The Evangelical Universalist Forum

JRP vs TurretinFan Oct 2011 debate (official thread+YouTube)


admitting to the possibility of being wrong doesn’t mean that you believe you are wrong.

to turn this around, have you considered that you might possibly be wrong?


No distinction. Just narrowing down the width of meaning.

If someone says “So you think he might be right and you wrong?”, that could mean “So you don’t consider yourself inerrantly inspired on the topic or something of that sort?” or it could mean “So you think he has good enough of a case that you’re starting to doubt whether you’re right?”

I believe TFan’s case was very poor, although from a tactical standpoint he did about as well as he could do (apparently not having prepared much beforehand), and I would say he scored some procedural points (so to speak) here and there. But I wanted to caution readers/listeners against weighing the mere density of my detail as being decisive over-against his argument; just as I wouldn’t want people to think that being rebutted on some of my key points by someone vastly much better at Greek than I am, decisively sinks other portions of my argument which might be sufficient to point to the truth of my position despite failing in those rebutted regards.

Each argument ought to be weighed pro or con on its own merits, with careful distinctions about which portions may survive other portions being zorched (if any). I would want people to be fair to my arguments if an opponent did better than TFan at arguing the terminology; so by the same proportion I want people to be fair to TFan’s arguments even if I do better than he on many points. It’s theoretically possible I could be quite competent at doing so, and yet TFan actually be correct.

I keep that in mind, even when I don’t see how TFan could be correct; and for his sake I prefer readers/listeners to keep it in mind, too. :slight_smile:


Are you kidding me? If you could see my thoughts, you might question if I ever did anything else :slight_smile:


So it is possible that you are wrong but your feeling is that you aren’t?


hehe know the feeling mate :slight_smile:


My feeling and my belief are both that I am right, on the overall argument of the debate and on every point I addressed along the way. But I acknowledge the possibility that I am wrong in my feelings and beliefs about being right, whether on particular points or even overall.

(I prefer to distinguish between my feelings and my beliefs, which is why I rarely talk about feeling such-and-such. When I do, that’s a sign that I recognize my beliefs on the topic to be speculative and/or not especially well grounded, yet I’m reporting stronger feelings on the topic than I think my beliefs would strictly warrant.)


Incidentally, I’m thinking about holding off on threading my post-debate comments until I check out how feasibly I could translate them into a Prezi presentation.

Rather along the line of what this fellow recently did for the Stephen Law vs. William Lane Craig debate. (Check out his first window for a demonstration of how he’s using the software.)



Wow, yes please Jason! I find it much easier to understand things when they are visually represented.


I’ve noticed your zeal for a long time with taking every challenge to UR seriously and am happy about that.


Twould make some super-nifty YouTube videos, too, methinks. :smiley:

Ideally I would have a version that synched up with the audio from our debate, too, although that would be better hosted on Chris/Theopologetics’ YouTube channel.


TFan’s followup debate with someone named “Ronnie” from the Consuming Fire blog (ECT vs Anni respectively) is now available on Chris’ site, by the way.

Blog link for Part 1

Blog link for Part 2

Each entry has a further link to the actual podcast on Chris’ other page; this way people can keep a little better track of any comments on either blog.


I just finished listening to it all. May I say again how much I appreciate all the work that went into this. I found the 3rd episode was particularly good, when Chris helped by asking questions. Mind you the other episodes also had their own strengths.

I thought Jason did a very generous, outward looking, closing statement, but I was disappointed that TFan seemed to bring up new arguments, which obviously Jason couldn’t reply to :neutral_face:


Well, to be fair, I’m pretty sure I brought up a number of things in my closing statement that were outside the purview of the debate (not least being a quick nod to the argument from trinitarian theory!)

Besides, I have to love TFan’s closing statement for its utterly Arminian evangelical appeal… :mrgreen:

(You can make a guess about one of the things I’ll be talking about in the post-debate commentary.)

Incidentally, I just got finished Prezi-mapping TFan’s opening argument. I’m not sure I’ll complete the whole project before I try to do commentary, though–that was 30 minutes of argument mapped from around 10:00 today until 5:00, and I haven’t had lunch yet!

Nifty, but hugely time consuming to work up. :neutral_face: