Jesus should have cooked the most delightful Snapper in Chile-Lime Sauce

[JimJones8934]

Thank you for stating your opinion on what you think is flawed. I might remind you that ODN members are free to start debate threads on subjects they choose. It is not usual and it has happened many times before that new threads are started from an existing thread to make a point and/or to refocus the OP with a new discussion. The other related thread is still in process and you are welcome to focus your comments on that debate. If you don’t like this thread, and it appears that you think it's flawed, here is a little Newsflash: You don’t have to participate in it. It’s really that simple.

Um. I just said the OP was flawed - I never said it shouldn't have been started! The irony of course has been lost on you since the reason why Dio opened this thread in the first place was to point out about how flawed the other OP was but instead his own OP was also flawed both internally (as it's own OP) and failing to capture the essence of the other debate's conclusions.

It wasn't a 'complaint', it was an observation. Sigh. Is losing in two threads to me so hurtful that you have to snipe back?

[Dionysus]

Jeez, I already mentioned that a couple of other posters brought the discussion back to the OP. What I meant by 'argument no-one had' was your straw man argument of the non-existence of Jesus' personal writings to his own non-existence!

Right, I KNOW no one was making that argument (except for the OPENING POSTER, of course). That's why I pointed out that 1) the OP is weak and 2) that everyone who didn't address the OP was off topic.

Um. I just said the OP was flawed - I never said it shouldn't have been started! The irony of course has been lost on you since the reason why Dio opened this thread in the first place was to point out about how flawed the other OP was but instead his own OP was also flawed both internally (as it's own OP) and failing to capture the essence of the other debate's conclusions.

Uh, no. There's nothing wrong with my OP as it illustrates how the OP is flawed in the other thread. My intent wasn't to show the 'essence of the other debate' (I can't believe I actually have to tell you this, yet again), because I'm not talking about the WHOLE THREAD (apart from the fact that it went off topic). My intent was and remains to show how the other OPENING POST is flawed.

I don't give a sh!t about the "essence" of the other thread. I concerned myself with the central claim of the opening post in that thread. I SAID that my concern was the central claim of the opening post. I said that "If you want to add other reasons, that's fine, but I'm not interested in discussing them". I said this as "a courtesy to save you some time if you want to make a larger case for someone who IS interested" (Pro Tip: that 'someone else' isn't me).

So no, my OP isn't flawed in the least as it shows exactly what it is intended to show; that the fact that Jesus did not write does not even SUGGEST that Jesus did not exist, any more than him not cooking the most delightful Snapper in Chile-Lime Sauce suggests that he didn't exist.

[JimJones8934]

Right, I KNOW no one was making that argument (except for the OPENING POSTER, of course). That's why I pointed out that 1) the OP is weak and 2) that everyone who didn't address the OP was off topic.

Uh, no. There's nothing wrong with my OP as it illustrates how the OP is flawed in the other thread. My intent wasn't to show the 'essence of the other debate' (I can't believe I actually have to tell you this, yet again), because I'm not talking about the WHOLE THREAD (apart from the fact that it went off topic). My intent was and remains to show how the other OPENING POST is flawed.

I don't give a sh!t about the "essence" of the other thread. I concerned myself with the central claim of the opening post in that thread. I SAID that my concern was the central claim of the opening post. I said that "If you want to add other reasons, that's fine, but I'm not interested in discussing them". I said this as "a courtesy to save you some time if you want to make a larger case for someone who IS interested" (Pro Tip: that 'someone else' isn't me).

So no, my OP isn't flawed in the least as it shows exactly what it is intended to show; that the fact that Jesus did not write does not even SUGGEST that Jesus did not exist, any more than him not cooking the most delightful Snapper in Chile-Lime Sauce suggests that he didn't exist.

Nevertheless, your OP has additional flaws separate and distinct from the flaw you were attempting to highlight.

Secondly, if you were challenging the OPENING POST *ONLY* then the discussion of Jesus' existence shouldn't even enter it! His existence was *not* questioned in the OPENING *POST*!

The existence question was only posed later AFTER the OPENING *POST* was discussed. It was deemed OT by yourself and others already which is why I thought you brought this thread up in the first place - to challenge THAT.

However, this is at odds with what you're saying now if you are truly just talking about the OP!

[Dionysus]

Nevertheless, your OP has additional flaws separate and distinct from the flaw you were attempting to highlight.

Please DO point them out.

Secondly, if you were challenging the OPENING POST *ONLY* then the discussion of Jesus' existence shouldn't even enter it! His existence was questioned in the OPENING *POS*T!

BINGO! So WHY were people even talking about it?

