[airon]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

GO read the thread he cited. It's all about him proving Zelda. It's been asked and answered at length.

Tried to. Way to long for me right now. Could you just point me to the post where he explianed exactly how the three goddesses restore "balance?"

[Qingu]

Originally Posted by airon

Tried to. Way to long for me right now. Could you just point me to the post where he explianed exactly how the three goddesses restore "balance?"

Just think of Calvinism, with the three goddesses from ZElda instead of Yahweh. Or read the thread.

[airon]

Originally Posted by Qingu

Just think of Calvinism, with the three goddesses from ZElda instead of Yahweh. Or read the thread.

So, your three goddesses are perfect and upright and believe that all wickedness (anything contrary to their statutes) must be punished or atoned for in order for mankind to join them. Therefore, they themselves became the sacrifice -being as how they are the only ones capable of making such a sacrifice because they the only ones perfect - and atoned for the wickedness of mankind (or, if we're playing the Calvanist game, the elect). Now, through grace, and not by any work of man, they issue out salvation to mankind (or the elect) so that mankind (elect) can be redeemed unto themselves.

Hmm...I thought you said the Christian concepts of justice, grace, and atonement weren't found in Zelda?

[JerryLove]

This thread is not a discussion of Zeldaism... that already exists.

[Qingu]

I'd be happy to discuss my limited knowledge Apsu, Tiamat, the Anunaki, Ea-Enki, lord of all wisdom, and Enlil, the lord of all the earth in this thread, however.

[airon]

Originally Posted by Qingu

I'd be happy to discuss my limited knowledge Apsu, Tiamat, the Anunaki, Ea-Enki, lord of all wisdom, and Enlil, the lord of all the earth in this thread, however.

In order to have that discussion, you would have to abondon any sort of athiestic beliefs, and we would have to operate from the presuppostion that some diety (or dieties) exist.

[Qingu]

Originally Posted by airon

In order to have that discussion, you would have to abondon any sort of athiestic beliefs, and we would have to operate from the presuppostion that some diety (or dieties) exist.

Why would I need to abandon my beliefs to argue from the Babylonian point of view? Are you saying that nobody can argue from others' points of view?

[airon]

Originally Posted by Qingu

Why would I need to abandon my beliefs to argue from the Babylonian point of view? Are you saying that nobody can argue from others' points of view?

Because I'm going to say that you can't reason apart from the Christian God. Then you're going to make the same claim about whatever religion you choose to. But we are both going to know that you do not hold to that religion and therefore your claims are self-defeating. Discussion over.

[JerryLove]

Because I'm going to say that you can't reason apart from the Christian God. Then you're going to make the same claim about whatever religion you choose to. But we are both going to know that you do not hold to that religion and therefore your claims are self-defeating. Discussion over.

So the difference betwen "valid" and "invalid" is wheather he actually does believe it? That seems rather arbitrary.

[airon]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

So the difference betwen "valid" and "invalid" is wheather he actually does believe it? That seems rather arbitrary.

No its not. If one claims that a person cannot reason apart from a diety while attempting to reason apart from said diety then how could another ever take their argument seriously?

[cuziamthecaptai]

Oh you guys are all full of it. Don't you know the religion of the three stooges?

All me to read a select bit from the holy text

Larry, Moe, & Curly
The Gospels according to Larry
Lar 2:12.
And so it is that before appearing on TV, the three stooges made man and the universe. But Moe got angry at the other two and poked Man and made him imperfect.
The Gospels according to Curly
Cur 10:9
And Curly made eye sockets for the man where he was poked and promised him that if he shall seek the three stooges and believe in their holy power, that he may once again see the three stooges.
The Gospels according to Moe
Moe 1:3
The three stooges so loved man that they made eternal hellfire and promised to spare man from hellfire so long as he accept Them into his heart.

Obviously, you guys don't accept my religion. But it clearly says that in Lar 2:12 that people are imperfect. And only when man accepts the three stooges will They let man see them (Cur10:9). So I do not have to provide any proof of my religion becuase you wont' even accept it, as per Cur 10:9. So why even bother. See you in hell! (Moe 1:3). Nuk nuk nuk!

[JerryLove]

No its not. If one claims that a person cannot reason apart from a diety while attempting to reason apart from said diety then how could another ever take their argument seriously?

The question is the validity of the argument itself, and has nothing to do with the person posting it.

If a claim that Zelda is required for reason passes the same muster as the claim that Christianity is required, then both arguments have the same validity. To deny that the argument for Zelda is valid, is to invalidate the argument for Christianity (note: the *argument* for, this does not make Zelda or Christianity true or false, merely removes the usefulness of the argument in establishing it).

[airon]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

The question is the validity of the argument itself, and has nothing to do with the person posting it.

But the argument is proved invalid by the person making it!

If a claim that Zelda is required for reason passes the same muster as the claim that Christianity is required, then both arguments have the same validity. To deny that the argument for Zelda is valid, is to invalidate the argument for Christianity (note: the *argument* for, this does not make Zelda or Christianity true or false, merely removes the usefulness of the argument in establishing it).

But it doesn't pass the same muster because it is obvious that the argument is false from the begining.

CLAIM: Zelda is required for reason.
CLAIMER: I am making this claim (reasoning) apart from Zelda.

If the claim is true then the person making the claim would only be able to do so because the golden godesses enabled him to do so. However, the claimer states that he is making the claim apart from the golden godesses. If that is true, then the claim is false.

[JerryLove]

But the argument is proved invalid by the person making it!

The definition of an ad-hominym logical fallcy is to discuss the person making the argument rather than the argument.

When someone makes an argument as to why something floats, it does not matter if he believe what he is saying.. it only matters what he says and if it is right.

Same here. You seem to be arguing that if I hyponotyzed Qingu into believeing in Zelda, that suddenly the exact same thing said by the exact same person would go from invalid to valid. That's silly.

CLAIM: Zelda is required for reason.
CLAIMER: I am making this claim (reasoning) apart from Zelda.

If the claim is true then the person making the claim would only be able to do so because the golden godesses enabled him to do so. However, the claimer states that he is making the claim apart from the golden godesses. If that is true, then the claim is false.

Qingu did not say he was making the claim apart from Zelda... not in his arguments in favor of it anyway. Therefore it's as valid as yours (from my view). From his, it's obviously more valid because you are wrong.

[Qingu]

Airon, I hope you realize the tricky situation you're getting yourself into. You are claiming that my argument for Babylonian religion is not valid because I do not believe in it. If I did believe in it, then it would (presumably) be valid, or at least as valid as Christianity is by your own standards.

So basically, all I have to do to prove that Babylonian religion is true is to find someone who actually believes in Tiamat and Marduk and Ea-Enki?

If I found such a person (I could certainly find numerous texts written by such people), would you think the presuppositional Babylonian religion argument is any more valid?