Open Debate Challenge

[For_The_Kingdom]

.

Again, this is an open challenge to anyone who'd be interested in partaking in a moderated audio and/or video debate with me on any of the following subjects..

Kalam Cosmological Argument
Modal Ontological Argument
Resurrection of Jesus
Validity of the New Testament
Validity of Naturalism (natural evolution [macro])

This challenge has been open for at least 2 years, and no one has stepped up yet. We can post the segment on this great forum for all to see.

Don't you all speak at once.

[Divine Insight]

So, no acceptance. Gotcha.

I wouldn't waste my time arguing with a Flat-Earther either.

Just because no one wants to waste their time with you doesn't mean that you have valid arguments. To the contrary you have demonstrated repeatedly that you can't even comprehend the simplest rebuttals of you proposals.

I've already blown the first three of your arguments clean out of the water.

1. Kalam Cosmological Argument
Ignores known physics.

2. Modal Ontological Argument
Doesn't apply to reality.

3. Resurrection of Jesus
No different from arguing whether Peter Pan went to Never Never Land.

As far as your 5th proposal is concerned:
5. Validity of Naturalism (natural evolution [macro])
I wouldn't even bother arguing with anyone who's that ignorant of science.
This would be like trying to argue with someone who claims that earth is flat, or that the earth is still at the center of the universe.

The only debate that you have proposed that has any practical value at all is the 4th one on your list.
4. Validity of the New Testament

I personally wouldn't even bother arguing with anyone on that topic until they FIRST agree to have a debate on the validity of the Old Testament.

As far as I'm concerned you need to justify the validity of Yahweh before talking about any fables or rumors that claim that Jesus was his virgin-born demigod son sent to earth for the purpose of being crucified by a mob incited by Yahweh's very own priests.

[Bust Nak]

1. You weren't able to debate rikuomero
2. Therefore, you wasn't there to debate rikuomero

Non sequitur.

Taunting aside, what are you trying to say here? That your inability to connect still counts as being there?

[For_The_Kingdom]

1. You weren't able to debate rikuomero
2. Therefore, you wasn't there to debate rikuomero

Non sequitur.

Taunting aside, what are you trying to say here? That your inability to connect still counts as being there?

Yeah, taunting aside. I know I can come across as cocky/boisterous at times..but that is more geared towards the nature of competiveness than anything else. My word, I will do my best to keep that stuff to a minimum..due to the nature of the "business" (the Lord is watching me) and due to the respect I SHOULD have for my opponents.

Now, before I digress further..to answer your question about the debate (which never took place) with rikuomero; see, what had happened was...

rikuomero had suggested we debate on a particular audio/video platform (I forget the name of it). We had agreed on a specific time. I was there. He was there, as I could see both of our usernames in the room.

The problem was, the video "frame" never successfully uploaded. You could see the video box/frame, but the connection just wasn't there.

I assume we both tried various troubleshooting methods, but nothing worked.

Then he started to blame me as if I did something wrong or to sabotage the debate..which is false, because as much as I want to intellectually DESTROY you people (confident, not cocky) on the facts, nothing can be further from the truth.

That is what happened, amigo.

[For_The_Kingdom]

So, no acceptance. Gotcha.

I wouldn't waste my time arguing with a Flat-Earther either.

Just because no one wants to waste their time with you doesn't mean that you have valid arguments. To the contrary you have demonstrated repeatedly that you can't even comprehend the simplest rebuttals of you proposals.

I've already blown the first three of your arguments clean out of the water.

1. Kalam Cosmological Argument
Ignores known physics.

2. Modal Ontological Argument
Doesn't apply to reality.

3. Resurrection of Jesus
No different from arguing whether Peter Pan went to Never Never Land.

As far as your 5th proposal is concerned:
5. Validity of Naturalism (natural evolution [macro])
I wouldn't even bother arguing with anyone who's that ignorant of science.
This would be like trying to argue with someone who claims that earth is flat, or that the earth is still at the center of the universe.

The only debate that you have proposed that has any practical value at all is the 4th one on your list.
4. Validity of the New Testament

I personally wouldn't even bother arguing with anyone on that topic until they FIRST agree to have a debate on the validity of the Old Testament.

As far as I'm concerned you need to justify the validity of Yahweh before talking about any fables or rumors that claim that Jesus was his virgin-born demigod son sent to earth for the purpose of being crucified by a mob incited by Yahweh's very own priests.

Man, I've heard of people who like to make long stories short, but you seem to be a master of making short stories LONG.

Of course you remember the famous anti-drug slogan from the 80's: Just say No?

