Problem of suffering, free will, and Heaven

[Koldo]

For Koldo's interruptions of me to be justified in an informal debate, Koldo should demonstrate where I have committed the sin of non sequitur. If I was making many separate statements that did not add up to a single argument, this would be a golden opportunity for Koldo to demonstrate that my argument to be flawed.

I am not interrupting you. You are free to speak as you wish. It is impossible for me to interrupt you. Rather, I am going back to each of your points and showing where I take my stand.

Since Koldo has nothing like this to demonstrate, Koldo's charge against me of filibustering is empty, like much of what Koldo says in general.

I have never accused you of filibustering. :sarcastic

I reiterate my original charge that Koldo unfairly takes the advantageous position of responding single points of my argument on a line-item basis which is free to ignore the context of the entire argument adding the appearance of strength of Koldo's argument where there is none.

I didn't pick up single lines of what you have said here and there, at least not on that post. Rather, I have replied to entire paragraphs.

"A paragraph (from the Greek paragraphos, "to write beside" or "written beside") (Khalil Milanes) is a self-contained unit of a discourse in writing dealing with a particular point or idea." - Source

I've addressed each of your points separately. Which is completely valid.

EDIT: Also, once again I request you cease to speak of me ( SO MUCH ) in the third person when replying directly to my posts.

 

[Prophet]

I am not interrupting you. You are free to speak as you wish. It is impossible for me to interrupt you. Rather, I am going back to each of your points and showing where I take my stand.

I have already admitted that Koldo is not able to interrupt me in a debate on this forum, not because of his own decency but simply because the nature of the forum itself. I have already made my case (which he feels unworthy of a real consideration or response) that Koldo is attempting to secure for himself the same kind of unfair advantage that one gets from constantly shouting over or interrupting one's opponent by way of responding to sub points to a major argument on a line-item basis.

I have never accused you of filibustering. :sarcastic

Koldo argued the argument he was responding to was too long, and thus required his line-item response. I leave it to Koldo to demonstrate where his charge is appreciably different from one of filibustering.

I didn't pick up single lines of what you have said here and there, at least not on that post. Rather, I have replied to entire paragraphs.

"A paragraph (from the Greek paragraphos, "to write beside" or "written beside") (Khalil Milanes) is a self-contained unit of a discourse in writing dealing with a particular point or idea." - Source

I've addressed each of your points separately. Which is completely valid.

I separate my longer responses into paragraphs to make them easier to read and understand. Unfortunately, Koldo believes this is an invitation to perform the forum debate equivalent of interrupting me every twenty words or so.

I sincerely apologize to the dictionary for my sins against the official definition of "paragraph". Next time I have a longer argument there will be a massive block of text coming Koldo's way. Or actually maybe not because I'm not an idiot.

EDIT: Also, once again I request you cease to speak of me ( SO MUCH ) in the third person when replying directly to my posts.

I have been speaking of Koldo in the third person in protest of his demonstrably nonexistent capability to even entertain any thought of my concepts being true. Koldo has been a portrait of closed-mindedness.

If Koldo can manage the respect of considering the implications of my arguments before thoughtlessly tossing them aside, I might be able to manage the commensurate respect of considering him an open-minded being capable of reasoning past his own agenda. However, as it stands now, Koldo's closed-mindedness makes addressing Koldo directly a waste of time, so I now refer to Koldo in the third person. This way, I address directly those in the audience who are possibly yet capable of personal growth and address indirectly the person here who repeatedly proves he is incapable of self-examination.

In case Koldo wants to take this multi-paragraphed response out of context, I will summarize it: It takes a lot of nerve for Koldo ask for respect when he can't be bothered with showing respect himself.

 

[Koldo]

I have already admitted that Koldo is not able to interrupt me in a debate on this forum, not because of his own decency but simply because the nature of the forum itself. I have already made my case (which he feels unworthy of a real consideration or response) that Koldo is attempting to secure for himself the same kind of unfair advantage that one gets from constantly shouting over or interrupting one's opponent by way of responding to sub points to a major argument on a line-item basis.

