"Dabate" existence of God, Argument I: Affirmative Rebuttle

This Experience was very disappointing.No real debate occurred. Bowen never got beyond defining terms and saying everything is unclear until the Rebuttal at which time it'sit's too Late. No new arguments in rebuttals. Now I do answer those arguments but you are going to have to slog through a long repetitious bore of him saying "I'ts unclear" and me saying "I did make it clear he never engaged with my clarifications." This experience has given me good ammunition for atheistwatch.

We through the boring stuff eventually we do touch on God and Time but ironically  it's too late in the debate.

Please refer back to this document for my previous speech as it will prove what was said and how much i worked at clarifying the things he asked for and how he ignored those attempts.

second Affirmative  Constructive

http://metacrock.blogspot.com/2017/07/bowen-hinman-debate-existence-of-god.html

He starts with an example chosen to show how very unclear all my ideas are:

Bowen
The ABEAN Argument is VERY UNCLEAR

The main problem with the ABEAN argument is that it is UNCLEAR.  This is the same problem that I encountered repeatedly in my analysis and evaluation of Norman Geisler’s case for God in his book When Skeptics Ask.  The problem is not so much that ABEAN uses false premises or invalid inferences.  The problem is that nearly every claim in the argument is unclear, making it nearly impossible to rationally evaluate the argument.

Hinman
what is he calling unclear?: he does not say!!!! he never says he never once get's specific about what he needs to know or why it matters. He never once not one time dos he engage with the multiple attempts I made to clarify.  I did this for every single issue he says is unclear, I tried in three separate documents,and i showed the three in my Second Affirmative speech,

============================

Bowen

What am I calling unclear?  According to Hinman I don’t say what I’m calling unclear.
This complaint by Hinman is FALSE, as one can see by simply reading the very passage that Hinman just quoted:
…nearly every claim in the argument is unclear…That is what I am calling unclear.

Hinman
That does not answer my compliant, he;s just repeating the problem. what about the statement is unclear? Since he never engages with any of my clarifications I have to assume he is just doing his gimmick what he really means is he doesn't understand the issues.

Bowen

Since I don’t say that EVERY claim in the argument is unclear, Hinman might think that the expression “nearly every claim” is vague.  But Hinman knows that I have specified exactly which premises were problematic.  Here is another excerpt from Hinman’s 2nd response [bold font added]:

Hinman
Specifying which is not the issue, he never says How it is unclear, in what way? He never engages with the clarifications. 

============================
Bowen

I judged premises (1), (2), (4), (A), (5), (7), (8), (9), (10), and (11) to be VERY UNCLEAR because they each contain at least two different unclear words or phrases, which Hinman failed to adequately define or explain.

Hinman
He’s going to repeat the numbers,  He has nothing to say,he has made no argument

============================
Bowen

Clearly, I have specified exactly which premises are VERY UNCLEAR.    Hinman says that I have “nothing to say” and that I “made no argument”.
Once again, if Hinman had simply read the sentence that he just quoted, he would have known that his reply was FALSE.  Here is my argument, spelled out so that even a child can understand it:

1. IF a claim in ABEAN contains at least two different unclear words or phrases, THEN that claim is VERY UNCLEAR.

2. (1), (2), (4), (A), (5), (7), (8), (9), (10), and (11) are claims in the ABEAN argument which contain at least two different unclear words or phrases.

THEREFORE

3. (1), (2), (4), (A), (5), (7), (8), (9), (10), and (11) are claims in the ABEAN argument which are VERY UNCLEAR.

Hinman
This is what we here on planet earth refer to as an “argument”.  The sentence that he just quoted refutes his own complaint.

Obviously he;s just playing games all he has done here is to repeat the alligator. He's still not saying why it's unclear. He  wants the reader to think that saying if two words are unclear that is making an  argument, but it is not an argument, it;s just more accusation.

Bowen

OK.  I specified exactly which claims in ABEAN were VERY UNCLEAR, and I specified WHY I believe them to be VERY UNCLEAR, but Hinman still might continue to complain: But what exactly about each of those specific claims makes them unclear?

Hinman
 where did he say why they are unclear?I never saw that,now if he did say that it should be below, so le'ts see. 

Bowen

Hinman, however, knows exactly what about those specific claims makes them unclear, because I listed out the specific words and phrases in those claims that are the main cause of the unclarity of ABEAN.   Another excerpt from Hinman’s 2nd response shows he was aware of this list [bold font added]:

 Hinman

He just said listing terms is the same as saying why they are unclear, by no stretch is that true. The thing is if he had a reason for thinking they are unclear then he should talk about that reason in relation to my attempts at clarification he never does!

