Appeal: homologia
From Jay Dyer vs Mike Lowry Urantia Debate: Christianity vs Urantianism.
- #13361:05:25upheld Jay Dyer against Mike Lowry agonisma: homologia (+1)
The council upheld the call: Jay Dyer earned 1.2 points.
“What is the epistemic criteria for you to know that the Urantia book is correct and the Bible's not?”
Diogenes: The question, pressed for the fifth time, forces the admission "There isn't any. It's not epistemic" — Mike grants outright that his position rests on no criterion, which concedes the central issue of the debate.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Mike's declared method rejects external objective standards in favor of experience, and while this concession is consistent with that framework rather than a reversal of it, it is nonetheless the first explicit, direct grant of the specific fact in dispute (no epistemic criterion) rather than another deflection, which is what homologia requires. After many turns of Mike deflecting the demand for an objective standard (fruit of the spirit, "not here to argue," reframing what religion is), this is the first place he gives a bare, unhedged answer to the specific, repeated question — "There isn't any" — directly granting that no epistemic criterion distinguishes his revelation from Scripture, which is the central point Jay's whole paradigm-argument has been driving at throughout the debate.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "clarification", on the same ledger as the callout. Rather than assuming Mike has no criterion, Jay presses him to state plainly the epistemic standard by which he judges the Urantia book true and the Bible false — a direct request for the missing definition, and it is this very question that draws out Mike's answer moments later ("There isn't any").
- Plato uphold: On the record: Jay has held since the opening presuppositionalist/TAG framework that any rival worldview must supply an objective standard distinguishing true from false revelation, and has pressed Mike on this specific question repeatedly since ~49:00; Mike has held since the opening that his warrant is personal/experiential rather than criterial, and this line is where that standing position is made explicit as an outright admission rather than a deflection. Unlike the earlier deflection at 52:02, here Mike gives an unambiguous, direct admission — "There isn't any. It's not epistemic" — granting outright that he has no criterion distinguishing his revelation from a false one, which is the central point of Jay's challenge; Mike never retracts this or supplies a criterion for the remainder of the debate, so the concession stands as a genuine, decisive homologia.
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.