Archsage

  • ****
  • 8964 Posts
    • View Profile
Michael vs Sparkling Debate Discussion - "The Christian God Exists"
« Reply #30 on: December 23, 2011, 09:16:58 pm »
Michael's first rebuttal was thorough and sound. Although I thought he misunderstood the "Jesus was mistaken" quote, which isn't to say that Jesus thought something of himself that isn't true, but that his disciples lacked understanding in what Jesus was trying to say. But let's see if Sparkling raises that kind of objection.

   

   Anyway, I wish I knew what time zone Sparkling is in... As of now, his first rebuttal is due sometime before 12/24 8:52am EST.

   

   If there are any time zone issues just say so! Don't be a no show, and let's not have this debate last for too long. (The same goes for you Michael, although you've been exceptional when it comes to the time limit thus far).
“It is of dangerous consequence to represent to man how near he is to the level of beasts, without showing him at the same time his greatness. It is likewise dangerous to let him see his greatness without his meanness..."  –Blaise Pascal

1

Jared Baker

  • **
  • 726 Posts
    • View Profile
Michael vs Sparkling Debate Discussion - "The Christian God Exists"
« Reply #31 on: December 23, 2011, 09:44:15 pm »
Archsage wrote:
Quote from: Jared
He presented no substantive objections to Michael's TCA, and his attitude is juvenile and narcissistic: "Ha! You failed to convince me, just as I suspected. Q.E.D., you lose. Try again, pathetic theist."

That doesn't sound at all narcissistic (he wasn't aggrandizing himself), but he does sound very juvenile and plain rude. Which is how Sparkling came off throughout his entire debate.


I don't find his rudeness narcissistic, but rather his supercilious attitude and egocentrism. sparkling seems to think Michael's role in this debate is to present him with indubitable arguments, and his own role is to adjudicate and critique Michael's effort.
"I begin with the principle that all men are bores. Surely no one will prove himself so great a bore as to contradict me in this." - Søren Kierkegaard
"As soon as man began considering himself the source of the highest meaning in the world and the measure of everything, the world began to lose its

2

Saibomb

  • ***
  • 3099 Posts
    • View Profile
Michael vs Sparkling Debate Discussion - "The Christian God Exists"
« Reply #32 on: December 23, 2011, 11:39:40 pm »
Interesting debate so far, just one thing: The writings about Jesus could have been untrue, therefore it cannot be claimed that he was Lord, Liar, or Lunatic. There are other options. Dr. Craig rightly dismissed it.

3

keith eure

  • **
  • 924 Posts
    • View Profile
Michael vs Sparkling Debate Discussion - "The Christian God Exists"
« Reply #33 on: December 24, 2011, 03:08:54 am »
Michael addresed all the points I expected him to in his reply in fantastic fashion.  Sparkling essentially threw Michael a softball with his opening speech and Michael knocked it out of the park roid era style.  Pardon my sports talk, lol.  Michael did an excellent job.  I think it's fairly obvious from the tired old long debunked rhetoric that sparkling employed in his opening that he hasn't spent

   any real time questioning his beliefs and just pretty much finds authorities that agree with what he desires and blindly takes every thing they say at face value.  If he had really studied the topic thoroughly including the theistic side he would of realized how silly his comments sounded.  Hopefully this experience with Michael will push him to challenge his own beliefs and actually make an effort to read theistic scholars to learn a little about what he is so passionately against.

4

belorg

  • ****
  • 7694 Posts
    • View Profile
Michael vs Sparkling Debate Discussion - "The Christian God Exists"
« Reply #34 on: December 24, 2011, 04:11:20 am »

Archsage wrote:  

Michael's first rebuttal was thorough and sound. Although I thought he misunderstood the "Jesus was mistaken" quote, which isn't to say that Jesus thought something of himself that isn't true, but that his disciples lacked understanding in what Jesus was trying to say. But let's see if Sparkling raises that kind of objection.


'Jesus was mistaken' can be interpreted as 'Someone misunderstood Jeus' or as 'Jesus thought something of himself that isn't true' and neither of those interpretations necessarily entails Jesus being a lunatic, unless everybody here (and elsewhere) who has ever made a mistake is in fact a lunatic.

