Tuesday, August 21, 2012

Rosa's original posting

Here is Rosa Rubicondior's original blog posting in case she deleted or alter it during the debate.



Debate: Is There Scientific Evidence Only For The Christian God?

Terms and conditions

The topic for debate will be the proposition that:

There is verifiable, falsifiable, scientific evidence for only the Christian God for which no possible natural explanation can exist.

This debate will take place between the proposer (the person calling himself @Sacerdotus) and myself. It will be conducted according to the following rules:

The proposer will supply an agreed scientific definition of the Christian God against which the proposition can be tested, precise details of the evidence and how it can be verified, how it could be falsified and how it establishes the truth of the proposition beyond reasonable doubt. Failure to do so will be regarded as conceding the debate.

A neutral referee will be agreed. The rulings of this referee will be final and binding on both parties to the debate. The referee will rule on:
  1. Whether an assertion of fact has been validated with verified evidence.
  2. Whether questions have been answered fully, honestly and without prevarication.
  3. The meaning of words, when these are in dispute.
  4. Whether an argument was ad hominem or not.
  5. Any other disputes when requested by either of the parties to the debate.
  6. Whether a referral to the referee was mendacious or an attempt to prevaricate, divert or otherwise obstruct the normal flow of debate.
  7. The referee may intervene at any time to declare the debate won, lost or drawn.
Should either party fail to provide evidence for which a claim of its existence has been made, the debate will be considered lost.

Making any claim which is shown to be untrue or unsupported by evidence will result in forfeiture of the debate.

Ad hominem arguments will result in forfeiture.

Failure to respond to an reasonable point, answer a reasonable question or to supply the evidence requested within three days (subject to notified periods of absence) will result in forfeiture.

The debate will take place across two blog sites; this one and @Sacerdotus' own blog. Each party will make it clear which point is being addressed. A record of the entire debate may be published in full at the discretion of either party.

As I expected, though I hoped not, Sacerdotus would not accept these terms and conditions nor was he able to establish the proposition despite his boasts that he could produce scientific proof of the Christian god's existence. Perhaps his definitions of the meanings of the words 'scientific' and 'proof' are private ones and not those used by normal people.

Eventually, I posted this proposition in his blog and invited him to refute my assertion that he would not be able to establish it's truth.

He then went into what looked like panic-stricken denialism and posted some 20-30 tweets on Twitter demanding I reply to his blog, and despite repeatedly being given screen-captures of my reply. He even created at least three new accounts to RT his hysterical tweets.

Eventually, the overwhealming consensus of people who responded to my tweet asking if I should continue was that Sacerdotus clearly had no intention of debating honestly and seemed not to understand the basic rules of debate. The whole ploy had been disingenuous from the outset, hence his fear of holding it on neutral ground with a neutral referee and according to agreed rules to prevent prevarication, diversion and the other traditional tactics of Christian apologetic sophistry.

If 'Sacerdotus' has the integrity to leave his blog up, this may be read here. It is not a pretty sight.

One can only assume that Sacerdotus was fully aware that he could not support his claim and had decided that his 'faith' can only be defended with these sorts of tactics of deception. One wonders at the mentality of someone who knows they are pushing a lie but never-the-less is prepared to go to these lengths to 'promote' it in their own deluded way. One can only assume they are getting something out of their phoney piety in terms of the behaviour, opinions and attitudes they can blame on it. Or maybe it's just the hope of an easy living from the life as a parasite on the gullible and vulnerable.

Whatever the motive, there is clearly no belief that a god of honesty is watching his every move and taking note. The abject abandonment of intellectual integrity is too profound to support that view. It never ceases to amaze me how people are prepared to drag their 'faith' through the gutter rather than to back down and admit that it is baseless.

Clearly, their precious ego is much more important than the god they purport to believe in


  1. This debate seems silly to me. God is not an entity that is subject to scientific evidence. God is an experience that you either have and recognize or don't have (or at least don't recognize.) To debate the existence of God as if God is a newly discovered planet is to miss the whole point of what God is.

    If your goal is to show that the immature fundamentalist understanding of God or the Bible is logically flawed, then big deal. That is pretty obvious. This debate may tell you a lot about the fundamentalist with whom you are debating, but it tells you absolutely nothing about God.

    The theologian Paul Tillich described it like this:

    "I do not want to criticize any of the creative activities of the secular mind, the sciences, the arts, social relations, technical activities, and politics. These disciplines have their own criteria and their leaders apply these criteria with severity, honesty and self-criticism. In all this the secular mind is mature and religion should never interfere with it, as mature science would never interfere with religious symbols, since they lie in another dimension of experience and reality. To discuss the existence or nonexistence of God as a being alongside other beings betrays the utter immaturity on both sides. It betrays complete ignorance about the meaning and power of the divine." (The Eternal Now by Paul Tillich, Chapter 14.)
  2. Roger Sessions.

    Don't worry. Sacerdotus appears to be certain he has some scientific evidence for the Christian god so it shouldn't be nearly the problem for him you seem to fear.

    I would be interested though in how you know about this god by non-scientific means.


