Battle Talk ~ Battle Royale VII
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
Wedge
New member
I think that many of the readers of the debate should think through the posts given before rushing to the keyboard and proclaiming any post to be "great" or declaring anyone the winner. Upon rereading Enyarts post, it is really a case of "here we go again" in such debates.
1. The question about absolute moral rights. Here we see the argument from morality (again). Question: is it morally right that an all loving God allows so many people in the world to suffer?
2. The evidence from physics. Here we see the First Cause argument (again). Question: who made God?
3. Evidence from biology. Here we see a mismash of the the argument from design and the god of the gaps argument. Question: if Zakath can provide an explanation for the origin of the cell, does that mean that God doesn't exist?
Bob Enyart should be congratulated on actually answering Zakath's questions, without dancing around the issue. He also has presented his case better at this stage. Unless Zakath had something in mind in his first post, it would seem that the direction of the debate will be determined by Enyart. Perhaps this is of no surprise given that one cannot prove that something doesn't exist.
1. The question about absolute moral rights. Here we see the argument from morality (again). Question: is it morally right that an all loving God allows so many people in the world to suffer?
2. The evidence from physics. Here we see the First Cause argument (again). Question: who made God?
3. Evidence from biology. Here we see a mismash of the the argument from design and the god of the gaps argument. Question: if Zakath can provide an explanation for the origin of the cell, does that mean that God doesn't exist?
Bob Enyart should be congratulated on actually answering Zakath's questions, without dancing around the issue. He also has presented his case better at this stage. Unless Zakath had something in mind in his first post, it would seem that the direction of the debate will be determined by Enyart. Perhaps this is of no surprise given that one cannot prove that something doesn't exist.
I just need to tell Zakath that the Malloreon and the Belgariad are an incredible series...I've read both series' about 4 times in the past 2 years...I love them...Belgarion is my favorite character personally...
Good luck in your debate gentlemen...I would agree that it looks like Mr. Enyart is moving the debate toward his own argumentation, although I would recommend that Zakath answer the question about truth...I think that would help set the tone for the debate, but some of those other questions seem to take away from the overall goal of the debate to figure out "Does God Exist?"
Good luck in your debate gentlemen...I would agree that it looks like Mr. Enyart is moving the debate toward his own argumentation, although I would recommend that Zakath answer the question about truth...I think that would help set the tone for the debate, but some of those other questions seem to take away from the overall goal of the debate to figure out "Does God Exist?"
One Eyed Jack
New member
God's not causing all the suffering. You can't blame that on Him.
Nobody. God wasn't created. He's eternal -- from everlasting to everlasting.
No, but at least then he'd have a plausible explanation for the origin of life. Not that I think he'll come up with one...
Eireann
New member
Fortunately for both you and the world, not everyone lives out of your dictionary and thesaurus. I much prefer thinking for myself. Let me explain: let's assume for a moment that you are correct, that proof and evidence are pure synonyms. As you yourself stated, evidence is a thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment.. The similarity between chimpanzees and humans has often helped people to form a conclusion that humans evolved from chimpanzees or other great apes. Therefore, the similarity between the two is evidence of that evolutionary history and by your argument would prove Evolution. At the same time, the Bible has helped people form a conclusion that all animal species appeared on the planet at the same time, all within six days of each other, and that evolution is a fallacy. As such, the Bible is evidence of the truth of YEC. Since, according to you, evidence is proof, then both YEC and Evolution are proven theories. I hope you can see the paradox.
Now I will eliminate the paradox for you by showing you why evidence and proof are not equated, not even in your dictionary. There are varying degrees of evidence, from very weak evidence (such as eyewitness testimony) to very strong evidence (the strongest and rarest of which would equate to proof). Let me again remind you of your own definition of proof, with the relevent parts (those parts you've been ignoring) highlighted, underscored and italicized to make darn sure you don't miss it this time: "The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true." In other words, a specific condition must be met for evidence to be considered equal to proof. If it does not COMPEL THE MIND TO ACCEPT AN ASSERTION AS TRUE, then it does not equate to proof.
You forget the question which I was addressing in that post. I was not addressing a question of what defines evidence? I was addressing a question of what standard of evidence would be acceptable as proof of God.
No it isn't falsified. You forgot the original question.
My point is you claimed it was a "legal definition" in an attempt to give your argument a bit more substance. Don't claim that you're providing a "legal definition" if you are not providing a "legal definition." It's called honesty.