Apart from that, I do not really see which sustantial counter-arguments  exactly Sparkling is supposed to make against Michael's opnening statement, considering  Sparkling's position seems to be that Michael did not really present any substantial argument himself.
Jared wrote: He presented no substantive objections to Michael's TCA


The fact simply is that Michael cannot prove that an infinite past is impossible, to my knowledge nobody so far has been able to prove that. So Sparkling does not have to offer sustantial objection sto that part of Michael's argument, because the burden here is clearly on Michael.

5

sparkling

  • **
  • 145 Posts
    • View Profile
Michael vs Sparkling Debate Discussion - "The Christian God Exists"
« Reply #35 on: December 24, 2011, 04:22:52 am »
Archsage wrote: Michael's first rebuttal was thorough and sound. Although I thought he misunderstood the "Jesus was mistaken" quote, which isn't to say that Jesus thought something of himself that isn't true, but that his disciples lacked understanding in what Jesus was trying to say. But let's see if Sparkling raises that kind of objection.

   

   Anyway, I wish I knew what time zone Sparkling is in... As of now, his first rebuttal is due sometime before 12/24 8:52am EST.

   

   If there are any time zone issues just say so! Don't be a no show, and let's not have this debate last for too long. (The same goes for you Michael, although you've been exceptional when it comes to the time limit thus far).

   

   Yeah I'm in london, just reading through michaels response now. Its christmas eve here, busy today but I'll try my best not to keep you all waiting.

   Cheers

   Sparkling

   

6

Archsage

  • ****
  • 8964 Posts
    • View Profile
Michael vs Sparkling Debate Discussion - "The Christian God Exists"
« Reply #36 on: December 24, 2011, 06:45:19 am »
sparkling wrote:
Quote from: Archsage
Anyway, I wish I knew what time zone Sparkling is in... As of now, his first rebuttal is due sometime before 12/24 8:52am EST.

   

   If there are any time zone issues just say so! Don't be a no show, and let's not have this debate last for too long. (The same goes for you Michael, although you've been exceptional when it comes to the time limit thus far).

   

   Yeah I'm in london, just reading through michaels response now. Its christmas eve here, busy today but I'll try my best not to keep you all waiting.

   Cheers

   Sparkling

   

   

   

   Okay, that's no problem at all then. Where you are (London), you have until 12/24 1:52pm to post a reply. That about a little more than an hour from now. If need a grace hour or two then just take it. It's holiday season so we should be lenient.
“It is of dangerous consequence to represent to man how near he is to the level of beasts, without showing him at the same time his greatness. It is likewise dangerous to let him see his greatness without his meanness..."  –Blaise Pascal

7

Archsage

  • ****
  • 8964 Posts
    • View Profile
Michael vs Sparkling Debate Discussion - "The Christian God Exists"
« Reply #37 on: December 24, 2011, 06:57:38 am »
belorg wrote:

Quote from: Archsage

Michael's first rebuttal was thorough and sound. Although I thought he misunderstood the "Jesus was mistaken" quote, which isn't to say that Jesus thought something of himself that isn't true, but that his disciples lacked understanding in what Jesus was trying to say. But let's see if Sparkling raises that kind of objection.


'Jesus was mistaken' can be interpreted as 'Someone misunderstood Jeus' or as 'Jesus thought something of himself that isn't true' and neither of those interpretations necessarily entails Jesus being a lunatic, unless everybody here (and elsewhere) who has ever made a mistake is in fact a lunatic.

   

   Exactly, which is why I say Lewis's Trilemma fails because it is not a trichotomy. There is, in fact a fourth option. Jesus is either Lord, Lunatic, Liar or Legend. (chose the term "legend" in keeping with the L's).

   

   All Michael has to do, though, is disprove that Jesus is Legend. Then it would follow that He must be Lord, after debunking both Liar and Loon as well.

   

   It's not that Lewis's Trilemma is illogical -- it's logically sound. But its first premise was wrong. He overlooked the option that the Jesus that the Scriptures speak about isn't the actual Jesus. While I personally think that its rubbish, it still is an option. Now Lewis's quad-lemma or tetra-lemma or whatever you call it would be perfect!
“It is of dangerous consequence to represent to man how near he is to the level of beasts, without showing him at the same time his greatness. It is likewise dangerous to let him see his greatness without his meanness..."  –Blaise Pascal

8

belorg

  • ****
  • 7694 Posts
    • View Profile
Michael vs Sparkling Debate Discussion - "The Christian God Exists"
« Reply #38 on: December 24, 2011, 07:37:36 am »
Archsage wrote: Exactly, which is why I say Lewis's Trilemma fails because it is not a trichotomy. There is, in fact a fourth option. Jesus is either Lord, Lunatic, Liar or Legend. (chose the term "legend" in keeping with the L's).


