Did a man named Jesus rise from the dead?

[Fran]

If i say anything smart... it's not from me... it's from WLC and Habermas, etc.  If I am able to respond at all... it's not because I'm smart or even know how to... but it's because I scour their stuff to get the answers.

Then why aren't you citing the reference source so we can see the context from where this stuff is pulled!

That's the whole point of citing sources when you don't use your own material!

If you have no original thoughts then there's no point in debating YOU - just post a link to WLC and Habermas sites!

Mods? Please tell me why we are debating someone who has, by their own admission - no original thoughts?

Good Grief!

Go ahead and try debating either one of them.  You won't have any success trying to reach them for any debate because they are so busy.   I personally have only received one response from them and I've written a couple of times.

At least with me, you can interact and ask questions.

The sources I use are from their debates and from their books.   If at the end of my posts, you want me to list all the sources I use... then fine... I will do so.  But it will be repetitive because I think I have found all their sources and I don't have new sources to offer in each of my posts.  So it will probably be the same sources each time.

Take Care
Fran

[Fran]

IN fact, I can list them now if you want

[HAL]

Mods - I apologize for posting in the main debate thread - but this is very important.

Go ahead and try debating either one of them.  You won't have any success trying to reach them for any debate because they are so busy.   I personally have only received one response from them and I've written a couple of times.

That's not the point Fran! Congratulations on sidestepping the essence of plagiarism ^^^. You are no different than most of the other theists on the forum in this regard. What is it with theists and plagiarism?

At least with me, you can interact and ask questions.

You have just admitted the opposite! We want to know what YOU are thinking - not somebody else. Who is FRAN?

The sources I use are from their debates and from their books.   If at the end of my posts, you want me to list all the sources I use... then fine... I will do so.  But it will be repetitive because I think I have found all their sources and I don't have new sources to offer in each of my posts.  So it will probably be the same sources each time.

That's not our problem - it's YOUR problem!

If you are using material from other sources, you must cite the source. Whether it's repetitive or not isn't the point at all. Do you know why? Because we can then go read it and see if there are any points or facts that you conveniently decided to pass over. So we can review the material and make sure what you are picking out of it will stand on it's own. Not to mention giving the author proper credit!

If you admittedly have no original thoughts, again - Mods? Why are we debating this guy? What is the point if you can't respond with original thoughts? Do you understand the ramifications? If we make YOU reconsider the FMF - YOU - not those other two people - then admittedly YOU won't be able to give us YOUR original response. YOURS - YOURS - YOURS - that's the point of a debate. If the whole debate is propped up by non-original thoughts and responses then we might as well just read the site or book that you are plagiarizing from. If you just run off and find something to respond with when we we are causing YOU to think on your own, but you won't give us your own ideas and considerations, then it's a facade we are debating, not a real person.

 Mods - this is completely ridiculous!

[HAL]

I'm sorry for the bad language - but this is bullshit. Fran has just admitted he can't or won't type out any original ideas, and that ain't gonna cut it for me.

In other words, even if we managed to get him to have a sliver of doubt about the FMF with our own original ideas (yes congrats to us all for those), he simply won't type out his own thoughts about it. He will instead scour William Lane Crackpot for some kind, any kind of answer to re-type. He'll apparently never be able to type out what HE thinks on his own, probably because he thinks he might slip up and get caught up in an argument that he can't support outside of WLC's stuff.

And that's bullshit.

[monkeymind]

I am wondering Fran, since you say that you are not smart enough to come up with the 4MF arguments and must rely totally on WLC and Habermas, are you also aware that you may not be smart enough to know when you are being led astray by WLC and Habermas?

Why not (at least temporarily) abandoned WLC and Habermas, and see how your own ideas and understanding hold up under closer scrutiny?

[Deus ex Machina]

Re HAL's comment #316 above: I agree with you (but I'm still obliged to move the post). But then, we knew this in advance, which is one reason why I maintain that turning this section into the Fran Show - or more accurately, the WLC Show By Proxy - was a ridiculous idea to begin with. My hands are tied. I'm not responsible for the fact that the Admins saw fit to stage and highlight a battle of wits between unequal opponents. Admins?

[Operator_A25]

Forum rules are very clear on the issue of plagiarism, and they don't make exceptions for your convenience, Fran. Listing your sources outside of the post in which they are referenced is pointless. You would have to go back and amend your posts to correct the situation.

[Operator_A25]

I've merged the last few posts from the main debate into the commentary thread. Sorry if I've stepped on someone's toes, here. I'll leave it alone now.

[HAL]

Is that why it takes Fran so long to respond? Because he's afraid to say ANYTHING on his own? Because he doesn't want a sliver of a chance we can catch him outside of his protective WLC inviso-shield saying what HE really thinks about our arguments? WTF? If he's that unsure of what he himself thinks then these debates are a farce. Might as well debate a robot.

That's why I say bullshit.

[Inactive_1]

Fran,

I'm a little concerned about how you are approaching these debates, (as I see both Mods and several other members with serious concerns), and I see some members getting aggravated at your seeming admission you have no original thoughts, so here's what I want you to do on your own recognizance -

I am not going to lock this thread so the other debater can respond, but until we get this sorted out, I want you to post in the commentary thread only. This situation is concerning me because I'm not completely sure what it is you are doing. It may be fine but I want to hear other opinions along with your own, until we understand how you are approaching these debates. I've just never heard of anyone that had no original thoughts at all, as you freely admitted.

I'm sure we can cone to some understanding, but until then, let's get it all sorted out in the commentary thread please. I will post my concerns from what I've read from the other mods and members in a little while in the commentary thread.

Thanks.

EDIT: Temporary lock for 1 hour ? until I get my post up in the commentary thread and I feel it's being addressed by Fran - sorry for the inconvenience

[Inactive_1]

I have asked Fran to only post in this thread until we all understand better what is going on.

I am writing up an initial starting post, give me about an hour or so to review it all. After that, we'll start discussing these issues, and hopefully get back to the debating.

Thanks

[Star Stuff]

... but as I said before... I'm not smart.

I really dislike this mock self-flagellation.  Not only do I suspect that you don't really think of yourself as unintelligent, but your "smart / not smart" terms are highly simplistic and don't even exist.  Nobody is either smart or not smart, there is merely a graduated scale, and, there are different kinds of "smarts".  So please drop this false humility that many christians seem to love to use as a manipulative tool.

What would be refreshing is for you to embrace a level of intellectual honesty.  After all, the corner you have been painted into is one which says that in order to accept the christian salvation story, one must be really really smart!  Do you see how that fails?

[monkeymind]

^^^^I addressed this with Fran in the very early stages of this debate and he stopped talking to me because of it.


Edit: Correction...... should have said -in the earlier thread this one split from...

[Inactive_1]

Fran,

From what I have read, there are two issues going on between you and the other members, and our rules (if I've missed anything, please point it out) -

1. Plagiarism

2. Originality in your responses

Regarding issue 1 -

Let's review the definiition of plagiarism:

pla·gia·rism
? ?/?ple?d???r?z?m, -d?i??r?z-/ Show Spelled[pley-juh-riz-uhm, -jee-uh-riz-] Show IPA
–noun
1.
the unauthorized use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own original work.
2.
something used and represented in this manner.[1]

Some of this ties in with issue 2, but it seems to me that if you are only using material from WLC and others, and that is all the material you use (you seem to have admitted you have nothing original to add), then by definition all your posts are just reformulated material from these other sources and since part of the definition is -

"or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own original work."

and continuing, since you don't cite the source material by link to a specific page or author of the material in your posts, then we have several concerns. One is that there is no way we can tell, sentence by sentence, paragraph by paragraph, post by post, who it is you are citing and where it came from. Simply telling everybody you have no original ideas and you will be re-posting other people's material, even if you say who it is as a blanket release, isn't good enough. Here's why - because people reading these posts may not know that you "absolved yourself" of citing (and as of now I am not allowing that anymore) because you said you were using WLC and other's material, in some post many days or months ago, the reader will think your material is your original ideas. That's why accurate citations are important in every post you make if the material isn't your material. If every post has to have citations, then so be it, nobody is forcing you to only post reformulated material that belongs to other people.

Second important point, as another member pointed out, giving a precise citation (not just "I got it from this book") enables the reader to see for him/her self the original context of the material and if they so choose, to rebut your point based on other materiel in the same part of the book or website that the original citation came from. This keeps the debates honest because many people will simply copy/paste only the part that buttresses their points, while leaving other material that doesn't support their point alone.

So from now on, if you are not posting your own materiel, you must cite the source as accurately as possible. I suggest using the nb tags to place the citations at the bottom of the post. If you really don't have anything new or original to offer, then this is big job, but I must say, I've never heard of a debater that didn't have any original material or thoughts, so I don't think this would have ever been an issue for anyone else here. But, such is the burden for you if you have no original ideas.

Please acknowledge your understanding of this here.

Regarding issue 2 -

Originality in your responses

Like I said before, if I was going to be debating the topic of Einstein's theories, I would have to use ALL of his work because there is no way I can think more orginaly than him regarding his theories.  The same is true in regard to WLC... and I've already said I was using all of his stuff.  Not my stuff.  But his stuff.  He's the one who did the work.  I can't.  I'm not that smart.

