Official Ramakanta vs. IRM discussion thread

[Guest guest]

Dear Yaduraja Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

 

> > I asked you to prove your point a). Why do you change the subject?

>

> What are you talking about?

 

Pointing out contradictions that you saw in my words is definitely not a

proof of your point a). So if you do that, then you change the subject.

 

 

> I am going through my 11 arguments made in support of point a) and

> answering your so-called refutations.

 

That is okay. Please stick to proving your point a). Anything else is a

waste of time. But note that "in support of point a)" is not sufficient. I

want to see a proof.

 

 

> "Srila Prabhupada set himself up, deliberately, in the position of the

> sole diksa guru for ISKCON in 1966." (Yaduraja, Nov 17, 2005)

>

> It means what the words say!!

 

Thank you for confirming my understanding.

 

 

> Adding the word 'deliberately' simply emphasised the fact that it was not

> done accidentally ...

 

Thank you for stating that "deliberately" refers to "set himself up".

 

 

Now, as promised, I shall reply to your previous text:

 

 

> You claim that in my observation that you had ...

>

> "Provided no evidence that disproves my conclusion drawn from those very

> facts."

>

> I had made...

>

> > the logical fallacy of shifting the burden of proof.

>

> Wrong again.

 

Then I must have misunderstood you. I understood that you asked me to

disprove your conclusion. If you did not shift the burden of proof to me,

then I don't have to provide an evidence that disproves your conclusion.

 

 

> You have agreed with the facts but state the proposition false. If you

> agree with facts that clearly support a proposition, but hold the

> proposition false, then the burden of proof automatically falls on you

> since you are the one making the claim that our proposition is false.

 

I claimed that your point a) is unproven. I did not claim that it is false

(or true).

 

 

> From the very earliest time in ISKCON, Srila Prabhupada personally

> conducted initiation ceremonies in which all the initiates became his

> disciples. He did this willingly ...

 

By this activity Srila Prabhupada cannot have set himself up as the sole

diksa guru for ISKCON because he was already the sole diksa guru for ISKCON

before.

 

Do you accept that Srila Prabhupada was already the sole diksa guru for

ISKCON before he conducted the first initiation ceremony in ISKCON?

 

 

> But you then make a claim:

>

> > your conclusion from these facts is unproven

>

> Since you are making this claim the burden of proof AUTOMATICALLY falls on

> you to prove it.

>

> Since 1-11 clearly support point a) then as far as I am concerned you have

> agreed with our position. But you say our position, or our conclusion

> drawn from these facts, is wrong.

 

I did not write that it is wrong (or correct). I wrote that it is the

logical fallacy "affirming the consequent". Like for example: "The streets

are wet. Therefore our conclusion is that it rained".

 

 

> If you make a claim then back it up or don't make it.

 

My claim is that your point a) is unproven. The proof of my claim is that

you have not provided a proof that is accepted by everyone. What is the use

of a proof that only IRM accepts?

 

 

ys Ramakanta dasa