Incorrect. See above.
Proof implies that it is undeniable and cannot be interpreted in any other way, that it compels the mind to accept it as true. If it can be interpreted in another way, it isn't proof, it does not compel the mind, so it is merely evidence. If you offer evidence that you claim as proof, and that evidence can logically be argued another way, then your "proof" is automatically refuted and relegated once again to mere "evidence."
Among skeptics and atheists, that may be the case, but the world is not full of just skeptics and atheists. If it were true of the majority, it wouldn't be definition #4, it would be defintion #1. Either way, if this is your problem, I suggest you take it up with a skeptic or an atheist. I am neither, and as long as it is me you are discussing this with, your complaint lacks weight. It was MY USAGE of the term "myth" that you found problem with, but I've already shown you that my usage of the word "myth" is not what you thought it was. If you have a problem with the way a skeptic or atheist would use it, I suggest you take that up with them.
Then take it up with them. Right now, though, you're talking to me.
Then take your problem to the skeptics. I'm not one of them.
No, it has not been refuted. However, you are due an apology and a correction. Perhaps rather than saying "supernatural," it would be more to the point to use the term "fantastical." In other words, the mythical does not limit itself to naturalistic explanations and is much less likely to be ceded by science.
Yes, if it can be established that what you are interpreting as "design," is in fact design. Personally I believe it is, but I don't claim to be able to prove that.
That would be more believable to me than the bragging of personal accomplishments. However, the exploits of Moses (the topic which got this particular side discussion started) were mostly of the bragging sort.
Mmmmm, not necessarily. You might find the following a very interesting read. It is quite opinionated, but the author does lay out the arguments and evidences from both sides quite fairly. It seems there is a great deal of controversy about whether the gospels were written by the actual apostles of those names, as well as whether or not the authors ever met, knew, or were even alive during the lifetime of Jesus.
The Dating and Authorship of the Gospels
A Google search about the controversy will turn up pages and pages of resource material, if you want to look further yourself.
Last edited:
Eireann
New member
There are some sects of Christianity (the name eludes me for the moment) that believe all things, including suffering, are part of God's Great Plan and are dispensed by God. Those would disagree with you.
Believing this is one thing. Proving it is quite another.
Personally, I seriously doubt that either Zakath or Bob will win this debate, unless one of them specifically cedes victory to the other. They are both, unfortunately, arguing positions that are impossible to prove, positions that much more learned men (although Zakath's experience and education are quite admirable; I don't know what Bob's credentials are, other than being a much-criticized radio preacher) have tried for centuries to prove, and every one of them, to a man, has failed. Unless one of them simply gives up, neither is at all likely to win this debate. However, I will say that in failing to prove his respective position (as both inevitably will), Bob probably has more to lose than Zakath (as atheists generally don't have a vested in interest in proving the non-existence of God but tend more to revel in the failure of their opponents to prove his existence).
Sola Scriptora
New member
Proving the existence of God is easy. The problem is man is sinful and DISHONEST. He will allow no proof, for the truth spoils his sinful delusions. The Great Day of Reckoning will come. 10 out of ten die, and then all will stand before the Living God. It doesn't matter what lies you believe NOW, you WILL KNOW better THEN. Jesus Christ is Lord and God.
Eireann
New member
Precedence has already shown that Zakath will be declared the loser even if he is the winner. This board brags a majority of conservative Christians, who will automatically judge their man the winner, no matter how poorly he may perform or how terribly he may fail to establish his position. In the debate over relativism, Zakath soundly defeated Knight, but Knight's brethren almost unanimously declared Knight the winner, although Knight never even began an attempt to prove the existence of moral absolutes (which was his declared position, but one which he never argued for). To any discerning reader, Zakath was very clearly the winner of that debate, but unfortunately conservative Christians tend not to be very discerning readers. In fact, those few Christians that criticized Knight's failure to argue his position were almost immediately attacked by the other Christians (ask Pilgrim, he'll tell you all about it). That's why you're never going to actually see a fairly-judged debate on here, not when one of the participants is a non-Christian.
Last edited:
One Eyed Jack
New member
It won't be worth debating then.
ApologeticJedi
New member
It would play against Zakath. He already expended 1 of his ten posts without any evidence. By giving the short answer (which I now note that Enyart did) Zakath has the choice to challenge for more specifics (as you and I both think he probably will) or to abandon the tactic before he fails to present any evidence at all for his position.
