ECCIE's VitaMan erroneously thought that the winner of the debate "lost"

This is a continuation of an argument that occurred on ECCIE. The locking of the thread resulted in the requirement to continue the argument here. VitaMan erroneously claimed that I had "lost" the debate. However, Grok would confirm my suspicion that this isn't the case. Grok's evaluation of the debate represented a sharp contrast from what VitaMan argued regarding who won or lost. I saw that VitaMan thoroughly lost the debate. 

VitaMan: You completely lost this debate. [SELF PROJECTION]

I won this argument with a straight cut victory. You, on the other hand, lost... BAD! No exceptions. Details below.

VitaMan: After you writing pages and pages, 

Every single last one of those posts directly addressed your argument. Your argument, as well as that of others, was thoroughly debunked. 

VitaMan: now here is what you come up with:

You only brought up a small fraction of what I brought up. I brought up a lot more, everything I brought up was relevant to what I argued. I did more than what I needed to do to prove your argument wrong. 

VitaMan: (yet you demand this from others, based on your ideas). Your rigged question is an example.

FALSE! The only "demands" I made called on you to stick to the argument, to answer a simple yes/no question, to not change the rules or shift the goal posts, and I made calls that are normally made during arguments. The question wasn't rigged. It captured your argument and forced you to answer a simple question that called your own logic to question. The question wasn't "rigged", it was a simple, straightforward question that called your logic into question. 

But wait! There's more! Even Grok pointed the above out in its own analysis. 

Your persistence with dodging that simple yes/no question is a clear indication that deep down inside, you know for a fact that you lost the argument. Insisting otherwise was pure hubris, pure arrogance, on your part. 

Your demands amounted to your wanting to run things your way, at your convenience, in a way that allowed you to save face. You were simply demonstrating control issues. 

VitaMan: (you refuse to offer a concise discussion of what you are arguing about)

Correction, I offered a thorough argument/explanation of what I was arguing throughout the thread. I refused to hand you something on a platter when you have the duty and obligation to thoroughly read the opposition's argument and make deductions based on what I was arguing. I refused to abandon my modality in favor of what you were demanding I do. 

 VitaMan: ( now you try to put words in other people's mouths so you can continue with your debate) [SELF PROJECTION]

It's painfully obvious to me that you have no experience when it comes to dealing with, or working with, scientific/academic research. I stated reality, not put words in people's mouths. Also, you have no legs to stand on when you erroneously claim that I'm doing something to stay in the argument while you clearly dodged simple yes/no questions to continue arguing. You knew for a fact that a simple "yes" or "no" response would've ended the argument for you. 

What I stated was a statement of fact as it relates to academic/scientific research. Remember, I've already utilized the scientific method of research. This is not putting words in people's mouths but describing how things are done. Your conditional statement gave your argument away, that there was "no God." This conditional statement helped clarify your "no evidence of God" statement; hence, my statement regarding how this would be seen in academic/scientific research. 

For example:

Claiming that there is no evidence of God, then advancing a supporting argument calling God's existence into question is a clear indication that you don't believe that God exists. You even advanced an "if/then" conditional statement that if God existed, the dinosaurs would not have met their demise. 

You can't come back and claim that you believe that God exists after repeatedly saying there is no evidence of God/gods followed by your providing examples normally used by people arguing that there is "no God." 

VitaMan: Why do you do that ? Because it completely destroys what you have been attempting to argue

This is completely false. I made that statement as it accurately described what you were doing. It supported my own argument and destroyed yours. My argument wasn't destroyed in the process but bolstered. And no, I was not "attempting" to do anything. I successfully argued my point, you failed to argue yours. 

VitaMan: This is case closed.

This case was closed the moment I proved you wrong, and especially the moment you first dodged a simple yes/no question that called your own argument into question. Also, Grok contested your claim that "the case was closed." 

VitaMan: Your previous resume included reading the Bible, reading other things, and a doctorate. Your updates resume includes reading the Bible, reading other things, a doctorate, and posting images.

