In a message dated 26/12/00 01:56:11 GMT Standard Time, sejones@iinet.net.au
writes:
Steve Jones:
> It is noteworthy that Paul has shifted his focus from the original topic
of
> the debate which was "Daniel's 70 `weeks' ... How to prove
> supernaturalism" to attacking me personally and my debating method "Can
> you find more errors?". In any debate this would be regarded as a sign
> that one cannot answer one's opponents arguments and therefore
> would be regardded as a tacit admission of defeat.
Paul Robson:
No, its just that your posts are so riddled with erroneous assumptions
that to correct them would take an absurd amount of time (hence
the numerous errors in a few lines). Most of these you put in as
"facts" which are actually unsupported assertions. You also
misunderstand (see below) to a point which makes me wonder if it
is deliberate.
I mean not only do we have your quite alarmingly stupid claims of
"contradiction" [Almah could be a virgin but it doesn't mean a
virgin] we now have absurd complaints (apparently?) about my
misquoting or misrepresenting your views. It looks to me
(especially the second one) that I represent them pretty well.
Steve Jones:
> Now normally this wouldn't matter much, but the subject is Dan 9:24-27
> being evidence of the supernatural and of Jesus being the Messiah. If Paul
> is wrong on these point the consequences for him (and indeed for all non-
> Christians) is simply *immense*.
Paul Robson:
i.e. this is (basically) threats of hell again ; same as Pascal's Wager.
Steve Jones:
> I suspect that at some level Paul realises this and that is why he is
trying to
> `shoot the messenger' rather than face up to the message. But even if Paul
> did succeed in shooting the messenger, it would not change the truth of
the
> message. If Dan 9:24-27 *really is* predictive prophecy and Jesus *really
> is* the Messiah, then Paul trying to stop me saying it is not going to
> change that fact.
Paul Robson:
And the point is ? If I *really am* the Messiah you are in trouble and saying
I am not isn't going to change that fact.
Steve Jones:
> I would also like to add that I bear Paul no ill-will for his ad hominems.
I
> was once shocked and depressed by evolutionists' frequent ad hominems
> but now I am so used to them that they are like water of a duck's back.
> Indeed, I always regard them as a back-handed compliment that my
> arguments must be doing well!
Paul Robson:
At least I'm honest about it and don't write patronising crap like this. Of
course, it doesn't occur to you that you earn it.
Steve Jones:
> I will work through the rest of Paul's posts in this thread and answer any
> new points, but with a view to terminating the thread ASAP.
>
> I have started an FAQ on Dan 9:24-27 which I will eventually post to both
> the Reflector (if it is still going) and to eGroups. If Paul wants to he
can
> repeat his arguments all over again!
>
> Please note that I am going to un - sub - scribe from the Reflector before
> 1 January 2001, so if Paul responds to this, I may not be able to respond
> to it.
Paul Robson:
Don't worry, I'll send you a copy.
Steve Jones:
> I will however try to work through Paul's posts I have already
> received
> with the title ""Daniel's 70 `weeks' ... How to prove supernaturalism" to
> see if he has raised any new points that require a response.
[snip]
> If Paul means do I think I have *conclusively* "answered it", I don't
think
> that. I always leave open the possibility that I could be wrong.
Paul Robson:
Hadn't noticed it. You did once write something about being 99% sure.
There isn't much consideration of alternative views in your posts.
Steve Jones:
> But within this email *debate* format, I claim that it is better to state
> one's position and back it up with *evidence* than to just make
unsubstantiated
> assertions.
Paul Robson:
Copying pages out of apologetics books is not "evidence".
> PR>WWhen one gets away from "Does the Bible say this ?" etc
> >away from things in books like ETDAV and Giesler
> >and looks at YOUR specific arguments (for example your
> >woefully variably use of the argument from silence,
>
Steve Jones:
> Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! Just about Paul's entire
> argument is an "argument from silence".
Paul Robson:
?????? Actually you demonstrate what I'm talking about below where
you make pedantic objections about me changing what you said and
conveniently ignore the whole point. Again.
> PR>see
> >below) you have to think for yourself. This I conclude you
> >can't do very well.
> >
> >I suppose I could just simply cut and past large chunks of
> >Michael Martin, or some such,
>
Steve Jones:
> It is up to Paul what he wants to do. I *enjoy* researching and presenting
> evidence for my debates. This is a major way that I, a layman, can *learn*
> about a topic. I really mean it when I *thank* Paul for his debating me on
> Dan 9:24-27, since it has forced me to research it in order to advance and
> defend my argument.
>
> Also, Paul seems to forget there are a large number of lurkers on this
List
> who might *like* reading the evidence presented and making up their own
> minds.
Paul Robson:
I doubt it. Very few people intelligent theists or non-theists are going to be
impressed by the works of the McDowell's of the world.
Steve Jones:
> I occasionally get private (and some public) messages from List members
> who say they like reading my quotes. One Polish professor sent me a
> journal in Polish with what he said were my quotes in it. I could only
read
> my name, so I hope the comments were good! :-)
>
> PR>or even in the case of some
> >of your wierder claims (6th BC Daniel,
>
> I have posted *evidence* that the language of Daniel is 5-6th century BC.
> If Paul has any counter-evidence, let him quote it.
Paul Robson:
Is this a debate tactic known as "demanding proof of everything from
gound up". I mean, in your research didn't you find ANY Biblical Scholars
who didn't accept 6thBC Daniel ? You are aware that virtually nobody
does accept this, aren't you ?
I don't see why I should have to do this. I mean you don't seem to grasp
REALLY simple stuff like the literary interrelations between the Gospels.
However, for the uneducated, there is a loooong discussion between
Everette Hatcher and Farrell Till (from both ends of the spectrum) in
Skeptical Review at www.infidels.org. No, I am not going to post all of it.
> PR>Non-existence of Q)
>
Steve Jones:
> See previous.
Paul Robson:
Thank you. So your sole arguments are the Giesler ones. (I don't like it, and
an actual copy of the text doesn't exist). And that's it. You don't appear to
know the arguments in favour of "Q" which are far more voluminous than
"I don't like it because it doesn't support my version of Jesus".
This is PRECISELY my objection. When it gets down to it, you don't
have ANYTHING.
PR>most of the theists, but that's rather tedious. Who wishes
to play duelling apologists anyway ?
Steve Jones:
> Its better than "duelling" unsubstantiated assertions!
Paul Robson:
What you don't realise (apparently) is that vast amounts of your
apologetics quotes are just that.
> PR>If you feel that you can use arguments from silence when and
> >only when it suits you, why should you be surprised no-one
> >takes it awfully seriously.
> [...]
Paul Robson:
I wonder.
> >SJ>"Given that hardly anything has survived from the 1st century, what
> >>extra-Biblical notice that was taken of Jesus is remarkable*, and is, if
> >>anything, *more* than I would have expected."
>
> PR>How does this work with your "Why did no-one refute it at the time
> >if it wasn't true" argument ?
Steve Jones:
> My point was not that "Why did no-one refute it at the time if it wasn't
> true" but if it wasn't true they *would* have refuted it and Christianity
> would never have got off the ground.
Paul Robson:
You are an idiot Steve.
What the hell is the difference (beyond the simple reversal) ?
AND HOW DO THEY WORK TOGETHER ? ESPECIALLY GIVEN THAT
YOU'VE EFFECTIVELY CONFIRMED THE FOLLOWING, WHICH IS
IF TRUE A VERY GOOD ARGUMENT FOR THE NON EXISTENCE OF
THESE REFUTATIONS.
> PR>and that documents that refute Christianity weren't actually destroyed
> >by Christians, but were much less likely to survive because Christians
> >wouldn't copy them.
Steve Jones:
> That is not what I said. I said that Christians would not need to destroy
> their opponents' writings (as Paul alleges they did without providing any
> evidence). All Christians would need to do is not copy them and they
> would self-destruct as *all* original early Christian Era papyrus writing
> has. This is simply a *fact*.
Paul Robson:
What the f**k is the difference ? I mean, explain it to me. How is my
shorter paraphrase different ?
This is precisely the point. You either don't or won't understand what I am
referring to, but (probably unintentionally) show it perfectly. You don't
grasp the problem in your logic (it is in CAPITALS for your benefit), but
make pedantic points about my descriptions, which seem, on what you
are saying here, to reasonably reflect your views.
PR>and "No. See previous. This is just an argument from silence."".
Steve Jones:
> As I have several times explained, my "see previous" is where I have
> already answered a point of Paul's point. I have had to do it because
Paul's
> arguments are *very* repetitious, and I see no point in endlessly
repeating
> myself. Especially since Paul often takes no notice of what I answer and
> just asks the same questions again, and again, and again ....!
Paul Robson:
THE POINT IS YOU ARE OBJECTING TO ARGUMENTS FROM SILENCE ,
THEN USING THEM, THEN OBJECTING THEM, THEN USING THEM,
THEN OBJECTING TO THEM.
The reason I repeat points is you do not answer them. You have not
answered this, but made some fatuous claims that I am (apparently)
somehow misrepresenting you "That is not what I said".
> PR>which
> >is your sole refutation to "why did no-one other than Matthew notice
> >the dead bodies on the wander".
>
> This is a case in point. I have answered this at least *twice*! I am not
> going to keep answering it.
Paul Robson:
No you haven't ; you've just made an objection because its an argument
from silence, and as far as I can see supported it with an argument from
silence.
> PR>PS: The * means you have to justify the word remarkable
>
> Another case in point. I already *have* justified that. Paul should read
> again my quote about how not *one* of Pontius Pilate's reports has
> survived.
Paul Robson:
Sheesh.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Dec 28 2000 - 04:23:21 EST