Battle Talk ~ Battle Royale VII
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
wholearmor
Member
He's got 48 hours, remember?
Carl Smuda
New member
RogerB, here is the first passage from Zakath's initial post. He won the coin toss
That was posted June 16, 2003 at 06:39 pm.
wholearmor
Member
It's sad that the only time some people will realize there's a God is after they die.
Carl Smuda
New member
Ya. Rev. Enyart wouldn't say he was gonna do something and then not do it. He aint me. 
Zakath
Resident Atheist
The timestamp on my post was 9:39 PM on the 16th. It's now 12:26 PM on the board.
He's got plenty of time...
It's probably just taking a fair amount of editing to whittle down an hour of radio broadcast into half a dozen or so meaty paragraphs which is what I think we're supposedly limited to for each response...
Patience, patience!
He's got plenty of time...
It's probably just taking a fair amount of editing to whittle down an hour of radio broadcast into half a dozen or so meaty paragraphs which is what I think we're supposedly limited to for each response...
Patience, patience!
Carl Smuda
New member
:chuckle:
ApologeticJedi
New member
I agree. However, obviously the original point went over your head. So what would happen is that Bob gives a curt answer, Zakath asks him to narrow the definition, and 2 posts down the drain. The end result is that the real topic (which has nothing to do with the question asked) never gets touched.
Basically I agree with you, that is exactly the path that would happen … but I’ve thought through how that path leads where as you missed it. It leads to a debate of semantics which is totally irrelevant to the debate.
No one said he was a victim. I stated that Zakath’s questions are a different subject that “Does God exist”. That question can be answered without describing that particular God.
For instance, you posted that Christians hold many different views on what God is like. What you didn’t consider is that such a point is moot to the discussion of whether or not God exists. First you can establish that God exists, and then in a different debate, establish which “version” of God exists. That would be acceptable. Immediately Zakath has tried to increase the scope of the debate it include both questions.
Do you know what "scope" is?
Right, and if the debate was “Which God is the True God?” that would be a relevant point. However if the debate is “Does God exist?” it is a moot point that there are 30,000 different views of God.
Just like we can know Abraham Lincoln existed, even if we don’t know exactly what his personality was like, or all his views were. They are two different issues.
People who can’t follow reasoning think things could go that way. That’s the obfuscation. The hope is that people aren't intelligent enough to realise it is a moot point whether Odin or Apollo is the correct version of God per the original topic. As I said correctly, it is setting the stage so that the subject can be changed later on.
As I read the debate topic Enyart doesn’t have to prove Odin specifically exists, or Apollo specifically exists. Enyart can prove that EITHER Odin or Apollo exists (either would be affirmative to the question debated on). Zakath must provide evidence that neither can exist. So Enyart's approch could be that he proves that some god exists. And then leaves it in the air for people to discover which of the many possible deities is the true God. Proving such would win the debate without having to define his own version of God, and prove that.
In short, the debate is whether or not there is a God, not whether we know who is he, or which God, or the like. That is a different debate.
First of all, if it were a formal debate, Zakath squandered his opening statement because he offered no evidence for his position. By default, unless Enyart also comes back with no evidence, Zakath conceded the opening round. No proof was offered despite being given the opening advantage.
Secondly, it had nothing to do with pigeonholing anything. It had to do with trying to set the stage to later change the subject of the debate to WHICH GOD as opposed to just any supernatural deity. It’s an immediate dodge of the issue. Zakath thinks he can pull a victory if he redefines the issue and says "You only proved a god exists, you didn't prove your God."
To which Eireen might say "I agee," whereas the casual observer would respond, "Read again the debate topic please"
Last edited:
ibowatjesusfeet
Cosmic Redneck
I just hope that Zakath doesn't turn this into a "How does Bob define God?" debate instead of "Does God Exist."
Of course.
Bob isn't a forum junkie like we all are.Originally posted by Zakath
The timestamp on my post was 9:39 PM on the 16th. It's now 12:26 PM on the board.
He's got plenty of time...
It's probably just taking a fair amount of editing to whittle down an hour of radio broadcast into half a dozen or so meaty paragraphs which is what I think we're supposedly limited to for each response...
Patience, patience!
He is squeezing this battle into his already busy schedule.
He knows full well how much time he has to post.
