Lewis' Trilemma

I'm not one much for games. Both of us know what you're doing. I really dislike the period where you put on you Vulcan obtuseness and pretend you are innocent. You're mod. There is no recourse. There is no need for the sham.

Although Mopac was identified as the Contender, he took the pro side of the argument. You took the negative side. Thus, you were Con and Mopac was Pro.

"Regardless if my errors were fewer you should not have awarded me that point."

I should not have?

I gave you a point because you had fewer errors.

Regardless if my errors were fewer you should not have awarded me that point.

"Reason for Mod Action: The justification for argument points was borderline, but we will default to considering it sufficient. S&G is insufficiently explained. There are two reasons why it's not enough to say Grammarly suggested that Con had better S&G. First, Grammarly looks at every single grammatical mistake, but S&G points should only be awarded when grammatical errors reach the point where the readability of debaters is severely impaired. Second, the voter is required to specifically reference text from the debate from both sides proving grammatical errors, and explain why one side's readability was worse than the other. The voter may properly revote by sufficiently justifying the S/G points they awarded or by choosing not to award those points."

***

So, you want me to subtract the point I awarded to Con? Fine!

Grammarly lists spelling and grammar, plus a number of other issues I did not include. On the issue of spelling and grammar alone, Con had fewer errors, but that could have been because he supplied half the argument that Pro did. There was just that much less to make mistakes over.

I would disagree that both votes were more thorough in dealing with the arguments than Ram's vote, though Ethang's certainly was more thorough in that regard. Length =/= thoroughness. But that's not the issue. The voter must sufficiently warrant EACH point they award, and therein lies the problem. Had all votes only awarded argument points, they all would have passed muster--but they didn't, and failed to justify the other points they award sufficiently. Both voters may revote--and it was clearly explained HOW they could revote sufficiently so that they could do so if they wished. If voters have questions about those explanations, they are free to ask me questions. In either case, the fix is easy.

Each vote is evaluated for sufficiency in isolation from the other votes in play. PGA's vote was evaluated on Oct. 21, but there was some question as to whether his argument points were sufficient and Tej and I both became pretty busy, hence the delayed notice and removal. So, moderation knew his vote would be taken down more than a week ago (before Ethang's vote). The delayed notices are also due in part to moderation being slightly behind on reports due to Tej's temporary absence, which has made prompt notices difficult. And, also, Ethang's vote was only reported today.

According to Mike, the revote option will come back in a few minutes. Not sure how long it takes, though. But you should 100% be able to revote, and I gave clear advice on how to do that in a way which would pass moderation standards. Explain why you found the poor conduct excessive, or simply choose not to award conduct points.

Wow I honestly am a bit shocked that two voted were removed less than half a day before the voting period ended. One of these votes was removed for awarding a S&G vote to con, but will end up giving con a tie instead of an L. And both were far more thorough and well-referenced than ramshutu's vote, which still stands.

If both votes were allowed to stand, the 'wrong' points on each cancelled each out anyway, with the mathematical lead between debaters being the exact same as if they were resubmitted without the votes in error. Literally the only practical result of this is that Virt gets a tie instead of an lose. You'd think that the naked appearance of corruption would be something that moderation would look to avoid...

I haven't tried to revote. Bsh1 would make the effort a waste anyway. Take your win dude, that perk comes with being #2 (or is it #3 ?) in the cabal.

I’m surprised that you can’t revote if your vote is removed. I think that’s something that should be done.

You should be able to revote if you want and just post arguments.

Yeah Virt, you would think I should be able to.

I feel like I should have pushed harder in the debate.

Perhaps. I have seen you better.

You should be able to revote if you want and just post arguments.

I feel like I should have pushed harder in the debate.

The last time I voted, it was deleted because I did not mention every point. Bsh1 would only find some other reason. Or get one of his lackies to break the tie/win. Swag/PGA/Ethan. This has been a good debate. But you are ether part of the cabal, or you are not. No fence-sitting.

To award conduct points, the misconduct must be "excessively rude" or profane.

Really? What if there was no misconduct but just that one debater was better?

It is not clear from the RFD how or why the voter regards the misconduct as excessive, though he notes that it occurred.

Lol. It's OK bsh1. Filed. At least there is a mod on record disagreeing. Now who will you get to break the tie?

Feel free to re vote without the conduct point if you wish

Thank you sir.

For the record I think the conduct point was sufficient.