Here's the problem as I see it, based on my experience here and based on the way this community likes to interact, and based on some of the complaints I've read about your posts. Citing references to source material is required, and everyone does it from time to time to make a very important point in their argument. That's all well and good. But here's the problem for the community of WWGHA. We want to know what you think about things. We want to know what you consider logical and rational, not some other person.  We want to probe your own thoughts and ideas, and bounce off our opinions about your outlook, not some other guy that wrote a book. He's not here - you are. The other members respond with their own thoughts - why can't you?

If you are not smart as you keep saying (and I don't believe that) but if that's really the case, you need to learn from others after posting your own (not smart) ideas. That goes for everyone, but if you are so afraid or tentative or being so very careful as to make sure you never are able to be challenged on original ideas, that you cannot ever post an original thought, if you are so afraid you might slip up and have an error of your own pointed out, then I would suggest you just tell us that so-and-so has a book about Jesus' resurrection and to go read it ourselves. Why do we need you as a middleman with no original ideas? It seems to me that you just want to say, if the members point out an error, that it's all WLC's fault, you had nothing to do with the error. What if WLC isn't as smart as you might think? If you simply regurgitate his writing at every turn, without taking time to consider the possibility he also might be wrong, and using your own logic to follow this possibility, you have trapped yourself in a corner without realizing it. Do you see this?

I want you to understand this problem, and I do believe it is causing a problem. Everyone makes mistakes, and everyone learns here. You aren't any different, and you shouldn't want to hide behind other people's ideas and work. You need to start giving us your own original ideas about the members original ideas. That's the best way to operate in this community. The way we'll know if you start doing this is if you post and there are no citations, because you have already told us that you have no original ideas at all so every post will have citations, unless you start to talk to us as an individual person with individual personal ideas. I personally do not believe that you don't, and I ask you to please start interacting with the members with your own ideas and reactions to their posts.

Will you give us a pledge to start doing this Fran?

Addendum: Any and all productive comments are welcome

1.	http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/plagiarism

[jazzman]

From Fran's reply #1452 in the debate thread:

…  I don't have any original things that come from my head concerning this material.

From one perspective, that’s OK.  If I was to argue with someone about the evolution of life on this planet, I’d have nothing original to offer.   Everything I know about evolution comes from the published works of scientists.  

If I want to make any kind of claim about evolution, I NEED to cite scientific sources, since I’m not a recognized authority on the subject.  

In your case, you’re working with facts you seem to believe are generally known and accepted; you don’t need to cite the Bible itself as the source of those facts because we all have access to a Bible and can read it for ourselves.  But you do NEED to cite your sources when it comes to presenting conclusions about those facts, or interpretations about them, if what you present comes from people other than you, or if it's information from non-biblical sources that are not generally available to the average person.  

And there's one point in particular that you need to rethink: the idea that "the vast majority" of scholars agree on the four minimal facts.  Can you support that statement with hard evidence?  Have you polled all or most scholars to see where they stand on this?  Or are you simply taking WLC's word for it?  
If you asked me to show that the vast majority of scientists in the world (or at least in America) accept the fact of evolution of life on earth, I can give you a significant number of formal statements from scientific organizations that demonstrates how well-accepted is the fact of evolution.  Can you do the same for the statement "The vast majority of scholars agree on the FMF"?

More importantly, how do the vast majority of scholars interpret those "facts"?  Do they agree that the best explanation for those facts is the resurrection of Jesus?  Or do they recognize that the "historical method" cannot reasonably lead them to conclude that a miracle occurred?

We here who oppose you recognize that your (I mean WLC's) conclusion is not logically the best explanation for the facts as you (and WLC, et al) read them.  Your/his conclusion is one of several conclusions we can draw from the Bible stories about Jesus' death and resurrection.  Anfauglir, HAL and Kcrady gave you several possibilities, and we can also recognize that the biblical story is the embellishment it appears to be, heavily influenced by human fallibility and politics; not a story based in literal truth, but in fanciful imagination.

I don't have the brain power to respond originally.
 …  it's a CERTAINITY that I NEED to scour WLC's and Habermas' stuff to respond to debate points in here.

Does this mean you’re allowing WLC, et al, to do your thinking for you?  

The problem with using WLC, et al, is that you get locked into his or their way of thinking, and that doesn’t allow you to be the freethinker you’ve claimed to be.   You can’t reason your way through your debate opponents’ comments on your own without referring to WLC, et al.  What happens when you must confront a debate point that WLC doesn’t address anywhere?  

