Author Topic: 10 Questions "Setting the Goalposts"  (Read 5880 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline gonegolfing

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1224
  • Darwins +24/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • God ?...Don't even get me started !
Re: 10 Questions "Setting the Goalposts"
« Reply #29 on: September 25, 2008, 11:16:57 AM »
Oba:

Quote
Is there any kind of official thesis to the 10 questions I can refer to from it's author?

Official thesis ? Why would you feel that the questions would or should have a thesis ? I do not need to see a thesis to know that they are valid questions. We're not talking about a theory presented with premises that must be proved here, so I'm quite puzzled at to why you would even think that such an official thesis could even exist for the questions. No thesis for them is required, and in fact, they are merely simple questions that have been logically designed to demand answers from the official thesis of the god hypothesis. They are completely fair questions and should be able to be answered empirically due to the fact that there should be current clear evidence of healings and miracles available for all to see, as it was promised by the scriptures that all will see these things. Where's the evidence ?

If you as a person of faith are looking for available evidence that the promises of the god of the scriptures are being kept as it promised it would, and yet cannot find current, clear, reliable, unambiguous, and definitive evidence to convince you that it is, then you can only honestly implicate one of three things:

1) The scriptures are misleading and/or false.
2) God is malevolent and a liar.
3) God is a figment of the imagination.

If you look closely at your response to me you can't deny that it smacks of cherrypicking , watering down, and tossing out, various aspects of the core traditional tenets and doctrines of the christian faith (the doctrine of hell). You'll believe that Jesus filled some swine with demons, but you refuse to believe, and in fact are calling him a liar, by disbelieving his clear and dire warnings of a literal hell. Can you not see the hypocrisy in that ?. You cannot call yourself a true christian when you willingly disregard or discredit the absolutes of its doctrines. Also, saying that humans do not go to a hell is a blasphemous statement because it in fact denies that hell exists, makes a mockery of the scriptures, and more importantly calls god a liar. Ouch! Your in deep s**t.

Quote
I'm still aiming to eat my cake and have it.

No. Just like millions of others, your eating the icing only and tossing out the cake  ;) You find it stale and its texture and flavour not quite up to your personal preferences as to what you think cake should be, so you stick with the ooey gooey sweetness of the icing only and then discretely slip the cake in the trash and then say ""look daddy I ate my cake !!"". Do you think you'll get away with that ?

 
Quote
I don't think faith (pistis in the greek) is the mindless submission some Christians make it out to be.

But blind faith is.


This site and the 10 questions are all about evidence. Where's the current and clear evidence for the claims of the scriptures that a loving, caring, miracle working god, is in fact keeping its promises and intervening in our world to care for its creation as it promised it would ?.

A thesis isn't required for that simple question.

I'm not trying to discourage you from pressing on with this thread, but simply want you to know that we see through the facades, and the veneers, and the superficialness, and therefore this is why you will often times see us go.....  ::)

Cheers mate       
« Last Edit: September 25, 2008, 11:28:25 AM by gonegolfing »
"I believe that there is no God. I'm beyond atheism"....Penn Jillette.

Offline Obadiah

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 125
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: 10 Questions "Setting the Goalposts"
« Reply #30 on: November 06, 2008, 06:37:57 PM »
Oba:

Quote
Is there any kind of official thesis to the 10 questions I can refer to from it's author?

Official thesis ? Why would you feel that the questions would or should have a thesis ? I do not need to see a thesis to know that they are valid questions...

The reason I'm now asking for a thesis (note that I didn't originally) is because you, among others are now making claims about their intent, and applying those claims to tactics I'm not allowed to use. If you want to just leave them as questions I'm more than okay with that. I'm just following your lead here

Quote
If you look closely at your response to me you can't deny that it smacks of cherrypicking , watering down, and tossing out, various aspects of the core traditional tenets and doctrines of the christian faith (the doctrine of hell).

Yes I can deny it and you are begging the question.

Quote
You'll believe that Jesus filled some swine with demons, but you refuse to believe, and in fact are calling him a liar, by disbelieving his clear and dire warnings of a literal hell. Can you not see the hypocrisy in that ?. You cannot call yourself a true christian when you willingly disregard or discredit the absolutes of its doctrines. Also, saying that humans do not go to a hell is a blasphemous statement because it in fact denies that hell exists, makes a mockery of the scriptures, and more importantly calls god a liar. Ouch! Your in deep s**t.

If you want to contend with me in a debate about exegesis I'd be more than happy. But the problem with that is that I’m so vastly more experienced in it than you that there would be no way you could win even if I were wrong.

How about instead you save yourself the embarrassment and choose just to believe me when I say that the Mirislov Wolfien concept of an empty hell is consistent with scripture in totality and your ability to X-acto verses (or not even verses) out of context is not a sufficient counter argument.

Compare the threats made by Jesus to the threats made by Isaiah and you’ll begin to see where I’m coming from.

Or else shut up about my theology and start correcting my metaphysics. That’s the part you are actually in disagreement with anyway.


Quote
Quote
I'm still aiming to eat my cake and have it.

No. Just like millions of others, your eating the icing only and tossing out the cake  ;) You find it stale and its texture and flavour not quite up to your personal preferences as to what you think cake should be, so you stick with the ooey gooey sweetness of the icing only and then discretely slip the cake in the trash and then say ""look daddy I ate my cake !!"". Do you think you'll get away with that ?

 ::)You're not too good with analogies are you?

Eating the cake is using your reason. Having the cake is being a Christian. your response is condescending nonsense.


Quote
Quote
I don't think faith (pistis in the greek) is the mindless submission some Christians make it out to be.

But blind faith is.

Blind faith is not required of christians

Quote
This site and the 10 questions are all about evidence. Where's the current and clear evidence for the claims of the scriptures that a loving, caring, miracle working god, is in fact keeping its promises and intervening in our world to care for its creation as it promised it would ?  

It's coming but you have to give me a target that doesn't move.

P.S. Everybody,

You may have noticed this response came months too late. I got a new job, I don't have all the disposable time I used to.

This seemed like an endeavor that a couple people were actually interested in, And if you still are, I’ll try to revive it. If not I certainly understand, interest moves at the speed of a DSL connection nowadays

Offline Asmoday

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1344
  • Darwins +29/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: 10 Questions "Setting the Goalposts"
« Reply #31 on: November 06, 2008, 08:50:58 PM »
Quote
If you want to contend with me in a debate about exegesis I'd be more than happy. But the problem with that is that I’m so vastly more experienced in it than you that there would be no way you could win even if I were wrong.

How about instead you save yourself the embarrassment[...]
Oh the humility!

So far I was able to observe two kinds of people acting like this:

A) The person actually has expirience (how much has to be seen), but will trip over his/her overly inflated ego sooner or later.

B) While making such a claim the person is quite busy praying "Oh god oh god oh god. PLEASE let him/her buy my story. Don´t let him/her ask me anything about it!"

Either way such a claim does not make you look good.
Absilio Mundus!

I can do no wrong. For I do not know what it is.

Offline jazzman

  • www.jazz24.org
  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 797
  • Darwins +3/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • I don't get no respect
Re: 10 Questions "Setting the Goalposts"
« Reply #32 on: November 06, 2008, 09:41:19 PM »
I think I’m ready to try my hand at the 10 questions, but as I do, I want to do so formally, one at a time, and give people a chance to accept or reject my answer before moving on to the next one.
Do you ever plan to get on with answering the 10 Questions?

Jazzman
"Things you don't see: An old man having a Twix." -- Karl Pilkington

Offline Obadiah

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 125
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: 10 Questions "Setting the Goalposts"
« Reply #33 on: November 07, 2008, 02:30:36 PM »
Quote
If you want to contend with me in a debate about exegesis I'd be more than happy. But the problem with that is that I’m so vastly more experienced in it than you that there would be no way you could win even if I were wrong.

How about instead you save yourself the embarrassment[...]
Oh the humility!

So far I was able to observe two kinds of people acting like this:

A) The person actually has expirience (how much has to be seen), but will trip over his/her overly inflated ego sooner or later.

B) While making such a claim the person is quite busy praying "Oh god oh god oh god. PLEASE let him/her buy my story. Don´t let him/her ask me anything about it!"

Either way such a claim does not make you look good.

Fair enough. Actually looking it over again I sort of winced to myself.

The point is not that I am awesome and GoneGolfing is not, I see how it could have come out that way. The point is that I am a Christian, and particularly one who is interested in theology and exegesis and spends spare time studying these things. GoneGolfing is an atheist (or something like it) and almost certainly considers such pursuits a waste of time.

He will lose to me at exegesis for the same reason he would lose to an 8 year old girl at hopscotch.

Offline Obadiah

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 125
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: 10 Questions "Setting the Goalposts"
« Reply #34 on: November 07, 2008, 02:36:00 PM »
I think I’m ready to try my hand at the 10 questions, but as I do, I want to do so formally, one at a time, and give people a chance to accept or reject my answer before moving on to the next one.
Do you ever plan to get on with answering the 10 Questions?

Jazzman

How can I do that when I can't even get a considerable number of people to sign off on a strategy?

At this point, assuming I gave the most brilliant answer in the world to why all of the 10 questions do not interrupt the internal consistency of Christianity, it wouldn’t matter because people would still be arguing that my tactics were unfair and internal consistency should not have been the goal.

When you give me something fair to shoot for, I’ll try and shoot it. Until then my hands are tied

Offline jazzman

  • www.jazz24.org
  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 797
  • Darwins +3/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • I don't get no respect
Re: 10 Questions "Setting the Goalposts"
« Reply #35 on: November 07, 2008, 02:58:41 PM »
I think I’m ready to try my hand at the 10 questions, but as I do, I want to do so formally, one at a time, and give people a chance to accept or reject my answer before moving on to the next one.
Do you ever plan to get on with answering the 10 Questions?

Jazzman

How can I do that when I can't even get a considerable number of people to sign off on a strategy?

At this point, assuming I gave the most brilliant answer in the world to why all of the 10 questions do not interrupt the internal consistency of Christianity, it wouldn’t matter because people would still be arguing that my tactics were unfair and internal consistency should not have been the goal.

When you give me something fair to shoot for, I’ll try and shoot it. Until then my hands are tied

Seems to me you're stalling.  You're trying to stack the deck in your favor, but your opposition isn't having any of that.  It's highly unlikely you'll answer the 10 Questions with anything new or novel, regardless of your strategy.  We won't argue that your tactics are unfair, but we're likely to tell you they're ineffective, already tried and refuted, or that they exceed the bounds of reason.  Your task as the challenger is to prove the internal consistency of the Bible, a task you volunteered to do here.  You don't need any kind of consensus here to do so.

You come to a web site that opposes your point of view.  You know that coming in.  You're not the first to try to convince astheists of the truth of your beliefs, and you won't be the last.  Your strategy can be whatever you want it to be, and no one here is required to "sign off" on it.  That your "hands are tied" is an excuse for delaying the debate until you see yourself on favorable ground.  Take a cue from your fellow Christians who debate in public settings, such as W.L. Craig.  Agree to the debate without requiring the opposition to agree on your strategy.  Choose your strategy, state your case, and wait for the opposition to respond.  In short, get on with it.

Jazzman
"Things you don't see: An old man having a Twix." -- Karl Pilkington

Offline Obadiah

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 125
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: 10 Questions "Setting the Goalposts"
« Reply #36 on: November 07, 2008, 04:26:22 PM »
Dr. Craig doesn't debate you guys.

And for good reason.

He has standards for who he will debate and in what format he will debate them.

If he debated alone against a large group of opponents I assure you he would require some sort of consensus before he began.

Each of Craig’s debates has a resolution. That’s analogous to a thesis to refute and most often it also has a formal criterion. Such as “preponderance of evidence” you wouldn’t notice unless you were looking for it.

Dr. Montgomery uses different criteria, he is from a law background and his opponents know that he will be arguing against “reasonable doubt”

All this is very smooth in 1 to one debate, because if someone disagrees you can just engage them right there.

In team debate, such in Policy, or International Parliamentary Debate, consensus becomes much more important. If for instance one member of a team 1 forewords an argument, which is responded to by the opponent team, and then his partner, also on team 1 forwards a different argument, which contradicts the first. Team 2 could then argue that they should win on the basis of a lack of consensus regardless of their standing with the resolution because obviously nobody can defeat an opponent who is free to deny their own arguments once they’re refuted.

