Or maybe:

3) Aaron can't accept that religious faith and epistemic knowledge are basically two separate things, and thinks he is smart enough to provide evidentiary support for the things that others either do not believe because of insufficient evidence or take on faith.

That one kind of invalidates Jesus as God imo.

What are the chances that I'm going to take a cue about epistemology from someone who doesn't think that a formal logical fallacy is a problem for any type of rational debate?

Read more carefully. There's a difference between God *being* physical and God *taking* a physical form.

Is the Apostle's Creed considered mainstream?

By the way, I'd say you are knocking down a straw man, but hypocrisy seems to offend you. So instead I will just say again-- I never said formal logical fallacies aren't "a problem"; I said they were being asserted in bad faith by jerks who wanted to derail the argument and that that sort of parlor game has no place in a friendly discussion outside of logic class or academia.

In any event, I am not asking you to take any cues from me. But it's perfectly clear that I've identified the problem with you.

Sure. Which version of the Apostle's Creed speaks to the existence of a physical Jesus who is physical right now?

+1

Just like the Pharisees, today's people w/o faith wouldn't recognize God even if he did reveal himself in a physical way.

LOL @ "Friendly discussion." Basically, you're using it as a euphemism for lazy intellect.

I know the difference.

As I said, Aaron, I can see that you are a pleasant person to be around. People who expect academic-level intellectual rigor from informal discussions are also known as anti-social jerks who nobody in their right mind would invite to a get-together.

Not necessarily. Just commenting.

Lol, yet another classic fallacy.

Yet another whine.

You don't really expect that to fly, do you?

No one buys this "calling attention to bad logic = whining" gimmick. Please abandon it for the sake of your dignity and that of the forum.

Lying and being false are different things.

We get it, you're not a big fan of logic.

Logical fallacies are not asserted i.e., claimed; they are observed and brought to attention. Also, they are not argumentative tools used to dissolve arguments, they are logical tools used to identify arguments with bad form and structure. You could say that they are the white blood cells of logic's immune system.

You have much to learn.

Claims of logical fallacies asserted in bad faith by douchebags who want to stop the argument rather than responding to it are more like the HIV virus-- they destroy the immune system.

Again, it's not that I don't like logic. It's that it's perfectly clear that some of the theists here love to falsely scream "logical fallacy" rather than answering arguments. They are positioning themselves as the White Knights defending logic, when they really are jerks who don't like to answer arguments on their merits.

Concerto admitted, as well, that it is a deliberate attempt to stop the argument.

Again, I will refrain from commenting on the fact that all the fallacy whiners in this thread are knocking down a straw man. But there you are.

OK, I don't want to continue picking on you, but you how can you think that just because this sub-forum is not academic that this grants you a free license to ignore all the rules and make up your own like ignoring fallacies? It doesn't work that way. No one is testing or grading you, but it doesn't mean that you won't be grilled if you make big mistakes and fail to acknowledge them, all the while moving forward and making more without looking back.

Lol.

Sorry, here's a kleenex. It's nearly time to call the wambulance.

If it turns out that that's not what Concerto meant does it undermine the argument in your OP?

I get the sense that the idea of pointing out an informal fallacy is being treated as a form of damage control to cover up damning arguments. At least, I get the impression that this might be how lawdude is viewing it.

Rules only work if everyone agrees on them and they are fair to all parties. It's worth noting that if Aaron or Concerto went to an academic conference and repeatedly charged that every paper was full of fallacies but never even discussed any other aspects of the papers presented, claiming that because they claimed there were fallacies, they didn't need to, that would actually not endear them to academics either.

If the rule is going to be 'no fallacies', then the rule also needs to be 'nobody will shout fallacy in bad faith' and 'people will engage arguments on all valid grounds and will not simply repeat charges of fallacies over and over again'. But that's not what is happening here. If only one side is arguing in good faith, the dishonest side doesn't get to demand enforcement of the 'rules'.

For all the talk of logical fallacies in this thread, the only one specifically mentioned (the fallacy of composition) doesn't actually seem to apply to lawdude's argument. So why don't we ignore his ill-advised remarks about the relevance of logic to his argument and focus on evaluating its success.

You can 'argue in good faith' and be terribly wrong or bad at it (no hidden implication, just so you know), but that doesn't mean the "dishonest" party is out of line by saying how poor the argument is, even if they fail to add anything further. It also doesn't mean that the "dishonest" person is bad at dialectic.

Are you playing devil's advocate, or did I err?

No? I'm not sure I understand your confusion. As I've said, I think there are problems with his argument, but not the fallacy of composition. I don't think he is inferring from the unreliability of some religious figures to the unreliability of religion. I'll admit however, that the argument is not very clearly presented, so I could be wrong.