If the existence of Jesus wasn't being challenged by the opening post, then the OP becomes "Why didn't Jesus write?" And with an open question like that, literally every reason offered as to why he didn't write is equally valid. That's how open questions work. In other words, if the opening post wasn't challenging Jesus' existence, the only way his existence even comes into question is when someone goes off topic and arbitrarily smuggles in the argument that he didn't exist while saying that (magically, I guess) his non-existence is somehow more likely than anything else.

That's why I said:

"Yeah, that's kind of where I am with this thread as well. The claim seems to be something like:

If Jesus actually existed, then we would expect him to have written about himself, because his story... deserves to be told?

Unless I'm missing something very important, the thread is founded on an extremely flimsy premise."

The existence question was only posed later AFTER the OPENING *POST* was discussed. It was deemed OT by yourself and others already which is why I thought you brought this thread up in the first place - to challenge THAT.

However, this is at odds with what you're saying now if you are truly just talking about the OP!

Jesus Christ, JJ. You're too smart to say things that are this dense. ALL THE PROBLEMS STEM FROM THE OP. THAT'S WHY I challenged the OP. I don't care about the "essence" of the off-topic nature of the rest of the thread. I care that it WENT off topic BECAUSE of the opening post.

When I got into the discussion, everyone was questioning Jesus' existence. So I looked back at the thread and said "Wait a minute. What does the fact that he didn't write have to do with questions about his existence? It seems like the thread has gone way off topic." Then I looked allllll the way back to the OP, and lo and behold, JJ took the thread off-topic because JJ doesn’t understand the very basic concept of what it means to answer an open question. JJ was answering it as if it WEREN'T an open question, BECAUSE the OP was lazily written (either that or perhaps because JJ has no idea what an open question looks like, and doesn't realize there's no burden of proof when it comes to open questions, nor with speculative answers to open questions).

Either the OP IS questioning Jesus’ existence or it isn’t. As such, there are two - and ONLY two - possibilities here:

~Either:

• The thread IS NOT questioning his existence based on his lack of authorship, in which case any and all reasons offered as to why he didn't write are equally valid and there's no grounds on which to challenge any specific one in favor of another, or
• The thread IS questioning his existence based on his lack of authorship, in which case his lack of authorship has absolutely NOTHING to do with whether or not he existed.

In other words, because there was NO causal connection between "the story deserves to be told accurately" and "Jesus should have written", and because there is no causal connection between "X didn't write" and "therefore, the most reasonable conclusion is that X didn't exist", no one had any reason whatsoever to go beyond offering a litany of equally valid reasons as to why he didn't write. Questions about his existence of off-topic. Period.

[snackboy]

For now, the simple assertion of this thread is that Jesus should have cooked the most delightful Snapper in Chile-Lime Sauce

Why?

Because, such a dish deserves to be cooked as well as it can be cooked. It should be prepared by the ultimate chef, by the man who bled and shed sweat and tears to climb up out of the abyss and rise with the light.

But, because he did not cook the most delightful Snapper in Chile-Lime Sauce, we must conclude that he did not exist.

-----------------------------

Can anyone tell me how the conclusion does not follow from the premise(s)?

Can anyone tell me why any OTHER arguments regarding the historicity of Jesus have absolutely nothing to do with the claims made in this opening post?

How is it that a dish of food deserves anything?

[Dionysus]

How is it that a dish of food deserves anything?

Great question!

[JimJones8934]

Please DO point them out.

I already did at the beginning of the thread.

BINGO! So WHY were people even talking about it?

I already explained that - it was because the theist opinions were useless and unconvincing and we atheists moved on to a related reason.

If the existence of Jesus wasn't being challenged by the opening post, then the OP becomes "Why didn't Jesus write?" And with an open question like that, literally every reason offered as to why he didn't write is equally valid. That's how open questions work. In other words, if the opening post wasn't challenging Jesus' existence, the only way his existence even comes into question is when someone goes off topic and arbitrarily smuggles in the argument that he didn't exist while saying that (magically, I guess) his non-existence is somehow more likely than anything else.

OK. But you said you started THIS thread based ONLY on the OP of the other thread. That is what we're discussing now. You said in #42 here:

> My intent was and remains to show how the other OPENING POST is flawed.

But it appears that you are more interested in pointing out the segway into another topic.

That's why I said:

"Yeah, that's kind of where I am with this thread as well. The claim seems to be something like:

If Jesus actually existed, then we would expect him to have written about himself, because his story... deserves to be told?

Unless I'm missing something very important, the thread is founded on an extremely flimsy premise."

OK but that premise has nothing to do with the OP. The OP begins with "This post makes a simple assertion: Jesus should have written down his thoughts, his creed, his instructions, etc." As other debaters pointed out, this is assuming Jesus exists. What you have summarized here is your misreading of the OP AND the segway.