Scrimshaw
New member
Hi Eireann,
I said:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disagree. You are simply positing the self-refuting philosophy of Scientism here with point two. Proof can exist in non-empirical forms. For example, argumentation is a form of "proof" in itself. Also, you should consider legal evidence as well. Many times, legal evidence does not require empirical proof but simply enough indirect proof that is sufficient to overcome reasonable doubt regarding the cause of a past event.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you cared to look up the definition of "evidence" OR "proof", you'd see that they are defined as synonyms. In fact, here is the definition of proof:
- proof (pr¡f) noun
Abbr. prf.
1. The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true.
Excerpted from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition © 1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Contrary to your claim above, I DID NOT "wrongly" equate proof and evidence. They are equated by definition.
Totally incorrect. Here is the definition of "evidence" -
Evidence (èv´î-dens) noun
1. A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment:
Excerpted from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition © 1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
There can be many non-empirical "thing or things" that can be helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment. No where does the dictionary define evidence as "empirical". That is a stipulation that YOU are superficially adding to the word.
Yes, and the operative word there is "alone". The fact is, eyewitness testimony is still a major form of legal evidence, even if it cannot be the sole evidence. Here is the legal definition of evidence -
3. The documentary or oral statements and the material objects admissible as testimony in a court of law.
Excerpted from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition © 1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
I said:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disagree. You can have two rival theories that are to greater or lesser degree, both reasonable. Usually the reasonable theory that has the higher probability of being correct is the one that should be adopted.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is true in some cases, but in many other cases, the same body of evidence can be open to different interpretations that are equally valid, but not equally probable. Your stipulation on this point overlooked the fact that in many cases, evidence can be open to varying interpretations.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disagree. For example, logic is not empirical or observable in a physical sense, but we'd hardly consider it "mythical". Black holes are not directly observable or been subject to any empirical testing yet we know they are not mythical.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I disagree because "myth" carries with it a connotation of falsity. A "theory" on the other hand is a more neutral term that describes an assumption or speculation that is based on limited information. To exclusively apply the term "myth" to supernatural explanations is nothing but an exercise of philosophical bigotry, and it is a logical fallacy as well since certain naturalistic explanations could be mythical. For example, I could claim that the pyramids in Egypt were built by aliens. That is a perfectly naturalistic explanation, yet it is just as mythical as saying the pyramids were built by "gods". So your above generalization is inadequate and false.
Again, your dichotomy between theory and myth is prejudicial and inadequate. See above.
I said:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In many cases, we can determine what an entity is, or if it exists by the effect of it's presence. This is not only true of black holes, but of gravity as well. We know of it's existence by it's effect.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You began your statement here by saying "no", but I am not sure what you are disagreeing with. In the statement you were responding to, all I said was that we can determine the nature/existence of an entity by observing the effects of it's presence. Certainly, your statements reveal that you agree that gravity exists because we have observed the effects of it's presence.......so it seems we are in agreement on this point.
Of course, and that is why I don't think any theist would be so foolish to claim that supernaturalism and gravity are theories with equal evidence.
The existence of the attributes of design in nature do not require faith. They are observable, and measureable. To deduce the possibility of a designer from design is basic logic, not a leap of faith. Furthermore, some would say that believing complex universes popping into existence uncaused or self-caused is a "leap of faith". In fact, the idea of a self-caused or uncaused universe popping existence for no reason whatsoever, is just as unproven and just as mythical as any god theory.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disagree. You fail to consider the obvious fact that people who witness miracles are most likely going to become believers. For example, let's say I was an avid disbeliever in aliens. If an alien came and visited me and I directly observed the alien, by the time I reported the event to you I would have changed into a believer. In other words, the act of witnessing the miracle in many cases is the CAUSE of one's conversion from disbeliever into believer.....therefore, your stipulation on this point is very limited in scope and not realistic.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HAHA! Your real standards come out! So basically, you think the eyewitness evidence is no good if the testimony is second-hand, and it is also no good if its first-hand because then you'll consider it "tooting one's own horn". In other words, there is no form of eyewitness testimony you will accept.
I am not concerned about the Bible and it has no bearing on my argument. My initial point was regarding legal evidences and the fact that eyewitness testimony is a legitimate form of non-empirical EVIDENCE. Thus, your initial claim that all evidences have to be "empirical" has gone tits up. It's been refuted. Case closed.
