New rule proposal

[EduChris]

All of us have a basic, metaphysical framework that we operate within. None of us can "prove" or "confirm" that our metaphysical frame is "true and factual."

We have allowed on this forum one individual, with apparently more time on his hands than anyone else, to bully and cajole and inflame many good people for years now, with the result that discussion and debate on this forum is debased and degraded.

With some people, learning and reason and civility begin to prevail--but others seem impervious to such appeals. Many good people have left this forum because of senseless antics such as described, coming from one individual in particular.

See this post for an example.

I propose we ban demands for "confirmation" of metaphysical frameworks for anyone who has been on the forum long enough to have learned better. Newbies ought to be able to ask questions and learn, but after a certain amount of time or a certain amount of posts, if an individual still hasn't learned that metaphysical frameworks cannot be proven, then such persons should be told to stop the incessant bullying and cajoling.

[Jester]

I find I'm still entertained by the endless string of avatars.

In any case, I thought I'd go back into this.
I enjoyed reading the post, but am trying to be less long-winded. I'll respond only when I feel that I actually have something useful to contribute.

I admit that I can be confused by a claimant's intentions, where they imply one thing, but seemingly say another. I think this confusion on my part is where things get all fouled up. I still propose the solution to a challenge, any challenge, is to just state the nature of the claim.

That definitely works with challenges that missed the point of what was being claimed. Clarification is a good thing.
Of course, an accurate challenge should be met with support and a request for the challenger's view (and reasons for it).

My issue here'd be the "...true of the theist's view of God" part. While the opinion may be there, I consider it perfectly valid to analyze that position, to see if it has merit. Of course then we get into the issue of prior assumptions, and especially stipulated assumptions.

It is valid in a general sense - and may or may not be valid relative to the topic of debate.

Either way, I think what a lot of theists are frustrated about isn't so much the consideration of merit of their claims, but the constant being under the microscope by people who aren't willing to put their own takes on life up for the same sort of consideration.
Without some example of what the challenger does find convincing, the theist is equally at a loss to know what sort of support the challenger is willing to accept.

This is definitely my issue. Personally, I simply refuse to debate anyone who won't offer an alternative claim for comparison with my own.

If this is the sort of case you are envisioning, I agree that it is frustrating. I even agree that this is shifting the topic (and a breach in rule 4 if it continues).

I see no reason, however, for an extra rule to cover this. This person simply needs to be told that this is off-topic. If (s)he persists, rule 4 will apply.

I'd agree that a bit of shifting could be involved, if assumptions were presented prior to, or with the referenced statement. That said, I try to limit my own assumptions about other folks' assumptions. I'm of the "not a good reader of between the lines" crowd. Not proud about it, but there it is.

So long as we don't keep hammering once the claim is clarified, an honest mistake is not a problem.

One reason I consider Jester among the best of debaters here. Highly intelligent, thorough and up front. Always.

Thanks much, Joey! Appreciate it.

I've been trying to get my mind around why folks disagree with my methods, and I sincerely don't wish to bring the forum down with a post that doesn't really add anything to our debates. My problem, if it is one, seems to lie in my background - where I've been exposed to a literal take on everything biblical.

I am aware that this is a problem. I've have some serious issues with the way the Bible is presented in some churches. They seem oblivious to the fact that they are a small minority of Christians.

These assumptions that others make or imply escape me, to the point of presenting what seems to some to be some really goofy challenges on my part. I would contend that in such a case, it's not the challenge that is goofy, but the claim or the assumptions that underlie the claim.

I once had a challenger (not you) simply repeat back my claim with an eye-roll smiley to show that he didn't agree. It took me five rounds of posting with him to (sort of) find out what it was he found to be wrong with it. Apparently, my claim struck him as so "goofy" that he thought it should be obvious to everyone (even me) why it was completely wrong. He just kept challenging me to "support it", but I thought I had been supporting it, and didn't have the slightest idea of what other kind of support it was that he wanted.

This is to say that it's hard for those of us getting challenged to have any idea why a claim strikes a challenger as goofy. It really isn't as obvious as it seems, and I think that it would really help if you could offer a counter-claim that you find so ungoofy as to be most probably true. That lets us see where your reasoning process is at.

[SailingCyclops]

.....
I am aware that this is a problem. I've have some serious issues with the way the Bible is presented in some churches. They seem oblivious to the fact that they are a small minority of Christians.

Not only a problem, but it makes understanding someone's "Christian metaphysical framework" / premise impossible to understand. Especially if the premise can't be questioned or challenged.


Christianity is such a broad and diverse belief system, that no two persuasions will agree on many issues. Jehovah's witnesses, Mormons, Pentecostals, Baptists, Catholics, British-Israelites, Eastern Orthodox, etc. etc. etc .... all have their own unique framework. All are minorities in their own right, but corporately make up what's known as Christianity.

When an assumption is made within what has been ambiguously referred to here as a Christian framework, it is entirely unclear, at least to me, what is being assumed. unless it is made within a specific tradition.

Bob

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 48:

Trying to be brief, as we seem to have come to an agreement at least twixt us...