This is why only idiots like me argue on the internet.

None the less I believe that the regulars to this site would actually be interested in seeing someone make a serious attempt at this. Under some semblance of fairness

You think I don’t need it?

You think it doesn’t matter?

Fine! Humor me.

Say you are okay with my tactics and let’s move on already.

Or else stop whining that it’s taking too long

Offline Deus ex Machina

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3030
  • Darwins +23/-3
Re: 10 Questions "Setting the Goalposts"
« Reply #37 on: November 07, 2008, 04:37:39 PM »
Obadiah, if you choose to engage in a discussion on a discussion forum you must accept that you cannot expect people to accept attempts to corral the discussion within parameters that are suitable to yourself.

If you have a problem with that, then this place is not for you. So either present your argument without conditions, or don't present it at all. I have no intention whatsoever of 'humouring' you.

Offline jazzman

  • www.jazz24.org
  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 797
  • Darwins +3/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • I don't get no respect
Re: 10 Questions "Setting the Goalposts"
« Reply #38 on: November 07, 2008, 04:38:54 PM »
Dr. Craig doesn't debate you guys.

And for good reason.

He has standards for who he will debate and in what format he will debate them.

If he debated alone against a large group of opponents I assure you he would require some sort of consensus before he began.

Each of Craig’s debates has a resolution. That’s analogous to a thesis to refute and most often it also has a formal criterion. Such as “preponderance of evidence” you wouldn’t notice unless you were looking for it.

Dr. Montgomery uses different criteria, he is from a law background and his opponents know that he will be arguing against “reasonable doubt”

All this is very smooth in 1 to one debate, because if someone disagrees you can just engage them right there.

In team debate, such in Policy, or International Parliamentary Debate, consensus becomes much more important. If for instance one member of a team 1 forewords an argument, which is responded to by the opponent team, and then his partner, also on team 1 forwards a different argument, which contradicts the first. Team 2 could then argue that they should win on the basis of a lack of consensus regardless of their standing with the resolution because obviously nobody can defeat an opponent who is free to deny their own arguments once they’re refuted.

This is why only idiots like me argue on the internet.

None the less I believe that the regulars to this site would actually be interested in seeing someone make a serious attempt at this. Under some semblance of fairness

You think I don’t need it?

You think it doesn’t matter?

Fine! Humor me.

Say you are okay with my tactics and let’s move on already.

Or else stop whining that it’s taking too long


Get on wth it Obadiah.  Address the 10 Questions or shut up.

Jazzman
"Things you don't see: An old man having a Twix." -- Karl Pilkington

Offline Obadiah

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 125
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: 10 Questions "Setting the Goalposts"
« Reply #39 on: November 07, 2008, 04:47:37 PM »
Obadiah, if you choose to engage in a discussion on a discussion forum you must accept that you cannot expect people to accept attempts to corral the discussion within parameters that are suitable to yourself.

Then by all means Deus Ex. Tell me what parameters are suitable to you.

Offline Deus ex Machina

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3030
  • Darwins +23/-3
Re: 10 Questions "Setting the Goalposts"
« Reply #40 on: November 07, 2008, 04:51:34 PM »
Then by all means Deus Ex. Tell me what parameters are suitable to you.

I don't set any conditions either. Such is the nature of discussion forums. If you have a good argument, it will stand for itself. If it's a bad argument, or it relies on premises that are unacceptable, then I'm sure people will let you know what issues they have with it. :)

Offline Obadiah

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 125
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: 10 Questions "Setting the Goalposts"
« Reply #41 on: November 07, 2008, 05:33:40 PM »
Then by all means Deus Ex. Tell me what parameters are suitable to you.

I don't set any conditions either. Such is the nature of discussion forums. If you have a good argument, it will stand for itself. If it's a bad argument, or it relies on premises that are unacceptable, then I'm sure people will let you know what issues they have with it. :)

So if I have a good argument that demonstrates that Christianity in internally consistent, even when the 10 questions are considered. will you be satisfied in calling them "answered"?

