There is no sure hope if Jesus Christ is not risen from the dead.
Rule number !.........Proof or disproof of The Bible, Christianity, or the resurrection of Jesus Christ is irrelevant in this debate.
Rule number 2.........My opponent must explain sure hope in anything other than in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. The resurrection of Jesus Christ does not have to be proven by me and does not have to be believed in by my opponent for this debate.
Rule number 3...........I must show there is no sure hope if Jesus Christ is not risen from the dead.
Dear Pro, I accept. I await your argument.
Apart from the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, there is no sure hope for anybody in anything. My opponent has accepted the challenge to show sure hope in anything other than the resurrection of Jesus Christ. I don't know what hope my opponent can say is sure, since there is no sure hope if Jesus Christ is not risen from the dead. Sure hope is a guaranteed promise that can not be denied and will come to pass and nothing can stop it from being fulfilled.
Hoping to see the sunshine tomorrow is not sure hope, since the sky may be cloudy or your eyes may fail and see nothing ever again. Sure hope is when somebody with the power to guarantee that nothing will stop you from seeing the sunrise has promised you will see it, and you look forward to seeing it in sure hope.
Sure hope and unsure hope are two different things. Many times we say things like "I hope to live to be 100" or "I hope to die in my sleep" or "I hope I have lots of grandchildren" or "I hope to earn a lot of money this year". We can hope for these things, but the hope is not sure because it cannot be guaranteed and we may be denied from experiencing the thing we hoped for.
So now, I'm wondering, how will my opponent argue there is sure hope in anything other than the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead? I hope my opponent posts his argument in time so he does not forfeit the round........but this is not sure hope: my opponent probably will post an argument and dash my hope that he will forfeit the round......then I'll have to work up another argument or continue this one.
Thank you for the debate, and putting yourself and your opinion into the public sphere. I am thoroughly enjoying the mental exercise. As Mary Poppins would say ‘In every job that must be done, there is an element of fun. You find the fun and - SNAP - the job's a game.’ On to the game and thank you in advance pro.
The argument from Pro (without the repetitive prose) is such
If J then H
If no J then no H
I concede If J then H (for this argument) as I cannot test the sincerity of his sure hope. It’s an impossible test, which I must take on face value. However the argument is, IF J then H, leads automatically to If no J then No H. You have offered no legitimate proof of 'if no J then no H'. You have presented an argument by affirming the consequent, which is false logic and not proof.
Further Pro offers additional logical fallacy by putting an Argument by Special privilege to proffer and booster Argument by Goal Raising. By redefining a H, to H, Neg. H, and Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious H this places a nonsensical burden of proof on H (or con), as if there is a difference between a sure hockey goal and a goal or blue an my personally true blue.
If J then H.
If no J then no H
If no J and H occurs, then no Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious H
Based on Self interpretation of Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious H
As for Sure Hope, Pro offers a nonsensical modifier for a well establish meaning by adding a degree of certainty to a non-quantifiable measurement.
Also an Argument from Ignorance (I can't believe or conceive of anything else), Argument from Repetition (If no j, then no H times 10), Argument from Personal Astonishment (HOW can YOU argue such an opinion) are not actual proof and show the weakness of Pros position.
While I must take Pros assertion that for him If J then H, I have no way to test it, or falsify it as its based on Pros professed belief, sincerity and statements. Just as If I CON state If MS then H. I have sure hope that I will leave the world a better place than when I was born. I have sure hope that my son will be better than me. I have sure hope that when I blink that the universe doesn`t cease to exist for that time that my eyes are closed. There is no way for PRO to disprove this sure hope by me, unless I blink ;)
Pro stated to win the debate the following must be accomplished
Pro must show There is no sure hope if Jesus Christ is not raised from the dead.
And I Con must explain sure hope in anything other than in the resurrection of Jesus.
I believe I have met my burden of proof with with three examples and invalidated his argument through basic logic.
If J then H. - TRUE
If MS then H - TRUE
If no J, H still exists – TRUE
If no j, no H – FALSE
Thank you for reading this an I appreciate your votes and comments. Back to you PRO. . .
Thank you con for your argument.
While the first few paragraphs were too muddled for me to decipher, I did pick up the theme of my opponents argument as this:
"As for Sure Hope, Pro offers a nonsensical modifier for a well establish meaning by adding a degree of certainty to a non-quantifiable measurement."
