Formal and Informal Logic

What you are talking about has nothing to do with my reservations about robin's argument. If you don't understand then try again or don't bother. I went back on my latest post to try to fix any grammar or spelling that I could find so it wouldn't further distract you from the content of my post. Take your comments about valid definitions of God to another thread like AdminJar suggested. My argument on this thread has nothing to do with the accuracy of your particular flawed and blasphemous definition of God. My argument is and has always been about the self-serving condition of robin's argument and his invalid claim of proof by the rigor of logic.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

If it is off topic it is not off topic for THIS reason:

If you wish to comment on moderation, take it to the appropriate thread.

---

Which you related to his perfectly correct definition of the Western view of God, and your objections are what's illogical besides historically ignorant and generally confused and muddled.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

There is nothing about defining God a certain way that is illogical. You are completly missing the forest for the trees. This has nothing to do with what you and robin think God is. It is about the claim of proof absent of logic for the particulars of an individual's worldview.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

Time out.

---

But let's head back towards Formal vs Informal logic folk.

---

Well you said you wanted a response and maybe I am dense but I fail to see how your statement conflicts with mine. When I said "try again" I wasn't precluding discussion of the premises or explaining some of the finer points of logic to a logic-challenged person.

I think I get what you are saying with regard to just general debate. It seemed like what you were saying though was that robin's claim of proof via logic had validity in the "common sense".That is where I originally had a problem with robin's argument and seemingingly what you were trying to say. Robin was pushing a strong position that a combination of beliefs was logical invalid. Regardless of what I or anyone else says he does not seem to be able to notice how that position has nothing to do with logic but rather his personal worldview of a sensibly derived nihilism.I have no problems arguing opinions. I just don't think something should be called logical when it most obviously is not. This is especially considering that I happen to hold the position that God is compatable with evolution. In the end all robin seems like he was trying to do is justify his particular worldview.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

You've never understood the argument nor what sort of argument it is. It has nothing to do with nihilism.You don't seem to understand that it is quite valid to LIMIT what an argument is about.

Well I am at a loss. I took great pains to be specific in saying that I do not accept the notion that "common sense" is logic. I don't know how I can put it any more clearly. I thought I could present some nuanced thoughts without being misunderstood if I added that disclaimer but apparently not so I'll let it go now.