cutz22

  • **
  • 159 Posts
    • View Profile
Michael vs Sparkling Debate Discussion - "The Christian God Exists"
« Reply #75 on: December 26, 2011, 09:33:18 am »
Archsage wrote: 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.

I'm not sure there are any real propositions that fulfill that relationship.

1

Archsage

  • ****
  • 8964 Posts
    • View Profile
Michael vs Sparkling Debate Discussion - "The Christian God Exists"
« Reply #76 on: December 26, 2011, 12:47:11 pm »
cutz22 wrote:
Quote from: Archsage
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.
------
I'm not sure there are any real propositions that fulfill that relationship.

Yes, there are. Any XOR relationship between three variables would create a trichotomy.

For example, people can logically be Agnostic, Theistic or Atheistic (when it comes to the Theological Question, 'Does God Exist?'). That is an XOR (either or) relationship between three variables.

NOTE: The bulk of the debate is over, with both particpants stating their concluding remarks. You guys should head over to the Q&A Session thread, and make your concerns known to the debaters directly.

“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

2

Kevron

  • **
  • 742 Posts
    • View Profile
Michael vs Sparkling Debate Discussion - "The Christian God Exists"
« Reply #77 on: December 26, 2011, 01:31:22 pm »
choux there is no evidence for any world view that is beyond reasonable doubt, do not fall for the skeptics trap, they'd like you to think that you need to have this kind of evidence to believe in god, but all you need is a personal relationship with him that is the most important
"A little philosophy takes a man away from God. Much philosophy brings him back again."
- Francis Bacon

3

SueDoeNimm

  • **
  • 457 Posts
    • View Profile
Michael vs Sparkling Debate Discussion - "The Christian God Exists"
« Reply #78 on: December 26, 2011, 01:48:42 pm »
Archsage wrote: The debate is just about to over and the Q&A session will begin. (I won't even bother putting up the time for Sparkling's Conlusion as I don't believe it would be followed -- for future debates I'm going to be much more strict).

As this thread is 6+ pages long, I'm going to make a new thread just for the Q&A. There readers will just post questions, no comments, and each debater will pick questions for the other to answer. This thread will still be used for discussion, not the Q&A thread. More details will be in the Q&A thread coming in as soon as Sparkling posts his conclusion.

So start preparing your questions.


This has been fun so far.  My compliments to Michael, Sparking, and Archsage for their efforts and their discipline.  I'm looking forward to the Q&A.
Before deconversion: Chop wood, carry water.  After deconversion: Chop wood, carry water.

4

sparkling

  • **
  • 145 Posts
    • View Profile
Michael vs Sparkling Debate Discussion - "The Christian God Exists"
« Reply #79 on: December 27, 2011, 06:51:06 am »
I don't get it, why can't the debaters themselves ask the questions?

5

Archsage

  • ****
  • 8964 Posts
    • View Profile
Michael vs Sparkling Debate Discussion - "The Christian God Exists"
« Reply #80 on: December 27, 2011, 07:28:29 am »
sparkling wrote: I don't get it, why can't the debaters themselves ask the questions? 

   

   Three reasons. The main one is that regular formal debates do not do that. Secondly, it would just be a mere continuation of the regular debate if you are asking each other questions (a debater should have asked the other questions during the debate). Thirdly, and I think most importantly, it is good to allow direct reader interaction within the debate.
“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

6

sparkling

  • **
  • 145 Posts
    • View Profile
Michael vs Sparkling Debate Discussion - "The Christian God Exists"
« Reply #81 on: December 27, 2011, 07:34:56 am »
Archsage wrote:
Quote from: sparkling
I don't get it, why can't the debaters themselves ask the questions?


Three reasons. The main one is that regular formal debates do not do that. Secondly, it would just be a mere continuation of the regular debate if you are asking each other questions (a debater should have asked the other questions during the debate). Thirdly, and I think most importantly, it is good to allow direct reader interaction within the debate.

Ok so Michael and I will select 5 questions from the pool to ask each other. How are you going to decide who "won" the debate?

7

Archsage

  • ****
  • 8964 Posts
    • View Profile
Michael vs Sparkling Debate Discussion - "The Christian God Exists"
« Reply #82 on: December 27, 2011, 08:42:47 am »
sparkling wrote:
Quote from: Archsage
Quote from: sparkling
I don't get it, why can't the debaters themselves ask the questions? 


Three reasons. The main one is that regular formal debates do not do that. Secondly, it would just be a mere continuation of the regular debate if you are asking each other questions (a debater should have asked the other questions during the debate). Thirdly, and I think most importantly, it is good to allow direct reader interaction within the debate.

