Manata/Sansone debate

[Guest Ex-monkey]

http://audio.northcitychurch.com/Manata_Sansone_Debate.html

[Zach]

I've not gotten all the way through the debate yet, but I wanted to make a note of one salient contradiction made by our own Ex-Monkey.

 

In Derek's cross in the Second Section, Paul agrees that he has knowledge of absolute knowledge through the Christian worldview. He then agrees that he has admitted to holding the Christian worldview on faith. Derek then presses the point, asking if he has knowledge of absolute truth is held by faith, and Paul replies in the affirmative.

 

But in Derek's cross in the First section, he asked Paul what knowledge was. Paul replied that it was "Justified True Belief." Later in the cross, Derek asks what part of Paul's worldview involves faith. Paul responds that all of it does. Derek then asks if faith is knowledge, and after a brief pause, Paul replies in the negative.

 

So Paul has admitted that the knowledge he claims to have is obtained by a way which cannot give knowledge. He seems to realize this contradiction in the second cross and tells Derek that he can still "know things by faith." When asked for an example, he gives "God's existence."

 

In other words, faith is unable to grant knowledge under any situation except answering the question of God's existence. At this point, all of Paul's epistemological criticisms have just ground to a halt, and unless he can explain this blatant contradiction (and fallacy), the rest of his arguments are meaningless.

[Dio]

In the Q&A section, Paul says 'pink unicorns' can be spoken about linguistically, but have no relation to the physical world. Derek counters by saying that both 'pink' and unicorn (via its resemblance to a horse) are both materially/sensually understood. Then Paul goes on about how 'pinkness' is an abstract universal and not material to the physical world. I thought this was a flawed argument, at least in terms of choosing a poor example.

[Guest Ex-monkey]

I've not gotten all the way through the debate yet, but I wanted to make a note of one salient contradiction made by our own Ex-Monkey.

 

In Derek's cross in the Second Section, Paul agrees that he has knowledge of absolute knowledge through the Christian worldview. He then agrees that he has admitted to holding the Christian worldview on faith. Derek then presses the point, asking if he has knowledge of absolute truth is held by faith, and Paul replies in the affirmative.

 

But in Derek's cross in the First section, he asked Paul what knowledge was. Paul replied that it was "Justified True Belief." Later in the cross, Derek asks what part of Paul's worldview involves faith. Paul responds that all of it does. Derek then asks if faith is knowledge, and after a brief pause, Paul replies in the negative.

 

So Paul has admitted that the knowledge he claims to have is obtained by a way which cannot give knowledge. He seems to realize this contradiction in the second cross and tells Derek that he can still "know things by faith." When asked for an example, he gives "God's existence."

 

In other words, faith is unable to grant knowledge under any situation except answering the question of God's existence. At this point, all of Paul's epistemological criticisms have just ground to a halt, and unless he can explain this blatant contradiction (and fallacy), the rest of his arguments are meaningless.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

first let's remember to critique the actual debate and n ot coulda shoulda, if Derek had a problem he should have pressed it. It's not my fault he's going off a poor definition of faith.

 

Derek then asks if faith is knowledge, and after a brief pause, Paul replies in the negative.

 

Right.

 

But in Derek's cross in the First section, he asked Paul what knowledge was. Paul replied that it was "Justified True Belief."

 

I did.

 

Later in the cross, Derek asks what part of Paul's worldview involves faith. Paul responds that all of it does.

 

He asked what parts of the Bible I take on faith. I said "all." He said what part of my ideology is based on faith. I said all.

 

So Paul has admitted that the knowledge he claims to have is obtained by a way which cannot give knowledge.

 

Wait now! Where did I say that???? I said faith is not knowledge, I didn't say that we don't need faith not to know. Indeed, Prov 1:7 tells us that faith is the begginning of knowledge. This is all Derek's failure to ask me to define faith and to press how thisd was possible. He asked me to give an example of something I knew based on faith, I told him. If this was problematic he should have responded, but he didn't... ever. So, you've just made a logical leap without asking me to define or what I meant, just like Derek.

 

He seems to realize this contradiction in the second cross and tells Derek that he can still "know things by faith."

 

No I didn't, Zach. How do you know I "seem to realize it?" "Moore" of your psucholanalyzation, Zachary? In my second cross Derek asked me the question and I answerd, why didn't he press it? How am I to be expected to answer "problems" that I'm unaware of their existence?

 

In other words, faith is unable to grant knowledge under any situation except answering the question of God's existence.

 

There is your leap, Zachary. So, you refute me by equivocation. Faith does not = knowledge is not the same as faith cannot give you knowledge, logically. Look, here's an example: A deductive syllogism doesn't equal knowledge, but it can give you knowledge. All you've shown is that you're so eager to have Derek "win" that you have to resort to equivocation, misrepresentation, failure to be scholarly and ask for definitions, just to make Derek look good. How sad.

 

At this point, all of Paul's epistemological criticisms have just ground to a halt, and unless he can explain this blatant contradiction (and fallacy), the rest of his arguments are meaningless.

 

I don't have one, and I challenge you in front of everyone, Zachary, to put together a valid argument which logically deduces a contradiction. Just make sure you don't misrepresent the position.

 

Anyway, any atheist who thinks Derek won is proof that atheist is a mental disease.

[mrtruth]

As most folks know, a debate is more than simply the information presented by both sides. Its HOW the information is presented and received that gives the debate a 'winner.'

 

I have listened to this debate throughout the day....I'll be listening to it again (and taking notes) so I can make more detailed comments about it. Here's my quick thoughts:

 

From a 'who won the debate?' perspective, I'd say Paul won. I say this because he had a more polished approach throughout the discourse. He asked good questions that pinned his opponent down, and tended not to ramble as much. From my perspective, Paul is a better DEBATOR, and in this sense, won the debate.

 

Personally, I like Derek's 'conversational' style in the debate. He connects more directly with the audience (me) rather than interacting directly with Paul. I don't think this helps him in the 'debate,' but it did help me in identifying with him.

 

I tend to agree more with Derek's CONTENT than with Paul's, which probably is a shock to nobody.

 

Anyway...that's my 2 cents...I'll take notes next time to make more detailed comments...

[Zach]

Paul-

 

I said faith is not knowledge, I didn't say that we don't need faith not to know. Indeed, Prov 1:7 tells us that faith is the begginning of knowledge.

Okay then- please explain how faith, not being knowledge, can give us knowledge.

 

How do you know I "seem to realize it?"

Because you were quick to correct yourself right after you said it.

 

Look, here's an example: A deductive syllogism doesn't equal knowledge, but it can give you knowledge.

Again, you need to show this.

 

All you've shown is that you're so eager to have Derek "win" that you have to resort to equivocation, misrepresentation, failure to be scholarly and ask for definitions, just to make Derek look good. How sad.

Not at all. In fact, I didn't say that Derek "won", now did I? Once again you're letting your projections show. You're so eager to proclaim yourself the "winner" that you'll accuse anyone who disagrees of being mentally disabled.

 

I don't have one, and I challenge you in front of everyone, Zachary, to put together a valid argument which logically deduces a contradiction.

Sigh. I just did, Paul. You need to show me how faith can give knowledge before you can wiggle out of this one.

[Zach]

As most folks know, a debate is more than simply the information presented by both sides.  Its HOW the information is presented and received that gives the debate a 'winner.'

 

I think it's pretty damn hard to critique this as a strict debate. What were the arguments that each participant gave, and what was the evidence that was supplied to back up their arguments? Paul gave nothing more than the TAG, with no evidence, and Derek gave evidence, but no real argument.

 

I think it was an interesting discussion, but not a real debate.

[Anomalie]

Agreed.

 

Paul was the more polished debator but as a whole the debate seemed to get stuck on issues that are hard to debate and define.

[Asimov]

I want to listen, but I'm too lazy to click on each of those things....I was just one long streaming audio

[Mr. Neil]

Yeah, I listened to a little bit of it, but I'd rather have a full length version. I'm either going to wait for Derek to supply us with one or I'm going to download all of the smaller files and make one myself.

[Panther]

Anyway, any atheist who thinks Derek won is proof that atheist is a mental disease

 

A mental disease? Wow, how sad....from listening to the debate, I didn't think you were the type of person to resort to such a remark.....

[crazy-tiger]

A mental disease? Wow, how sad....from listening to the debate, I didn't think you were the type of person to resort to such a remark.....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You should have seen him in his "WV Quine" persona...

 

 

Compared to that, calling someone a mental disease is light-hearted.

[crazy-tiger]

Anyway, any atheist who thinks Derek won is proof that atheist is a mental disease.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You sure you wanted to say that?

 

 

I just wonder how anyone could BE a mental disease...

[Panther]

You should have seen him in his "WV Quine" persona...

Compared to that, calling someone a mental disease is light-hearted.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

wow, that's too bad. I would expect that in a regular situation, but not a formal debate situation in which you would THINK that each party would be privy to some basic respect for each other.

Just for the record, I haven't heard any of that from the athiest side.....

[Mr. Neil]

Compared to that, calling someone a mental disease is light-hearted.

You caught that typo too, huh?

 

Paul certainly has no shortage of overconfidence. Personally, I don't care who "won". I don't look at debates in terms of a competition. They're learning exercises.

 

If Paul is to be considered the winner, then he certainly doesn't come across as a very gracious one. Derek had much more level-headed things to say about the debate that didn't involve talking down to people for having an opinion about the outcome of the debate.

[Panther]

You sure you wanted to say that?

I just wonder how anyone could BE a mental disease...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Yeah, my friend is bi-polar....just one walking germ, I'll tell ya......

[Asimov]

still haven't heard the debate, don't really care. I don't like self-righteous pricks, so I'll side with Derek.

[crazy-tiger]

Compared to that, calling someone a mental disease is light-hearted.

You caught that typo too, huh?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah...

 

 

But not until my fellow feline quoted it.