FWIW I'm happy to let anyone read the quotes I've provided and decide for themselves who is telling the truth.
Quote:
| (3) You now are running away from this discussion claiming that the reason for doing so is because you are losing patience.
|
If you find some vindication in playing the victim, be my guest. It won't make your so-called "refutation of Scripturalism" any less fallacious, misinformed and irrational.
Quote:
|
Anthony, on the other hand is knowledgeable about formal argumentation, and does interact with my arguments.
|
All the best with Anthony.