Ok so Michael and I will select 5 questions from the pool to ask each other. How are you going to decide who "won" the debate? 

   

   That's an excellent question. As you should know, I certainly cannot be the debate judge (as I'm already the moderator and severely biased). Nor am I particularly keen on allowing any avid poster in here become debate judge for the same reason that I won't allow myself to become debate judge. So now we have a big problem.

   

   Right now, Im looking into a third party, someone who doesn't go to this site, and who is currently agnostic on the issue to become debate judge. That's how it's going to be I suppose, but I have until the end of the Q&A session for an official announcement.

   

   But I'm wide open for suggestions, either for someone you think might be a good judge (as I might have up to three judges, if not just one), or if you think a different structure would be more efficient. As for the judge, remember that he/she isn't to state who was more persuasive, but who was able to create their own points and defeat the other's points most adequately, within reason, and it must be done in a clear, somewhat proffesional manner, including a review of both sides involved.
“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

SueDoeNimm

  • **
  • 457 Posts
    • View Profile
Michael vs Sparkling Debate Discussion - "The Christian God Exists"
« Reply #83 on: December 27, 2011, 12:03:04 pm »
Archsage wrote:
Quote from: sparkling

Ok so Michael and I will select 5 questions from the pool to ask each other. How are you going to decide who "won" the debate?


That's an excellent question. As you should know, I certainly cannot be the debate judge (as I'm already the moderator and severely biased). Nor am I particularly keen on allowing any avid poster in here become debate judge for the same reason that I won't allow myself to become debate judge. So now we have a big problem.

Right now, Im looking into a third party, someone who doesn't go to this site, and who is currently agnostic on the issue to become debate judge. That's how it's going to be I suppose, but I have until the end of the Q&A session for an official announcement.

But I'm wide open for suggestions, either for someone you think might be a good judge (as I might have up to three judges, if not just one), or if you think a different structure would be more efficient. As for the judge, remember that he/she isn't to state who was more persuasive, but who was able to create their own points and defeat the other's points most adequately, within reason, and it must be done in a clear, somewhat proffesional manner, including a review of both sides involved.


I agree with all you say.

I hope you are able to find independent judges.

And of course we spectators will be making comments and critiques (with varying degrees of impartiality).

I like the debates where they poll the audience before and after.  It is too late to do that now and I think we know how the numbers would come out.  There would be no great shift in opinion.  
Before deconversion: Chop wood, carry water.  After deconversion: Chop wood, carry water.

9

keith eure

  • **
  • 924 Posts
    • View Profile
Michael vs Sparkling Debate Discussion - "The Christian God Exists"
« Reply #84 on: December 27, 2011, 01:10:42 pm »
Sue-  your question about faith till death the such proving the veracity of said belief is a faulty comparison.  I don't believe you understood the point Michael was making.  The disciples who died for what they were proclaiming had an oppirtunity to witness the truth or falsehood of their claims through their relationship with Jesus.  His divinity was vindicated through the resurrection.  They were the witnesses to this event, so for them to die proclaiming this given the fact that they had the oppirtunity to validate the claim first hand would be pure insanity.  Islamic terrorists performing suicide missions is quite different consisting they have not claimed to have any direct falsifiable experience vindicating their belief.

10

SueDoeNimm

  • **
  • 457 Posts
    • View Profile
Michael vs Sparkling Debate Discussion - "The Christian God Exists"
« Reply #85 on: December 27, 2011, 02:22:56 pm »


Hopefully Michael and sparkling will avert their eyes so that this post doesn't influence their debate.  Or maybe this will be irrelevant to them.

Kam86 wrote: Sue-  your question about faith till death the such proving the veracity of said belief is a faulty comparison.  I don't believe you understood the point Michael was making.  The disciples who died for what they were proclaiming had an oppirtunity to witness the truth or falsehood of their claims through their relationship with Jesus.  His divinity was vindicated through the resurrection.  They were the witnesses to this event, so for them to die proclaiming this given the fact that they had the oppirtunity to validate the claim first hand would be pure insanity.

I have real difficulty parsing that sentence.

Islamic terrorists performing suicide missions is quite different consisting they have not claimed to have any direct falsifiable experience vindicating their belief.


Maybe I misunderstood Michael's point but I am definitely having difficulty understanding yours.

Did the disciples claim they had direct falsifiable experience?  What is direct falsifiable experience?  How do you know the hijackers didn't have direct falsifiable experience?

Before deconversion: Chop wood, carry water.  After deconversion: Chop wood, carry water.