Well, in this case, a simple "No" is all that was needed.

[Divine Insight]

Well, in this case, a simple "No" is all that was needed.

Wrong.

A simple "No" is all that you "wanted" so that you can go around proclaiming that everyone is "afraid" to debate with you.

The problem is that the debate topics that you want to debate have already all been debunked. I offered you the reasons.

What could you possible argue on the side of the KCA? Its very first premise proclaims an ignorance of physics. There's simply nothing to argue after that point.

What could you possible argue on the side of the MOA? Even if you could demonstrate that it is perfectly valid within the confines of the axioms for Modal Logic, that wouldn't make it true for reality in general.

What part of those two issues can you not understand?

And the Jesus Resurrection argument dies before it gets off the ground as well. Everything you want to claim about Jesus (including the claim that he actually died) comes from the very same unverifiable rumors that make the claim that he rose from the dead.

So there's nothing to debate. As I pointed out, it's just like debating Peter Pan. If you're going to debate against the story there's nothing to debate. Same way with the stories about Jesus. If we're going to accept the stories about Jesus then we have no choice but to accept the God spoke from the clouds and proclaimed Jesus to be his Son. Jesus was crucified at the demand of angry priests in an unofficial mob crucifixion just as the stories claim. Jesus then died, for three days, just as the stories claim. And then rose from the dead and ascended up into heaven.

We all know how the story goes.

If you want to debate the story there's nothing to debate. Yes, in the story Jesus supposedly dies, raises from the dead, and ascends to heaven.

What's to debate? It's no different from debating Peter Pan. You either accept the story or you don't.

The reason people don't want to be bothered debating with you is because you are incapable of recognizing when your position on things is clearly wrong. You can't use the stories that you are trying to debate as evidence that they are true.

Until you recognize this fact, no one is going to waste their time debating with you.

[For_The_Kingdom]

Well, in this case, a simple "No" is all that was needed.

Wrong.

A simple "No" is all that you "wanted" so that you can go around proclaiming that everyone is "afraid" to debate with you.

All I know is, no one has accepted the challenge yet...and from there, one can draw his own conclusion as to why this is the case.

Either way, the challenge remains.

The problem is that the debate topics that you want to debate have already all been debunked.

If there are good counter-arguments against any of those topics I'd like to debate, I haven't seen it yet...and I saw this in spite of reading your "debunk" attempts.

I offered you the reasons.

Weak reasons.

What could you possible argue on the side of the KCA? Its very first premise proclaims an ignorance of physics. There's simply nothing to argue after that point.

I disagree; thus, the debate. People don't debate over stuff that they agree on...they debate over stuff that they disagree on.

You do understand how that works, correct?

What could you possible argue on the side of the MOA? Even if you could demonstrate that it is perfectly valid within the confines of the axioms for Modal Logic, that wouldn't make it true for reality in general.

I repeat; I disagree..thus, the debate. People don't debate over stuff that they agree on...they debate over stuff that they disagree on.

And the Jesus Resurrection argument dies before it gets off the ground as well. Everything you want to claim about Jesus (including the claim that he actually died) comes from the very same unverifiable rumors that make the claim that he rose from the dead.

I tend to have a different opinion about that...thus; the debate.

So there's nothing to debate. As I pointed out, it's just like debating Peter Pan. If you're going to debate against the story there's nothing to debate. Same way with the stories about Jesus. If we're going to accept the stories about Jesus then we have no choice but to accept the God spoke from the clouds and proclaimed Jesus to be his Son. Jesus was crucified at the demand of angry priests in an unofficial mob crucifixion just as the stories claim. Jesus then died, for three days, just as the stories claim. And then rose from the dead and ascended up into heaven.

We all know how the story goes.

I recall saying something similar as it relates to macroevolution..

Claim: A reptile evolved into a bird
Me: True, according to the theory.

If you want to debate the story there's nothing to debate. Yes, in the story Jesus supposedly dies, raises from the dead, and ascends to heaven.

What's to debate? It's no different from debating Peter Pan. You either accept the story or you don't.

I accept the story, you don't. Thus; the debate.

The reason people don't want to be bothered debating with you is because you are incapable of recognizing when your position on things is clearly wrong. You can't use the stories that you are trying to debate as evidence that they are true.

Until you recognize this fact, no one is going to waste their time debating with you.

I would accept this^ as a valid reason not to debate, if it wasn't for the fact that there are countless debates going on regarding these same subjects that you claim isn't worth debating.

Strange. You say these topics aren't worth debating...yet, you are a member of "Debating CHRISTIANITY and Religion".