You said: "For Koldo's interruptions of me to be justified in an informal debate, Koldo should demonstrate where I have committed the sin of non sequitur.". Clearly claiming that I have been interrupting you.

Koldo argued the argument he was responding to was too long, and thus required his line-item response. I leave it to Koldo to demonstrate where his charge is appreciably different from one of filibustering.

It doesn't work like that. You can't make a claim that I have made a charge against you, and then expect me to prove that I have not, when you yourself don't provide any evidence. You can't shift the burden of proof like that.

I separate my longer responses into paragraphs to make them easier to read and understand. Unfortunately, Koldo believes this is an invitation to perform the forum debate equivalent of interrupting me every twenty words or so.

I sincerely apologize to the dictionary for my sins against the official definition of "paragraph". Next time I have a longer argument there will be a massive block of text coming Koldo's way. Or actually maybe not because I'm not an idiot.

What you have done is known as shotgun argumentation. You have stated many different arguments in a long text, and when I address each "bullet" separately you claim foul. But, of course, your arguments in themselves are weak, so you must rely on the strength of numbers trying to get at least one of them to hit the target successfully.

If I left even one of those arguments unaddressed, you just might have succeeded on your endeavor. But it just so happens I have replied to each of them.

Just deal with it. Your tactic failed miserably.

I have been speaking of Koldo in the third person in protest of his demonstrably nonexistent capability to even entertain any thought of my concepts being true. Koldo has been a portrait of closed-mindedness.

If Koldo can manage the respect of considering the implications of my arguments before thoughtlessly tossing them aside, I might be able to manage the commensurate respect of considering him an open-minded being capable of reasoning past his own agenda. However, as it stands now, Koldo's closed-mindedness makes addressing Koldo directly a waste of time, so I now refer to Koldo in the third person. This way, I address directly those in the audience who are possibly yet capable of personal growth and address indirectly the person here who repeatedly proves he is incapable of self-examination.

In case Koldo wants to take this multi-paragraphed response out of context, I will summarize it: It takes a lot of nerve for Koldo ask for respect when he can't be bothered with showing respect himself.

In the end, all that you can do is to go back to personal attacks...

 

[Prophet]

You said: "For Koldo's interruptions of me to be justified in an informal debate, Koldo should demonstrate where I have committed the sin of non sequitur.". Clearly claiming that I have been interrupting you.

Yes, I did say that in the context of a greater argument that I prefaced with:

In an informal debate, a common rhetorical technique to add the appearance of strength to one's argument is to constantly interrupt one's opponent to keep them from finishing their point, and, thus, securing for themselves the appearance of a stronger position which has only to address part of their opponent's argument.

In a written forum like this, the option of verbally shouting one's opponent is taken from such rhetoricians. The quote below is the commencement of Koldo responding to a long rant of mine against him piecemeal. In accordance with the style, Koldo takes me out of context at every opportunity.

As he is want to do, Koldo is putting forth yet another perfect unintentional illustration of the importance of the very point he is attempting to defeat. Koldo is either incompetent or is purposefully ignoring the greater argument of context being important yet all but ignored by his line-item response style in which he addresses my longer arguments.

I don't even enjoy making long arguments. Koldo forces my hand in making these long arguments to summarize and give greater context to what would be a murky exchange to other readers, as Koldo carries this line-item, no-context approach to threads of exchanges where he affords himself the luxury of ignoring things he and I have said not a page before.

It should not be surprising to me or indeed anyone here that as soon as I do summarize the argument and expose the full measure of either Koldo's incompetence or his deception, he attempts to break it apart into bits and respond to it sans context just as before.