============================

(2) list of terms he finds unclear

 .

Bowen

The unclarity that I based this chart on is the unclarity of the meaning of several problematic words and phrases:

 .

Hinman
[of course I have defined each of these terms…the chart he refers to was just repeat of the accusation it has a word and said "unclear"by it  but proved nothing,

============================

Bowen

Hinman then walks step-by-step through my list of unclear words and phrases from ABEAN.  So, Hinman was perfectly well aware of the exact words and phrases that I believe are unclear and that are the basis for my conclusion that his ABEAN argument is VERY UNCLEAR.  His definitions are, in general,  less clear than the words he attempts to define, and thus they FAIL as definitions.

Hinman
He is still equating knowing which terms are unclear with knowing why they are unclear, what about them is unclear?, that's so nuts,

Example: were he to have asked ground of being implies something outside of being that manifests being how could something outside of be be? Had he said that I would say Ok that's unclear I HAVE to WORK ON THAT,  HE NEVER ONCE ENGAGES WITH ANY IDEAS!

Bowen

C. TWO EXAMPLES OF HINMAN’S INTELLECTUAL BLINDNESS

[ok now we are getting some place right?] 

I think it is obvious to most readers of my posts and Hinman’s posts about ABEAN, that this argument is unclear and that many words and phrases in this argument are unclear.  But Hinman has some sort of intellectual blindness that prevents him from seeing what is obvious to most of the rest of us, and this blindness comes across loud and clear with his initial comments about two of his unclear terms:

Hinman

Wrong we are getting nowhere because he is really saying  "I don't understand this you don't either so rather than do my homework and study on Tillich I'm going to ask the reader to debate for me and use your own lack of understanding as a pretend argument so ignore Joe's clarifications.

The blindness to which he refers is knowledge, because I've studied Tillich and I understand it, once  you understated the concept you can't dis-understand it. He assumes because he is blind I must be blind too so what I see must be illusion.

============================

Now it looks like we are going to get into some terms but don't count on it,meanwhile remember just defining terms is the beginning of debate it can't be debate it'self  no debate ever took place.

but here are some terms he throws up to make it look  like he has an argument:

• naturalistic phenomena

Hinman: This is obvious,self evident, it;s a common term…

[…]

• temporal

Hinman: another self evident term that everyone understands…

============================
Bowen

The meanings of these words are “obvious” and “self-evident”  and “everyone understands” what they mean, according to Hinman.
These are problematic philosophical and theological concepts that REQUIRE clarification and definition.  The fact that Hinman cannot understand this obvious point shows that he is not intellectually ready to argue intelligently for the existence of God, or for any other philosophical claim.

Hinman:
I defilement both terms in the in answering this question in the preliminary docshere's whatI readwaid he took out avboe: his is obvious,self evident, it;s a common term there is no reason to assume I'm using it in any unusual way. Yet I did define it last time and in fact I used your ever loving secular web to do so,quoting Keith Augustine.

He not only ignores my answer but basically lies in saying I never defined it.I also remarked in that previous doc (2AC) "I specifically addressed this phraseology as far back as the Q/A post" so he's lying, 

from "first Defense"  Doc:

http://metacrock.blogspot.com/2017/07/first-defense-of-god-argument-1.html

Eternal: Not limited to the duration of time

same document on naturalism

My use of naturalism unless specifically relating to atheist argument is what Keith
Augustine calls "Pluralistic naturalism:"

There are two main kinds of naturalism: materialism and pluralistic naturalism. Materialism, or physicalism, is a "monistic" form of naturalism in that it maintains that only one basic kind of stuff exists--physical stuff. Pluralistic naturalism, by contrast, combines naturalism with ontological pluralism, the idea that there is more than just one basic kind of stuff. Thus while materialists reject the reality of (irreducibly) nonphysical stuff, pluralists affirm the existence of at least one kind of (irreducibly) nonphysical stuff.[5][[5] Keith Augustine, "Pluralistic Naturalism," Secular Web, (accessed 7/6/17) 2003, URL

https://infidels.org/library/modern/nontheism/naturalism/pluralistic.html]

Bowen

First of all, “naturalistic phenomena” presumably has the same meaning as “natural phenomena”.   We understand the word “natural” in relation to the contrasting word “supernatural”.  These two words represent categories, categories that presumably constitute a dichotomy.  Everything is either natural or supernatural.