If I am able to respond at all... it's not because I'm smart or even know how to... but it's because I scour their stuff to get the answers.

Then we’re not really debating YOU, are we?

If you want... I can put a disclaimer at the bottom of each of my posts for newcomers saying in effect that anything in my posts which sounds intelligent, came from WLC and Habermas... and not from me.

Don’t be silly.   And please knock off the false modesty.

A disclaimer isn’t what you need.  You need attribution.  And you need to insert attribution at the moment you present someone else’s work in this debate, not at the bottom of your post.

Take a lesson from any good journalist.  Do what they do and cite your sources where readers can clearly connect the attribution with the material to which the attribution refers.  You can say “according to”, or ”so-and-so said”, just before you present their information (or just after).   You can also use a footnote indicator and include your attribution in some sort of bibliography.  Attributing your source material is the quickest, cleanest and best way to avoid the plagiarism virus.  It makes more work for you, but the payoff is your good credibility.  How much is that worth to you?

Jazzman

Edited to rephrase an idea

[HAL]

You are supposed to be debating us Fran - member-to-member, you and me. You and kcrady. You and Anfauglir. You and Jazzman - not member-to-middleman (Fran)-to-WLC and back again. What are you, just a piece of telephone wire relaying information from somebody else to us?

See, it's one thing to use sources to buttress your ideas and thoughts, fine and dandy, yippee, great stuff. That's to be expected. But if you don't know the material even well enough to never post your own ideas about it without constant reformatting of WLC, that's not debating, that's just passing along information from a person we can't rebut or talk to. If I was asked to debate a person on Einsteins theories, well I probably wouldn't even get into it, because I don't know it well enough to get deep into it. I wouldn't tell them, OK I'll debate you, but I don't know it, I don't have any original ideas and I can't think original thoughts on it, so everything I say will just be repostings from Einstein's own books and papers. If you find a problem don't blame me because I have no ideas about it myself. I'm not that smart. That's not a debate, that's just being an errand boy for Einstein. We aren't interested in people doing that. If you can't step up to the plate and debate on your own, then you shouldn't be in the debate area.

This is how it appears to me -

HAL: "Why do you think these facts are really historical facts?"

Fran: "Hold on, I'll go find out what WLC says about it and be back in a couple of days..."

A couple of days later -

Fran: "OK, they are facts because WLC says...and by the way I'm not citing the exact source, because I already told everybody I was using WLC material"

HAL: "But what about my new challenge to you regarding flawed records? What do you think of that?"

Fran: "Hold on, I'll go find out what WLC says about it and be back in a couple of days or a week ..."

A couple of days later -

Fran: "OK, that idea is flawed because WLC says..."

HAL: WTF? What do YOU have to say about it all! Don't you know anything about this subject at all? Can't you extrapolate your knowledge of this subject by yourself and respond to our thoughts on it?"

Fran: "Well, I told you I would be using WLC's material, and that I have no original ideas on it. Besides, I'm not smart..."

See this Fran, this is an original idea I thought up myself to explain the FMF (even though I've told you it's not our responsibility)

--> http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php?topic=12675.0

See what I did? I stepped up and went out on a limb. I don't know if you can destroy that argument. Maybe I'll look like a fool after it's all over with, maybe I won't. But I'm willing to think of original material and debate you on it in front of this forum. That's what YOU need to do. Think original thoughts and go out on a limb. Think for yourself, take a stand, and post. Yes, you may be wrong and you may get your ass whipped, but then again maybe you won't. That's the difference between debating and being an errand boy for WLC. You act to me like you are scared that you will be shown to be wrong, and don't want that to happen in front of the forum. You act like you want WLC to take the heat so you can always run from the argument if it fails - after all you don't have any of your own ideas so we can't blame you right?

Sorry, that ain't gonna cut it here. What do YOU think Fran? Can you step up and tell us or not?

[MadBunny]

Well, neither explanation actually is reasonable at all.
Has this debate truly devolved to the point where people are deciding which of the invented explanations is the 'least' unreasonable?

Yes, but what did you expect when it started off with the 4 minimal facts which end up not being facts and not being just four?

ADDED: Anyways, Fran may see that the UFO explanation is unreasonable and then realize it is the same for his position.

Right, but given the original terms of the debate, which if memory serves was with Fran and Kcrady, that ended already.  Right?

Let me see if I understand this correctly. 

Fran posits that there are some irreducible facts centered around the resurection story.  These four facts are irrefutable and can be shown to be verifiable via cross referencing records.  Like the story of a total eclipse happening in the middle of a battle for example, can be verified relatively easily using location and solar data completely independent of the source story.