There are in act, at least five options. Lord, Liar, Lunatic, Legend or Simply Wrong on some accounts (can't find an L-word for this).
And ther's of course combinations. He could have been wrong on some accounts and also lying sometimes, maybe even for good reasons, and on top of that part of what he meant could have been mistaken by his followers and/or misinterpreted by whoever wrote down what he allegedly said. I think, judging from what we see of most religious leaders nowadays, this is not only possible, but even extremely likely.
So, maybe Michael's task is not as easy as you think it is, and anyway, Michael hasn't disproved that Jesus is (partly)legend (in fact, nobody has been able to do that, let alone that he has disproved he was a Loon or a Liar.

9

cutz22

  • **
  • 159 Posts
    • View Profile
Michael vs Sparkling Debate Discussion - "The Christian God Exists"
« Reply #39 on: December 24, 2011, 08:36:42 am »
I don't even understand what it would mean to be a "true trilemma". A true dichotomy is A or not-A, which obviously covers all the options. But how could a trilemma ever cover all the options?

10

hatsoff

  • ****
  • 6273 Posts
    • View Profile
Michael vs Sparkling Debate Discussion - "The Christian God Exists"
« Reply #40 on: December 24, 2011, 08:43:43 am »
cutz22 wrote: I don't even understand what it would mean to be a "true trilemma". A true dichotomy is A or not-A, which obviously covers all the options. But how could a trilemma ever cover all the options?


Consider A, B&~A and ~(A or B).

11

cutz22

  • **
  • 159 Posts
    • View Profile
Michael vs Sparkling Debate Discussion - "The Christian God Exists"
« Reply #41 on: December 24, 2011, 09:42:43 am »
(A) I am sitting.
(B) I am eating an apple.

So the trilemma is,

(T) Either I am sitting, or I am eating an apple and not sitting, or I am not eating an apple or I am not sitting.

What about A&B, I am eating an apple and I am sitting?

Or what about just B, I am eating an apple. That leaves it ambiguous whether or not I am also sitting.

12

Archsage

  • ****
  • 8964 Posts
    • View Profile
Michael vs Sparkling Debate Discussion - "The Christian God Exists"
« Reply #42 on: December 24, 2011, 09:58:08 am »
cutz, say that there are 3 crayons in a box, and the person must pick one, but cannot pick more than one. He can either pick crayon1, crayon2 or crayon3. So what crayon is picked?  That's what we are talking about.

A "trilemma" is an XOR (either or) statement concerning three variables. The logic behind it is sound. The problem with Lewis's point isn't that his logic is wrong. It's just not a trilemma. There are other options.

“It is of dangerous consequence to represent to man how near he is to the level of beasts, without showing him at the same time his greatness. It is likewise dangerous to let him see his greatness without his meanness..."  –Blaise Pascal

13

cutz22

  • **
  • 159 Posts
    • View Profile
Michael vs Sparkling Debate Discussion - "The Christian God Exists"
« Reply #43 on: December 24, 2011, 11:21:48 am »
That depends on contingent restrictions that the person must choose only one crayon and must choose only out of that box and that the box has only 3 crayons. These restrictions don't apply to Lewis's Trilemma. What I'm looking for is some universal logical form of argument that is the "true trichotomy", just as A or not-A is the true dichotomy.

14

Archsage

  • ****
  • 8964 Posts
    • View Profile
Michael vs Sparkling Debate Discussion - "The Christian God Exists"
« Reply #44 on: December 24, 2011, 11:27:25 am »
It's a trilemma. A Trichotomy is a made up term trying to represent that, of which there are only three logical choices. Where a Dichotomy has only two choices:

A and B (where B is ~A)

A Trichotomy would have three choices

A and B and C (where A is ~B and ~C, B is ~C and ~A , and C is ~A and ~B)

You could not have ~A AND ~B AND ~C because ~A AND ~B IS C. You'd be contradicting yourself. You could not have A AND B AND C because A AND B IS ~C, so you'd be contradicting yourself there too.
“It is of dangerous consequence to represent to man how near he is to the level of beasts, without showing him at the same time his greatness. It is likewise dangerous to let him see his greatness without his meanness..."  –Blaise Pascal