Jesus Christ, JJ. You're too smart to say things that are this dense. ALL THE PROBLEMS STEM FROM THE OP. THAT'S WHY I challenged the OP. I don't care about the "essence" of the off-topic nature of the rest of the thread. I care that it WENT off topic BECAUSE of the opening post.

I understand your that your real objection is that the OP but let me write it back to you so that you know I understand. You believe that the OP itself is written in a way where any reason would be valid to answer the opening question of why Jesus didn't write anything. Correct?

When I got into the discussion, everyone was questioning Jesus' existence. So I looked back at the thread and said "Wait a minute. What does the fact that he didn't write have to do with questions about his existence? It seems like the thread has gone way off topic." Then I looked allllll the way back to the OP, and lo and behold, JJ took the thread off-topic because JJ doesn’t understand the very basic concept of what it means to answer an open question. JJ was answering it as if it WEREN'T an open question, BECAUSE the OP was lazily written (either that or perhaps because JJ has no idea what an open question looks like, and doesn't realize there's no burden of proof when it comes to open questions, nor with speculative answers to open questions).

I still defend it is on topic.

Either the OP IS questioning Jesus’ existence or it isn’t. As such, there are two - and ONLY two - possibilities here:

~Either:

• The thread IS NOT questioning his existence based on his lack of authorship, in which case any and all reasons offered as to why he didn't write are equally valid and there's no grounds on which to challenge any specific one in favor of another, or
• The thread IS questioning his existence based on his lack of authorship, in which case his lack of authorship has absolutely NOTHING to do with whether or not he existed.

In other words, because there was NO causal connection between "the story deserves to be told accurately" and "Jesus should have written", and because there is no causal connection between "X didn't write" and "therefore, the most reasonable conclusion is that X didn't exist", no one had any reason whatsoever to go beyond offering a litany of equally valid reasons as to why he didn't write. Questions about his existence of off-topic. Period.

Yes, but again, you said you started this specific thread because of the OP. Now you realize the the OP didn't question the existence of Jesus at all - it was me, largely making a side comment as opposed to an argument per se:

JJ: #9
Hmmm. Now I know why religious debates go nowhere! Then I stand corrected and I'm with the OP - it's remarkable that a supposed deity's actual writing aren't preserved!

The "some reason he simply chose" excuse can easily be explained better that he didn't exist or couldn't write!

And then the rest of the thread was spent discussing Jesus' existence.

So now that you know this, will you now concede that it is not the OP at fault but mine?

[Dionysus]

So now that you know this, will you now concede that it is not the OP at fault but mine?

Of course not. If the OP hadn't been a lazy rant, and if it had actually made a coherent set of claims, then it would have been clear to everyone what it was and/or was not about. I'm happy to concede that, yes, you were at fault. But that doesn't excuse the lazy opening post. I've known the opening poster for years, and he knows better, is capable of better, and should have created a better opening argument if he actually wanted to debate something in a debate forum. Otherwise, he should have simply posted it in "Shootin' the Breeze".

[JimJones8934]

Of course not. If the OP hadn't been a lazy rant, and if it had actually made a coherent set of claims, then it would have been clear to everyone what it was and/or was not about.

I dunno, even if there was a bit of an issue with the internal logical, it's an interesting question in of itself along the lines of why isn't God more forthcoming and direct with his mission for us. The additional spin in focussing on his human avatar puts some constraints on the larger question since Jesus Christ, being 'wholly human', couldn't do some of the things God could easily do: i.e. he couldn't write something in the sky. And, (not to debate it here either), it could be reasonably expected for him to have used the technology at hand at the time to preserve something of his legacy rather than leave the it up to the a lottery of luck and religious filtering that ended up with an inconsistent account.

I'm happy to concede that, yes, you were at fault.

Yep - and I apologize. (Though the end result of was worth it!)

But that doesn't excuse the lazy opening post. I've known the opening poster for years, and he knows better, is capable of better, and should have created a better opening argument if he actually wanted to debate something in a debate forum. Otherwise, he should have simply posted it in "Shootin' the Breeze".

Now that you point out the logical flaw, it makes sense and I know I didn't really see it until a few posts ago. Still, the irony that your OP had flaws (internal and external) is kinda funny. Wow, that was a productive discussion. Thanks!

[Dionysus]

Still, the irony that your OP had flaws (internal and external) is kinda funny.

Keep telling yourself that. Maybe it will come true!

[JimJones8934]

Keep telling yourself that. Maybe it will come true!

You told me that: firstly by conceding the OP made no direct mention of the existence of Jesus (it was me) - so it failed in its original intent since you mistook it to make claims that only showed up later. Then secondly, it was internally inconsistent as a scenario since you had not shown whether even the recipe is a fair claim on Jesus, whereas writing was.

You did however succeed in writing an invalid OP, the central charge you are making against the other OP. However, that is a much more broad and loose claim since any substantive analogy you were trying to make were flawed.