Offline Deus ex Machina

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3030
  • Darwins +23/-3
Re: 10 Questions "Setting the Goalposts"
« Reply #42 on: November 07, 2008, 05:37:52 PM »
So if I have a good argument that demonstrates that Christianity in internally consistent, even when the 10 questions are considered. will you be satisfied in calling them "answered"?

That will depend on how well the argument stands up to critical scrutiny.

Offline Obadiah

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 125
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: 10 Questions "Setting the Goalposts"
« Reply #43 on: November 07, 2008, 05:46:43 PM »
Supposing it does.

 Assuming the argument does what it sets out to do.

But what it sets out to do is not to prove Christianity true, or to tell you what god’s actual motivations are, only to show internal consistency.

Would you be satisfied?

Offline Deus ex Machina

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3030
  • Darwins +23/-3
Re: 10 Questions "Setting the Goalposts"
« Reply #44 on: November 07, 2008, 05:51:09 PM »
Supposing it does.

 Assuming the argument does what it sets out to do.

But what it sets out to do is not to prove Christianity true, or to tell you what god’s actual motivations are, only to show internal consistency.

Would you be satisfied?

I will let you know if I am satisfied once I have seen the argument. I am not about to be tricked into being corralled into making a statement I may later regret, simply because I failed to sense an argumentative trap in advance. Sorry.

Offline Obadiah

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 125
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: 10 Questions "Setting the Goalposts"
« Reply #45 on: November 07, 2008, 06:11:05 PM »
Supposing it does.

 Assuming the argument does what it sets out to do.

But what it sets out to do is not to prove Christianity true, or to tell you what god’s actual motivations are, only to show internal consistency.

Would you be satisfied?

I will let you know if I am satisfied once I have seen the argument. I am not about to be tricked into being corralled into making a statement I may later regret, simply because I failed to sense an argumentative trap in advance. Sorry.

What you seem to be saying is that it is possible for me to present an argument which you cannot deny demonstrates that Christianity in internally consistent when the 10 questions are considered, yet still be told I’ve failed.

Is there anything I could demonstrate through valid argumentation that would definitely satisfy you with regard to the 10 questions?

If not I assume you understand why I’m hesitant to even bother.

Offline Deus ex Machina

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3030
  • Darwins +23/-3
Re: 10 Questions "Setting the Goalposts"
« Reply #46 on: November 07, 2008, 06:13:15 PM »
What you seem to be saying is that it is possible for me to present an argument which you cannot deny demonstrates that Christianity in internally consistent when the 10 questions are considered, yet still be told I’ve failed.

Is there anything I could demonstrate through valid argumentation that would definitely satisfy you with regard to the 10 questions?

If not I assume you understand why I’m hesitant to even bother.

I am not saying anything, so please do not leap to any conclusions about what I might seem to be saying. Either present your argument, or do not. Your call. I'm done with this dancing around.

Offline Obadiah

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 125
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: 10 Questions "Setting the Goalposts"
« Reply #47 on: November 07, 2008, 06:27:29 PM »
Apparently you cannot understand why I’m hesitant to bother.

Let me explain it to you real slow.

One of the central rules of logic is called Modus Ponuns. Latin for the method of affirming.

Suppose I want to affirm that the 10 questions have been answered. We’ll make that “Q”

The way to affirm that through modus ponuns would be to first establish

“if P then Q” where P is some statement

Then I would present an argument that proves P is true.

Finally I would be able to conclude that Q is therefore true.

Now I’m asking a simple question. If Q is “the 10 questions have been answered” what is P?


Because if P isn’t anything, then there is no way I can affirm Q. and the whole challenge is an unwinnable sham.

Offline Deus ex Machina

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3030
  • Darwins +23/-3
Re: 10 Questions "Setting the Goalposts"
« Reply #48 on: November 07, 2008, 06:32:49 PM »
And apparently you don't understand why I am hesitant to agree to anything at all. Trust is a thin commodity here, and I've had my share of people attempting to pull the wool over my eyes with argumentative trickery. I refuse to concede anything whatsoever only to be told later that some objection I might have is considered invalid, not because it is invalid, but rather because I've been tricked by some dishonest device.

