Retired Boards (Archived)
Craig, Williams vs Ahmed, Copson
Posted by: jayceeii
« on: December 22, 2019, 02:43:47 PM »Guidelines for Cambridge Union debates can be found here
I'm not understanding why debates needed to be a death-match. In other words, the expectation is not for the correct argument, but for the correct argument on-the-spot, You're not just judged in respect of truth, but whether you can present the truth in the exact terms the opponent expects.
The purpose of debate ought to have been the pursuit of truth, also along slow routes. Perhaps a few weeks later the correct argument comes to you, but it is too late, the opponent was already undertaking the victory dance and has no further interest in anything you could say.
There's a fundamental antagonism here, not the forgiving sympathy that might really allow all parties to present their best arguments without pressure. In this regard a written debate is much better than a verbal one, wherein lie many traps and diversions.
Men used to play chess matches by mail, waiting a number of weeks to find the next move, and debates to be fruitful should have been similar. Truth is lost where swords clash. But men were ever interested only in victory, never in truth.
Posted by: Anthony
« on: August 02, 2012, 06:06:38 PM »
Posted by: blank
« on: May 10, 2012, 04:13:52 PM »lapwing wrote:Hello blank,
This is becoming too repetitive.
I'm making a closing statement. I imagine you will reply to give yourself the satisfaction of having the last word.
It may appear repetitive because you keep presenting the same points.
My response isn't for satisfaction of having the last word, but simply to show you your inconsistencies.
lapwing wrote:"if one rigorously follows the appropriate historical methodology, one still wouldn't be justified in believing that someone rose from the dead"
I've already given examples of where professional historians do this and reach different conclusions. Do you agree or do you think that for any historical event one can determine what actually happened without any room for reasonable disagreement?
And I responded by pointing out that historians don't conclude by saying "here, a miracle happened."
lapwing wrote:"given certain concepts about the universe"
This seems to be code for believing that God does not exist. An assumption since it has not been proved.
No, it is a code about certain basic assumptions that we all make. The difference being that believers add on some unjustified claims. Those claims are the things being disputed or expected to be demonstrated.
lapwing wrote:"ancient aliens or labourers?"
An example of repetition. I've already responded about aliens. Remember we're aliens in the sense of travelling to distant planets. Aliens would have to travel to earth.
Please note the context of this particular example. The point is that historians using their methodology, wouldn't conclude that the structures were built by aliens.
lapwing wrote:an exception for Christianity
By denying this possibility you are trying to dictate to God how he should or should not act. Why shouldn't God choose to communicate to humankind through Jesus? Why should God act in a way that you think is more appropriate. Other human beings have views that differ from yours so why should you think that you can determine how God should act. The message is for all mankind.
If you wish to introduce your God as a possibility, then I think you would need to do some work showing us what is expected of him otherwise he will simply be an arbitrary entity introduced by religious faith.
lapwing wrote:"the dead roaming the city?"
"The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. They came out of the tombs, and after Jesus’ resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many people." Mt 27:52,53 NIV
Now these verses are difficult, not because God is incapable of doing such a miracle, but because of a lack of information. However, one shouldn't think in terms of some kind of zombie movie. Rather one should think more like the raising of Lazarus in Jn ch 11. You have mentioned this example many many times but it is not the key event at the end of the gospels. Jesus' resurrection is the key event. That doesn't mean that I don't believe this could or did happen: but it's much more important to think about Jesus' resurrection. I've tried to make this point before and you have never taken this obvious point on board preferring to divert down side issues.
In what sense are the verses difficult? Do you also find them difficult to believe? How can the signs surrounding Jesus' death not be significant? If such stories could be made up about his death, why not his resurrection?
Basically, all I've shown is that there are unjustified leaps from the mystical beliefs of people to accepting Christian dogma. Also, that how much one believes the Christian dogma for some reason depends on how they accept science.
Posted by: lapwing
« on: May 10, 2012, 05:12:00 AM »Hello blank,
This is becoming too repetitive.
I'm making a closing statement. I imagine you will reply to give yourself the satisfaction of having the last word.
"if one rigorously follows the appropriate historical methodology, one still wouldn't be justified in believing that someone rose from the dead"
I've already given examples of where professional historians do this and reach different conclusions. Do you agree or do you think that for any historical event one can determine what actually happened without any room for reasonable disagreement?
"given certain concepts about the universe"
This seems to be code for believing that God does not exist. An assumption since it has not been proved.
"ancient aliens or labourers?"
An example of repetition. I've already responded about aliens. Remember we're aliens in the sense of travelling to distant planets. Aliens would have to travel to earth.
an exception for Christianity
By denying this possibility you are trying to dictate to God how he should or should not act. Why shouldn't God choose to communicate to humankind through Jesus? Why should God act in a way that you think is more appropriate. Other human beings have views that differ from yours so why should you think that you can determine how God should act. The message is for all mankind.
"the dead roaming the city?"
"The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. They came out of the tombs, and after Jesus’ resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many people." Mt 27:52,53 NIV
Now these verses are difficult, not because God is incapable of doing such a miracle, but because of a lack of information. However, one shouldn't think in terms of some kind of zombie movie. Rather one should think more like the raising of Lazarus in Jn ch 11. You have mentioned this example many many times but it is not the key event at the end of the gospels. Jesus' resurrection is the key event. That doesn't mean that I don't believe this could or did happen: but it's much more important to think about Jesus' resurrection. I've tried to make this point before and you have never taken this obvious point on board preferring to divert down side issues.
Posted by: blank
« on: May 09, 2012, 02:17:30 PM »lapwing wrote:the justification of the Christian dogma after whatever experience it was that they had.
Christian dogma or belief does not depend on personal experience.
I'm not saying it does. I'm simply wondering what the justification for also accepting the Christian dogma may be after one has had some sort of experience.
lapwing wrote:I think it is clear that the gospel accounts are very problematic
Other people disagree e.g. R Bauckham, N Wright
So these people think that the miraculous claims in the Bible actually occurred? What do they say about other religions and the events such as the dead roaming the city?
lapwing wrote:historians hold different views on the Princes in the Tower
That was my point. Historians disagree about the historicity of many events. You cannot establish with certainty using objective historical methods that many events (miraculous or not) actually happened or not. So you cannot say that historian X has proved that the Resurrection did not happen neither can you say that historian Y has proved that it did happen. Do you agree?
I think proof is reserved for fields like mathematics and logic but in history, I think that given certain concepts about the universe, some explanations are more credible than others. e.g which explanation would you consider as being more credible for the building of the Easter Island statues, ancient aliens or labourers?
If one is going to grant an exception for Christianity, why not grant similar exceptions to other religions and ideas?
lapwing wrote:historians always prefer the most likely event
This seemed to be Ehrman's thesis in http://www.reasonablefaith.org/media/craig-vs-ehrman-college-of-the-holy-cross
Now I don't think that either Ehrman or Craig are particularly good at statistics. Craig's probability terms would have been better using words rather than symbols to explain the terms. Ehrman was wrong to say that Craig was trying to mathematically prove God's existence. This "most likely" argument is flawed statistically. Many natural phenomena (e.g. adult heights) follow the familiar normal or Gaussian bell curve distribution.
So though it is true that any one sample is most likely to have the mean value it is not true that all the samples are most likely to have this one mean value. In fact this is most unlikely. Ehrman does not account for outliers and also seems to fall foul of Black Swan theory. Jesus' life is only one case in the many human lives that have been lived.
I didn't say historians always prefer the most likely event but what I would say is that if one rigorously follows the appropriate historical methodology, one still wouldn't be justified in believing that someone rose from the dead, walked through walls, levitated into the sky or that certain events were associated with his death.
Posted by: lapwing
« on: May 09, 2012, 05:28:03 AM »the justification of the Christian dogma after whatever experience it was that they had.
Christian dogma or belief does not depend on personal experience.
I think it is clear that the gospel accounts are very problematic
Other people disagree e.g. R Bauckham, N Wright
historians hold different views on the Princes in the Tower
That was my point. Historians disagree about the historicity of many events. You cannot establish with certainty using objective historical methods that many events (miraculous or not) actually happened or not. So you cannot say that historian X has proved that the Resurrection did not happen neither can you say that historian Y has proved that it did happen. Do you agree?
historians always prefer the most likely event
This seemed to be Ehrman's thesis in http://www.reasonablefaith.org/media/craig-vs-ehrman-college-of-the-holy-cross
Now I don't think that either Ehrman or Craig are particularly good at statistics. Craig's probability terms would have been better using words rather than symbols to explain the terms. Ehrman was wrong to say that Craig was trying to mathematically prove God's existence. This "most likely" argument is flawed statistically. Many natural phenomena (e.g. adult heights) follow the familiar normal or Gaussian bell curve distribution.
So though it is true that any one sample is most likely to have the mean value it is not true that all the samples are most likely to have this one mean value. In fact this is most unlikely. Ehrman does not account for outliers and also seems to fall foul of Black Swan theory. Jesus' life is only one case in the many human lives that have been lived.
Posted by: blank
« on: May 08, 2012, 02:00:23 PM »lapwing wrote:the reason behind their conversion doesn't somehow make the New Testament stories true
I agree.
I know you agree. That is why I was asking for the justification of the Christian dogma after whatever experience it was that they had.
lapwing wrote:I wonder why they aren't skeptical of the NT stories
I prefer to let people speak for themselves rather than putting my own opinions in their mouths. I've already shown that the gospels describe the followers of Jesus as sceptical about the resurrection until they met the risen Lord Jesus. Your point also seems to assume that everybody should necessarily come to the same conclusion about the historicity of the resurrection. History isn't like that - one cannot repeat the experiment in history, unlike much of science. There are other controversial events in history (e.g. the Princes in the Tower) over which objective historians hold different views.
And I think it is clear that the gospel accounts are very problematic when it comes to these issues of miracles and similar phenomena that are easily found in other religions with miraculous claims.
I don't think historians accept claims of miracles when it comes to other fields why make an exception for Christianity alone? How historically credible on miracles should one consider the gospel accounts to be when they contain deeply problematic verses like the dead walking the streets, earthquakes etc during Jesus' death?
While historians hold different views on the Princes in the Tower, they do not conclude that someone walked through a wall or ascended into the sky.
lapwing wrote:Aliens like us will be subject to the laws of physics i.e. nothing travels faster than light. God can defy the laws of physics since He created the universe. This is not true of aliens.
In a 4 dimensional universe, maybe one wouldn't need to travel faster than light to get here. For some reason, God no longer defies these laws of physics in these modern times. He left the truly spectacular incidents to the bronze age and to mostly illiterate people.
lapwing wrote:I'm showing that one cannot both be a God and a human.
All your doing is asserting an opinion.
Is it just my opinion that God isn't made of cells?
lapwing wrote:"Been there done that."
What I meant to ask is what is your experience of "being there" and "doing that" in relation to the kingdom of God.
My experience is one of gullibility and religious faith which gave way when I learned how to think critically and evaluate information.
Posted by: lapwing
« on: May 07, 2012, 05:56:00 AM »the reason behind their conversion doesn't somehow make the New Testament stories true
I agree.
I wonder why they aren't skeptical of the NT stories
I prefer to let people speak for themselves rather than putting my own opinions in their mouths. I've already shown that the gospels describe the followers of Jesus as sceptical about the resurrection until they met the risen Lord Jesus. Your point also seems to assume that everybody should necessarily come to the same conclusion about the historicity of the resurrection. History isn't like that - one cannot repeat the experiment in history, unlike much of science. There are other controversial events in history (e.g. the Princes in the Tower) over which objective historians hold different views.
Aliens like us will be subject to the laws of physics i.e. nothing travels faster than light. God can defy the laws of physics since He created the universe. This is not true of aliens.
I'm showing that one cannot both be a God and a human.
All your doing is asserting an opinion.
"Been there done that."
What I meant to ask is what is your experience of "being there" and "doing that" in relation to the kingdom of God.
Posted by: blank
« on: May 06, 2012, 09:28:08 AM »lapwing wrote:"What I'm saying is that their conversion isn't solely as a result of the evidence in the New Testament"
I agree: it's what I said earlier.
And it is what I said earlier too. My point is that whatever the reason may be behind their conversion doesn't somehow make the New Testament stories true. So I wonder why they aren't skeptical of the NT stories.
lapwing wrote:A baptismal testimony is a convert's answer to why they became a Christian. Mysticism may be described as religious practices aimed at achieving a greater sense of divinity. Christianity is a religion so is bound to share certain characteristics with other religions e.g. belief in God. I'm asking you to compare testimonies between different religions. What do the differences tell you?
The differences simply tell me that the various religions have different roots though the largest similarity is that one's religious inclination seems to depend largely on the religions they're exposed to.
lapwing wrote:"equally valid reasons for their beliefs."
Trouble is there are practical reasons why not to believe in UFOs: primarily the vast distances in space and the lack of more widespread detection. Aliens are going to be physical beings like us - to them, if they exist, we are the aliens.
What if these aliens have technology advanced enough that enables them perform these actions? And aren't there practical reasons for not believing that someone turned to salt or levitated into the sky?
lapwing wrote:do you think God has cells?
By denying the incarnation of Jesus you are putting a limitation on God that you cannot know is valid.
No, I'm showing that one cannot both be a God and a human.
lapwing wrote:"Been there done that."
I don't know what this means.
What I mean is this.
Posted by: lapwing
« on: May 05, 2012, 01:24:08 PM »"What I'm saying is that their conversion isn't solely as a result of the evidence in the New Testament"
I agree: it's what I said earlier.
A baptismal testimony is a convert's answer to why they became a Christian. Mysticism may be described as religious practices aimed at achieving a greater sense of divinity. Christianity is a religion so is bound to share certain characteristics with other religions e.g. belief in God. I'm asking you to compare testimonies between different religions. What do the differences tell you?
"equally valid reasons for their beliefs."
Trouble is there are practical reasons why not to believe in UFOs: primarily the vast distances in space and the lack of more widespread detection. Aliens are going to be physical beings like us - to them, if they exist, we are the aliens.
do you think God has cells?
By denying the incarnation of Jesus you are putting a limitation on God that you cannot know is valid.
"Been there done that."
I don't know what this means.
Posted by: blank
« on: May 05, 2012, 05:59:35 AM »lapwing wrote:"because they survive serious accident after receiving medical treatment or they wish to join a group of people who they see with good manners"
This still comes across as a distorted view of Christian testimonies born of lack of knowledge. Remember I brought this up to make the point that very few converts profess Christianity solely as a result of the evidence in the NT.
What I'm saying is that their conversion isn't solely as a result of the evidence in the New Testament. Professing Christianity because one was raised in such a household or because one survives an accident isn't based solely on the NT.
lapwing wrote:"such feelings and intuitions can easily be seen in other religions."
You need to provide evidence for this statement and beware quote mining!
I'm not saying you're wrong but without proper evidence it is unsubstantiated assertion.
Just to be clear, are you saying that you don't think such feelings and intuitions aren't seen in other religions?
You could take a look at this.
lapwing wrote:"such subjective accounts are very unreliable"
I'm not sure what this means either. I don't think you can be saying that such testimonies don't reasonably accurately reflect what the people giving them believe? I wasn't putting them forward as evidence for the NT but rather information of why people convert.
And I'm saying that they aren't justified due to their unreliability otherwise, UFO believers among others have equally valid reasons for their beliefs.
lapwing wrote:"what it means to be a God and what it means to be a man"
This is still just your own opinion.
No it is not just my opinion. Or do you think God has cells?
lapwing wrote:uncertainty with regards to certain things
The uncertainty is about how to interpret the Bible. It is a given that people have different interpretations of parts of the Bible.
