Conclusion to my debate with Pixie on CARM

 

I was debating "Pixie" 1x1 on CARM when my brother died. I don't feel like answering all of his points, but he has declared his last speech, so I will just answer the major points that I think really win it.




If you wish to read the whole debate, from there beginning here it is.

Second Affirmative Rebuttal, Meta's conclusion.


I want to thank Pixie for debating. He did a good job he's a worthy opponent in terms of the vitality and challenge that he took to it. He had some good arguments. I appreciate his debating me.

Due to my personal loss I don't feel like answering all of the points. these are the high lights.
Originally Posted by The Pixie

Conclusion

Pixie:

Thanks to Metacrock for the debate. I was not at all familiar with the subject of mystical experiences, and it has been interesting learning about it, though it has slowed me down somewhat.

As a general point, I came to this debate assuming Metacrock was trying to prove something. As I said earlier, he has admitted he cannot do that, so we do agree there!

What I proved is that it's rational to believe in God. He has no come back. he didn't even address the pages on why alts to big bang are no good, he dropped it twice.

Meta:
The most he did on argument 1 (temp beginning) was merely to argue that alternatives are possible.

He and the other atheists just assume if an alternative is possible then it must be case. It doesn't even stop them for a second to realize that is faith! the are placing faith in their view.

when Chrsitians believe based upon faith the mock and ricile and say it's stupid. then they do it themselves and they act they are intellectually superior for doing so.

all of those alternatives were knocked down. twice I knocked them down with the same page from Odenwald and Pixie ignored it never said a word about it. So he lose that way back at the end of constructives when he did not answer it.

Argument from Temporal Beginning



Pixie:

Metacrock's whole argument turns on there being a law of physics "no change beyond time is possible", and yet a web page he cited from a world-famous physicist, Stephen Hawking, shows that that is not true. If there is no such law, then his claim that only God can break the law collapses and his rational warrant to believe dissolves away. 

Meta:

that is clearly and obviously not true. this is just another example of how selectively he reads. Quote from Hawking from Brief History of Time:

"As we shall see, the concept of time has no meaning before the beginning of the universe. This was first pointed out by St. Augustine. When asked: What did God do before he created the universe? Augustine didn't reply: He was preparing Hell for people who asked such questions. Instead, he said that time was a property of the universe that God created, and that time did not exist before the beginning of the universe. [Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam, 1988), p. 8]

what does he say? the concept (that is the concept of time) has no meaning before the begin of the universe. that says it right there, no time before the universe began.

Pixie:

It was a shame Metacrock could not explain how something that is not intelligent could be considered a god; his argument seemed particular incoherent on this issue, and I wonder if he was setting his sights lower, merely hoping to show that it was likely something started time. In the end this did not impact the discussion, as the web page he found showed that actually we do not need anything at all to kick-start the universe. 

Meta:

I suspect he knows he got his *** kicked because here he resorts to total dishonesty. nothing of the kind of was said. No one said about God not being intelligent. that's just bolder dash. if anything I may have intimated that God's knowledge can't be compared with ours. We would not measure our intelligence on a scale with a single cell organism. We would not say that we are not intelligent.



Argument from Epistemic Judgement



Pixie:

Here his argument relies on showing that mysical experiences are all very similar and that there is good reason to suppose they come from God. 

Meta:

that's a total distortion. how can he pretend that he won when he clearly doesn't' know what the argument is about.

like always atheists just totally ignore the importance of the criteria. we decide reality by that criteria that means if something fits it, then it should be understood as real. he says nothing about it.

Pixie:

The reality is that mystical experiences can vary wildly, with some (albeit only a few percent) being bad, some involving delusions and so on. While they do show some commonality, that may be attributed to the filtering process of what actually counts as a mystical experience.

Meta
no evidence in this debate said anything about it varying wildly he just made that up and it's is a lie. I presented tons of evidence that say it's the same. I pointed to a scholarly article in the McNamara book by Ralph Hood that shows it with numbers and he doesn't even talk about a single time. he clearly never clicked on the link to read about it. just another exampe of atheists refuse to check the facts.



Pixie:

Further, it is apparent that induced mystical experiences are very similar (when we consider how much variation there is anyway), and can have similarly positive and long-lasting effects. Thus there would seem to be no reason to suppose God was involved in a spontaneous experience either. 

 Meta:

I had several arguments that explained why that is not a disproof, one was the receptor argument, which he never mentioned or talked about. so he lost that arguemnt. take that out because he lost it. He didn't answer my answer so he lost it.