If that presents us with an impasse before we've started, than that's too bad. Either present your argument without preconditions, or do not bother to present it at all.

Offline Obadiah

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 125
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: 10 Questions "Setting the Goalposts"
« Reply #49 on: November 07, 2008, 06:34:52 PM »
How can I present an argument, when you won't tell me what it is I am supposed to demonstrate?

Offline Deus ex Machina

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3030
  • Darwins +23/-3
Re: 10 Questions "Setting the Goalposts"
« Reply #50 on: November 07, 2008, 06:48:08 PM »
How can I present an argument, when you won't tell me what it is I am supposed to demonstrate?

I don't know what you intend to demonstrate, so why would I tell you your business? If you're intending to demonstrate - as per your OP - that the Bible is internally consistent, that's up to you, but I don't know why you'd bother. Would it address the charge that the very tools you would use to illustrate this - such as "good Christian theology" or "good exegesis" - are the same tools I would regard as self-serving mental gymnastics? Would it address the charge that the guesswork you might choose to employ is equally self-serving? That it all amounts to the very charge that this website makes - that they are, in fact, rationalizations? Do we actually have any common ground on which you can base an argument? That's for you to figure out if you intend to present one. :)

Offline jazzman

  • www.jazz24.org
  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 797
  • Darwins +3/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • I don't get no respect
Re: 10 Questions "Setting the Goalposts"
« Reply #51 on: November 07, 2008, 07:03:45 PM »
How can I present an argument, when you won't tell me what it is I am supposed to demonstrate?
Do you remember saying this?:
Quote
I’m hoping to demonstrate that good Christian theology is internally consistent in these 10 areas, In other words, that even when you consider these questions, Christianity remains viable, or “possible”.

You know what you came here to demonstrate.  Why must you ask others to tell you what to demonstrate? 

You're trying very hard to establish favorable grounds for your argument, whatever it is.  You've boasted that you're well versed in exegesis.  What are you waiting for?  Take the first of the 10 Questions -- Why won't god heal amputees? -- and answer it.  Give us your argument and let us decide whether it's reasonable.  Use your answer to the first question and show how Christianity is internally consistent.  Then move to question 2.  And so on.  You gain nothing by tap dancing.

Jazzman 
"Things you don't see: An old man having a Twix." -- Karl Pilkington

Offline Asmoday

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1344
  • Darwins +29/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: 10 Questions "Setting the Goalposts"
« Reply #52 on: November 07, 2008, 07:09:47 PM »
Obadiah, this can go on forever and a day.

If I interpret your posts in this thread correctly, you´re asking us to settle for certain "victory conditions" you need to meet to "win the game" (so to say). The problem is, that noone is going to settle on something like that.
For example if we settle on "The question is answered if there´s an internally consistent answer.", we would face the problem, that one could construct a "internal consistent" answer, which basically is a non-answer (circular reasoning etc.). So if we would point that out, the one giving the answer could go to this thread and say: "It´s an internal consistent answer. Since we agreed on that, the question is considered answered. I win, you lose. Tough luck!"


What we ask for, is that you simply try to give answers the 10 questions.
What you want from us, is that we agree on certain "victory conditions" before hand. If we would do so, you wouldn´t answer the questions but instead construct your answers so they meet the requirements to "win". Such answers are worthless.
Absilio Mundus!

I can do no wrong. For I do not know what it is.

Offline bahramthered

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3140
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: 10 Questions "Setting the Goalposts"
« Reply #53 on: November 08, 2008, 03:15:14 AM »
Obadiah: When this started I gave you the benifit of the doubt. Now it seems your determined to put this strictly into the "can not lose" category by your answer and cavorts.

Either start posting answers or run and hide. You've lost the battle to decide what counts. Time to fight or give up.

Offline jazzman

  • www.jazz24.org
  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 797
  • Darwins +3/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • I don't get no respect
Re: 10 Questions "Setting the Goalposts"
« Reply #54 on: November 09, 2008, 06:49:34 PM »
Looks like Obadiah has left the building.