Hinman:

problem here is here we not discuss this before, one of the stipulations for bebating I made up front was no new argument in  rebuttals! It is standard in all organized debate. This is a new argument in rebuttals. I will not answer it because he has already lost it, it should not be here.

Bowen

I suppose there could be composite things that have both natural components and supernatural components.  Most Christians, for example, believe that humans are composed of a physical (natural) body and a non-physical (supernatural) soul. But human bodies are completely natural things, and human souls are completely supernatural things, so at the level of the basic components that make up human beings, there are no quasi-natural things, and no quasi-supernatural things.

That's just an extension of the new argument he has not yet told us why we need to know that to pass judgement on my argument.

Bowen

If one does NOT have a clear understanding of what the word “supernatural” means, then one does NOT have a clear understanding of what “natural” means.  But the word “supernatural” is highly problematic, and it should be obvious to anyone with some degree of intellectual sophistication that the meaning of “supernatural” is highly problematic.

Hinman:
This is new argumemt because I never talked about SN, it;s not in the original argument, that makes this also a red herring,

1.All naturalistic phenomena are contingent and temporal.
2. Either some aspect of being is eternal and necessary unless or something came from nothing (creation ex nihilo)
3. Something did not come from nothing.
4. Some aspect of being is eternal and necessary [=GOB]. (from 2,and 3)
5. Some aspect of being does not consist of naturalistic phenomena. (from 1 and 4)
6. Some people experience a sense of the numinous [=SON].
7. The SON is not evoked by any naturalistic phenomena.
8. The SON experienced by some people is evoked by GOB.
9. GOB = God.
10. If 8 and 9, then some people are warranted in believing in God.
11. Therefore, some people are warranted in believing in God. (from 8, 9, and 10)

Bowen

We have argued about the meaning of the word “supernatural” on more than one occasion here at The Secular Outpost.  In fact, I and others have argued with Mr. Hinman about the meaning of the word “supernatural” here at The Secular Outpost!  He has no excuse for thinking that the meaning of the word “supernatural” is clear and unproblematic.  Thus, Hinman has no excuse for the idiotic belief that “naturalistic phenomena” is a clear and unproblematic term.

Hinman:
 He is trying to motivate past prejudice and ignorance (his) to use it as evidence to back his red herring. Still new in rebuttals and thus cannot be allowed it is extremely unfair, you know he waited until the end to bring up real ideas and actually start discussing, the whole exercise is a huge disappointment. I was looking forward t  a challenge it was just a farce.


Bowen

The word “temporal” contrasts, as Hinman himself points out, with the word “eternal”.  Once again, if one does NOT have a clear understanding of what “eternal” means, then one does NOT have a clear understanding of what “temporal” means.  But the word “eternal” is obviously problematic.  First, it is obviously ambiguous between at least two different senses:

DEFINITION 1:X is eternal IF AND ONLY IF X has always existed in the past, and X exists now, and X will always continue to exist in the future. DEFINITION 2:X is eternal IF AND ONLY IF X exists outside of time.I suspect that Hinman takes “eternal” to mean something like what it means in DEFINITION 2.  But this understanding of “eternal” is inherently problematic.  DEFINITION 2 is itself unclear and problematic.  What does it mean for something to be “outside of time”?  How can we tell whether or not something is “outside of time”?  Is this idea logically coherent, or does it contain a logical contradiction?

Hinman:
 This is all new in rebuttals. I defined these terms in constructive speeches it was up to him to make something of them he waited to late late.  Besides he's not really connecting them to my argumnet. What about my argumnet is disproved as a result of this?

(1) These are two definitions of the word "eternal" but they are not at odds. If there is no time there is no end, no duration. Something beyond time is also always already and can't cease. Ceasing is a temporally bound construct. So the two definitions are just aspects of the same reality.

(2) Beyond time is a coherent concept in modern physics,(Hawking, brief History of Time) [1]


 Bowen

Furthermore, how can something CHANGE if it exists “outside of time”?  If something that exists “outside of time” cannot change, then how can something “outside of time”  communicate with people who are “inside of time”?  

Hinman:

(1) Prove that communicating involves change for God.

(2) Prove that communicating involves ratiocination, for example God could give us innate ideas at creation so he doesn't have to talk to us. There is first moment of time if you are in time. We don't how it is outside of time but it can still be that what we see as first moment is created by God.

