Farrell's poor reasoning

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

Matthew Bell
Who is claiming that there is anything extraordinary about an ancient ruler
being deposed and killed? Certainly not me, as I fully concur with such a
statement. What would be extraordinary is if an individual prophesied such
15-17 years previously when that ruler was looked upon in a favourable
light, their confidence in their position being such that they were 'said
to believe that his power was so firmly established, that not even a god
could have brought him down..' (Herodotus Book 2:169) That is the
extraordinary event which is being claimed, not your red-herring evasion. 


>Farrell Till

>I tried to avoid making an issue over this, because I 

>didn't want you to have an excuse to engage in endless

>quibbling and wrangling over what is probably the least 

>important part of the whole prophecy. 


Matthew Bell
Well, lets test the above reasoning to see how sound or unsound it is by
asking a few questions:

1. Is it true that the proposition I am to affirm is that the prophecies
contained in Ezekiel 29-32 were fulfilled in all their details? 
2. If the answer to 1. is no, then please indicate what you consider is the
proposition to be affirmed? If the answer to 1. is yes, then is it not true
that if I fail to affirm ANY of the prophecies contained within those
chapters I have failed in my task and you can legitimately claim victory in
the debate? 
3. If the answer to 2. is no, then what prophecies do I not need to affirm
to succeed in my task? If the answer to 2 is yes, then is it not true that
ALL the prophecies have equal importance with regard to my being successful
in affirming the proposition? If not, why not? 


BRIDEAN
I'm surprised nobody jumped on this right away.  Matt is trying to prove 1 by
proving that a particular part of 1 is fulfilled.  I would make the following points

1) There is no evidence that the prophecy of this king being assassinated
    occured 15-17 years before it happened.
2) Even if Matt suddenly obtained overwhelming powers and time traveled all
   of us to this time, thereby proving that this prophecy indeed occured 15-17
   years before it happened it would STILL not prove that the prophecy was
   fulfilled in ALL of it's details.  It would merely prove that the prophecy was
   fulfilled in ONE (or SOME) of it's details.

In other words Matt.  You can't expect us to believe that the prophesy was
fulfilled in ALL of it's details if you continue to quibble about ONE or SOME
of it's details.  And need I remind you that it is YOU who agreed to prove
that it was fulfilled in ALL of it's details.  Therefore you must fulfill that part
of the debate since you AGREED to it earlier.

MATT
One can but live in hope that your reasoning abilities improve as the
debate progresses!


BRIDEAN
One can only hope that Matt will someday understand the meaning of the
word "all" before the debate ends.

• Previous message: Farrell's poor reasoning
• Next message: Farrell's poor reasoning
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]