Jazzman
"Things you don't see: An old man having a Twix." -- Karl Pilkington

Offline Obadiah

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 125
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: 10 Questions "Setting the Goalposts"
« Reply #55 on: November 10, 2008, 03:55:48 PM »
Darn it all!


I was all set to completely rip Deus Ex a new one for being afraid to give me any conditions whatsoever, and then attract the people who didn’t step in and disagree by association… When I suddenly bought your argument.

You’re right, All of a sudden I can totally see how some born-again drone could walk in here and get you to agree with something, and then argue for that something in an idiotic way and declare victory.

From where I’m standing if I argued for the agreed upon conditions using fallacies then the argument would be thrown out on that basis (as opposed to the basis that it’s goal was wrong) and I thought your refusal to accept a goal was cowardly. But now I see what you mean.

Here’s the problem:

I wasn’t kidding about the job, I really don’t have time just to talk to deaf ears like I used to. I understand this will look like cowards, but what the heck, it’s anonymous right?

Forget criteria, forget victory conditions, all I really need is to know there is any possibility to actually be heard.

Unless someone can show me that it is possible I could say something negative to the 10 questions and get a positive response, I’m just going to sit down.

I’m not asking fro proof that I could convince you god exists, or Christianity is true, I’m just looking for evidence that a non-atheist could make a good point and atheists could respond on this board that “Hey that’s a good point”

I doubt you can show me that, so I think I’m going to abandon this project, feel free to make fun of me, I understand.

Offline jazzman

  • www.jazz24.org
  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 797
  • Darwins +3/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • I don't get no respect
Re: 10 Questions "Setting the Goalposts"
« Reply #56 on: November 10, 2008, 04:11:00 PM »
Forget criteria, forget victory conditions, all I really need is to know there is any possibility to actually be heard.
You've always had the opportunity.  We haven't stopped you presenting your argument.  You walked in here and demanded preconditions; you demanded that we agree ahead of time to accept your argument if you thought it was reasonable.  It doesn't work that way. 

You can present your argument any time you want.  You don't need "victory conditions" to do it.  Just get on with it.

Jazzman
"Things you don't see: An old man having a Twix." -- Karl Pilkington

Offline Idioteque

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 786
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: 10 Questions "Setting the Goalposts"
« Reply #57 on: November 10, 2008, 04:15:26 PM »
Quote
I wasn’t kidding about the job, I really don’t have time just to talk to deaf ears like I used to. I understand this will look like cowards, but what the heck, it’s anonymous right?

Forget criteria, forget victory conditions, all I really need is to know there is any possibility to actually be heard.

Unless someone can show me that it is possible I could say something negative to the 10 questions and get a positive response, I’m just going to sit down.

I’m not asking fro proof that I could convince you god exists, or Christianity is true, I’m just looking for evidence that a non-atheist could make a good point and atheists could respond on this board that “Hey that’s a good point”

I doubt you can show me that, so I think I’m going to abandon this project, feel free to make fun of me, I understand.

I see where you are coming from. The problem is that there is probably no way you can answer these questions sufficiently without making assumptions. You can make a good point, but atheists aren't going to pat you on the back because anything you can say will have inherent contradictions or fallacies. Try to understand that I'm not trying to undermine you, it's just that these questions have never been answered to the extent that non-believers will say "oh, okay I get it now." The nature of the questions is such that when answered, make an assumption in another area that can be attacked to destroy the point. When you answer that point, your answer contradicts another that you gave, and such makes a vicious cycle that cannot be won.

Of course, your request to have conditions on your arguments solves this problem for you, but in that case it's obvious that you can answer them satisfactorily. Unfortunately this can't be allowed, because in the end it doesn't solve anything. Sure, you've explained the questions in regard to your conditions, but as soon as the conditions are lifted from them the holes emerge and we're back to where we started. Unfortunately for your arguments, your goalposts must be "proof that God exists". Anything less leaves something to be desired.

I don't blame you a bit for backing out, and hope that others don't give you a hard time for it. I think you've done the sensible, mature thing where others would fumble stubbornly onward. On that note, I would love to see your answers to the ten questions, and I think we all promise to listen, but just be prepared to have them attacked from every angle. You will be heard, but you will not be agreed with.  :)
Just 'cause you feel it, doesn't mean it's there