(3) He can enter time and history as a man and communicate in that form.

(3) in one of the preparatory documents I answered this, that Eastern Orthodoxy speaks of God's essence and his energies, his energies enter the time stream as God's actions.


Bowen

How can something “outside of time” make decisions and take actions that affect people who are “inside of time”?  Unless there are clear answers available to such questions, we don’t clearly understand what the word “eternal” (as used by Hinman) means, and thus we don’t understand what the word “temporal” means either.

Hinman
That is covered under the concept of Ground of being. Time is part of being. The consequences of both time and beyond time are under the reality of god, Those are laws of physics and God is the author of laws of physics. Metaphorically, all of realty is in the mind of God.  Thus, God frames time and beyond time as a subject of his  mind. We think of beyond time as a big empty void but if God is the ground of being beyond time would be in the mind of God.[2] [3]


Bowen

This is NOT the sort of thing I expect to have to explain to an intellectually sophisticated person.  These points should be obvious to anyone who has some degree of intellectual sophistication in matters of theology and philosophy of religion.  Hinman’s inability to see and understand these obvious points is astounding to me.

Hinman:

Yes, this is NOT the sort of thing I expect to have to explain to an intellectually sophisticated person, so i will explain them to Bowen. You are working in silly convectional outmoded concept that I exploded years ago, you save this stuff for the end on purpose and that is extremely unfair,dishonest and unethical-- violates the understanding we had.  I have three words for you:Alfred North Whitehead.

go read

 Bowen

The meanings of these words and phrases are NOT “self-evident” nor are they “obvious” nor are they words that “everyone understands”.  Such comments reflect the thinking of a person who is lacking in intellectual sophistication, of a person who is not yet ready to present an intelligent argument for the existence of God.

 Hinman:
Yes the one;s I said are are,I did not say all of them I said temporal is self evidence. Well he's giving me good blogging material. Course a lot o those blog pieces will say: "I was robbed!"

 Notes

[1] Stephen Hawking,  A Brief History of Time.  Bantam; 10th Anniversary edition (September 1, 1998)

[2] Amot Gaoswami, interviwed by Craig Hamilton, "The Self Aware universe: An Interviewer" 

http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~sai/goswam1.htm

Goswami is a physicist at U Oregon.

Amit Goswami: The current worldview has it that everything is made of matter, and everything can be reduced to the elementary particles of matter, the basic constituents—building blocks—of matter. And cause arises from the interactions of these basic building blocks or elementary particles; elementary particles make atoms, atoms make molecules, molecules make cells, and cells make brain. But all the way, the ultimate cause is always the interactions between the elementary particles. This is the belief—all cause moves from the elementary particles. This is what we call "upward causation." So in this view, what human beings—you and I—think of as our free will does not really exist. It is only an epiphenomenon or secondary phenomenon, secondary to the causal power of matter. And any causal power that we seem to be able to exert on matter is just an illusion. This is the current paradigm. Now, the opposite view is that everything starts with consciousness.That is, consciousness is the ground of all being. In this view, consciousness imposes "downward causation." In other words, our free will is real. When we act in the world we really are acting with causal power. This view does not deny that matter also has causal potency—it does not deny that there is causal power from elementary particles upward, so there is upward causation—but in addition it insists that there is also downward causation. It shows up in our creativity and acts of free will, or when we make moral decisions. In those occasions we are actually witnessing downward causation by consciousness.

[3] Gregory E. Ganssle, "God and Time," Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: a Peer Revied Resource, 

http://www.iep.utm.edu/god-time/

Ganssle is at Yale. This is an excellent article many different views by modern theologians dealing with problems of God and Time.

Apendix

I. HINMAN’S REPLIES TO MY OBJECTIONS TO ABEAN

A. POSTS IN THIS DEBATE THAT DISCUSS ABEAN:

Joe Hinman’s ABEAN Argument for God

http://metacrock.blogspot.com/2017/07/opening-argument-resolved-that-belief.html

My Criticism of Hinman’s ABEAN Argument for God

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularoutpost/2017/07/04/hinmans-abean-argument-part-2-objections-11-1/

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularoutpost/2017/07/06/hinmans-abean-argument-part-3-objections/

Joe Hinman’s Responses to My Criticism of His ABEAN Argument

http://metacrock.blogspot.com/2017/07/first-defense-of-god-argument-1.html

http://metacrock.blogspot.com/2017/07/bowen-hinman-debate-existence-of-god.html