    1. Rosa Rubincondior,
      I'm not worried about Sacerdotus. I'm worried about the people who might fall for the logical falacy of the "falacy falacy." The falacy falacy is the falacy of assuming a proposition if false because the logic used to argue the proposition is logically flawed.

      As to your question, how do I know about this God? I only know because I experience a strong connection to a larger beyond. I seem to share this experience with many other people. Some of us use the word "God" to describe this experience. Some of us find the Bible gives us a better understanding of this shared experience and how this experience is calling to us and working in our lives. It is possible that this shared experience is simply a hallucination, but given how widespread and how consistent it is, it appears that we are experiencing something real. But this experience is not clinically describable and certainly not scientifically provable. It simply "is."
  3. I cannot wait to see how this pans out. No doubt @sacerdotus will be eligible for a Nobel when he successfully proves the existence of the Christian God. It will be exciting to witness him dismantle the myriad arguments that heathen "scientists" put forth for the non contingency of a deity, and then make the perfectly logical leap to proving that deity is in fact the God of Abraham, and not one of the other thousands of gods that misinformed people made up in the 6000 year history of our universe.
    All sarcasm aside, this should be hilarious.
  4. Are you meaning to link Sacerdotus twitter in in your OP ?
  5. If @Sacerdotus challenged you to the debate, he is the one who must make the terms, not you. He had posted the link on your other blog and you have yet to post an argument: http://rationallyfaithful.blogspot.com/2012/08/debate-rosarubicondior-vs-sacerdotusr.html


    1. The terms and conditions are perfectly fair and specify precisely what Sacerdotus is claiming. I'm sorry you feel you need to excuse his cowardice.
  6. Rosa, I invited you to debate me, I have the say on how it is conducted. It was my idea. There is no need for this fanfare. Please stop the stalling attempts.

    Once you accepted the debate, I immediately made a blog posting specifically for us to post on and have been waiting over 24 hrs for your first argument. I even posted the link here so you would not claim that I never sent it to you on Twitter. I've done everything, now it is your turn to step up and present your arguments. I was polite enough to give you the first shot to an opening statement/argument.

    This is not a boxing match, there is no need for a referee. I want a simple debate that everyone can read and make conclusions from without having to deal with "fillers."

    All I ask is for you to keep your comments free of vulgarity, ad hominem and stick to the topic. Your arguments should be coherent and not be all over the place.

    We all live busy lives and understand if it may take a day or so to reply on the debate. The winner will be the one who successfully provides a strong argument for/against God.


    1. Sacerdotus

      >Rosa, I invited you to debate me, I have the say on how it is conducted. It was my idea.<

      And I have accepted.

      What is it about the terms and conditions which is making you afraid? Are you maybe afraid you won't be able to provide the evidence to the satisfaction of a neutral referee, the fact that you won't be able to prevaricate, divert and obfuscate or otherwise use apologetic tactics over substance or is it that you know your claim is false you won'r be able to substantiate it?

      If you have the evidence and you are sure your argument is sound, you should be leaping at this chance to prove it beyond doubt.
    2. I am not sure how closely you folks are following academic debate etiquette. But typically the person who answers in the affirmative offers the first argument. A proper title for the debate would be "Does God Exist?"

      Currently you have two questions, "Can it be proven that God does exist/Can it be proven that God does not exist?" Which leads to contradictory answers and therefore it is impossible to determine who should give the first argument.

      In contrast, with "Does God Exist?" one will answer yes, and the other will answer no. The person who answers with the affirmative gives the first argument. So I am confused about why you are asking Rosa to send the first argument.
  7. Stop stalling and just go to the proper venue please: http://rationallyfaithful.blogspot.com/2012/08/debate-rosarubicondior-vs-sacerdotusr.html


    1. Just have the courage to accept the perfectly fair terms and conditions, or explain why they are unacceptable, then we can begin.

      Once we have agreed a neutral referee you may post your opening statement in accordance with these terms.
    2. Again, this is not a boxing match. There is no need for a mediator. You post your argument with evidence and I post mine. It is a simply format. It was my idea and I posted the rules already. You must comply or forfeit. I posted my opening statement already. I even gave you the opportunity to post first and you did not take advantage. You have 23 hours to post or be declared the loser.

  8. Have you both agreed to the same terms? It doesn't seem that way to an impartial observer.


    1. I posted the terms on my blog which she agreed to: https://twitter.com/RosaRubicondior/status/237472676111867904

      Now she is trying to impose her rules on the debate. It is not fair. She cannot invite third parties nor try to move the debate to her blog when this was my original idea and she agreed to my terms.

      She is a guest on my blog and must be polite and not impose her will on how my blog is run.
    2. I am a Christian apologist. I have taken opposition to Rosa in several different instances. But I find this behavior bizarre. You are refusing to debate, except in that specific forum. I do not see why it matters where the debate takes place. I have had discussions using twitlonger. It really does not matter where it takes place. What matters is the content.

      Having said that, your demand for Rosa to make the first move is unjustified. In a debate, the person who takes the affirmative makes the first move. Yet you are literally counting down the hours for her to make a case against Christian theism, lest it be considered that she lost the debate.