I find I'm still entertained by the endless string of avatars.

I 'preciate that, and honor compels me to say I didn't create 'em.

It is valid in a general sense - and may or may not be valid relative to the topic of debate.

Acknowledged and agreed.

...
Personally, I simply refuse to debate anyone who won't offer an alternative claim for comparison with my own.

In the future, along with trying my best to fully understand the context or assumptions of a claim, I'll see if I can't put up an argument as to why I think there's better conclusions to be drawn from the pertinent data. That said, sometimes I see claims that are rather unlikely to have an opposite, beyond "nah-ah". But I vow here in writing to offer an opposing take where I can.

I've been trying to get my mind around why folks disagree with my methods, and I sincerely don't wish to bring the forum down with a post that doesn't really add anything to our debates. My problem, if it is one, seems to lie in my background - where I've been exposed to a literal take on everything biblical.

I am aware that this is a problem. I've have some serious issues with the way the Bible is presented in some churches. They seem oblivious to the fact that they are a small minority of Christians.

I 'preciate that. I don't say that in order to "hide behind" what would ostensibly be my own ignorance, because that'd be, well, ignorant, but I say it because I do notice that effect as I engage folks on this site. That, and I'm just not a good interpreter of subtle clues and nuance.

He just kept challenging me to "support it", but I thought I had been supporting it, and didn't have the slightest idea of what other kind of support it was that he wanted.

Hopefully I acknowledge a claimant's evidence, even if I may reject conclusions drawn therefrom.

I'll go ahead and apologize to all for those instances where I may have been so dismissive as to not add to these debates.

This is to say that it's hard for those of us getting challenged to have any idea why a claim strikes a challenger as goofy. It really isn't as obvious as it seems, and I think that it would really help if you could offer a counter-claim that you find so ungoofy as to be most probably true. That lets us see where your reasoning process is at.

Tit for tat.

I recognize that I may be awfully slow in learning some of these lessons, but hopefully folks'll see that I do eventually come around. I will endeavor, wherever possible, to put forth as compelling a counter-argument for any claims I may challenge in the future - while recognizing that there'll be times that such may not always be available to me.

That said, my personal opinion is that a counter-argument need not be presented in order to examine claims. I simply wish to extend to the theist my point of view, as they present theirs, so that my own take may be as critically examined as I'm gonna try to do to theirs.

[Slopeshoulder]

I think the place for protected unproven or unsubstantiated metaphysical assumptions is the TD&D forum. It think it is vital to preserve the freedom to ask for either proof, admission that something is a presumption, or agreement to disagree. Once one admits something is a presumption or an article of faith, conversation can proceed on that basis. if not, argument can continue around alleged facts. But after agreement that a presumption is exactly that, continued harassment AND unsubstantiated claims could both be against the rules at that point. But as far I'm concerned demanding proof is one of the few protections against making reading from the bible or catechism count as a proof. And that makes the forum moot.

[Slopeshoulder]

Should theists refuse to answer any question until all of the obvious implicit assumptions in the OP are made explicit? Is that really the only way to ensure that off-topic challenges do not derail the specific question in the OP?

Ideally, yes, the major assumptions should be explicitly stated in the OP. If not in the OP, then the major assumptions should be stated somewhere. For example, in the TDD subforum, the assumption is that the Bible is considered authoritative. Anyone who debates there should know that this issue is not to be debated. If assumptions are not listed somewhere, then there is sure to be a conflict of assumptions by the participants.

I agree with what Otseng is saying.
I'd also mention that even in the TD&D forum, if one acknowledges that certain words are in the bible, there is still ample room for interpretation of those words. A plain sense argument doesn't automatically carry the day necessarily. Of course, this shouldn't be used to play silly games or engage in senseless taunting, but rather to encourage and even demand an acknowledgement of the variety of exegetical methods, biblical theologies, and applications of words found in scripture. "He is risen" can mean a lot of things. "I AM" too. Et cetera ad infinitum. If this interpretive variety were not the case, the TD&D forum would morph from being a haven away from extreme secularist demands for proof of god's existence and attributes that could convince the american academy of science prior to engaging discussion, into a haven for literalist-only discourse. That would reduce this forum.
I say this because the relationship between the apologetics and doctrine forums is really important.

[JoeyKnothead]

Surely folks'll forgive me if I misunderstand in my attempt to understand...

In trying to sort this out, I've come to the notion that if I ask such as, "How or why should we think your conclusions most reasonable", that'd satisfy the legitimate notion that some stuff just ain't "provable".

Instead of, "How can we know you speak truth", I should, to avoid implications of nefarity, go back to the notion that we seek to understand why a given argument is reasonable or logical - when such argument lacks proof (owing to some real problems with proof, while leaving proof available to the claimant). Right?

I say that, but then I think of those claimants who'd declare Truth. How can we accurately address that without asking how we can know they're doin' it?

On repeated requests - not demands because I'm in no position to do so - I still think that such is not harassment, but a real and legitimate attempt to come to "the truth of the matter" (poor phrase, I know), and even an attempt to show, by omission or refusal, that the claimant can't support their claims. Where'm I off here?