 

[Koldo]

Yes, I did say that in the context of a greater argument that I prefaced with:

As he is want to do, Koldo is putting forth yet another perfect unintentional illustration of the importance of the very point he is attempting to defeat. Koldo is either incompetent or is purposefully ignoring the greater argument of context being important yet all but ignored by his line-item response style in which he addresses my longer arguments.

You quoted an excerpt from another of your posts.
People frequently contradict themselves from one post to another. If you don't mean what you say, then don't say it.

I don't even enjoy making long arguments. Koldo forces my hand in making these long arguments to summarize and give greater context to what would be a murky exchange to other readers, as Koldo carries this line-item, no-context approach to threads of exchanges where he affords himself the luxury of ignoring things he and I have said not a page before.

You assume too much. At this moment, there is hardly anyone who is keeping track of our debate besides us. Otherwise we would have seen others replying to our posts.

It should not be surprising to me or indeed anyone here that as soon as I do summarize the argument and expose the full measure of either Koldo's incompetence or his deception, he attempts to break it apart into bits and respond to it sans context just as before.

Another accusation. I suppose you won't give up on doing this.
Curiously, just so you know: you have given me an edge by not replying to many of my contentions so far.

 

[Prophet]

You quoted an excerpt from another of your posts.
People frequently contradict themselves from one post to another. If you don't mean what you say, then don't say it.

Were I to actually contradict myself from one post to another this would give Koldo a golden opportunity to make a post that demonstrates that. Instead, Koldo uses the approach of saying I could possibly be guilty of contradicting myself without actually demonstrating it.

This is textbook slander and far from a sufficient excuse for Koldo's line-item, no-context approach to attacking sub points of a larger argument to falsely secure the appearance of a stronger argument.

You assume too much. At this moment, there is hardly anyone who is keeping track of our debate besides us. Otherwise we would have seen others replying to our posts.

Hardly anyone is good enough for me.

Another accusation. I suppose you won't give up on doing this.
Curiously, just so you know: you have given me an edge by not replying to many of my contentions so far.

If I am capable of swaying anyone in our audience of the superiority of my contentions over Koldo's, I have almost certainly already done it. I have since moved on to demonstrating that Koldo is employing bush league debate tactics in order to secure the appearance of an edge.

 

[Koldo]

Were I to actually contradict myself from one post to another this would give Koldo a golden opportunity to make a post that demonstrates that. Instead, Koldo uses the approach of saying I could possibly be guilty of contradicting myself without actually demonstrating it.

This is textbook slander and far from a sufficient excuse for Koldo's line-item, no-context approach to attacking sub points of a larger argument to falsely secure the appearance of a stronger argument.



Hardly anyone is good enough for me.



If I am capable of swaying anyone in our audience of the superiority of my contentions over Koldo's, I have almost certainly already done it. I have since moved on to demonstrating that Koldo is employing bush league debate tactics in order to secure the appearance of an edge.

The subject of this topic is not being debated anymore.

 

[Prophet]

The subject of this topic is not being debated anymore.

This is a point I wouldn't even think of disputing. I am plainly no longer debating the problem of evil with Koldo. I've have switched over to debating the topic of who is at fault in our impasse. My case is that Koldo's agenda-driven, closed-minded, and intellectually dishonest attitudes towards my arguments have exhausted all reasonable choices available to me with the exception of demonstrating that Koldo is being unreasonable.

I am satisfied with the state of my argument, but I would welcome any rational inquiry.

 

[Koldo]

This is a point I wouldn't even think of disputing. I am plainly no longer debating the problem of evil with Koldo. I've have switched over to debating the topic of who is at fault in our impasse. My case is that Koldo's agenda-driven, closed-minded, and intellectually dishonest attitudes towards my arguments have exhausted all reasonable choices available to me with the exception of demonstrating that Koldo is being unreasonable.

I am satisfied with the state of my argument, but I would welcome any rational inquiry.

Since you have nothing more to do other than ratify your personal attacks towards me, I consider our conversation to be over by now on this topic. Feel free to add anything else besides more personal attacks and I might reply to your next post.