Makes no sense whatsoever.

So, instead of wasting any more time trying to figure that nonsense out, I will just simply give you the last word, respect your decision not to debate on an audio/video platform...and keep it moving.

[Divine Insight]

I repeat; I disagree..thus, the debate. People don't debate over stuff that they agree on...they debate over stuff that they disagree on. .

You aren't even understanding our current conversation.

You and I already disagree on the credibility of the Gospel Rumors. You want to use the Gospel Rumors as evidence that Jesus lived, argued with his religious superiors, and was crucified and died because this is what the rumors claim.

I already have no reason to accept any of that.

But then you want to debate one whether or not Jesus was resurrected based on information obtained from these very same Gospels Rumors.

How can you not see why this would be an utterly absurd debate?

You are trying to use the Gospel Rumors as evidence for the things you can to claim are carved-in-stone truths, while expecting me to debate against that backdrop.

I can't imagine anyone who would want to fall for such a debate scam.

Heck, the Gospel Rumors claim that God spoke from the clouds proclaiming Jesus to be his Son. If we have to accept what the Gospel Rumors claim how can we argue with that?

You simply cannot use the Gospel Rumors as any sort of evidence for anything in your argument that Jesus was resurrected. And if you can't do that, then what on earth could you possibly hope to use in your argument?

So I can already tell you what a video debate between you and I would look like. Not need to actually video it.

You would appear with your smiling face proclaiming that you can show that Jesus was resurrected.

Then I would appear with my smiling face stating that I have accepted your video debate challenge.

Then you would make your case necessarily referencing claims made by the Gospel Rumors.

I would then simply say, "I see no reason to believe that anything in the Gospel Rumors has any credibility".

Now what are you going to do? Change the debate topic from "The Resurrection of Jesus" to "Are the Gospel Rumors Credible?".

That would be a whole different debate. One that I didn't sign up for. It's also one that I would not agree to having until you can first debate why we should believe in the Old Testament God.

So everything would crash and burn from there. Not to mention the fact that we would have moved so dramatically far from the original debate topic that we would be lost in Never Never land.

If you want to debate with me on the credibility of Hebrew mythology you need to start debating at Genesis Chapter 1 and we'll walk through the whole shebang from there. And trust me, we'll never need to discuss the New Testament or the resurrection of Jesus because we'll never get past the extreme problems contained in the Old Testament.

In short, until you can make a compelling case for the existence of Yahweh any arguments that try to claim that Jesus was his so-called "Son" are futile.

By the way, the claims in the New Testament that God spoke from the clouds proclaiming Jesus to be his Son prove the fallacy of the New Testament right there.

This religion is supposed to be monotheistic. And it's not even being claimed that Jesus was the demigod Son of Yahweh. To the contrary Jesus has to be a direct incarnation of Yahweh. And so having Yahweh refer to himself as his own Son is already an extreme absurdity and contradiction.

So the New Testament Gospel Rumors contain their own proof of their own fallacy.

Would you like to me to put this rebuttal to your Jesus Resurrection argument on video? Would that make you happy?

[Divine Insight]

Strange. You say these topics aren't worth debating...yet, you are a member of "Debating CHRISTIANITY and Religion".

I never said they weren't worth debating. I said they aren't worth debating with YOU. And I even explained why this is the case. You refuse to accept truth and continue to spew nonsense even after it has been pointed out to you why your continued debate path is no longer valid.

I'll be glad to debate these topics with a rational debate opponent. Give me someone like Robert Lawrence Kuhn to debate with and I'll be glad to sit down and have a video debate with him.

He's a reasonable person and is capable of comprehending the points I make.

The ultimate conclusion does not need to be that the resurrection of Jesus never took place. The only rational conclusion that needs to be understood is that there is no compelling evidence to believe that it did. And Robert Lawrence Kuhn is more than capable of comprehending this truth.

But you want to argue against that try to prove that there is overwhelming evidence to believe in the resurrection of Jesus which is absolutely false. In fact, you should already be fully aware of this fact. If you think you can show compelling evidence for the resurrection of Jesus you are only deluding yourself. That's just a fact of reality.

You are apparently believing unverifiable ancient rumors and have accepted them as "Gospel Truth" when in fact there is no credible evidence that they are anything more than totally unreliable "Gospel Rumors".

And as long as you are lost in that position why should anyone want to bother to debate with you?

