Walton vs. axiom-tech discussion

[Nathon Detroit]

My opening is actually 1497 not counting the references and their numbers. So technically, Axiom-Tech's opening is 1622 (not 1625... my bad). Personally, I count using someone else's quote as your numbered rebuttal because you're using your opponent's words to support your argument against him! Yeah, sure, at the bell we let our opponent finish their sentence. But a 122 word sentence? (and more arguing in the reference section no less?) C'mon! Does the referee let a boxer throw a last punch at his opponent when the bell rings? I want a fight. :box: But a fair one. And it doesn't seem like anybody is doing anything about it. However, I've decided to finish this debate despite what's happening because I know I can beat my opponent.

I said.... "Even in a structured, moderated verbal debate all contestants get to finish their sentences even when the buzzer has already sounded."

Think of it this way....

Even your post I have quoted above is 126 words, yet only a few sentences long (just to give us all a feel for how little 126 words looks like). Is that really such a big deal? Furthermore... had you asked nicely for us to warn your opponent we may have done that, instead you took it upon yourself to make it a "big deal" by posting your own warning in the debate thread. And then when we explained our position you responded with harsh insults.

 

[FrankWalton]

Please, oh, please, knight, don't tell me about being rude! I have sent you countless emails telling you about the infraction yet you did not give me one email in response. Why?? You deliberately ignored me and yet you talk about being rude? Look, I'm not going to say anything about the word count anymore seeing how it's practically useless doing so, I'm just telling you to do your job. And you're not. You even said,

"I (and the other admins) will be moderating the debate to make sure the contestants follow the above agreed upon rules."

But you didn't do that now did you?

Yes, I did go to you first, and, yes, you don't owe me anything. But I went to you thinking that you would actually be fair. Make whatever excuse you want, pal. Either way, if I ever get into a boxing match, rest assured I won't have you as my referee. Look, you seem like a stand up guy, but your standards of fairness are, well :kookoo:

But whatever...

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Please, oh, please, knight, don't tell me about being rude! I have sent you countless emails telling you about the infraction yet you did not give me one email in response. Why??

Why didn't I respond to your email yesterday? Because it was Sunday and I was at church.

And by the way.... since when does ONE constitute "countless"??? :think:

You deliberately ignored me and yet you talk about being rude? Look, I'm not going to say anything about the word count anymore seeing how it's practically useless doing so, I'm just telling you to do your job. And you're not. You even said,



But you didn't do that now did you?

Yes, I did go to you first, and, yes, you don't owe me anything. But I went to you thinking that you would actually be fair. Make whatever excuse you want, pal. Either way, if I ever get into a boxing match, rest assured I won't have you as my referee. Look, you seem like a stand up guy, but your standards of fairness are, well :kookoo:

But whatever...

Frank... you made up the arbitrary word count for this debate not me. And when you came to us for the first time regarding this infraction you told Turbo that you would be willing to let the word infraction "slide" if we felt that was best, and Turbo determined that letting the word infraction slide was the best thing yet you weren't willing to let it "slide" were you? You didn't even have the courtesy to wait until Turbo responded back to you before you posted your own warning in the thread and began publicly criticizing our forum.

Frank, you are a petty, pathetic jerk.

Please leave TOL and do not come back. You are not welcome here.

 

[axiom-tech]

Um.. Does this mean if I reply he can't read it?

 

[axiom-tech]

Well, can you guys give him a 2nd chance? I'm sorry he's a jerk, he insulted me many times via email in our first chat. I don't make a big deal about it though.

I'd give him a second chance :idunno:

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Well, can you guys give him a 2nd chance? I'm sorry he's a jerk, he insulted me many times via email in our first chat. I don't make a big deal about it though.

I'd give him a second chance :idunno:

Frank is a liar and a fool. Frank says he sent me "countless" emails that I didn't respond to yet in truth he sent me one email while I was at church. Turbo (another TOL admin) filled in as always but that wasn't enough for Frank and apparently he felt compelled to turn his chance at fame into a train wreck. Frank hurts the gospel and damages the cause for truth.

In an email sent to me today Frank told me that I "suck".

He is not welcome on TOL.

 

[macguy]

He is kinda like the guy from Tektonics (J.P Holding), which I like even though I don't engage into satire unless it's on of 'em idiotic teen forums. The idiocy seriously gets on my nerves but most of the time I thankfully control it.

Personally, I count using someone else's quote as your numbered rebuttal because you're using your opponent's words to support your argument against him!

Certainly, as I think this is what I did with Axiom's argument on my previous post. However, you could use it against him but the quote itself stands as nothing unless one explains his/her argument. Isn't an argument supposed to be one's own words? In most cases that I've seen, debates with William Craig have, don't have quotes at all but just words although they can still use each other's arguments.

In an email sent to me today Frank told me that I "suck".

:rotfl:That's all he said? Hmm...

Because it was Sunday and I was at church.

You mean, the "Lord's Day"...Lawl cause Sunday is a pagan name where it's supposed to be the Sun's Day.

He is not welcome on TOL.

No!! Eh and here I was enjoying the conversation...Had this feeling that something bad would turn out.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

:rotfl:That's all he said? Hmm...

No, that's not all. That was just the best part.

 

[axiom-tech]

Ok, I want to respond to his last post, is it ok if I posted it here? Will i be banned for that?

 

[Turbo]

Here is the first note I got from Frank on Sunday morning (emphasis added by me):

Hi Turbo,

I'm debating Axiom-Tech in the "one-on-one" forum, and I understand that you're one of the administrators. According to the format our opening arguments are suppose to be no more than 1500 words long. If you look at Axiom-Tech's opening, it's 1625 words long! And that's not counting the references (I don't count references). I'm willing to let this slide since his first paragraph isn't really crucial. However, he did break the rules. I hope I don't sound like a tattle tell but I was afraid something like this might happen. Though I treasure my relationship with Axiom-Tech I don't trust the guy. That's why I needed you guys to moderate the debate. But I hope you guys warn Axiom-Tech about this.

Hoping to hear from you,

Frank

I replied that afternoon:

That's not a really big overage; less than 10%. I think we should
let it slide. I wouldn't even bring it up in the threads, as it
would distract from the debate itself.

Turbo

He wrote back:

It's too late. I already brought it to the thread:

www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1395475&postcount=5

Rules are rules and if you continue to let him slide when breaks them then what's the use of having rules in the first place? Look, I'm letting it slide too, but couldn't you guys at least give him a warning? I can't believe you guys couldn't even do that. Furthermore, if you look in his reference section (#3), HE DID MORE ARGUING!

Incredible.

Frank

:doh: I guess by "I'm willing to let this slide," Frank meant: I am ready to go down in flames over this.

 

[s Allegory]

Aww man, Frank needs to get his act together! His last debate was a complete debacle as well. I was I staunch supporter and yet he seems to turn every encounter with others to garbage. Yeah, he's not worth dealing with. ** EDITED by Knight** Frank

 

[axiom-tech]

REBUTTAL #2

AT has already assumed that nature is uniform when it’s the very thing he must be proving! He is begging the question!

Frank, as condescending as this may sound, you really need to take a philosophy 101 class, or read a book. It's embarrassing enough that you've been banned for being a jerk, but your rebuttals are just bleeding with your ignorance. I am only continuing this debate out of respect.

For example:

You accusing me of committing the fallacy of 'begging the question' - I don't know if you're familiar with what this means, but its when a premise in an argument presupposes the conclusion in some way.

Example:

God exists because the Bible says so. The Bible was written by God.

The conclusion is 'god exists' and his premise 'because the bible says so' assumes the conclusion. Since my conclusion is *not* that nature is uniform, but rather, that all explanations therefore must be naturalistic, and I have nowhere in my premise(s) the conclusion, this is not 'begging the question.'

Here's what it would look like to beg the question in respect to induction.

Since nature has always been uniform in the past, tomorrow it will be uniform.

How, AT, can you account for the uniformity of nature?

Frank, please answer my question

Frank, does god have a nature? Is it not in god's nature to be good? What reason does god have to expect that tomorrow his nature will change to evil, or suddenly he becomes not all-powerful? The truth is, you most likely believe that gods nature is eternal and unchanging (uniform). Please explain what accounts for the uniformity of god's nature. Sure, god may control this world, but that presupposes he does so based on his will or nature which is unchanging.

If you answer "His eternal nature just is" - then my reply to the problem of induction is 'The cosmos reflects eternal laws which govern all that is'

Currently, I'm quite skeptical a justification is possible or even needed for induction. All apparent justifications have been circular. As of now I simply presuppose the uniformity of nature, as somewhat of an axiom. All things aside, I'm guessing you think you do have a justification for induction, if that's true frank then can you please address my *argument* - If you think we're justified in using induction, then address my inductive argument!

Well, as far as I can tell the uniformity of nature assumes a super naturalistic explanation. I’d like to see how AT deals with that argument.

Please explain this. Answer my questions above.

AT believes that the physical brain is the mind. And the mind is the physical brain.

The mind is what the brain does. Just as digestion is what a stomach does. This also is not what "I believe" but rather the conclusion that the scientific community has made.

It’s just physical. And if our “minds” are nothing but physical entities do we label our “thinking” false or true? That would be as meaningful as saying your chair is false.

Huh? 'thinking' is not true or false, statements are. Truth is the status of a statement. Even if our minds were nonphysical, or made of water they would not be 'true' - What on earth are you smoking my friend, holy cow.

If the world were only made of matter, our subjective consciousness would not exist. But they do exist!

Oh brother. I recommend "How the Mind Works by Steven Pinker" - "The Mind's I: Fantasies and Reflections on Self & Soul by Douglas R. Hofstadter, Daniel C. Dennett"

However, even if we grant his premise (via induction) it doesn’t necessarily follow that God doesn’t exist because we can give evidence for immaterial minds

Finally. This is your only example in this debate where you actually address my arguments. 25/990 words of your entire reubuttle. Provide one example of a mind with out a physical machine.

Does a machine like a car feel a mental sensation like pain though? Sadly, AT describes our minds as “machines” too.

No, not like a car, but yes machines can, in principle feel pain. Please read the MINDS-I.

God is by definition not physical like us. In fact, my opponent agreed with me. In his opening, he states that God is “Transcendent (above nature / beyond)” and “Disembodied (no physical body).” If God has no physical body then obviously he would have no physical brain.

Frank, that's my point. My argument supports the conclusion that such a being can't exist!

AT’s argument for naturalism and the mind-body via induction is filled with logical fallacies, and he has yet to deal with the problem of induction as well as refute my evolutionary argument against naturalism and then some.

1) You only listed one logical fallacy, which ended up not even being a fallacy
2) You have not given an account for the problem of induction
3) You have not even mentioned why my refutation is the EVAAN fails

 

[Nathon Detroit]

:doh: I guess by "I'm willing to let this slide," Frank meant: I am ready to go down in flames over this.

:rotfl:

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Ok, I want to respond to his last post, is it ok if I posted it here? Will i be banned for that?

No. Go for it.

It wasn't your fault your opponent wasn't prepared for battle.

 

[PKevman]

How truly sad that Frank acted that way. I sure hope he sees that what he did is wrong and repents of it. If he had just stayed on topic he could have destroyed Axiom's arguments with the light of truth REGARDLESS of how many words Axiom used. I for one know firsthand the feeling of having someone attempt to bend the rules in a debate, but at least these were Axiom's own words and it didn't SEEM to be intentional!

 

[PKevman]

Frank if you read this, you brought shame to the name of Christ and gave legitimacy to the atheists on this board and their positions. I have a feeling we will be hearing about this for a long time. You should be ashamed of yourself. God's truth will always prevail, you should know that!

Further, I don't appreciate your treatment of Knight, is a friend and a brother in Christ to me. You don't even know the man, and you made some very serious accusations against his character. I find that behavior to be utterly inexcusable! I have always found Knight to be reasonable and he always attempts to do the right thing. Your banning comes well-deserved in my opinion!

 

[Nathon Detroit]

How truly sad that Frank acted that way. I sure hope he sees that what he did is wrong and repents of it. If he had just stayed on topic he could have destroyed Axiom's arguments with the light of truth REGARDLESS of how many words Axiom used. I for one know firsthand the feeling of having someone attempt to bend the rules in a debate, but at least these were Axiom's own words and it didn't SEEM to be intentional!

That's a great point, and that's pretty much what I tried to tell Frank in my email (the one before he told me I "suck").

In PastorKevin's case his opponent did what I would call a MAJOR infraction but PastorKevin stayed the course and knew what was most important which was getting the truth out and making his point.

One final note....
Frank accuses us of not moderating the debate but that is a lie. Turbo made the judgment on Sunday that we should let the minor infraction "slide" which Frank said himself he would stand by. That wasn't good enough for Frank. Ultimately Frank didn't want us to moderate the debate.... he wanted to moderate it himself and he was hoping to win on a technicality. :nono:

 

[axiom-tech]

If :mario: then :banana:

~ :mario:

Therefore: :banned:

 

[macguy]

REBUTTAL #2
Frank, please answer my question

You do realize that these debates go in this order correct?


Opening Statement (A) > Rebuttal #1 (F) > Rebuttal #2 (A) > Conclusion (F)

Opening Statement (F) > Rebuttal #1 (A) > Rebuttal #2 (F) > Conclusion (A)

So in his second rebuttal, he has answered your arguments in regards to your first rebuttal. You'll notice that he essentially starts his 1st rebuttal like this:

Axiom-Tech (AT) first starts off by stating my God is no more meaningful than any other gods and would be on “equal terms” with them. Practically speaking not all gods are the same.

In this case he was obviously replying to your open statement. In which case his second rebuttal should address your arguments. In regards to your mind argument, he hasn't replied because those observations that you speak of is using the inductive method correct? So why should he solve something when you haven't addressed the other issue that is purported to support your proposition?

 

[axiom-tech]

Conclusion

Unfortunately Frank decided to tighten the screws in the debate at the end. I can not possibly respond and clean up the huge mess Frank left in his last rebuttal. Such an orgy of out-of-context, misquotes, fallacies, etc etc. I shal try.

I doubt that AT even understood the point of my argument as I read his “Wal-Mart” example which is a clear false analogy to what I’m suggesting.

What's analogous is the reasoning.

“Perhaps Paul very much likes the idea of being eaten, but when he sees a tiger, always runs off looking for a better prospect, because he thinks it unlikely that the tiger he sees will eat him. This will get his body parts in the right place so far as survival is concerned, without involving much by way of true belief.” [1]

Frank, I'd love to respond to the EAAN, but with a 600 word limit I simply can't.

a belief has warrant for someone if and only if that belief was formed by cognitive faculties that are functioning properly in accordance with a design plan in an environment appropriate for the way those faculties were designed and when the design plan for our faculties is aimed at obtaining truth.

By this reasoning, god is not justified in believing his cogfactulites are reliable since he was not designed, and therefore are not functioning in accordance with a design plan.

AT asks me to explain a “chance universe.” A chance universe is that which is random and unpredictable.

I don't believe in a chance universe. So your earlier accusation fails.

AT asks how don’t we know that God will change in the future. It’s quite easy really. The God of Christianity is a covenant keeping God.

What does this mean? That he keeps his promises? That begs the question Frank, since I asked how you justify the belief that god's nature is uniform. Saying he keeps his promises assumes his nature is uniform - notice the word 'keeps' ? Same game.

You make assumptions, as do I. Give the induction stuff up.

AT says his reply to the problem of induction is “The cosmos reflects eternal laws which govern all that is.”

False. I said that would by my hypothetical response *IF* you answered my question in a certain way, which you did.

--

I'd continue trying to hose down the fallacious vomit Frank has smeared all over this debate, but I simply do not have enough water.

In conclusion:

This debate was over whether or not a god exists. I provided positive arguments which suggested such a being could not, and therefore does not. All we heard from Frank's side was a poorly executed presuppositional argument fails since it's conclusion can be said to fall into the same problem. Even if we pretend such an argument works, it at best only concludes at sometime in the past there was a being that made the universe a certain way. Nothing more, no Jesus, no angels, no bible.

His second argument was a huge logical fallacy, he contradicted himself, used oxymoron's to justify his already fallacious argument. If I were to print Franks opening statement out and turn it in as homework for a philosophy class, the teacher would fail me.

I of course, am willing to debate Frank, or anyone else for that matter (including childish bigots like Rook, and perverted losers like Sapient), any time. Formal or informal.

- Thank you