STOP - someone is guilty or not guilty of breaking the law.
“Immoral” - it’s use is normally used by religious folks. This is purely subjective and can be reserved for a different thread.
shaking head… “truth claims” in reality (ie victim alive or dead; stolen vehicle; store robbed; money laundering) have physical evidence connecting narratives and as I’ve explained previously, opportunity to dispute the opposing narrative based on evidence (or quality of evidence or expertise).
YOU seem hung up on language and common speech. Do you think everyone that speaks uses some form of CCA? If so, which we may, but in perhaps different “levels” of formality - isn’t then that just a form of our communications with each other. How does the form of our language use “create a god” by using that form of language without demonstrable evidence.
Again - you seem focused only on what you want to focus on.
Nope. My wording is fine. Your reading or comprehension of what I wrote is what’s untenable.
Perhaps you’d like to re-read all my previous posts, to better understand the balance in various real life areas where different forms of evidence are required for different types of claims.
YOU could perfect your technique and perhaps walk away believing (with faith lol) you win - OK - it still does NOT leave you with an existing god.
Acknowledge where appropriate:
Answer questions posed to you.
DOES the NIGERIAN PRINCE letter use CCA?
Is the claim by the Nigerian Prince true?
YES NO
Both prosecutor and defending lawyers use this form of argument style… IS CCA getting to the truth of the event? One lawyer will “lose” using this argument style. One lawyer is wrong… IS CCA a reliable form for this lawyer who believes he is arguing the “truth” of the event?
I am using the very methodology you are applying. Unless you answer NO, then I will have to assume that your answer is YES, that you were caught masturbating.
Ponder this, and I hope (although highly unlikely) that you will grok what a loaded question is.
If you do not like my tactics, tough. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.
I agree that inductive logic is a valid form of logic. I have also said that logic is not a reliable tool for arriving at a truth.
My position is unchanged. That is to say that God may not be argued into or out of existence.
I demand empirical evidence and will accept nothing less. Since you have not provided any, I’m afraid unable to award you any brownie points. But do keep trying, if you succeed they will almost certainly give you a Nobel prize of some kind, perhaps inventing a new category just for you. After all, “is there a god?” is one of the most important questions humans ask themselves, right after ‘Why am I here?’ and “what is the purpose of life?”
As the saying goes, “you’ve chosen a hard row to hoe” .This assumes you are capable of an intellectual honesty I haven’t yet seen.
Finally, I wish you and yours a happy and safe Xmas.
Responding to a question, is not the same as answering it, and it’s a yes no question. As you have quite deliberately not offered any honest or cogent answer.
Since you’ve ignores it, yet again, I will post it yet again.
It baffles me that theists think they can come here and parrot fallacious apologetics from people like Lane Craig, then refuse to acknowledge rational objections, while lying that they have done so and have moved on, as if we will not see through such idiotic dishonesty, or not grasp what it says about their vapid superstitious beliefs?
That’s what it is… our little poster is a proponent of Kangaroo Courts…
I couldn’t figure out this young student’s thinking … young (under developed; still developing brain ) arrogant (of youth???); believes faithful in his truth (indoctrination); dishonest (to protect his imaginings of “what is”): diverts, demands & dis-engaged (preachy)
BUT the reality of the legal system and how it works… (thereby giving CCA a place within reality, an actual use)
…
Betcha he doesn’t understand what a “Kangaroo Court” is…
I’ll wait to see if he can address this…
@studentfinalpaper WHAT are some of the identifiers of a “Kangaroo Court”?
@Old_man_shouts_at_cl, thanks for your post! from your post I’ve assessed the following.
Your comment on Kalam is irrelevant for now as I’ve already mentioned multiple times that isn’t the current main question (Question 1: Kalam Cosmological Argument). We’ll get to that Lord willing, but for now we are parking it on clarifying the usefulness of CCA in establishing weight in truth claims.
Your answer as stated above is not in a yes/no format. So it’s lacking clarity for me to understand where you stand (other than you saying that my question is dishonest) But simply states an explanation without establishing a position. I’m assessing that this is an evasion from answering my question since I’ve asked you multiple times and you have not answered adequately multiple times.
I did not say “cumulative evidence”. I said CCA (Cumulative Case Argumentation). I’m a bit wary of changing the wording for now though Cumulative Evidence can be a good synonym. Please stick to CCA when referring to my question.