11

Jack

  • **
  • 647 Posts
    • View Profile
Michael vs Sparkling Debate Discussion - "The Christian God Exists"
« Reply #86 on: January 04, 2012, 01:20:02 am »
Well I have quickly read through the debate and thought I'd offer my comments. I missed the Q&A session, but I think they covered enough material that I don't need to add to it anyway.

I have to say I'm slightly disappointed by the debate. Sparkling didn't really get into the substance of Michael's arguments in my opinion. The result of this is Michael wasn't really challenged and didn't really get very interesting (creative writing aside). So the whole thing was a bit shallow and somewhat of a young disappointment.

Obviously, as a non-believer, I think Sparkling has roughly the right idea and was consistent in applying the approach of scepticism. There were a couple of times Sparkling resorted to using weasel words such as "proof" and "certainty." Michael was shooting a long way short of proof or certainty in the debate, stating as the conclusion of his argument "we have a case for" theism. So I think they missed each other on exactly what it was the other was trying to show.

Michael suffered a little bit from insistently flowery language, which makes his points a little but like a single peppercorn in a bowl of tomato soup - difficult to detect and impossible to enjoy. It's not that we can't enjoy the lovely tomato soup, but some of us want a little bit of something extra.

Ultimately, I think Michael won most of the points and would probably be declared the winner. I want to get my teeth into universe machine experiment next and see if I can't convert him to atheism or vice versa

12

Archsage

  • ****
  • 8964 Posts
    • View Profile
Michael vs Sparkling Debate Discussion - "The Christian God Exists"
« Reply #87 on: January 09, 2012, 08:33:41 am »
The debate is now over, and we are working on the final review from the judge. You guys can head on over to the official Debate Thread where Michael answers the five questions posed to him. Sparkling's absence disqualified him from participation within the Q&A Session however, so there aren't any answers from him.

Debate Thread

Overall I think Michael adequately answered the questions, his point is pretty much cleared up. You guys can continue to ask him questions now, whether in here or elsewhere on the forums. He and Sparkling are allowed to answer whatever question or concern they want (however it is no longer part of the debate because the debate is technically over, at least on Michael and Sparkling's part).

Thank you all for your avid interest (an 8-page thread on discussing the debate seems pretty good!), and we'll be sure to have the official debate review by a relatively non-bias judge as soon as possible.

“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

depthcharge623

  • ***
  • 4296 Posts
    • View Profile
Michael vs Sparkling Debate Discussion - "The Christian God Exists"
« Reply #88 on: January 09, 2012, 09:43:34 am »

Noseeum wrote:  

Well I have quickly read through the debate and thought I'd offer my comments. I missed the Q&A session, but I think they covered enough material that I don't need to add to it anyway.


I have to say I'm slightly disappointed by the debate. Sparkling didn't really get into the substance of Michael's arguments in my opinion. The result of this is Michael wasn't really challenged and didn't really get very interesting (creative writing aside). So the whole thing was a bit shallow and somewhat of a young disappointment.

Obviously, as a non-believer, I think Sparkling has roughly the right idea and was consistent in applying the approach of scepticism. There were a couple of times Sparkling resorted to using weasel words such as "proof" and "certainty." Michael was shooting a long way short of proof or certainty in the debate, stating as the conclusion of his argument "we have a case for" theism. So I think they missed each other on exactly what it was the other was trying to show.

Michael suffered a little bit from insistently flowery language, which makes his points a little but like a single peppercorn in a bowl of tomato soup - difficult to detect and impossible to enjoy. It's not that we can't enjoy the lovely tomato soup, but some of us want a little bit of something extra.

Ultimately, I think Michael won most of the points and would probably be declared the winner. I want to get my teeth into universe machine experiment next and see if I can't convert him to atheism or vice versa


I tend to agree with most of what you say.  However, it should be worth noting that this debate was mostly just an attempt to shut Sparkling up since he was trolling so hard core.  In that respect, it was obviously a success.  

But for those of us that actually care about the debate, proper, it was a bit disappointing.  With nobody to challenge Michael's arguments, it was indeed superficial.

14

Jack

  • **
  • 647 Posts
    • View Profile
Michael vs Sparkling Debate Discussion - "The Christian God Exists"
« Reply #89 on: January 09, 2012, 04:13:32 pm »
depthcharge623 wrote:

I tend to agree with most of what you say.  However, it should be worth noting that this debate was mostly just an attempt to shut Sparkling up since he was trolling so hard core.  In that respect, it was obviously a success.  
Yes that's true. Lesson learnt I hope.