Am I right so far?

The flipside of this particular debate was to show that these four facts are far from verifiable, or for that matter irreducible, whether it be because the 'facts' are not verifiable via methods outside the story, or because alternative explanations exist.

Still on track?

[Anfauglir]

Like I said before, if I was going to be debating the topic of Einstein's theories, I would have to use ALL of his work because there is no way I can think more orginaly than him regarding his theories.  The same is true in regard to WLC... and I've already said I was using all of his stuff.  Not my stuff.  But his stuff.  He's the one who did the work.  I can't.  I'm not that smart.

We want to know what you think about things. We want to know what you consider logical and rational, not some other person.  We want to probe your own thoughts and ideas, and bounce off our opinions about your outlook, not some other guy that wrote a book. He's not here - you are. The other members respond with their own thoughts - why can't you?

I can't tell whether you are granting the existence of aliens or not...which makes it rather difficult to argue with you!  Can you clarify, please, whether your argument is:

(a) Aliens do NOT exist, there is no evidence for them.
(b) Aliens DO exist, the evidence proves them to be mean and nasty and fear-causing.

So essentially... I was saying that there is no evidence for the kinds of aliens you need for your hypothesis to work.... BUT, if you were to respond that you do have evidence that they exist, then I wanted you to consider some other things in your response.

The problem as I see it - as expressed by Admin here and as evidence by the response from Fran to me, above - is this:

Fran is using someone else's arguments.  He admits he has nothing of his own.  MY problem with that is that when and if I (or anyone) raises a point that is NOT covered in Fran's sources.....then the point will NOT be directly addressed.  If WLC et al never considered a point we raise, then Fran will (by his own admission) be unable to respond.

I believe that is what happened above - I asked Fran a direct question based on his (I now see) cut-and-paste response to me, and he was not able to answer it: because (presumably) it is a question that WLC have never considered.  Fran pointed out my theory has never been seriously proposed in argument, so likely they have never had to consider it as a response (the same applies to Hal's hypothesis, or to ANY specific "natural" argument - if WLC didn't consider it, Fran will not be able to answer it).

Does that mean that I "win" the debate?  I don't necessarily think so - because I'm NOT debating the people with the original ideas, who MAY be able to answer me.  What it DOES, definitively mean, however, is that it is impossible for Fran to win the debate, since HE will be unable to answer any original point made against "his" side of the argument.

So what I think that means is that the debates - ALL of them - need to be closed, with a statement to the effect that specific objections to the original FTF hypothesis were unable to be answered by the OP, and that therefore the hypothesis - "did Jesus rise from the dead" - is not proved.

I'm annoyed and frustrated as hell to have to suggest that - I've put a lot of time and effort into this debate, as have many others here.  But for all the effort we expended, it seems we may as well have been standing in a room shouting at one of WLCs books, for all the "debate" that we were actually getting.

Anf.

P.S. To Fran - if you would like to continue the thread on the 3 subsidiary questions - perhaps moved out of the debate area - I'd be happy to continue that with you.  Happy because I would be debating YOU there, since it seems that they were, perhaps, the only original questions you asked.)

[Tinyal]

No wonder I've been so confused by Fran's responses - none of them have actually been his responses.  The delays are now well explained.  It became clear to me, however, when from the beginning he started saying things like 'the majority of scholars agree' etc, etc that he was blowing that out of his piehole.  It's obivious nothing can get past his inability to think for himself - he lives and breathes the (wrong) thoughts of others.  A completely closed mind.

I did, however, learn quite a bit by those who debated opposite Fran, so it wasn't a complete loss.

But if I was one of the debaters, I also would be quite upset, finding out I was debating with a plagiarizer - debating with copypasta is a waste of time.  There's only one life each of us has, and all of us (in my view) wasted a small chunk of it on that lying s.o.b

Am sorry for you guys/gals, that you honestly put in all that effort for a lying plagiarizer

[Inactive_1]

Again, this is the information, the admissions, that concerns me and from what I've seen, other members and the debate room moderators -

Like I said before, if I was going to be debating the topic of Einstein's theories, I would have to use ALL of his work because there is no way I can think more orginaly than him regarding his theories.  The same is true in regard to WLC... and I've already said I was using all of his stuff.  Not my stuff.  But his stuff.  He's the one who did the work.  I can't.  I'm not that smart.

You've hit it on the nail and proves that I don't have any original things that come from my head concerning this material.  I don't have the brain power to respond originally.  So it's not a "for all we know" case... but it's a CERTAINITY that I NEED to scour WLC's and Habermas' stuff to respond to debate points in here.

If i say anything smart... it's not from me... it's from WLC and Habermas, etc.  If I am able to respond at all... it's not because I'm smart or even know how to... but it's because I scour their stuff to get the answers.

I wish I could talk with them everyday so that I DON'T HAVE TO TAKE SO MUCH TIME SCOURING their stuff... but as I said before... i'm not smart.

I'm going to continue adding my own observations until we hear from Fran. I'd also like to hear from the other moderators.

I believe that is what happened above - I asked Fran a direct question based on his (I now see) cut-and-paste response to me, and he was not able to answer it: because (presumably) it is a question that WLC have never considered.  Fran pointed out my theory has never been seriously proposed in argument, so likely they have never had to consider it as a response (the same applies to Hal's hypothesis, or to ANY specific "natural" argument - if WLC didn't consider it, Fran will not be able to answer it).

Part of what I'm pressing Fran to do is to answer the members himself, using his own knowledge, using his own rational mind. Take a few minutes to respond, not a few days or weeks - is it really that hard to come up with responses to HAL, Jazzman, kcrady and the others? Nobody knows all the answers, everyone here makes mistakes, everyone here has been called out on them. I want Fran to step up and say what he thinks, and yes possibly make a mistake - that's part of learning. I want to hear his own ideas on why he thinks the members are wrong, and yes, I want to hear his own ideas about how they could be right too. I can't believe none of our intelligent debaters hasn't raised a single good point, a single good idea against the FMF. We don't care so much about what WLC would think as much as we care what Fran thinks. If Fran disagrees with WLC then is it against his religion to say so openly?

In other words, the members debating you, Jazzman, Anfauglir, et. al., aren't going to books only that argue against the FMF for their responses (are you guys?). They don't have to depend on someone else to debate you. Why is it they can come up with original counters to your (WLC's) arguments on their own, and you can't counter them on your own? No, you are smart, please don't respond that way.

Does that mean that I "win" the debate?  I don't necessarily think so - because I'm NOT debating the people with the original ideas, who MAY be able to answer me.  What it DOES, definitively mean, however, is that it is impossible for Fran to win the debate, since HE will be unable to answer any original point made against "his" side of the argument.

It may mean you "win" because in my opinion this area is between the members debating - not between a member, a middleman, and an author that won't debate here himself. If Fran sees an argument that he doesn't have a response to, or can't dig one up out of WLC books, then I want to see a couple of "That's a good point that I don't have an answer for, I don't know" here and there, rather than silence for days and weeks. "I don't know" is perfectly fine as an answer here.

So what I think that means is that the debates - ALL of them - need to be closed, with a statement to the effect that specific objections to the original FTF hypothesis were unable to be answered by the OP, and that therefore the hypothesis - "did Jesus rise from the dead" - is not proved.

We won't close the main thread because it was originally in the main boards area. If we can't get it going with mostly Fran's original thoughts and responses (yes it's fine to bolster his arguments with references to WLC on important points), then I'm going to move it back to the main forum boards.

I'm annoyed and frustrated as hell to have to suggest that - I've put a lot of time and effort into this debate, as have many others here.  But for all the effort we expended, it seems we may as well have been standing in a room shouting at one of WLCs books, for all the "debate" that we were actually getting.

Again, it will be moved to a main board as a last resort, where you can continue; however, it won't be moderated as a formal debate there, and everyone will be able to comment in it as usual for a main board thread (the commentary thread will be archived). I'm hoping Fran will step up and debate you as a person using his own logic and learning regarding these issues, and not depend on WLC for all his responses. Contrary to what Fran thinks, I've not seen a document that says WLC has the definitive last word on this subject. In other words he might be wrong.

Like I said before, if I was going to be debating the topic of Einstein's theories, I would have to use ALL of his work because there is no way I can think more orginaly than him regarding his theories...

Einstein was wrong on a couple of ideas too Fran. If you always goes to WLC for answers, then how can you consider the possibility WLC might be wrong?

I wish I could talk with them everyday so that I DON'T HAVE TO TAKE SO MUCH TIME SCOURING their stuff... but as I said before... i'm not smart.

Stop demeaning yourself, stop scouring other people's work, and post what you think about this issue. I'm  hoping for a little faster give and take, which is what we would expect between two active members who log in every day. I want these debates to move along a lot quicker. Contrary to what Fran claims, I do think he is smart and I do think he knows the material well enough to do this. But, if you do need to cite something from WLC or anyone else, I want a precise citation, not just "As stated in this book...", I want precise page numbers, or web links, because I want the debaters to be able to see the context of the citation you are using so they can read it for themselves and counter with any other points near the point you are using.

P.S. To Fran - if you would like to continue the thread on the 3 subsidiary questions - perhaps moved out of the debate area - I'd be happy to continue that with you.  Happy because I would be debating YOU there, since it seems that they were, perhaps, the only original questions you asked.)

Fran? What are you going to do regarding the formal debates? I want you to read all these posts and tell me what you are going to do. Continue with mainly your own ideas and thoughts about what the other members are asking you, or not?

[monkeymind]

The flipside of this particular debate was to show that these four facts are far from verifiable, or for that matter irreducible, whether it be because the 'facts' are not verifiable via methods outside the story, or because alternative explanations exist.

Still on track?

Sounds like you are on track to me.

[MadBunny]

The flipside of this particular debate was to show that these four facts are far from verifiable, or for that matter irreducible, whether it be because the 'facts' are not verifiable via methods outside the story, or because alternative explanations exist.

Still on track?

Sounds like you are on track to me.

Right, but that was done already, in the first couple pages of this so called debate.  The 4MF were shattered easily, and unsurprisingly.  Hence.... end of debate.  After that it's just all discussion about whatever.  I was confused at the length of this, since it doesn't seem to be going anywhere.

Why the huge fran salad of topics and a whole section of offshoots dedicated to Fran?

[MadBunny]

I have a question for Fran..

There isn't really a problem using other ideas in a debate, for example there was somebody recently debating over the Kalaam Cosmological Argument, which obviously came from somewhere, and was compelling enough to that person to be an explanation. 

However, not all arguments will 'win' a debate.  Why not just concede that the argument in question has faults in it and move on?    You're a pretty smart guy, you certainly write well enough and there can be little doubt that you've put in lots of time and effort on a forum where that time and effort probably isn't as rewarding as it could be.  However, I know that you've seen on the forums here that what we value most tends to be intellectual honesty.  For a person to say "I don't know" rather than stretching out already tenuous stories with rationalizations is usually far simpler.  There will be times when new information and new ideas evolve out of old ones, that would be the appropriate time to revisit the original and see how it fares.

Most of us here believe in the scientific method, which means we also understand the idea of a self correcting mechanism.  We're not the ones that need things writ in stone.  We understand fully that there are occasionally things that seem to work on the surface, and even underscrutiny but at their core are false.  Look at the study of Ether someday.  Lots of science came up around it and supporting it.  It was shown categorically over time to be false and today you won't see any serious scientist using it to support his research.


So, why not just admit that the ideas behind the 4mf are flawed and move on?  You should know by now, after all the time you've spent around us that there are precious few verifiable facts available to go along with christianity.

[HAL]

Hmmm...

We seem to have a Jeckyll and Hyde on our hands.

Exhibit A -

You've hit it on the nail and proves that I don't have any original things that come from my head concerning this material.  I don't have the brain power to respond originally.  So it's not a "for all we know" case... but it's a CERTAINITY that I NEED to scour WLC's and Habermas' stuff to respond to debate points in here.

Exhibit B -

2)... If you are faced with certain facts... everyone (scientists and historians included)... we use our minds and logic to try and determine the best explanation of those facts... to infer the best conclusion from those facts... regardless where they lead us... because the best minds... the honest minds... the open minds... will always strive to let the evidence and facts LEAD THEM... and not the other way around.  That is what being objective is all about.

Who is the person that wrote that ^^^?

"we use our minds and logic to try and determine the best explanation of those facts... to infer the best conclusion from those facts... regardless where they lead us... because the best minds... the honest minds... the open minds... will always strive to let the evidence and facts LEAD THEM"

"I don't have the brain power to respond originally"

What are we to make of these seemingly conflicting admissions? If you are not smart as you admit, then how can you "infer the best conclusion from those facts... "? My oh my.

So when I start an inquiry... i do my best to divest myself of as much biases... prejudices... emotions... pre-conceived conclusions... etc... as I can to help me better to let the evidence and facts lead me to an objective conclusion... even if that conclusion is painful... or even if it demands a paradigm shift in my world view and preconcieved notions about reality.

But you obviously don't divest yourself of William Lane Craig if you can't post anything original from your own mind.

"even if that conclusion is painful" ...

"i do my best to divest myself of as much biases... prejudices... emotions... pre-conceived conclusions.."

Sounds to me like the pain of admitting WLC could be wrong is too much for you. Sounds to me like you are biased and have a pre-conceived conclusion that WLC is right.

Sounds to me like you are afraid to think outside of your "box". That's too bad Fran.

[monkeymind]

Why the huge fran salad of topics and a whole section of offshoots dedicated to Fran?

I dunno, maybe Fran is worth the effort. Perhaps WLC's last debate will be with Fran. 

[Deus ex Machina]

My primary issue (but not my only one) with this entire debate is simply that it doesn't belong here.

The original claim (being able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the resurrection actually occurred) appears to have been all but abandoned. That ought to have been the end of the thread. But no; we've instead ended up with assertion that non-theists must come up with a naturalistic explanation that explains these so-called "four minimal facts" in the teeth of bitter objection to the notion that anyone is obliged to accept those "minimal facts" at all (which should also have stopped the thread dead in its tracks), in a game that is designed to set up the proponent of the claim as judge and jury over what is considered "reasonable" and shout down as "biased" any dissenting voices.

That's not a reasonable debate by any stretch - it's pure snake-oil salesmanship, which is hardly surprising given the argument's origin.

Which is why, in my view, it never belonged in this section in the first place. As a formal debate, if the nature of what Fran was trying to do had been evident in discussions about the terms of debate before it had started, no-one in their right mind would have agreed to a debate on his terms. And nor should they; it is set up to privilege his (or rather, WLC's) position.

On the subject of Fran's statements to the effect that his arguments are not his at all, and that he has nothing of his own to say, there's little I can say to that that hasn't already been said. All this time I've called Fran out for his games, his attempts to stack arguments in his favour by privileging his position, his manufactured outrage at words he finds personally disagreeable, his disingenuous self-effacement and his constant goalpost-shifting - and had him sulk at me and refuse to talk to me as a result. This latest admission from him does, I think, pretty much vindicate my position.

He can't help but appear dishonest because we've been arguing with two different people.

On the one hand we have Fran, who writes not well but too much, gets upset when people use words he doesn't like to describe concepts he holds dear, gets finnicky about the use of words (witness the ejection of toys from the pram when I used the term "magic" to describe certain supernatural occurrences that are articles of faith), has only recently discovered what "logical fallacies" are (and doesn't yet know how to identify them correctly) and doesn't entirely understand the arguments he's presenting.

On the other, we have Fran-acting-as-WLC, of which much has already been said, but I have to add that if one chooses to place themselves in the shoes of someone whose argumentative style is inherently dishonest, then one can hardly complain when one is called out for appearing... well, dishonest.

Never mind this section; this forum does not exist merely for people to regurgitate ideas they've learned by rote, no matter who originally came up with them. I would respectfully suggest to the forum staff that an admission like that not only warrants the removal of the threads in question from this section back to GRD, but also raises the question of whether Fran needs a spell in the Emergency Room to review his purpose in posting on this forum at all. Seriously; if someone wants to know what WLC thinks, they can go read the wealth of material that's available on the Internet. We don't need Fran to be WLC's prophet or messenger. More to the point, Fran doesn't need Fran to be WLC's prophet or messenger. It's stifling his own ability to think. And that's a terrible tragedy.

So to summarise: I am in an impossible position here. I can't referee a debate that I don't think should belong here, with no structure or format, with someone with whom I have had run-ins before on the matter of their argumentative tactics and who I simply do not think has been entirely straight with anyone. I would dearly love to referee a sensible debate, but the madness of the WLC-by-proxy Show has taken over the section.

Could we start again, please?

[MadBunny]

So to summarise: I am in an impossible position here. I can't referee a debate that I don't think should belong here, with no structure or format...

As usual Deus, you have a talent for stating things in a plain way that exceeds my own.
This is pretty much what was bothering me.  It isn't a debate anymore, the best that can be said about it is that it's being moderated to stay strictly on topic, and keeping the participation limited, but even that seems to be not working so well, judging from the explosion of ancilliary threads.

[Inactive_1]

I am working on clean up.

HAL said it was OK to lock and archive his debate challenge, because Fran never posted there in a week. HAL's hypothesis remains a possibility.

Anfuaglir's 3 additional questions will either be archived or moved out to GRD, per his wishes. It will not remain here though. I have PMed him to see what he wishes to do about it.

As far as the other two "debates", I also want to hear from kcrady and Anfuaglir as to what they want to do with them.

Fran, if you log in, I request you please respond to my two posts shown below.

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php?topic=10949.msg281200#msg281200

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php?topic=10949.msg281523#msg281523

As for this situation, I apologize for any inconvenience it has caused, it takes me a while to catch on, but I eventually do.

[kcrady]

Why the huge fran salad of topics and a whole section of offshoots dedicated to Fran?

Probably because it's either Fran or the trolls and goblins in the Failbag--and Fran can spell.  It's too bad that Fran turned out to be an iCraig Debate Simulator.^tm  As far as I know, Fran is the closest thing we have around here to a real challenge.