Your response is not even answering the question. The Current Main Question wasn’t “is CCA a formal, legal, thing?” (though this is in the 2nd line of questioning for those who’ve answered the first) it was “Is CCA a good way of establishing WEIGHT for truth claims? Yes/No and then please state why.” It’s not a question of existence but of use; you, therefore, still have not answered the question.
Your argument “CCA is not a formal, legal, thing ANYWHERE” requires omniscient knowledge. I’ll limit this the legal sphere because it could get really dense: Q1: are you claiming that in US courts - since it’s inception, in the entire country, in every case, on every topic and genre - there has NEVER EVER been a use of CCA? that would be the only way to say its in my imagination alone (and I’m just limiting the argument to courts… while your claim is that it’s not a thing anywhere).
Your argument: “‘cumulative evidence’ which is just not a…thing anywhere except in your fevered and overwrought imagination.” (quote shortened for summary) is self refuting since you just used it to make your case. I’ll put your argument in prose for clarity.
a. CCA is not a formal thing any where,
b. CCA is not a legal thing any where,
c. CCA is not a thing anywhere,
d. It only exists in StudentFinalPaper’s imagination
e. Therefore, CCA does not exist.
a-c (even if you make it a-b) are multiple arguments to support your case. It’s a variance of CCA and therefore you are using CCA to argue against CCA’s validity - this is self-refutation and your argument does not stand.
Q2: Please provide a better justification for your position.
Q3: Please actually answer the question: Is Cumulative Case Argumentation a good way of establishing weight for truth claims? Yes/No and then please state why.
Thanks for posting this I forgot to add one sentence to my prior post! I’ll add it now but for clarity =]
@Whitefire13 You’re confusing the Current Main Question, with the Minor Questions given to those who’ve answered my question (please see:Question 1: Kalam Cosmological Argument). I add legal courts to the line of questioning; BUT ONLY AFTER people have responded to the first question. @Old_man_shouts_at_cl has never answered the first question and therefore needs to do so before we move on but since he already addressed it I wanted to engage him on the 2nd line of questioning.
We are going to have to answer things in sequence and its going to get confusing for people who aren’t following closely or new. Ergo, for clarity, I’m going to potentially have multiple Current Main Questions as well as Current Minor Questions. I will number them for now as follows.
CMajor (118) = Current Major Question from Post #118
CMinor (118-1) = First Current Minor (follow up) Question from CMajor (118)
CMinor (118-2) = Second Current Minor (follow up) Question from CMajor (118)
etc.
In response to your answer “NO…In a court of law this is circumstantial evidence, and will never cross the finish line into a definite determination of guilt.” I can put you in the No category BUT I’m not sure you understand my question. CMaj 118 (Current Major Question from Post 118) was not “Is CCA a good way of establishing truth?” it was “Is CCA a good way of establishing WEIGHT in truth claims?”
Your statement of “[Crossing] the finish line into a definite determination of guilt.” is another way of saying “it will never cross the finish line of establishing the truth (what really happened).” But, right now, I’m not asking about the truth or what really happened. I’m asking about WEIGHT in truth claims. Therefore, please re answer the question with the clarification. As I want to be fair to you and give you the opportunity to best answer the question with your position before I analyze it.
I refuse to play your dishonest games. You can not argue a god into existence, it’s existence must be established by evidence or proof.
All that matters is what crosses the finish line, the truth. Not what moves us closer to the assumed truth, or any inference, just the truth.
I am glad you returned, it allows me the opportunity to apply your very same methodology and logic. I asked you if you have even been caught masturbating, and since you did not reply NO, thus (by your very logic), the answer is YES.
Thank you . It is spam…he’s reframing, NOT discussing or answering counter-points AND a control freak. Expects some standard from US that HE HIMSELF is not willing to live up to.
Court!!!
… young (under developed; still developing brain 
) arrogant (of youth???); believes faithful in his truth (indoctrination); dishonest (to protect his imaginings of “what is”): diverts, demands & dis-engaged (preachy)
. It is spam…he’s reframing, NOT discussing or answering counter-points AND a control freak. Expects some standard from US that HE HIMSELF is not willing to live up to.
in Christ’s care.