In this statement, my opponent seems to be saying that hope cannot be sure, because the modifier "sure" is nonsensical when applied to a non-quantifiable measurement. Then, a bit further in his argument, my opponent claims to have sure hope in things like his son making the world a better place, the universe continuing beyond his next blink, and other things that I will address after first pointing out that my opponent defines sure hope as a nonsensical concept before he claims to have sure hope in some things. Also, I want to point out that hope is a quantifiable measurement in spite of my opponents assertion that it is non-quantifiable. I could think of a million examples of how we can see hope is quantifiable, but the first one to pop into my mind is of a man stranded at sea after his boat sank. He sees an object floating which is big enough for him to hold onto and maybe he could pull himself up on it out of the water, so in hope of reaching that goal, he begins to swim toward the object. The man's hope is quantifiable as evidenced by his swimming. He moves in hope, his hope giving him reason to swim toward the thing he is hoping for. If he had no hope of reaching an object that might keep him from drowning, then he would tread water in hope of somehow being rescued before he drowns. Swimming toward an object is quantified with a stronger and more directed act than treading water with no hope in sight of anything beyond the amount of time he can tread water. Hope is quantifiable by the amount investment in that hope. My opponent is correct that talking of sure hope is adding a degree or certainty to a well established meaning that generally lacks certainty, but to say hope is a non-quantifiable measurement is an understatement of the word's meaning.
When my opponent asserts that sure hope is "a nonsensical modifier" attached to a word with a well established meaning, he is agreeing with me that there is no sure hope if Jesus Christ is not risen from the dead. If Jesus Christ is risen from the dead, which it seems my opponent does not believe, he remains standing in his position that sure hope is a nonsensical concept. Either way, my opponent in these statements is agreeing with me that He can show no sure hope: but then he gives examples of things he claims to have sure hope in that I will now refute.
1)How do you know you will leave the world a better place? It seems to be getting worse; no sure hope there.
2)Your son may meet a terrible accident or fate; no sure hope there.
3)You may die or suffer a trauma that stops you from ever blinking again, your eyes may remain shut if you blink; no sure hope there.
Your argument is
Y1) If J then H.
While I say you make no argument, I mean no logically consistent argument. My argument, which is logically valid and sound is thus
My argument stands on its merits and logic, yours does not.
You have only challenged 2 things; Y3 an C2. I will address them each.
I will address C2 first. What you have done is try to dismiss any Sure Hope is invalid without Jesus. This is an argument, not proof. It’s not even a good argument.
1 - You can change Jesus to Moses, Mohammad or Pastafarians, and your argument does not change only your perspective. An argument or truth stands on the argument its self, not the self-described truth of the individual presenting it.
2 - If a Muslims, Jew or Pastafarians says they have Sure Hope, Sure Forgiveness, Sure Understanding they are mistaken as they are not as sure as you, as its not based in Jesus? Are you saying everyone else sure hope is invalid? and how do you proove it, you havent offered any proof beyond repeating your assumptions.
As for Y3, and Pro attempting to straw man my argument - please read the The full statement. I do apologies if it is unclear. "As for Sure Hope, Pro offers a nonsensical modifier', aka a further step in the logical order, adding Y3 a degree of certain and Y4 non-quantifiable measurement.
As I was pointing out, it was the extra steps that were nonsensical modifier not there term Sure Hope. Pros assumption is Circular assumption, to wit
Y1) Pro - It requires a pen to draw a sure circle, if no pen no sure circles
Y2) Con - I can draw it with a pencil, or chalk and my profile picture is a circle,
Y3) Pro - it’s not a sure circles, as sure circles require a pen.
Y4) Pro - It is still a circle, but this not a sure circle as not pen drawn.
PRo - Im right. I win.
In his statement Y1 is true, as is my statement of C2. However after that pros argument falls apart. Y2 is affirming the consequent, Y3 in Argument of Special Privilege and Y4 Goal Raising. Faulty Arguments.
Rebuttal and Closing
“he is agreeing with me that there is no sure hope if Jesus Christ is not risen from the dead”.
No I am not. My argument stands. I have hope without Jesus as does anyone who chooses to have hope. If I and other people do, your argument fails. Your only statement is “I reject all sure hope as invalid if it does not involve JESUS.“ This is not an argument, and it does not prove your point. Yours argument falls apart on the proof and logic of mine.
If J then H. - TRUE
Thank you, this was fun and I learnt alot.
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|