Regards,
I said:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disagree. You are simply positing the self-refuting philosophy of Scientism here with point two. Proof can exist in non-empirical forms. For example, argumentation is a form of "proof" in itself. Also, you should consider legal evidence as well. Many times, legal evidence does not require empirical proof but simply enough indirect proof that is sufficient to overcome reasonable doubt regarding the cause of a past event.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you cared to look up the definition of "evidence" OR "proof", you'd see that they are defined as synonyms. In fact, here is the definition of proof:
- proof (pr¡f) noun
Abbr. prf.
1. The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true.
Excerpted from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition © 1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Contrary to your claim above, I DID NOT "wrongly" equate proof and evidence. They are equated by definition.
Totally incorrect. Here is the definition of "evidence" -
Evidence (èv´î-dens) noun
1. A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment:
Excerpted from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition © 1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
There can be many non-empirical "thing or things" that can be helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment. No where does the dictionary define evidence as "empirical". That is a stipulation that YOU are superficially adding to the word.
Yes, and the operative word there is "alone". The fact is, eyewitness testimony is still a major form of legal evidence, even if it cannot be the sole evidence. Here is the legal definition of evidence -
3. The documentary or oral statements and the material objects admissible as testimony in a court of law.
Excerpted from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition © 1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
I said:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disagree. You can have two rival theories that are to greater or lesser degree, both reasonable. Usually the reasonable theory that has the higher probability of being correct is the one that should be adopted.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is true in some cases, but in many other cases, the same body of evidence can be open to different interpretations that are equally valid, but not equally probable. Your stipulation on this point overlooked the fact that in many cases, evidence can be open to varying interpretations.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disagree. For example, logic is not empirical or observable in a physical sense, but we'd hardly consider it "mythical". Black holes are not directly observable or been subject to any empirical testing yet we know they are not mythical.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I disagree because "myth" carries with it a connotation of falsity. A "theory" on the other hand is a more neutral term that describes an assumption or speculation that is based on limited information. To exclusively apply the term "myth" to supernatural explanations is nothing but an exercise of philosophical bigotry, and it is a logical fallacy as well since certain naturalistic explanations could be mythical. For example, I could claim that the pyramids in Egypt were built by aliens. That is a perfectly naturalistic explanation, yet it is just as mythical as saying the pyramids were built by "gods". So your above generalization is inadequate and false.
Again, your dichotomy between theory and myth is prejudicial and inadequate. See above.
I said:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In many cases, we can determine what an entity is, or if it exists by the effect of it's presence. This is not only true of black holes, but of gravity as well. We know of it's existence by it's effect.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You began your statement here by saying "no", but I am not sure what you are disagreeing with. In the statement you were responding to, all I said was that we can determine the nature/existence of an entity by observing the effects of it's presence. Certainly, your statements reveal that you agree that gravity exists because we have observed the effects of it's presence.......so it seems we are in agreement on this point.
Of course, and that is why I don't think any theist would be so foolish to claim that supernaturalism and gravity are theories with equal evidence.
The existence of the attributes of design in nature do not require faith. They are observable, and measureable. To deduce the possibility of a designer from design is basic logic, not a leap of faith. Furthermore, some would say that believing complex universes popping into existence uncaused or self-caused is a "leap of faith". In fact, the idea of a self-caused or uncaused universe popping existence for no reason whatsoever, is just as unproven and just as mythical as any god theory.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disagree. You fail to consider the obvious fact that people who witness miracles are most likely going to become believers. For example, let's say I was an avid disbeliever in aliens. If an alien came and visited me and I directly observed the alien, by the time I reported the event to you I would have changed into a believer. In other words, the act of witnessing the miracle in many cases is the CAUSE of one's conversion from disbeliever into believer.....therefore, your stipulation on this point is very limited in scope and not realistic.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HAHA! Your real standards come out! So basically, you think the eyewitness evidence is no good if the testimony is second-hand, and it is also no good if its first-hand because then you'll consider it "tooting one's own horn". In other words, there is no form of eyewitness testimony you will accept.
I am not concerned about the Bible and it has no bearing on my argument. My initial point was regarding legal evidences and the fact that eyewitness testimony is a legitimate form of non-empirical EVIDENCE. Thus, your initial claim that all evidences have to be "empirical" has gone tits up. It's been refuted. Case closed.
Regards,
Last edited:
- Status