You repeated yourself, requiring me to repeat my credentials, credentials that you lacked in this argument. In order to effectively argue whether God exists or not, or if there is evidence of God or not, you have to understand who, exactly, is God, specifically, how God is defined. 

Your argument clearly showed that you have no idea of the exact definition of what constitutes God. It is based on your lack of knowledge of how God is defined that you claimed you had "no evidence" of God. The true definition of God is the starting point in this argument.  I provided you with the definition of God. From that definition, you should've used inductive reasoning to conclude that the evidence of God was staring at you throughout your life. 

Literally, your eyes were open, but you were not seeing. To deny evidence of God is to deny evidence of our reality:

"God is totality. One way the Bible describes this is God's "filling the heaven and the earth." God's breath is God's spirit and consciousness in us. God is in everything, in everyone, in "everytime", etc. Meaning, when you see, you're seeing God, regardless of what direction you look. When you hear, you're hearing God, regardless of where the sound comes from. Likewise, through our eyes and ears God physically sees and hears the world around us." - herfacechair

And the statement from the Video:

This account, by someone who had a near death experience (NDE), illustrates what I've argued on the thread. The person who had the NDE asked the guides

NDEr: "Where is God, I don't see him!" 

NDEr: I asked. They became visibly amused like they were snickering at my question under their breath. 

Guides: How can you see that which you are a part of? We are all expressions of God. When you see with your eyes, you see through the eyes of God, and he experiences reality through yours. When you speak to God, you speak to yourself! We are one and the same. There is no division or separation. You can no more see God than your hand could see you for it is a part of you and functions because of you for your purposes as well as its own. There is no separation. Any that seems to exist is an illusion. The light that surrounds us here is God. It is our source of being and is given freely to all. 

This is precisely what is argued in different parts of the Bible.

Your definition of who God was, based on your argument, was erroneous from the start. This invalidated the rest of your argument and removed any standing you had asking your question or to repeatedly dodge mine. 

VitaMan: Once you provide EVIDENCE of any God, 

First, I did, throughout the tread. 

Second, you insisted that I provide you with evidence, what could be deduced from what I said throughout this thread, while you continued to dodge the following: 

Before you saw my first post on this website, you had no evidence of my existence. Does it immediately follow that I didn't exist before you saw my first post? YES [ ] NO [ ]

Copy and paste this statement to your response, place an "X" in the box that represents your response. Only respond with an "X" in the "yes" or "no" box, don't add anything else to your answer to this question.

VitaMan: a discussion can continue. [REPEAT POINT]

Again, this is not a discussion, but a debate. The case was closed the moment I first proved you wrong, and your defeat was repeatedly emphasized every time you dodged my question.

ECCIE's VitaMan pulls a Baghdad Bob, claims a couple items were "completely rebutted"

VitaMan erroneously claimed that the victor's claims, at least two things the victor brought up, were "completely rebutted." However, a review of the ECCIE thread "Religion and time" indicates that this was not what happened. Grok provided a thorough assessment based on images of the entire thread; it wasn't able to thoroughly review the actual thread. Grok provided a humbler description of VitaMan's performance that contradicted what VitaMan implied of his own performance as well as that of mine. 

VitaMan: The 2 items you keep repeating ad nauseam have been completely rebutted.

Not a single thing that I've argued on the thread has been rebutted. Not completely, not partially. Not a single person, among the opposition, directly addressed what I argued, everyone evaded my argument and advanced strawman and other fallacies. 

VitaMan: What is being discussed here is a belief held by someone for what they have never seen, and for which they have no evidence. Completely different from your rigged question.

What was being argued here, not "discussed," was your insistence that lack of evidence of God constituted God's not existing. Had this been about your belief in something for which there was "no evidence", you would not have brought up events that called God's existence into question. 

To wit: 

"There is no evidence anywhere of any God. If there is one, it didn't help the dinosaurs out when they went extinct. In the Jewish religion God only helped out the Jews.....while the earth was full of other humans." - VitaMan

"If there is one" speaks volumes and supposes that "there is none." Your conditional statement clearly insinuated your position that God didn't exist; evidence or no evidence of his existence became irrelevant the moment you made that statement. You implied that if God existed, he would've helped the dinosaurs. Ergo, the dinosaurs were not helped, therefore God "does not exist." 

VitaMan: These 2 items are probably what saved you in your previous 23 years of debating. 

Nope, no "saving" needed. In every argument I got involved in over the past nearly 23 years, I won armed with massive amounts of knowledge and experience against an opposition that had little to no knowledge of the debate topic. I thoroughly debunked those who debated me during this time, including you. This is a major reason to why I don't debate a topic unless it is clear that I have more than sufficient debate topic knowledge against an opposition that clearly demonstrates a lack of relevant knowledge. 

VitaMan: Not this time.

I won our argument against you, and against the others who argued on that thread, with a straight cut victory. I presented a fact based, reasoned, logical argument against your failure to either defend your arguments or prove mine "wrong." You zero on the two items, but those were not the only items that I used to defeat you. You dodged one of those items, and failed to connect the other to debate standing. Everything I said in response to you debunked your arguments. 

Your failure to answer my question per the parameters I set was a clear indication that you lost the argument but refused to acknowledge it. 

But wait! There's more! 

You went from this:

"There is no evidence anywhere of any God. If there is one, it didn't help the dinosaurs out when they went extinct. In the Jewish religion God only helped out the Jews.....while the earth was full of other humans." - VitaMan

To this:

"I don't believe I stated there is no God. If I did it needs to be corrected." -VitaMan

This is a sharp contrast from your "if there is one," a.k.a., if there was God. This marks a clear shift in your initial argument towards the argument that I made. 

How you stack up against the others I've debated over the past 23 years:

Your debate performance places you behind most of the people I've argued against over these past 23 years. Imagine, if you will, a group of runners. You have the fast runners in the front, then most runners in the middle, and then you'd have the stragglers who keep getting overlapped. Your performance placed you among the stragglers. Most of the people who I debated against argued better than you did. They still lost, but not as bad as you. You lost... BAD.

Your last two responses were nothing but a narcissistic driven temper tantrum. It spoke more towards your anger issues, control issues, and ego issues than it did on how I performed in this debate. 

Grok: No clean objective winner: Herfacechair closest to being the winner

A part of Grok's assessment of who won the debate on "Religion and time" on ECCIE:

Who "won"

The exchange still has no clean objective winner--empiricism vs. symbolism + personal experience rarely does.

However, the clarifications tip the practical assessment further toward herfacechair:

* He successfully forced VitaMan into a yes/no corner on the falsifiable claims.

* VitaMan's later "I never said there was no God" sits uncomfortably against his own earlier wording and the dinosaur conditional, giving herfacechair a consistency opening that he exploits.

* herfacechair continues to generate the bulk of substantive (if interpretive/experiential) replies and dominates the meta-layer about how the argument is being conducted.

VitaMan's empirical core is simpler and more publicly checkable, but in the visible thread it becomes repetitive and is partially undercut by his own later clarification. herfacechair's volume, persistence, and ability to keep the discussion on his preferred ground (symbolism, experience, procedural critique) make him the more effective participant in the pages provided.

The thread ends closed in mutual non-concession, which is the usual outcome for this topic.

 

ECCIE's Duchbutter: Lack of verification by ECCIE users means "no credence" to argument

Duchbutter: Your claims about NDEs cannot be verified by anyone here 

First, not claims but statements of fact. 

Second, they've been verified by others who obviously had them. Thousands of people have had these experiences, one of the most common themes among these experiences is that God does exist and is totality. The fact that they have not been verified by anybody on ECCIE does not change that reality. 

Duchbutter: and add no credence to any of your other arguments.

They add credence to my arguments. I brought one example on the thread, where the person was told that God was totality, which is precisely what the Bible describes God as. In the research world, two different sources/experiences pointing to the same thing is an example of triangulation. 

Duchbutter:  Even amongst those who've had such experiences many are unsure of their origin. I have it on good authority.

And many more have had experiences similar to what I brought up on the thread. They are very sure of their experiences and have had noticeable changes, and even abilities, in the aftermath that could only be explained by their experiences.