Topic: Calling out Cutupmaster (Read 2453 times)

Anthony Horvath · « **on:** February 09, 2008, 03:59:14 PM »

Cutup appears to be our resident expert in everything, including the Christian world view. I asked him in the 'sincerity' thread when the last time he's read the Bible on his own and offered to send one to him. He insists he has one... leaving open the question of whether or not he's ever read anything in it.

I do opine on a great many issues but I do not claim to know all that is to be known about everything. Eg, in the matter of Craig, I have more than once indicated that I am not thoroughly acquainted with his writings or arguments. Cutup, however, is absolutely certain that he's understanding Craig right and understands Christian theology. In fact, in one place where I made the assertion that I had read more nonChristian literature than he has read Christian literature, he scoffed.

Well, I'd like to put him to the test. What is at stake is not simply whether or not he comprehends the basic outlines of Christianity but rather whether or not he understands the underlying basis of much of Christianity claims. It is ignorance on that which I think drives many of his comments (ie, believing that the appropriate term for God not changing being 'omnipotence.')

I propose that he meet me in an instant messenger chat room where he can be joined by one or two friends and I with one or two of my own, if we like. I will ask him a series of questions spaced out about every 45 seconds or so with Cutup having about 45 seconds to attempt to answer accurately.

The questions will be mainly derived from the Bible (Old and New Testament, not just the Gospels) but questions based on doctrine that may arise from out of Christian scholarship since will apply as well. The questions will mainly be of the sort that I would expect a reasonably educated Christian ninth grader to be able to answer, but as he is a out of college and tackling with authority in his voice the likes of Craig, some questions will be more substantial.

I figure we'll get in about 30 questions.

Why in this format? Because I can't just give him a list of questions. We all know you can turn to Google in a heartbeat and find a lot of basic answers. The short time span will not be able to preclude Cutup from chasing down answers in mad fashion, but it will certainly help.

For my own part, I will choose the questions from memory alone, without the use of notes of any kind.

Cutup may use his Bible and any of the books by Christians he has on his shelf. He may not use Google or his friends. 45 seconds is long enough that a lucky google shot might work, so when we judge the answers some time will be made to verify that he didn't just cut and paste off of some site.

Sample questions:

Which descendant of Adam was taken up to God without dying? (answer: Enoch)
On which Jewish holiday was Jesus arrested, crucified, and allegedly raised over? (answer: the Passover).
Who wrote the book of Hebrews? (answer: it is not definitively known. Possibly Paul or Apollos)
Who was the famous Christian historian who emerged in the fourth century? (Eusebius).
What is the technical word for the Roman Catholic view on the Communion in regards to the nature of the elements being Jesus' body and blood?) (Transubstantiation)

None of this requires specialist knowledge. Most of it can be learned simply by free reading of the Bible or through general exposure to the history of Christianity.

If Cutup would like, after my quiz, he can quiz me over the Bible next. If he is able to get 50% of the answers mostly correct, I will concede that may actually know something about Christianity. In order to remove subjectivity, I will attempt to create questions with simple 1-2 word or one sentence answers that are straight factual and not very reliant on interpretations).

I think it would be reasonable to demand that I get at least 10% higher then whatever he gets if he chooses to ask me questions. I only insist that I also get to use my Bible and he also doesn't work with a list of pre-arranged questions.

End Bringer · « **Reply #1 on:** February 09, 2008, 05:01:40 PM »

Given what I've seen, that most of his arguements seems primarily based on Craig (and debatably poor knowledge of even Craig's arguements) is comparable to Pullmen only being based off the Catholic Church. Given that Christianity thrived looooonnnngggggg before Craig was born, and is not limted to the Catholic Church I find the logic that refuting "Craig/Catholics = all of Christianity" to be lacking.

As a Christian who has never really read Craig and currently attends a Baptist church I always mentally groan at such arguements.

cimics · « **Reply #2 on:** February 09, 2008, 10:32:22 PM »

To be fair, I probably would have missed the last two of SJ's questions. The last one might have been deep in the recesses of my memory but I probably couldn't have pulled it out in 45 seconds.

cutupmaster · « **Reply #3 on:** February 09, 2008, 11:16:04 PM »

Apparently, the point of sntjohnny

End Bringer · « **Reply #4 on:** February 10, 2008, 12:08:26 AM »

Quote from: cutupmaster on February 09, 2008, 11:16:04 PM

Apparently, the point of sntjohnny

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #5 on:** February 10, 2008, 09:35:50 AM »

Cimics:

"To be fair, I probably would have missed the last two of SJ's questions. The last one might have been deep in the recesses of my memory but I probably couldn't have pulled it out in 45 seconds."

That is why I set the fairly low threshold of 50%. I would be happy to give more time, ie, to thumb through the Bible trying to track an answer down. The problem is that someone without scruples could jump onto Google and find the answer and masquerade as though they always had it. Cutup may insist that he has lots of scruples, but there just isn't any way to verify. I hoped that the 50% threshold would resolve it.

Cutup:
"Apparently, the point of sntjohnny

cutupmaster · « **Reply #6 on:** February 10, 2008, 09:51:49 AM »

I decline for the simple reason that it would serve no purpose or prove any point. As I maintain, all of my arguments against Christian theism are based on assumptions held by what many Christians actually believe. Lately, for instance, my arguments have been directed against Craig's views. Now, you may not agree with Craig's theology, but you certainly cannot deny that he is a Christian who holds them as Christian views (i.e. the sincerity claim). Therefore, if you have a problem with the "Christian assumptions" in my argument, your beef is with leading Christian scholars and theologians - not with me.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #7 on:** February 10, 2008, 10:22:57 AM »

"I decline"

As I thought you would.

"for the simple reason that it would serve no purpose or prove any point."

Your stated reason is immaterial. We'll make up our own minds.

"are based on assumptions held by what many Christians actually believe"

You act as though WHY they believe what they believe is irrelevant and furthermore that it is unnecessary to understand that basis in analyzing- as an outsider- why they might possibly disagree. If they disagree, that is.

"Therefore, if you have a problem with the "Christian assumptions" in my argument, your beef is with leading Christian scholars and theologians - not with me."

We are a long way from that, I'm afraid. That has been a bit of the point. Do even you know what you're saying and invoking when you state a 'Christian assumption'?

This would have been a good opportunity to show that you did. No skin off of my back.

cutupmaster · « **Reply #8 on:** February 10, 2008, 10:30:15 AM »

Apparently, you don't grasp how arguments work. If I can generate problems based on crucial assumptions that my opponent accepts, then his position is demonstrated to be implausible. Obviously, my arguments won't work if they attack strawman positions, but I have yet to construct a strawman argument.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #9 on:** February 10, 2008, 10:42:40 AM »

"Apparently, you don't grasp how arguments work."

Yes, of course. The problem could be me. It couldn't possibly be you.

"If I can generate problems based on crucial assumptions that my opponent accepts, then his position is demonstrated to be implausible. Obviously, my arguments won't work if they attack strawman positions, but I have yet to construct a strawman argument."

Oh, I don't know about that. But that is not what you are being challenged on here, cutup. The question is whether or not even if you put forward an assumption that is accepted, if you even know what that means.

In terms of your arguments, I believe it was Leonidas who popped in here for awhile who argued that your syllogisms had way too much content in a single proposition. I have had a similar complaint. Your latest argument on prayer is a case in point. P1 contains multiple assertions that could easily be construed differently by Christians who are familiar with the Biblical basis that might generate such a statement. You are unfamiliar with that basis so you are unable to cope or even recognize legitimate distinctions that are raised.

cutupmaster · « **Reply #10 on:** February 10, 2008, 10:49:50 AM »

"Yes, of course. The problem could be me. It couldn't possibly be you."

In this case, it IS you.

"Oh, I don't know about that. But that is not what you are being challenged on here, cutup. The question is whether or not even if you put forward an assumption that is accepted, if you even know what that means. "

Show me a crucial (Christian) assumption I used in one of my arguments that I failed to understand.

" P1 contains multiple assertions that could easily be construed differently by Christians who are familiar with the Biblical basis that might generate such a statement. "

How so? P1 claims: If Christian theism is true, then a sure way to know that God exists is to seek him sincerely*) through prayer.

