In article <570F45C2-9CB4-47FD-DF16-2653F1291B6E@srcbs.org>, Bart Goddard
says...
>
>matthew_member@newsguy.com wrote:
>
>
>>>I neither spout nor believe the above,
>>
>> This is patently false. Of course you do. It is the
>> inescapable logical consequence of your denial of free will.
>
>You're so bad at logic, I'm surprised you went out on such a
>limb

I didn't go out on a limb. And if I am the one who is "bad at logic", why have
you completely failed to refute my logic?

>You can't even do "pre-predicate" stuff correctly, so
>how do you find the 'nads to make such sweeping (and unsupported)
>statements?

Because both your premise and your conclusion are false.

>> Because it isn't slander. Your own words convict you. See
>> below.
>>
>> Let's take a look, for example, at msg-id
>> <6A3A7BB6-5E2A-C031-805B-0A6EB9D3BC8D@srcbs.org>, where you
>> say:
>>
>> Begin quote-------
>> And therefore, the men who refrain from resisting have some
>> quality which those who resist do not have. Where did this
>> quality come from? If God gave it to them, then He created
>> some to be saved (by giving them the non-resistance gene)
>> and others to be damned (by giving them the resistance
>> gene.) If God didn't give it to them, then some choose
>> rightly and some choose wrongly of their own free will. And
>> that choice is meritorious unto salvation.
>> End quote---------
>>
>> This is logically equivalent to Predestinarianism, no
>> matter how loudly you try to deny it. For if the first of
>> your speculative possibilities is true, that God gave them
>> the quality (leading to their wrong choice and damnation),
>> then God is the sole cause of their damnation,
>
>So you're claiming, that the converse of a statement is
>logically equivalent to the statement?

No. And I already explained in detail why, yet you post this cheap "straw-man"
in place of a true rebuttal. This is where you show that it is you who are bad
at logic. Sad that a university actually pays you to teach it.

> Very astute.

Unlike your straw-man rebuttal.

>Very logical. Further, the entire paragraph is a statement
>within Gary's hypothetical universe.

And if you had read my entire response, you would have seen the evidence that I
knew this. But you prefer going off half-cocked, don't you?

> It's not "what I preach",
>but "where Gary's thinking falls flat."


Read to the end.

>You have neither the training nor the ability to add anything
>here about "logic". You don't even really know what the
>word means.

Since i