Most debators would say just the opposite. In ten posts you have to begin early, you can only get to the issue of does God exist by not narrowing and force two different arguments:
1) Deos God exist?
2) Which God is it that exists (the harder question)?
By sticking only to 1, and avoiding trying to do both, you can do it in 10 posts. By trying to encompass both you make the task take more time which I suppose in this format would take more posts.
Then supernatural being, would suffice. But earlier you said that he needed to do so because Christians have 30,000 different views of God. That’s not consistent with your current statement that defining what “a god” is. Further, Zakath’s question wasn’t How to define “a god”, but which God. Remember he brought up the Wiccan God? So now, that you’ve had a few days, you are finally arriving where the rest of us were by merely glancing at his post. It’s a moot question for the most part – save perhaps the “supernatural being”.
What Enyart did was equally short, but he indicated “creator” because, I would imagine, later on he plans to prove a creation event (which would, he hopes, would correlate to a creator). But the end result is the same, Enyart was hardly on the defensive (using two sentences to address Zakath’s questions), and was able to spend most of his time furnishing his own position.
Clearly the first round winner is Enyart since he is the only one who provided any evidence at all. In structured debates, at least at the collegiate level, the amount of evidence provided counts as points.
I agree. The affirmative position has the larger burden of proof. Never-the-less, that does not mean that the negative does not also need to provide evidence.
I can only speak for two levels of debate and say that it is not the way it works in formalized collegiate debates, nor is it the way it works in what I would call general public debates (political debates and such). In collegiate levels, the opening is extremely important, and you are expected to get a good portion of your position on the table at the beginning. Then the next time you get to speak (depending on format) will be call your “First Rebuttal”. Political debates almost never define their terms whatsoever. Typically their positions are established, but they don’t usually spend time defining what “social security” is.
I’m sorry. I know you are trying to pass yourself as some “debate” expert, but that is the way debates usually work.
Well, we’ll get to see soon enough. Bob wouldn’t have been jumping logs, since most everyone here knows his position on God. He stands to loose more credibility by redefining God as he goes along.
I still think he is trying to open up the scope to avoid dealing with the real issue.
Again, I know you like posting yourself as the “debate” expert, but it’s really annoying when it becomes obvious you don’t know what you are talking about.
Eireann
New member
Bob's first post is very impressive. It was well-answered and well-thought. Regarding his first two questions, though, he is operating on a couple fallacious presuppositions, I think.
1. An acceptance of the existence of Truth is not an acceptance of the existence of God. If Bob wishes to claim that it is, then he must first establish conclusively to Zakath that God and Truth are one and inseparable, as it is Zakath's "acceptance" that he is seeking.
2. He is assuming that one cannot say that an action is wrong in every known circumstance (or every circumstance conceivable to the limited imaginations of man) without objectively saying that such a standard is absolute. In BRII, both combatants agreed that an absolute must necessarily require a standard that is transcendent of human experience, and since we have no reliable measuring stick to demonstrate such (Knight was never able in that debate to show that such a measuring stick existed), then we cannot determine that such a standard exists (regardless how logical it may seem or how much we may want to believe in it). Without that conclusive standard, one cannot objectively say that absolute morality exists; one can only claim to believe that it exists.
Thus, Zakath can easily answer both questions without undermining either his position or ceding the point to Bob.
1. An acceptance of the existence of Truth is not an acceptance of the existence of God. If Bob wishes to claim that it is, then he must first establish conclusively to Zakath that God and Truth are one and inseparable, as it is Zakath's "acceptance" that he is seeking.
2. He is assuming that one cannot say that an action is wrong in every known circumstance (or every circumstance conceivable to the limited imaginations of man) without objectively saying that such a standard is absolute. In BRII, both combatants agreed that an absolute must necessarily require a standard that is transcendent of human experience, and since we have no reliable measuring stick to demonstrate such (Knight was never able in that debate to show that such a measuring stick existed), then we cannot determine that such a standard exists (regardless how logical it may seem or how much we may want to believe in it). Without that conclusive standard, one cannot objectively say that absolute morality exists; one can only claim to believe that it exists.
Thus, Zakath can easily answer both questions without undermining either his position or ceding the point to Bob.
ApologeticJedi
New member
I didn’t see this debate, but I know that you have your own bias, and then persist to demean anyone who disagrees with your bias as this comment shakes out.
- Status