Appeal: explicit argument
From Jay Dyer vs Mike Lowry Urantia Debate: Christianity vs Urantianism.
- #131048:42upheld Jay Dyer epainos: explicit argument (+2)
The council upheld the call: Jay Dyer earned 2 points.
“… how would you is what I asked you as well, Mike. I was a response to Mormonist. I have a burning in my bosom that tells me Mormonism is correct and your answer is wrong.”
Diogenes: A parity-of-reasoning challenge aimed precisely at Mike's recorded first principle: if inner conviction and felt coherence certify the Urantia Book, the same test certifies rival revelations, so the criterion cannot discriminate.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: S1 has held since the opening that intelligibility and adjudication between rival truth-claims require an objective, non-subjective standard (the transcendental/presuppositional method), and this parity-of-reasoning move against Mike's declared experiential epistemology is a direct, consistent application of that standing position, not a departure from it. This is a plainly stated parity argument: premise that Mike's criterion for the Urantia Book is subjective/personal experience, premise that a Mormon's "burning in the bosom" is the same type of criterion used for a rival, mutually exclusive revelation, conclusion that the criterion therefore cannot discriminate true from false revelation. It is stated with clear premises and conclusion and is central to Jay's recurring presuppositionalist demand for an objective standard.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "explicit argument". Jay is not attacking Mike personally here but pressing a real problem for Mike's stated epistemology (personal experience/fruit of the spirit as the test of truth): a Mormon could make the identical appeal ("burning in the bosom") for a contrary claim, so subjective experience alone cannot adjudicate between rival revelations. This is a relevant parallel-case argument on the very question on the table (how to delineate true from false revelation), and it is one Mike never manages to answer except by restating the fruit-of-the-spirit appeal.
- Plato uphold: On the record: Jay Dyer has held since the opening that any rival revelation must be tested against an objective standard rather than resting on subjective experience, and this line is a direct, plainly-stated application of that standing challenge, not a departure from it. This is a clear, explicit parity-of-reasoning argument: premise that Mike's criterion for the Urantia Book's authority is subjective personal experience/coherence, and the parallel case (a Mormon's burning-bosom testimony) sharing that same criterion, concluding that the criterion fails to discriminate between competing revelatory claims. This is consistent with Jay's recorded framework from the outset (TAG/presuppositionalism demanding an objective, non-arbitrary standard) and is repeated by him throughout the debate as his central challenge to Mike's experiential epistemology, not a one-off aside.
Appeal this callout
Appeals come only from the debaters themselves. Sign in with Google to start; you'll then prove which debater you are, once.