- Joined
- May 21, 2023
- Messages
- 3,987
- Reaction score
- 3,928
- Points
- 113
- Faith
- Monergist
- Country
- USA
- Marital status
- Widower
- Politics
- Conservative
It's not about whether we agree on anything else, except to resolve the issue of whether or not I did or did not front (or use) a fallacy. The rule specifically applies to the claim that someone uses a fallacy. That must be resolved before continuing between us on this thread. I need to either agree that I did, or you need to agree that I did not. Simply that. We haven't had the rule long enough to even decide whether it applies when someone else uses terms like, "That is self-contradictory!", or, "To bring up others who apparently are more respected than you or I, as though their believing what you do proves it true, does nothing for your argument." But now, for the second time in this thread, one of us has used the very word mentioned in the rule —"fallacy"— and so we must resolve it or quit responding to each other's posts.so because you and I can not come to an agreement, we are not allowed to discuss?
I have never heard of such a thing. (just being honest)
again, there are some things we will never agree on, no matter how hard we try. if we stop communications based on this of all other stuff?? I am sure there are some questions you have about things I have said, that no matter how hard I try. you will not see either..
So, again, relevant posts: 585, 590, 624, 654.
In 585 You say, "I just can not agree with you that it is not willful faith or in your terms, "a willful act". and that John (and others) did not say it was willful faith (or again in your terms a "willful act")
in fact. to me this poses a fallacy
If it is not a "willed act". then it is an unwilled act. - by definition. this makes this a forced act."
I read this to say that you see what I claimed (whether or not you represented me correctly, and whether or not you can agree with me or with how you represented me is not at issue here) was fallacious IN THAT an unwilled act was by definition a forced act.
I have tried, and apparently failed, to point out to you that the question of "unwilled act" is only in your mind, because regeneration and salvation is not the act of the creature, nor by any act of the creature, but of God —and even that you are not required to agree to, nor am I required to change my mind on. What we are required to come to an agreement on, is whether, given my assumptions and presumptions, my argument poses the specific fallacy you claimed it did.
This 'unwilled act' is not my act.
In other words, the issue is not whether by definition an unwilled act is a forced act, but whether my statement was referring to the same thing you take me to be referring to. I say it was referring to an act of God (whether you agree with my theology or not is not the issue.) If, then, you can see me to be intending "an act of God", and not of man, do you still see it as fallacious? I am not asking if my overall argument is fallacious.
You are not agreeing to my argument by admitting that my argument was not fallacious in the way you thought it was.
I may not be worth it to you to continue to attempt to resolve this with me. I'm tired of it myself. But I can't help but feel like we are arguing two different things, as far as this fallacy business, like if "I could just get you to see what I'm saying".... oh, well.
Last edited: