RE: Official Debate -- KnockEmOutt and Jeffonthenet
August 16, 2012 at 11:49 pm
(This post was last modified: August 17, 2012 at 12:07 am by Jeffonthenet.)
Hello everyone,
Please forgive me for the late response, I have been busy with work and just life in general lately. I was also avoiding responding as I was worried this would either devolve into bickering or go completely off topic.
With regards to what I am defending in this debate, and Knockemoutt's accusation of me, I can say that I understand, and myself have wondered if I am defending a fair position in this debate. However, I explained my logic entirely in my last post. I thought the only honest thing to do in my situation (see last post) was to defend the negative claim, "belief in God is not irrational," rather than a positive one, claiming that I could show that God belief in God is rational. Anyone who still has problems with my claims I would just ask that you look over the reasoning I already presented in defense of this in my last post.
And regardless of what one thinks of me or the position I am taking in this debate, I would like to point out that none of it is relevant to the truth of the points I am making, or the logic with which I conclude these points. It would be to succumb to the logical fallacy called ad-homineum to think that an accusation against a person would refute this person's arguments.
Therefore, regardless of what Knockemoutt thinks of the topic I am debating, if he does not show the fault with my arguments and logic, regardless of what he claims of my actions in defending only the points I am defending, then the points go through. So I will ask, is he willing to grant that, as I have maintained, there is no rational inconsistency between acting rationally and believing in God when doing so? If he is not willing to do this, has he refuted my arguments in favor of this proposition? Is he also willing to grant that, as I have argued for, there is no successful argument against the God of Jesus Christ? If not, he ought to give some convincing reason these things are false or that my arguments for their truth are false. I am not saying he has not tried, but I want to point out that if he doesn't succeed, and only focuses on my supposed faults in defending a negative, the points I have maintained go through.
In his most recent post Knockemoutt, though seeming to drop many of his past objections, has introduced some new ones. I will quote them and respond.
If it is rational to disbelieve a claim because evidence cannot be produced for this claim… if that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence as Hitchens said, then it is true that a common instance where children who are victims of sexual assault, only long after tell someone about it when the evidence is gone, must be disbelieved and their assertions dismissed. This seems to follow directly from your logic which says, "that which can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." If we have found an instance where something ought not to be dismissed without evidence despite being asserted without evidence, then we have disproved Hitchens' principle and so your argument here. And I think I have provided such an instance.
I am not trying to prove a negative, only to argue for it. And it would seem that one who tries to argue that 1x1 is not 0, is also acting silly by this logic, as he is arguing for a negative statement.
I don't see why the fact that it was only 2000 years ago that God fully revealed Himself or that a few thousand years earlier he had revealed more of Himself than previously available suggests that there is no God. How do you know that if there is a God, he wouldn't act like this? One could also likewise accuse you of using "nothing more than atheist apologetics" here as you have accused my of using nothing more than Christian apologetics. However, I am not accusing you of this, I want to focus on the logic of the matter, and I don't see how you have given a persuasive logical argument against God here.
This was my second to last response. Every debate I have ever heard limited the responses for the benefit of all parties involved, and we have already had a good amount of rebuttals. My next post will be my closing statement. I hope that Knockemoutt will take the opportunity in his next response to fully interact with my points in this debate and bring out everything he has, in order to argue against my claims with his best evidence for the benefit of everyone watching and the furthering of rational thought.
Please forgive me for the late response, I have been busy with work and just life in general lately. I was also avoiding responding as I was worried this would either devolve into bickering or go completely off topic.
With regards to what I am defending in this debate, and Knockemoutt's accusation of me, I can say that I understand, and myself have wondered if I am defending a fair position in this debate. However, I explained my logic entirely in my last post. I thought the only honest thing to do in my situation (see last post) was to defend the negative claim, "belief in God is not irrational," rather than a positive one, claiming that I could show that God belief in God is rational. Anyone who still has problems with my claims I would just ask that you look over the reasoning I already presented in defense of this in my last post.
And regardless of what one thinks of me or the position I am taking in this debate, I would like to point out that none of it is relevant to the truth of the points I am making, or the logic with which I conclude these points. It would be to succumb to the logical fallacy called ad-homineum to think that an accusation against a person would refute this person's arguments.
Therefore, regardless of what Knockemoutt thinks of the topic I am debating, if he does not show the fault with my arguments and logic, regardless of what he claims of my actions in defending only the points I am defending, then the points go through. So I will ask, is he willing to grant that, as I have maintained, there is no rational inconsistency between acting rationally and believing in God when doing so? If he is not willing to do this, has he refuted my arguments in favor of this proposition? Is he also willing to grant that, as I have argued for, there is no successful argument against the God of Jesus Christ? If not, he ought to give some convincing reason these things are false or that my arguments for their truth are false. I am not saying he has not tried, but I want to point out that if he doesn't succeed, and only focuses on my supposed faults in defending a negative, the points I have maintained go through.
In his most recent post Knockemoutt, though seeming to drop many of his past objections, has introduced some new ones. I will quote them and respond.
Quote:Furthermore, you wish to make claims of rationality (or "non-irrationality" if you like) without any real evidence which is basis for them to be rejected outright…
It is certainly rational to doubt claims of the divine by default. Critical evaluation of claims is a rational practice. If I have not experienced the divine, and those who claim they have cannot produce any evidence in favor of that claim, it is rational to disbelieve the claim. As Christopher Hitchens once said, "that what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."
If it is rational to disbelieve a claim because evidence cannot be produced for this claim… if that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence as Hitchens said, then it is true that a common instance where children who are victims of sexual assault, only long after tell someone about it when the evidence is gone, must be disbelieved and their assertions dismissed. This seems to follow directly from your logic which says, "that which can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." If we have found an instance where something ought not to be dismissed without evidence despite being asserted without evidence, then we have disproved Hitchens' principle and so your argument here. And I think I have provided such an instance.
Quote:Trying to prove a negative is silly.
I am not trying to prove a negative, only to argue for it. And it would seem that one who tries to argue that 1x1 is not 0, is also acting silly by this logic, as he is arguing for a negative statement.
Quote:I believe you've misunderstood my final argument. I'm not making any statement about afterlives or the like. I am simply comparing the size of this god's following to the size of the historical populace. It speaks only to the the number of adherents this god has had in proportion to all those other people who did not believe likewise, take from it what you will. I see postulating the methods of how God "revealed himself" differently to various peoples and generations as nothing more than apologetics.
I don't see why the fact that it was only 2000 years ago that God fully revealed Himself or that a few thousand years earlier he had revealed more of Himself than previously available suggests that there is no God. How do you know that if there is a God, he wouldn't act like this? One could also likewise accuse you of using "nothing more than atheist apologetics" here as you have accused my of using nothing more than Christian apologetics. However, I am not accusing you of this, I want to focus on the logic of the matter, and I don't see how you have given a persuasive logical argument against God here.
This was my second to last response. Every debate I have ever heard limited the responses for the benefit of all parties involved, and we have already had a good amount of rebuttals. My next post will be my closing statement. I hope that Knockemoutt will take the opportunity in his next response to fully interact with my points in this debate and bring out everything he has, in order to argue against my claims with his best evidence for the benefit of everyone watching and the furthering of rational thought.
"the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate" (1 Cor. 1:19)
