I think that your assumptions that both parties will accept your dissolution, or even should, are flawed. You’re attempting to dissolve an argument between a straw atheist and a straw Christian.
They were never really intended to be more than straw. Sure, arguments A and B are open to attack; but here I’m interested in the participants’ choice of what-to-argue, not merits-of-argument. You’re right, my choice of example was crap. I think in future I may borrow Eliezer’s rubes and bleggs for such things instead.
That’s still a really good rebuttal of the assumed positions, and made me think a bit more than usual about how theists might view their sacred texts. Thanks.
They were never really intended to be more than straw. Sure, arguments A and B are open to attack; but here I’m interested in the participants’ choice of what-to-argue, not merits-of-argument. You’re right, my choice of example was crap. I think in future I may borrow Eliezer’s rubes and bleggs for such things instead.
That’s still a really good rebuttal of the assumed positions, and made me think a bit more than usual about how theists might view their sacred texts. Thanks.