You can recast your vote in a way which makes it sufficient. I explained how to do that in my notice to you. Namely, I said that the voter "may properly revote either by not awarding conduct or by addressing the insufficiency in the justification of the awarded conduct points." Your arguments were sufficient, but the justification of conduct points was not, as I explained.

Now cue one of the clique to come and break the tie. Pitiful.

PGA's RFD, Part 3:

What evidence does Con have to support the accuracy? He never gave any.
While it is true that other points could be added to the trilemma the one Con chose also falls into the problem of soundness and validity, which Con failed to establish. Pro, on the other hand, did establish that these early believers looked upon Jesus as Lord. I give the edge to Pro.

PGA's RFD, Part 2:

How did Con lay into the credibility of Jesus? Did he lay into the credibility of the disciples/apostles? Not really. He used innuendo to suggest that they made this person - Jesus - into a legend. But what actual historic evidence does he have to back the claim? He presented none, just asserted 'legend.' What we have available to us he never touched. Con never presented any early evidence that refutes the biblical accounts and he never shows how they were turned into legend? Lewis bases his trilemma on the Jesus of Scripture. Pro also based his argument on Scripture. These disciples claimed they were eyewitnesses to His three and a half years of ministry, His death, and His resurrection. Pro laid out a number of Scriptures that identified Jesus as Lord. They did not think He was a liar or lunatic. In fact, early church history records many of them dying for what - a lie? A lunatic? No, they spread the news of the Lord at the risk of excruciating deaths, in some cases. We have no evidence at all that they recanted Him as Lord.
Furthermore, Con agreed to debate the Trilemma,
"This debate asks us to look at the Lewis' Trilemma argument as defined in the description of this debate."
"Any other outside arguments for Jesus' divinity will be ignored. For pro to win this debate he must prove that this argument is sound."
Con then brings a fourth element into the discussion based on the soundness and validity of the trilemma premises:
"There is, however, a fourth choice: Jesus was a legend. The argument centers around the assumption that the Gospel's accurately record Jesus' teachings and that the miracles he allegedly performed are historical facts. Unless pro proves those things, pro cannot win this debate."

PGA's RFD, Part 1:

Regarding spelling and grammar, I used Grammarly to judge between the two debaters on the merits of spelling, grammar, and punctuation. Pro had the better, but he also wrote far less than Pro. Pro also used a lot of KJV archaic language. I still give the edge to Con.
Pro used a reliable source when he quoted from early church fathers. Con used more sources (two) and one was reliable and one was biased, IMO. Therefore, I give them a tie.
I found their conduct equally cordial.
Now to the arguments themselves. I found that Pro provided more of an argument. Con just repeated his legend argument over and over again as if it was the knockout punch, but Con did not give any credible argument that this was the case, that these eyewitnesses embellished the character of Christ into legend. I don't know of any such argument from early history. Lewis based his argument on the historic manuscripts.
What Pro said in his third round still stands, IMO:
"What is really the issue here? Is whether or not you believe Jesus is who he says he is. If you do not believe Jesus is who he says he is, you are calling him a liar or a lunatic."

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: PGA2.0 // Mod action: Removed

>Points Awarded: 3 points to Pro for arguments, 1 point to Con for S/G

>Reason for Decision: [posted above]

>Reason for Mod Action: The justification for argument points was borderline, but we will default to considering it sufficient. S&G is insufficiently explained. There are two reasons why it's not enough to say Grammarly suggested that Con had better S&G. First, Grammarly looks at every single grammatical mistake, but S&G points should only be awarded when grammatical errors reach the point where the readability of debaters is severely impaired. Second, the voter is required to specifically reference text from the debate from both sides proving grammatical errors, and explain why one side's readability was worse than the other. The voter may properly revote by sufficiently justifying the S/G points they awarded or by choosing not to award those points.
************************************************************************

Ethang's RFD, Part 2:

“…as Scripture states: God is not a man that He should lie, nor a mortal that He should change His mind.”
But the same scripture he uses here for validation, says that Jesus was not merely/only a man. This objection fails because he is contradicted by the scripture he uses for validation, and his unwarranted assumption that Jesus is only a man.
The charge that Jesus lied is obviously not supported. In his first quoted scripture in supported of his claim that Jesus lied, Con himself records Jesus as saying, ” “I have spoken openly to the world; I always taught in a synagogue and in the Temple, where all the Jews come together; and I spoke nothing in secret. Why do you Question me?”
Con said Jesus purposefully veiled his teachings, but that is not equal to lying, even if it were true. And he gives no reason for us to believe Jesus was in any way dishonest in his speech. Someone not understanding Jesus is not the same as Jesus being deliberately mysterious. Con gives us no

Ethang's RFD, Part 1:

On Arguments:
Con’s point that Jesus being legend was a fourth choice was not logical. Even if Jesus was legend, that would not disturb the logic of Him being either Lord, Liar, or Lunatic within the legend. Pro’s definition of legend was helpful, we saw that legend can be “regarded as historical although not verifiable".
Con even said, “It's important to note that this (Lord, Lair, Lunatic) is the only argument this debate is centered around. Any other outside arguments for Jesus' divinity will be ignored.” I would then expect that any other outside arguments AGAINST Jesus' divinity should likewise be ignored.” Otherwise the criteria become unfair to Pro.
Pro satisfied me that Jesus must logically be one of the 3 options regardless of whether the story is considered legend or not.

Con states, “Any man who claims to be God can be dismissed as a liar without any further examinations of his claims or miracles that he does or does not perform….”
But then bases his dismissal on scripture;

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Ethang5 // Mod action: Removed

>Points Awarded: 4 points to Pro for arguments and conduct

>Reason for Decision: [posted above]

>Reason for Mod Action: The arguments points were sufficiently justified. To award conduct points, the misconduct must be "excessively rude" or profane. It is not clear from the RFD how or why the voter regards the misconduct as excessive, though he notes that it occurred. To be excessive is to be either very frequent or extremely severe. The vote may properly revote either by not awarding conduct or by addressing the insufficiency in the justification of the awarded conduct points.
************************************************************************

Would love to get your vote

I have no gripe with you, and I hope that you have no gripe with me, and in any case it'd be silly for me to get up in arms over this. If you decide not to restore my vote in its original form then I'll understand (not as though I could do anything about it but still). However, there is a reason that I normally do not debate or vote: I'm too lazy for it. I usually have no motivation for anything beyond casual discussion in the forums. Accordingly, I'm not about to take the time or effort, as miniscule as such may amount to from your perspective, to review the debate and rewrite my vote. So in that event I guess the current vote tally will stand, pending another vote by somebody else or another removal of somebody's vote by you or another mod.

I would argue that this debate in itself was sort of a truism (or whatever you call it). For example, imagine that the topic was "God Exists". Since obviously that could not be proven, a more reasonable way of phrasing it would be "The likelihood that God exists is higher than the likelihood that God does not exist". Unless stated otherwise by the rules of the debate, I think any reasonable voter would interpret the resolution in that way.
But in this case, there is no such room for interpretation. "Lewis's Trilemma is valid unless there should originate a fourth option" would be an awfully constructed debate, because the whole idea of the Trilemma is that there are only three possible options. It'd amount to "I am right unless I am wrong", in which case it's impossible for the instigator to lose. That's what I'd regard as a debate undertaken in bad faith, with no intention of honestly hashing it out but rather just exploiting a loophole in the rules to claim victory. So I think we simply have to interpret the resolution as "Lewis's Trilemma is valid and there is no fourth option".

I mean, that would've made for one really dang impressive case on Pro's part. I think I would've remembered something like that.

@bsh1 I need to provide evidence that Pro has not satisfactorily debunked the reasonable possibility of Jesus being a mythical figure, or otherwise the reasonable possibility that Jesus Himself did not say many of the things attributed to Him in the Gospels? Really? Is this really how votes are going to be handled on DART?

Swag's RFD:

I was asked by Pro (Mopac) to vote on this debate. In doing so, it can be assumed that he asked me to take a look at the debate and exercise my judgment in deciding who I think made better arguments. It would be unethical to simply vote for the person who asked me to vote, unless I should decide that his arguments were better. It is possible that in casting my vote I will not have satisfactorily interpreted the arguments made by one or both parties, as I've only read through them once. That's a risk I'm willing to take.
So that being said...
We must look at Lewis's intended meaning behind "Liar, Lunatic, or Lord". This could be reworded as "Either Jesus was a man who lied about his claims of divinity, or Jesus was a man who was insane, or Jesus really was God in human flesh and therefore you ought to acknowledge Him as your Lord". All of these are exclusive to Jesus being a "legend", which as interpreted by Con meant "something that is a fable but which did not exist in fact". To Pro's credit, I will discount Con's side arguments as to why Jesus was not Lord, on the grounds that He was either a liar or a lunatic; I do not feel that Con has satisfactorily proved either of these things. But in any case, were Jesus to be a liar or a lunatic that would not be a repudiation of Lewis's trilemma. However, since the reasonable possibility of Jesus being a non-existent person would negate Lewis's Trilemma, Pro's job was to show that this was not the case. In my opinion, he has failed on this account. Therefore, this nullifying objection to Lewis's Trilemma stands. Therefore, I must give the win to Con.

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Swagnarok // Mod action: Removed

>Points Awarded: 3 points to Con for arguments

>Reason for Decision: [posted above]

>Reason for Mod Action: I thought this vote was sufficient up until the voter failed to explain why "he has failed on this account." This is a weighing issue and a surveying issue. It is never made clear why Pro failed in this respect, and were the voter's reasoning in this regard made clear, a revote would likely be accepted as sufficient.
************************************************************************

YOU SAID: "We must look at Lewis's intended meaning behind "Liar, Lunatic, or Lord". This could be reworded as "Either Jesus was a man who lied about his claims of divinity, or Jesus was a man who was insane, or Jesus really was God in human flesh and therefore you ought to acknowledge Him as your Lord". All of these are exclusive to Jesus being a "legend", which as interpreted by Con meant "something that is a fable but which did not exist in fact". To Pro's credit, I will discount Con's side arguments as to why Jesus was not Lord, on the grounds that He was either a liar or a lunatic; I do not feel that Con has satisfactorily proved either of these things. But in any case, were Jesus to be a liar or a lunatic that would not be a repudiation of Lewis's trilemma. However, since the reasonable possibility of Jesus being a non-existent person would negate Lewis's Trilemma, Pro's job was to show that this was not the case."

The unfortunate thing is that unless a person is a theist they tend to look at the Bible as myth or legend and build that presupposition into their judgment, despite the evidence to the contrary. Something happened that some of these early disciples (and in some cases direct eyewitnesses) died excruciating deaths for what...a lie/liar or a lunatic? That doesn't make sense. The gospel writers do not act as conspirators in this theory. And all the Roman or Jewish authorities need to do was produce the dead body from the grave to squash the whole movement. This did not happen. What is more, the OT predicted the coming Messiah within the timeframe of the OT economy. These people went to their death proclaiming Jesus is Lord. Much of the NT and OT looks towards the coming judgment by God on a disobedient people. These things are not easily explained away.

Also, Jesus being a non-existent person is stretching it.

Con took the one verse and excluded it from the immediate context and the context of the whole NT in its relationship to the OT. Anyone can take a verse out of context and give the impression that Jesus lied, yet they ignore the rest of the testimony. Plus, who would willingly go to their deaths for a lie or a lunatic? Maybe one or a couple of deranged people, but not only all those closest to Jesus but many who believed on their message.

Continue:

Jesus said later in Mark 3:
24 If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. 25 If a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand. 26 If Satan has risen up against himself and is divided, he cannot stand, but he is finished! 27 But no one can enter the strong man’s house and plunder his property unless he first binds the strong man,

JUDGMENT!

Thus, He was not out of His mind like they thought and He did not lie.

"In addition: con clearly cites examples of Lies told by Jesus, and examples where his family thought he was mad. Unfortunately for pro - the argument in favour of Jesus not being a liar or mad was entirely uncompelling and smacked of cherry picking - simply selecting all the times Jesus supposedly didn’t lie or didn’t appear mad cited from a clearly biased source isn’t a clear indication that he is not a liar, or a “lunatic”, and as a result cons position clearly wins on these two examples also."

These kinds of claims of Jesus lying are put forth all the time, yet there are mostly refuted by logical reasoning on a number of websites. Just because those crowds did not fully UNDERSTAND who He was or what He was saying at the time, they knew so after His resurrection and many changed died excruciating deaths because they would not recant their testimony and deny Jesus as Lord.

The point is that their whole OT spoke of these times they lived in and their promised Messiah. No other person can fulfill this prophetic Messiah after AD 70 because the whole OT economy, including its Mosaic prophecy is null and void after AD 70. The Messiah was to come to a Mosaic Covenant people. That covenant does not exist as they agreed to before God (Exodus 24:3) after AD 70. God brought judgment on Israel as a nation per Deuteronomy 28, and in AD 70 many would understand this. Their whole world, their heaven and earth (Matthew 5:17-18) would come crashing down in AD 70, because their relationship with God and their whole worship system could no longer be fulfilled by THEM. That is judgment.