I genuinely do not want to bring the quality of debate on this site down - I've learned from it, I've grown from it, but from my perspective a claimant who's unwilling to address their claims is what does indeed bring it down. That's not an attempt to slur or poison the well, but is, I contend, a legitimate, valid position - even as I leave it open to correction.

[EduChris]

...If, however, you are referring not to an opening post, but to a comment about God's nature made in response to a non-theists challenge, such as:

Non-theist: I have a question for theists: Who created the creator?
Theist: God was not created, but exists eternally*.
Non-theist: I challenge you to show me evidence that God has always existed.

The particular non-theist here is clearly a bad debater. (S)he is not engaging with the position of the theist, but merely demanding evidence for something that is true of the theist's view of God by definition.
If this is the sort of case you are envisioning, I agree that it is frustrating. I even agree that this is shifting the topic (and a breach in rule 4 if it continues).

I see no reason, however, for an extra rule to cover this. This person simply needs to be told that this is off-topic. If (s)he persists, rule 4 will apply...

This is precisely the problem. I'm glad to know that such behavior is a breach of rule #4.

...*For the record, I'd avoid this by claiming "God, as defined by Christianity, was not created, but exists eternally."

I and others have already tried such an approach on numerous occasions, all to no avail.

Anyway, if such behavior is a breach of rule #4, as you say, I hope I am not being unreasonable in expecting rule #4 to be enforced.

[otseng]

When I first came here I am sure I read something someplace about stating your assumptions in the OP. I though it was in the debating tips post but I cannot find it anyplace now. Did I make this up?

I'm sure it's somewhere, but I don't know where either.

I've updated the tips about listing assumptions.

5. State your major assumptions.

All arguments have assumptions. And debates often cannot progress meaningfully when participants have differing assumptions. In some subforums, the assumptions are stated in the guidelines. If there are additional assumptions that these do not cover, try to list the additional major assumptions. If an assumption is stated either in the OP or in a guideline, then debating the validity of the assumption is not allowed in the thread. If someone participates in the thread, then he/she must agree to the assumptions for sake of argument.

[Cathar1950]

I am not sure what to make of his complaint as it is EduChris that has introduced his sloppy metaphysical misunderstandings when clearly “evidence� and “fact� were the subjects, see below for the relevant OPs, not the one of the many metaphysical proposals concerning the nature of “God�, non-contingent existence, bases for existence(ontology), first cause or unmoved mover. It is EduChris that is doing the introjections of misplace metaphysical concerns which he seems to misunderstand. Metaphysics is the search for general or universal rules that include all actuality and possibility. Some even call it a descriptive science.
We don’t pick our metaphysics; we discover them while worldviews are learned.
Mostly he is using is slight understanding of metaphysics to beg any questions even when it is clearly calling for facts and evidence about the truth and literalness of biblical claims and text.
EduChris is dressing the “God� of classical theism is vague and unexplained metaphysical robes.
As far as metaphysical proposals or analyses would hardly be relevant to non-theists, positivists and others and would only be relevant among the many theisms in order to make judgments among the many theistic gods as the question among theists is which god, not does “God� exists, and then it would only be by analogy that clear methodology and clear meanings be specified.

He seems to be confusing metaphysics with worldviews.

I suggest some sort of temporary censor where they get a big light that flashes that provides the infraction.

From Post 33 here:

...satan does his work to deny the work of God.
...

For debate:

Please offer some means to confirm the statement is true and factual.

Occam's Razor basically states that "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity." In scientific terms, this means that the simplest answer to a question, when faced with two or more possible answers, is the most accurate. Having said that, I find Christianity has very strange and enigmatic explanations for history and the world around us.

For instance, the story about Adam and Eve eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Why create such an incredible penalty for something that this god knew would happen? After all, it is all part of his plan in the first place being that he is omnipotent and omniscient. This is the explanation given for why "evil" happens. This could better be explained by the conclusion that there is no god, or, if there is, he is deistic rather than theistic, but, as LaPlace showed us, the model works fine without a god figure.

Another strange example from the Bible is the story of Noah and the ark. Are we actually supposed to believe that Noah actually had two of every animal on the ark with him and his family? This seems mildly plausible until one examines some other beliefs held in the Christian faith, such as the belief that humans were created before animals (Which then begs the question, were there also two of every type of dinosaur on the ark? How did that work? Also, the interbreeding taking place would have surely destroyed our species after several generations, unless it was condoned by god in which case, it would just be weird).

The widely held belief that the entire universe is only six thousand years old comes to mind, as well, even though science has been able to date it as far back as 14.5 billion years old.

Anyway, the point I'm trying to make is that since none of these claims have been adequately explained or backed up by evidence (the Bible is hearsay and doesn't count), why believe them when science offers a totally rational alternative based on tested facts and absent superstitious, non-provable (or disprovable) beliefs?

[otseng]

I am not sure what to make of his complaint as it is EduChris that has introduced his sloppy metaphysical misunderstandings when clearly “evidence� and “fact� were the subjects ...

Moderator Comment

Let's avoid discussing about EduChris (or anybody) in this thread.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster.