Debate with Jerry McDonald: Round One

Round one is completed: each round consists of one statement from my opponent and one statement from me. My first rebuttal, which I submitted for approval last night, is now up. Because of the length, my response is divided into two parts -- read it through and see what you think.

15 comments:

Dave said...

You're a much bigger man than I am, Spencer. Had I been conducting this debate, my entire opening statement would have been as follows:

My opponent began his part in the debate by calling me an (unwitting, perhaps) minion in Satan's army. In his mindset, this is equivalent to calling me supremely evil, and hence morally atrocious. I therefore ask that my opponent apologize for and retract, with neither condition nor qualification, those remarks.

If he does not do so, I will withdraw from this debate. That my doing so may appear a concession in the eyes of my opponent, and other Christians who disregard the notion of discursive courtesy, concerns me not in the slightest.

I will not accept a response that he is unable to retract his remarks because to do so would be inconsistent with his worldview. I realize that his remarks are entailed by his worldview, and (although this was not made explicit) that he holds his worldview to be absolutely true, with no possibility whatsoever that he is in error. Nonetheless, in choosing to engage in this debate, he chose to abide by the common sense rules of gentlemanly conduct.

If my opponent acquiesces to my request, then we may continue.

Adrian said...

So much blather and wind that he's exhausted and devotes only a single paragraph to the stated topic and that boils down to a single quote from the Britannica which says nothing more than Christians believe Jesus was resurrected. That's his entire case.

Any response short of a snigger gives this dofus too much credit. Frankly I think you aren't merely wasting your time with this idiot but actually making him look better.

Spencer said...

Tyro wrote:
--------
Frankly I think you aren't merely wasting your time with this idiot but actually making him look better.
---------

I took a different approach in this debate. My rebuttal statement would have been roughly the same no matter who I was arguing against.

Raul said...

"I am in the army of Christ and my opponent, whether he realizes it or not, is in the army of Satan."
Man,I just love these people.

Geonite said...

The whole born of a virgin and dying and coming back after three days is a Mithra legend. Christianity is based on Paganism.

sfwc said...

That is a strong opening rebuttal, and you have successfully made your case. I only hope McDonald will understand it, otherwise the rest of the debate is likely to be fruitless.

District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...

Spencer,

As I see it you acquiest for the sake of argument the historicity of Jesus, the truthfulness of the account, God in general and in fact you even acquiest the resurrection itself...you do however argue the priori philosophical naturalism...

In fact, after all the (X, RDG, RGH and etc) you only basically argue that sice Jesus rose, it can't be proved that God did it. That's your whole argument in a nutshell.

Your argument is a treasuretrove for persons such as myself who have come to study atheistic arguments. Because you acquiest so deeply your argument is easily overcome by focusing on 3 things:

1- The promise of God
2- The claim of God
3- The equality of Jesus to God
3- The actualization of those promises and claims.

I wouldn't talk to you about anything else because you already concede everything else for argument's sake. In fact I wouldn't even have to prove God's existence or that he spoke, I would only have to prove his actions. Your argument would require very little historical evidence as its purely a philosophical one.

Your scientific basis is probably one of the most weak areas. To in essence claim that Jesus rose by natural means currently undiscovered by scientific knowledge is laughable, and basic mathematical theory of statistical probablility would put that to shame.

So have fun, I'll be looking through the arguments to see what you're really claiming. It's interesting.

Spencer said...

District,

Perhaps you'd care to interact with my arguments and tell me where they go wrong.

District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...

Spencer,

I don't think your arguments "go wrong" per say so far as chosing a position to argue from, but I think that since you give a lot of room (for argument's sake) and you are only arging one single point of the question and that's basically,

"How do we know God raised Jesus and not some unexplained or currently unknown natural circumstance?"

In other words, you are arguing that IF it was God that did it, we cannot know it...

I would simply attempt to demonstrate that no other entity, force, being or thought made the promise to do so, performed what he promised. I would also demonstrate that science had no vested interest in the claim and therefore would be an unlikely and unwilling hero in raising Jesus.

It seems that an argument like that would have strength since you also acquiest to the position that the biblical record is also accurate in what it records (even if not inspired etc.)...This is a field day for the opponent IF one isn't caught up in "traditional" methods of arguments such as Tactitus, Seutoneous, eyewitneses, etc...because you are not disputing any of that...you're only disputing "God" doing it...

One thing which I think is good, is that you foster a historical philosophical argument and not merely an evidential historical argument (John knows the technical names for what I'm saying here)which can do a Christian good when trying to communicate certain truths to atheists and nonbelievers in general.

So don't let me undermine you, I think you are using a tactic that has not been often used and one that Christians should brush up on.

So my criticism isn't meant to be harsh...it's really an observation.

Carry on...I'll be watching to see how your oponent argues this...very interesting.

District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...

PLEASE excuse my horible typing and counting skills...I'm sorry-LOL

Thanks.

District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...

SPELLING TOO!!!

Spencer said...

District Harvey,

Thanks for your observations. But if you disagree with my conclusion, then it's on you to show where my arguments go wrong. If you can't do that, then you can't rationally reject my conclusion.

Spencer said...

Jerry's second affirmative is up on his site: http://www.challenge2.org/mcd2ndaffres.pdf

Spencer said...

update: Jerry's next affirmative is now up on the forum. http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=269819

Spencer said...

update: I just submitted my second rebuttal for approval. It should be up soon.