      Considered that by who? Certainly not by me, and I say that as a fellow apologist. So in summary, there are two points that need to be dropped. 1 - The venue (literally could not matter less). 2 - The demand for Rosa to make the first move.

      However I do think that the rules of this debate as proposed by Rosa are malformed. You guys need to come to a fair resolution. But if you are truly interested in having a debate and going through the arguments, drop the temper tantrum about the venue and drop the demand for Rosa to make the first move.

      I tell you all of this, Sacerdotus, because I am rooting for you.
    3. I understand your point, but I want this to be a simple debate where all can read the responses and evidence and make up their own minds. I offered Rosa the first opportunity to post but she stalled. So... I posted the opening statement and am waiting for her to post her's so we can officially begin.

      She instead is tweeting on Twitter all kinds of ad hominem nonsense and getting her Atheist friends to flood my mentions - further stalling.

      I am the originator of the debate. I provided the venue, link and rules and Rosa agreed. To come out of left field with a referee and all this nonsense is obviously a ploy to get out of debating me.

      Rosa knows that I am not the fundamentalists she bashes. I hold degrees in the sciences and have numerous of times refuted her claims.

      She is making a fool of herself on Twitter and it is unfortunate. I was expecting to find a true challenge in her. So far she has been dilly dallying.
    4. Sacerdotus.

      You have the right to reply to the concluding points I made in the blog above.

      After that, you are too dishonest and disingenuous to be taken seriously here again and you will not be welcome.

      Thank you for helping me to discredit religion in general and your 'faith' in particular. I hope you eventually develop the emotional maturity, personal integrity and self-respect to feel some shame at the dishonest tactic you felt you needed to try.
    5. I am glad you are accepting your defeat well. It takes a lot of courage to bow out of a debate, kudos to you! Or Cheers as they say in your land. :)

      A lot of people were looking forward to this debate, but unfortunately you with your childishness and stalling tactics disappointed us all.

      I was never dishonest nor disingenuous. The evidence is on Twitter and my blog. I even made a music video of it. :)

      You accepted to debate me and read the rules. It is unfair of you to impose your rules that would have favored only you. You even chose a third party to get involved - a Lesbian non denominational minister who I debated with in the past: how is that fair?

      Hopefully after you prepare better you can try again to debate me. I am and will always be confident to defend my premise. I even told you to invite Dawkins and others to team up against me. :)


No comments:

Post a Comment

Thank you for reading and for your comment. All comments are subject to approval. They must be free of vulgarity, ad hominem and must be relevant to the blog posting subject matter.


Catholic Church (791) God (410) Jesus (351) Atheism (344) Bible (323) Jesus Christ (289) Pope Francis (237) Atheist (229) Liturgy of the Word (198) Science (157) LGBT (147) Christianity (139) Gay (82) Pope Benedict XVI (81) Rosa Rubicondior (79) Abortion (76) Prayer (66) President Obama (57) Liturgy (56) Physics (53) Philosophy (52) Vatican (51) Christian (50) Blessed Virgin Mary (48) Christmas (43) New York City (43) Psychology (43) Holy Eucharist (38) Women (35) Politics (34) Biology (32) Baseball (31) Supreme Court (31) NYPD (27) Religious Freedom (27) Health (24) Traditionalists (24) priests (24) Space (23) Pope John Paul II (22) Racism (22) Theology (21) Evil (20) First Amendment (20) Apologetics (19) Death (19) Pro Abortion (19) Protestant (19) Astrophysics (18) Christ (18) Evangelization (18) Child Abuse (17) Donald Trump (17) Illegal Immigrants (17) Priesthood (17) Pro Choice (17) Police (16) Pedophilia (15) Marriage (14) Vatican II (14) Divine Mercy (12) Blog (11) Eucharist (11) Gospel (11) Autism (10) Jewish (10) Morality (10) Muslims (10) Poverty (10) September 11 (10) Cognitive Psychology (9) Easter Sunday (9) Gender Theory (9) Holy Trinity (9) academia (9) CUNY (8) Human Rights (8) Pentecostals (8) Personhood (8) Sacraments (8) Big Bang Theory (7) Condoms (7) David Viviano (7) Ellif_dwulfe (7) Evidence (7) Hispanics (7) Spiritual Life (7) Barack Obama (6) Hell (6) Humanism (6) NY Yankees (6) Babies (5) Cyber Bullying (5) Gender Dysphoria Disorder (5) Massimo Pigliucci (5) Podcast (5) Pope Pius XII (5) The Walking Dead (5) Angels (4) Donations (4) Ephebophilia (4) Pope Paul VI (4) Catholic Bloggers (3) Death penalty (3) Evangelicals (3) Founding Fathers (3) Pluto (3) Pope John XXIII (3) Baby Jesus (2) Dan Arel (2) Eastern Orthodox (2) Encyclical (2) Freeatheism (2) Oxfam (2) Penn Jillette (2) Pew Research Center (2) Plenary Indulgence (2) Cursillo (1) Dan Savage (1) Divine Providence (1) Fear The Walking Dead (1) Pentecostales (1)