[snackboy]

Great question!

Thanks!

(My response below is predicated on the notion that you are talking about the Christian Savior and not a Seattle Mariners baseball player.)

To me, there seems to be quite a few concerns with the OP. You posit that Snapper in Chile-Lime Sauce deserves to be cooked as well as it can be cooked. On what basis is this premise made? Is this your own value, or some other standard that I am not aware of? You also posit that it should be prepared by the ultimate chef. What criteria are you using to determine an ultimate chef? Can there only be one ultimate chef? Could there be more than one?

But I think the most important question here is what criteria is being used to determine Jesus should have cooked the Snapper or anything else for that matter? Could He? Sure. But should He implies that He was required to do so.

[Dionysus]

You told me that...

Uh, no. This OP illustrates the following problems with the OP (as Snackboy, below your post, had the wits to see and to point out):

The OP in the other thread implies that Jesus SHOULD have i.e. is somehow logically obliged to have written his story. But, as I've said numerous times, there is no causal relationship between "Jesus is logically obliged to have written his story" and "because his story deserves to be told accurately". That's the first problem the OP illustrates. This is just the same as saying "Jesus should have cooked the most delightful Snapper in Chile-Lime Sauce" "because such a dish deserves to be cooked..." When you've got a weak-ass OP like that, the reason "The recipe didn't exist back then" is just as strong as any other. I AGREE that it probably didn't exist back then; I only argued because people in the other thread brought in non-existence as if it had more explanatory power than "He chose not to" (and, BTW, yet again, when dealing with an open question, if you have no idea why someone did a thing, an answer such as "maybe he chose not to" is just as strong as "maybe he was too busy", "maybe he was allergic to ink", or even "maybe he didn't exist").

The second problem it illustrates is why the other thread shouldn't have gone off topic (which you agree now that it did), since there nothing contained in the claim "Jesus didn't write" that makes "therefore he didn't exist" any stronger of an example than any other.

[JimJones8934]

Uh, no. This OP illustrates the following problems with the OP (as Snackboy, below your post, had the wits to see and to point out):

The OP in the other thread implies that Jesus SHOULD have i.e. is somehow logically obliged to have written his story. But, as I've said numerous times, there is no causal relationship between "Jesus is logically obliged to have written his story" and "because his story deserves to be told accurately". That's the first problem the OP illustrates. This is just the same as saying "Jesus should have cooked the most delightful Snapper in Chile-Lime Sauce" "because such a dish deserves to be cooked..." When you've got a weak-ass OP like that, the reason "The recipe didn't exist back then" is just as strong as any other. I AGREE that it probably didn't exist back then; I only argued because people in the other thread brought in non-existence as if it had more explanatory power than "He chose not to" (and, BTW, yet again, when dealing with an open question, if you have no idea why someone did a thing, an answer such as "maybe he chose not to" is just as strong as "maybe he was too busy", "maybe he was allergic to ink", or even "maybe he didn't exist").

So here you are saying the discussion of his existence is valid because the OP is invalid.

The second problem it illustrates is why the other thread shouldn't have gone off topic (which you agree now that it did), since there nothing contained in the claim "Jesus didn't write" that makes "therefore he didn't exist" any stronger of an example than any other.

Here you are saying it is not invalid.


Can you make up your mind?

[Dionysus]

LOL for god's sake, JJ. NO.

In the first part I'm saying that there's no causal relationship between "Jesus is obliged to have written" and "because his story deserves to be told accurately", and in the second part I'm saying these's nothing contained in the statement "Jesus never wrote" that puts "therefore he didn't exist" as the front runner of explanations.

[JimJones8934]

LOL for god's sake, JJ. NO.

In the first part I'm saying that there's no causal relationship between "Jesus is obliged to have written" and "because his story deserves to be told accurately", and in the second part I'm saying these's nothing contained in the statement "Jesus never wrote" that puts "therefore he didn't exist" as the front runner of explanations.

It wasn't a front runner. That he wasn't literate enough to begin with was the front runner. So you accept it as a possible answer but only one due to the logical flaw in the OP. Right?

[Dionysus]

JJ, I'm through explaining this to you, bro. I've done more than enough so that any dicerning reader gets the point. Any further questions from you are just you arguing for the sake of arguing.

[JimJones8934]

JJ, I'm through explaining this to you, bro. I've done more than enough so that any dicerning reader gets the point. Any further questions from you are just you arguing for the sake of arguing.

OK. But you haven't explained anything - you have just conceded that the OP never mentioned the existence of Jesus as an argument. That's all I really needed to know - that you weren't following the thread properly and therefore came up with this flawed OP.

[Dionysus]

Again, keep telling yourself that.

[bestellen]

But atheists make terrible theists which is why you have to keep switching the story around in order to make a minor point of order.