It's simply an unrealistic position to take. You are assuming that ancient rumors are dependable and express truth. No one is going to accept that premise in order to debate with you. In fact, if they accept that premise at the beginning of the debate they've lost. Because the Gospel Rumors claim that God spoke from the clouds and proclaimed Jesus to be his Son. How is anyone going to debate against that if they have already accepted the premise that the Gospel Rumors are Gospel Truth?

[For_The_Kingdom]

So I can already tell you what a video debate between you and I would look like. Not need to actually video it.

You would appear with your smiling face proclaiming that you can show that Jesus was resurrected.

Then I would appear with my smiling face stating that I have accepted your video debate challenge.

Then you would make your case necessarily referencing claims made by the Gospel Rumors.

I would then simply say, "I see no reason to believe that anything in the Gospel Rumors has any credibility".

Now what are you going to do? Change the debate topic from "The Resurrection of Jesus" to "Are the Gospel Rumors Credible?".

That would be a whole different debate. One that I didn't sign up for. It's also one that I would not agree to having until you can first debate why we should believe in the Old Testament God.

So everything would crash and burn from there. Not to mention the fact that we would have moved so dramatically far from the original debate topic that we would be lost in Never Never land.

If you want to debate with me on the credibility of Hebrew mythology you need to start debating at Genesis Chapter 1 and we'll walk through the whole shebang from there. And trust me, we'll never need to discuss the New Testament or the resurrection of Jesus because we'll never get past the extreme problems contained in the Old Testament.

In short, until you can make a compelling case for the existence of Yahweh any arguments that try to claim that Jesus was his so-called "Son" are futile.

By the way, the claims in the New Testament that God spoke from the clouds proclaiming Jesus to be his Son prove the fallacy of the New Testament right there.

This religion is supposed to be monotheistic. And it's not even being claimed that Jesus was the demigod Son of Yahweh. To the contrary Jesus has to be a direct incarnation of Yahweh. And so having Yahweh refer to himself as his own Son is already an extreme absurdity and contradiction.

So the New Testament Gospel Rumors contain their own proof of their own fallacy.

Would you like to me to put this rebuttal to your Jesus Resurrection argument on video? Would that make you happy?

"No, I don't want to debate any of the selected subjects with you". Case closed.

[Divine Insight]

"No, I don't want to debate any of the selected subjects with you". Case closed.

What are the debate subjects?

You haven't made that clear.

What do you want to debate about the KCA?

Do you want to debate whether it is a logical argument if we accept premises that are no longer compatible with known physics? I can't imagine why anyone would want to debate that.

Or do you want to debate whether its premises are compatible with known physics? I'll take you up on the latter debate. My position is that it not compatible with known physics.

What do you want to debate about the MOA?

Do you want to debate whether it's logically consistent within the axioms of Modal Logic? Is so I have no desire to debate against that. I couldn't care less whether it's consistent within the axioms of Modal Logic.

Or do you want to debate whether reality must conform to Modal Logic? I'll take you up on the latter debate. My position is that Modal Logic does not describe reality it's a man-made whimsical formalism based on premises that have no meaning in terms of physical reality.

What do you want to debate about the Resurrection of Jesus?

Do you want to debate that the Gospel Rumors claim that Jesus died and was resurrected? If so I have no desire to debate against that. Of course they do. My position is that I have no reason to believe in the Gospel Rumors.

Or do you want to debate whether there is any credible reason to believe that Jesus was resurrected without relying on the Gospel Rumors as a credible source of information? Is so I'll take you up on that debate.

Also, if you're going to demand that I prove Jesus was never resurrected I reject your offer. I don't even make that claim. My only position is that there is no credible evidence to believe such fables. I'm not claiming that such a thing can be proven to have never happened. So why would I want to debate a position I never took.

Bottom Line is that your request for debates is ill-defined.

It's not even clear what you want to debate.

The Resurrection of Jesus is hardly a debate topic.

What is it that you want to debate about it?

That you believe you can prove it happened?
That you demand that your opponent prove that it never happened?

What sources will be permitted or excluded from the debate?

As I say, if you're going to use the Gospel Rumors as your source of evidence then what's to debate? The Gospel Rumors claim that God spoke from the clouds proclaiming Jesus to be his Son. If we are stuck with having to accept what the Gospel Rumors claim then what's to argue?

Peter Pan went to Never Never land. Or so the story claims.

What part of that did you not understand?

It's just not even remotely clear what it is that you want to debate.

When you set up a head-to-head debate you need to clarify precisely what it is that you want to debate. Otherwise the debate turns into nothing more than endless arguments over what the debate is even about and it goes nowhere.

So clarify what you want to debate, and what is permitted as evidence, and we can go from there. Until then it's not clear what you even want to debate.