Being a legend is not a legitimate fourth option because as I demonstrated, pretty much everything story in history as well as the people involved fulfil the definition of being legends.

In other words, it isn't relevent.

Besides that, if you actually believe what it is Jesus is saying, to call Jesus Lord is to call God Lord, God being The Truth.

The Truth is certainly not a legend. A legend can be a liar or a lunatic. A legend can be mad or bad.

In fact, to call Jesus a liar or a lunatic... you might as well just be calling Jesus a legend. But to call Jesus Lord is to call God Lord, not a legend.

Sorry, forgot to tag you in the previous comment.

==================================================================
>Reported vote: Ramshutu // Moderator action: NOT removed<

3 points to Con (arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Con clearly spelled out that the trilema was false, by explaining a fourth possibility. This would be enough on its face to invalidate pros argument. As Pro doesn’t offer any substantial reason to rule this example out, other than a highly semantic argument focusing on the definition of legend: con clearly wins arguments on the grounds he demonstrated the trillema was false. In addition: con clearly cites examples of Lies told by Jesus, and examples where his family thought he was mad. Unfortunately for pro - the argument in favour of Jesus not being a liar or mad was entirely uncompelling and smacked of cherry picking - simply selecting all the times Jesus supposedly didn’t lie or didn’t appear mad cited from a clearly biased source isn’t a clear indication that he is not a liar, or a “lunatic”, and as a result cons position clearly wins on these two examples also.

[*Reason for non-removal*] While the voter fails to take into account every single argument in the debate, they do explain that, given that this is a fact-based topic, a single option that is not covered under the trilemma, if unrefuted, is sufficient to win Con the debate. Due to this weighing analysis from the voter, the vote is sufficient.
==================================================================

Ramshutu states:

"In addition: con clearly cites examples of Lies told by Jesus, and examples where his family thought he was mad. Unfortunately for pro - the argument in favour of Jesus not being a liar or mad was entirely uncompelling and smacked of cherry picking..."

Con established no such thing, that Jesus was a liar or lunatic. In fact, after His resurrection, we find that close followers rejoiced. According to the disciples, Jesus did not lie but rose from the dead, and these followers went to their deaths believing this. He did not show in any way that these disciples had made Him into a legend, considering they believed and went to their death believing they had seen the risen Lord. What is more, the entire OT has prophecy, images, types, shadows, patterns, that point to Jesus as Messiah, Savior, Lord, and God.

I'll see what I can do. This week's kinda nightmarish.

please vote

Debate over. Would love your vote

If you're a christian
it means you drank from the pot that you pissed in
while pumping the word of man in and out of your ass like a piston
cause' you aren't even in the position
to pull your own words out of your butt cheeks, so you pull words from the bible out from betwixt them
after seeing how much you can fit in
you worship a work of fiction
and live a life of submission
thinkin' your religion
is God's jurisdiction
but God doesn't exist and
men are responsible for the bible, which was written
to control you, and keep you and your brain at a distance
you lack the intuition
to see your very instincts are synonymous with sin
why did God design you to oppose him then?

Oh snap. Gotcha

You waive the last round not the first round

I think that this argument only makes sense in the context of what Jesus actually is saying and how the rest of the new testament describes Jesus.

Otherwise, you could say he was either a liar, a lunatic, lord, or anything else? I think more than anything, to really get what Jesus is saying you have to believe he is who he says he is. What does Jesus say he is? What does the rest of the new testament say that Jesus is? How does it all fit together?

In my conversations, I've noticed that there are two Jesus that people tend to understand. The Jesus as simply being a man, a good teacher, a prophet, etc. This is what I call the Muslim Jesus, even though it is actually the most commonly refered to Jesus. Then there is The Word of God Jesus, which is the Jesus of Christianity.

There is a huge difference, because if Christians worship the "Muslim Jesus" as I call it, they are worshipping a man as God. The scriptures will tell you, even in the new testament that this is not actually the faith, and this is a very real error. Obviously, man is not God. Christian theology is very much NOT this, and I will hope to demonstrate in my argument that a misunderstanding of Jesus is what leads people to take him as a liar or a lunatic.

I don't really even like this argument. It sounds more like a catch phrase or something than an actual argument. However, it sounds like a challenge. I hope it will be an edifying debate.

I will waive the first round in a bit, forgive me for taking my time.

I know. Growing up I heard this argument millions of times.

Lmao what an argument to make, pastors never ceases to amaze.