Yet the uncertainty seems to depend on how much scientific evidence people accept which tends to lead to inconsistencies.
lapwing wrote:Surely a God that could do one could do them all
I agree with this, of course. You are not far from the kingdom of God.
Been there done that.
Posted by: lapwing
« on: May 03, 2012, 12:42:26 PM »"because they survive serious accident after receiving medical treatment or they wish to join a group of people who they see with good manners"
This still comes across as a distorted view of Christian testimonies born of lack of knowledge. Remember I brought this up to make the point that very few converts profess Christianity solely as a result of the evidence in the NT.
"such feelings and intuitions can easily be seen in other religions."
You need to provide evidence for this statement and beware quote mining!
I'm not saying you're wrong but without proper evidence it is unsubstantiated assertion.
"such subjective accounts are very unreliable"
I'm not sure what this means either. I don't think you can be saying that such testimonies don't reasonably accurately reflect what the people giving them believe? I wasn't putting them forward as evidence for the NT but rather information of why people convert.
"what it means to be a God and what it means to be a man"
This is still just your own opinion.
uncertainty with regards to certain things
The uncertainty is about how to interpret the Bible. It is a given that people have different interpretations of parts of the Bible.
Surely a God that could do one could do them all
I agree with this, of course. You are not far from the kingdom of God. 
Posted by: blank
« on: May 02, 2012, 04:04:53 PM »lapwing wrote:"No they're not things I just made up. You could look up belomancy, numerology etc."
You misunderstood what I meant. I didn't mean that beliefs in "number systems" do not exist. Rather I meant that I didn't think you would have found references to "number systems" in the baptismal testimonies of Christian converts. In fact you never bothered to look at these. I was making the point that people rarely convert to Christianity based solely on some kind of probabilistic assessment of the historical truth of the resurrection. Before you make the obvious response this doesn't mean that Christians claim no rational/historical basis to their belief.
Okay, but I was talking about how people sometimes do come to believe certain things. Someone becoming a Christian because they survive serious accident after receiving medical treatment or they wish to join a group of people who they see with good manners doesn't really tell me their justification for accepting the doctrinal beliefs of Christianity.
lapwing wrote:"they're not unique to Christianity"
I'm not sure what this means - each testimony is by definition unique to each person. Until you examine these testimonies seriously, without preconceptions, how can you make any comment about them.
What I mean is that selectively reviewing testimonies of Christians doesn't tell me how valid their subsequent beliefs are especially if such feelings and intuitions can easily be seen in other religions.
lapwing wrote:"still been able to reject that religion"
Wrong thinking again. You seem to be implying that if someone rejects a religion, that means it can't be true. But what about people who do believe? Why does not then that prove the religion true? I'm not claiming that the number of believers proves Christianity true, but it cannot be discounted as to have no meaning.
No what I'm still saying is that such subjective accounts are very unreliable given what we know about human psychology. This is why I'm not willing to rate such accounts highly when considering evidence for a set of beliefs.
lapwing wrote:is that human also God?
Why do you think this is impossible?
Because of the very concepts of what it means to be a God and what it means to be a man. e.g a man has cells while a God doesn't.
lapwing wrote:hazy
What a revealing word that is. The (so-called) scientific, reductionist view that must have definite single answers to all questions. "I can't see God in the Hubble telescope so God cannot exist." I exaggerate to make the point. Why can't you handle uncertainty in determining the correct interpretation of parts of the Bible? Have you at least grasped that the Bible consists of many different literary genres?
Oh I can handle uncertainty but I think it is inconsistent for people to claim uncertainty with regards to certain things e.g Garden of Eden but not for Lot's wife or Balaam's donkey. Surely a God that could do one could do them all. What I see is that these uncertainties seem to depend on how much scientific information a person is willing to accept.
On the various genres, sure I know that there are different genres. This is glaring when one compares e.g Ecclesiastes to Chronicles but such a distinction isn't so clear in Genesis.
lapwing wrote:Why not be skeptical until the evidence is available?
You've missed the point entirely. Ancient documents are evidence. How do you think the site of Troy was discovered? Why did Calvert and Schliemann even bother looking for Troy?
Okay maybe I should say until better evidence is available since the ancient Egyptians also kept records and the huge amount of information against such a large migration. Also an absence of evidence is important which is why I'm advocating at least a skepticism of the story portrayed in the Bible.
Posted by: lapwing
« on: May 01, 2012, 03:36:31 PM »"No they're not things I just made up. You could look up belomancy, numerology etc."
You misunderstood what I meant. I didn't mean that beliefs in "number systems" do not exist. Rather I meant that I didn't think you would have found references to "number systems" in the baptismal testimonies of Christian converts. In fact you never bothered to look at these. I was making the point that people rarely convert to Christianity based solely on some kind of probabilistic assessment of the historical truth of the resurrection. Before you make the obvious response this doesn't mean that Christians claim no rational/historical basis to their belief.
"they're not unique to Christianity"
I'm not sure what this means - each testimony is by definition unique to each person. Until you examine these testimonies seriously, without preconceptions, how can you make any comment about them.
"still been able to reject that religion"
Wrong thinking again. You seem to be implying that if someone rejects a religion, that means it can't be true. But what about people who do believe? Why does not then that prove the religion true? I'm not claiming that the number of believers proves Christianity true, but it cannot be discounted as to have no meaning.
is that human also God?
Why do you think this is impossible?
hazy
What a revealing word that is. The (so-called) scientific, reductionist view that must have definite single answers to all questions. "I can't see God in the Hubble telescope so God cannot exist." I exaggerate to make the point. Why can't you handle uncertainty in determining the correct interpretation of parts of the Bible? Have you at least grasped that the Bible consists of many different literary genres?
Why not be skeptical until the evidence is available?
You've missed the point entirely. Ancient documents are evidence. How do you think the site of Troy was discovered? Why did Calvert and Schliemann even bother looking for Troy?
Posted by: blank
« on: April 30, 2012, 01:46:59 PM »lapwing wrote:Hello blank,
"more reasonable to believe than other stories and texts older and younger"
The problem with this is that it assumes one can assign a kind of probability of truthfulness or believability to accounts of miracles and come to some kind of comparison. Let's say 21% for the resurrection, 15% for Jesus walking on the water and 10% for the miraculous rescue of Delphi from the Persians (Herodotus book
. I've just picked those numbers at random to illustrate the ridiculousness of this thinking. I challenged you to seriously consider the baptismal testimonies of believing Christians in my previous post. Did you actually do that? "Number patterns" etc seem to be things you've just made up for your posting. They are not particularly convincing that you have done this. Here's a few: http://www.pcfpoynton.org.uk/downloads/personal-testimonies/baptismal-testimonies-november-2010/index.htm
I didn't do that due to how problematic such personal testimonies are. They're open to all sorts of cognitive biases and they're not unique to Christianity so I don't see any point in doing that besides, some who have experienced all that have still been able to reject that religion and switch to another one or none at all.
No they're not things I just made up. You could look up belomancy, numerology etc.
lapwing wrote:Which assumption is that?
Your false assumption that God cannot be incarnated as a human.
If a God is incarnated as a human, is that human also God?
lapwing wrote:Do you see why I think your stance is inconsistent?
What is my stance in your opinion?
In my opinion, your stance simply picks and chooses what to accept. You're willing to leave the creation events and the Garden of Eden hazy while believing that someone turned into salt.
lapwing wrote:The Israelites lived in Egypt as slaves and had to wander a desert for 40 years
I assume you are hinting at the current archaeological knowledge of this. I can remember a very old school atlas where the Hittite region in Turkey had a huge question mark in it because there was no archaeological evidence for that civilisation at the time. The Hittites were mentioned in the Bible but that was treated skeptically by the "experts". Well we know differently now. So when atheists attack "the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence" they should remember the Hittites!
Yes I am. Why not be skeptical until the evidence is available? Also, there is a huge difference between the existence of a tribe in a place that could have supported them and the ideas expressed in the Exodus e.g the plagues, the huge population wandering the desert etc.