What are the different (and presumably conflicting) interpretations of this claim that can be "easily construed by Christians?"

Btw, you said before:

" Cutup may insist that he has lots of scruples, but there just isn't any way to verify. "

This insinuation is coming from someone who doesn't even have the integrity to admit when he's in error.
http://sntjohnny.com/smf/index.php?topic=2579.20

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #11 on:** February 10, 2008, 11:12:29 AM »

"In this case, it IS you."

So you assert.

"Show me a crucial (Christian) assumption I used in one of my arguments that I failed to understand."

What's the point? You wouldn't be able to recognize it anyway. That's the problem.

" P1 contains multiple assertions that could easily be construed differently by Christians who are familiar with the Biblical basis that might generate such a statement. "

"What are the different (and presumably conflicting) interpretations of this claim that can be "easily construed by Christians?"

Well, we are not going to revisit this argument here, but let's look at P1 to illustrate.

If Christian theism is true,
then a sure way
to know
that God exists
is to seek him
sincerely*)
through prayer.

These are seven different areas that could require clarification. You have asterisked only one. In pursuit of that clarification, we'd end up evaluating the terms in the context of the basis which they allegedly originate from. Ie, what does the Bible mean by knowing, by seeking, by praying? Is it really the case that God is concerned merely with knowing he exists? Etc, etc. You might be surprised, but the Bible is uninterested in laying out evidence for God's existence. It is more interested in establishing God's credentials as being THE God.

""Cutup may insist that he has lots of scruples, but there just isn't any way to verify. ""
"This insinuation is coming from someone who doesn't even have the integrity to admit when he's in error."

There is no insinuation there. I'm just illustrating the point that there is no way to verify that your answers are coming out of your own head. Scruples or not, the verification problem exists.

As for your concerns about my integrity, clearly it requires that I actually be wrong before I concede being wrong. As this thread ought to clearly illustrate, I have good reason to believe that you aren't even comprehending Craig correctly. Certainly, you are unaware of the details of the context in which he speaks- that Biblical basis. If I actually cared, I suppose I would go to Craig's site myself to see what he was saying. But I don't care. I thought I made that plain.

If my argument differs from Craig's and you are quite certain that it does, note it and move on. Why should I be obligated to defend myself against Craig- and Craig as interpreted and understood by you?

There, that's all I'm going to say about that here, because it was already a dead horse.

cutupmaster · « **Reply #12 on:** February 10, 2008, 11:38:47 AM »

-----------
So you assert.
-----------

"Show me a crucial (Christian) assumption I used in one of my arguments that I failed to understand."

-------------
What's the point? You wouldn't be able to recognize it anyway. That's the problem.
--------------

So you assert. The whole point of calling me out, I thought, was because you think I don't understand the Christian assumptions in my arguments. If you can't even show how I seemed to fail to understand them, then what are you basing your accusation on? Blind faith?

-------------------
Well, we are not going to revisit this argument here, but let's look at P1 to illustrate.

If Christian theism is true,
then a sure way
to know
that God exists
is to seek him
sincerely*)
through prayer.

These are seven different areas that could require clarification. You have asterisked only one. In pursuit of that clarification, we'd end up evaluating the terms in the context of the basis which they allegedly originate from. Ie, what does the Bible mean by knowing, by seeking, by praying? Is it really the case that God is concerned merely with knowing he exists? Etc, etc. You might be surprised, but the Bible is uninterested in laying out evidence for God's existence. It is more interested in establishing God's credentials as being THE God.
--------------------

What does this have to do with anything? Craig is claiming that one can know that God exists if they sincerely seek him through prayer. He's not suggesting that God is concerned "merely with" knowing that he exists--all he's suggesting is that one can know that God DOES exist via prayer.

--------------
As for your concerns about my integrity, clearly it requires that I actually be wrong before I concede being wrong. As this thread ought to clearly illustrate, I have good reason to believe that you aren't even comprehending Craig correctly.
---------------

There goes your integrity. Where are those "good" reasons? You haven't pointed them out yet. Are you just going to assert that my quotes are inconsistent with P1 without pointing out the *alleged* inconsistencies?

------------
Certainly, you are unaware of the details of the context in which he speaks- that Biblical basis.
--------------

Clearly, I am aware. I even quoted the relevant Biblical passage he cited in support of his contention.

------------
If I actually cared,
------------

If you don't care, then don't make claims you can't back up - i.e. I'm not understanding Craig correctly.

-----------
I suppose I would go to Craig's site myself to see what he was saying. But I don't care. I thought I made that plain.
-----------

Yep, you did. You also made it plain that you're going to flatly assert - without any justification - that I'm not understanding Craig's views correctly. You made that plain as well.

-------------
If my argument differs from Craig's and you are quite certain that it does, note it and move on. Why should I be obligated to defend myself against Craig- and Craig as interpreted and understood by you?
--------------

If you hold to a different view than Craig, fine. But don't accuse me of misrepresenting Christian theology in my arguments. It's not my problem that the Bible is so ambigous.

----------
There, that's all I'm going to say about that here, because it was already a dead horse.
------------

Yep.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #13 on:** February 10, 2008, 11:53:33 AM »

"It's not my problem that the Bible is so ambigous."

HA! Like you would know!

cutupmaster · « **Reply #14 on:** February 10, 2008, 12:08:04 PM »

Quote from: sntjohnny on February 10, 2008, 11:53:33 AM

"It's not my problem that the Bible is so ambigous."

HA! Like you would know!

Yeah, I do know. Fact: Leading Christian theologies have (for centuries) differed on doctrinal issues.

So, are you just going to assert without argument that my quotes are inconsistent with my first premise? Yes or no?

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #15 on:** February 10, 2008, 12:13:20 PM »

"Yeah, I do know."

Prove it. This thread is all about you backing up just such a claim. It's exactly this kind of comment, which are fast and furious with you, that I am calling out. Accept the challenge.

"Fact: Leading Christian theologies have (for centuries) differed on doctrinal issues."

Sure. Philosophers have differed (for centuries) over philosophical issues. Scientists have differed (for centuries) over scientific issues. It might not be ambiguity, you understand. It might instead be because the topic in question is richly complicated and robust and so complex that rather than being reducible to simplistic propositions the more you learn the more nuanced you see that things are. Could be that, too.

We are now beyond mere representation of theological issues. We now have a specific claim by yourself that you know about what the Bible contains and its basis for theological discourse. Are you prepared to back it up or not?

I notice that my forum software tracks by the second. We don't need to use instant messenger. We could do it right here on the forum.

cutupmaster · « **Reply #16 on:** February 10, 2008, 12:19:57 PM »

Quote from: sntjohnny on February 10, 2008, 12:13:20 PM

Are you prepared to back it up or not?

I will argue for the claim that the Bible, on certain issues, is ambigous (gotta run for a bit, but I'll be happy to do it tonight). But on one condition: show some integrity and admit that you were in error for charging me with an inconsistency.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #17 on:** February 10, 2008, 12:28:04 PM »

"I will argue for the claim that the Bible, on certain issues, is ambigous"

That I wouldn't deny. On other issues, less so.

"But on one condition: show some integrity and admit that you were in error for charging me with an inconsistency."

I will admit that I might possibly be in error. I just don't care. If I did, I'd be over in that thread still haggling. I think I'm right. I think you don't know what you're talking about. I might be wrong. Sorry, I just don't care what Craig really means. I was prepared to evaluate your argument on its own terms. You played GOTCHA. That's your right. I need not play along after you snap your 'trap.'

Accept the challenge or not. If you make it a condition that I toe your little line, boss, that looks all the world like just one more excuse for not showing once and for all that you do know something of what you're talking about. I will be able to continue to believe that you decline the challenge because you know you will not perform.

cutupmaster · « **Reply #18 on:** February 10, 2008, 12:31:14 PM »

Quote from: sntjohnny on February 10, 2008, 12:28:04 PM

I think I'm right. I think you don't know what you're talking about.

Okay, I decline.

I refuse to engage on your terms especially when you're being so hypocritical: although you expect me to back up my assertions with arguments, this standard somehow doesn't apply to you.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #19 on:** February 10, 2008, 12:35:27 PM »

Yep, boss.

Author Topic: Calling out Cutupmaster (Read 2453 times)