Battle Talk ~ Battle Royale VII
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
Eireann
New member
He didn't need to present evidence in his first post. He is wise to save his ammo until he has a clear target to shoot at. That's what you're not getting.
In your world, perhaps. Not in the real one.
Would it? So describing a tree nymph (such as a hamadryad)would suffice as a definition for God?
The latter was a statement of the necessity of defining terms. The former was a rebuttal to the common argument that Zakath should automatically know precisely what Bob Enyart's definition of God is.
Had you paid more attention, you would have noticed that he brought up the Wiccan god/dess for the benefit of those Wiccans following the debate, not for the benefit of his opponent. He did so because Wiccans use the feminine generic "Goddess" in the same way Christians use the generic masculine "God."
Perhaps. There's still a lot of debate left, and now that Bob has provided a working definition, that will give Zakath plenty to work with.
True, but the negative does not need to provide the definition. That was up to the affirmative. Without a working definition, any evidence provided prematurely by the negative could have been completely wasted.
Reread my post. I specifically said that that is the way it works "when the terms are not clearly defined" prior to the start of the debate. In the examples you provided, those definitions were already provided ahead of time. That was not the case here.
Yes, when there's already a working definition. There wasn't one in this case.
Correction -- some of the conservative Christians on here know his position on God, those that listen to his radio show or follow his ministry. In case you didn't notice, he isn't debating one of his flock. He's debating an atheist who doesn't tend to follow Enyart's broadcasts.
Then feel free to show me where I'm wrong. You tried, and failed above, although it was a noteworthy effort. Unfortunately, you had missed the importance of the opening clause of the quote you were contesting.
ApologeticJedi
New member
I agree. They are good points, don’t get me wrong, but they don’t significantly add anything to public domain. Enyart’s post seemed actually a little long too, considering the very little content that was in it.
Some of these are also cases of “here we go again”. Question #2 comes from Bertand Russell which has been hammered by the Christian side for sometime. In the book (I don’t necessarily recommend) “Not a Chance” by R.C. Sproul, Sproul does a good job of showing the fallacy in Questin #2.
Question #3 is actually a hinge on the debate. If the question is whether a god could exist and evolution at the same time, then certainly both could exist. If it is a question as to whether the Christian God could exist with evolution (based on fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible) I’d say no. It would be to Zakath’s favor to prove that the cell originated by itself.
Question #1 is the best question against modern Christianity, but I believe Enyart is Open Theistic, which means he has one of the better positions to defend against that statement – further a god could exist without being “all-loving” as I believe Enayrt believes (Enyart believes that love is only part of the story of God, and couldn’t rightly be called “all-loving” as such.)
It's refreshing to have honesty from the other side.
If by "prove" you mean estabish without doubt, then I agree. It's difficult to "prove" much of anything negative or affirmative (negative is pretty much impossible; affirmative is only very difficult at times). However I would say that you can give "evidence" to support both conclusions.
The affirmative bears more burden of proof, but that doesn't mean that the negative should be able to go without offering any evidence of their own.
Eireann
New member
Then you don't recall very well. If you did, you would have noticed that most of the atheists, as well as some of the Christians, agreed that Zakath provided the better argument and was much more in keeping with the position he was actually supporting (since Knight never even once tried to establish the existence of absolutes but instead concentrated his entire effort on trying to attack Zakath's personal beliefs in morality).
Eireann
New member
Then maybe you have trouble with English? I mean, you've basically contended two things: that most of the atheists and other non-Christians agreed that Zak lost, and that Knight successfully argued his case. Feel free to cut and paste to your heart's content in order to demonstrate either of those points. As many times as I've read back over that debate, I would love for someone to show me where Knight established the existence of moral absolutes, since my computer must be playing tricks on me as no such post is showing up on my screen.
Last edited:
ApologeticJedi
New member
So you know that he has ammo? From what did you divine this?
(chuckle) Ah, who could ever argue with such clear wit? I think I’ve proven my point. In the real world, just not in the minds of people who have a hard time admitting good points from the other side.
Rather than admit, and retain integrity and intellectual honesty, this is how you will continue to respond.
That’s a good point. I’m not sure what a hamadryad is particularly, but I recognize tree nymph from some rather famous literary works. I suppose it would have to be considered supernatural. Take an angel, for instance, that I know a little more about, and know to be supernatural and not a God. So perhaps Enayrt was better to establish “creator” or possible “divine” than just supernatural. I stand corrected.
No, you are in error. His statement was that he wanted Bob to define “God” because there were 30,000 different versions just within Christianity.
That’s incorrect, and it has nothing to do with my point, which is that there is still a need for evidence from Zakath, to which he has yet to give – possibly has none.
Irrelevant. I said that Enyart would not be able to “jump logs” because his position is known. If he later said “I support the god of the Koran” just to win the debate, the conservative Christains would object. It doesn’t matter whether Zakath knew what Enyart believes or not to say that Enayrt’s position is already set in stone and he does not have the luxury of “jumping logs” as you put it.
If you are having trouble following, let me explain it a different way. If I’m debating a stranger over sleeping co-ed arraignments, perhaps you might fear I could change my position just to win the argument. However if my wife is listening in, and I know it, I am forced not to change from my position of decency or risk loosing the confidence of my wife.
Enyart faces a similar governor on his position so that he doesn’t risk loosing the confidence of the conservtive Christian side. He cannot change from his normal posision because of conservative Christians.
The point you are trying to make has nothing to do with what I was saying. You are trying to say Zakath needed to find out Enyart’s position and that very well may be. But on the issue of changing his definition, Enyart is trapped, not by Zakath, but by the onlookers to stay with the definition that is known by the those in his church or just conservative Christians in general.
ApologeticJedi
New member
I understand your position. I thought that too, then I realized it wasn’t a plentiful supply of idiots, it was just you all over the place. (chuckle)
Eireann
New member
I rather assume that Zakath would not have consented to the debate if he didn't feel he could make an argument.
When you make one I'll let you know.
What's to admit to? You haven't given me anything to work with, for real.
You attributed the statement to me, not to him. True, it was he who specifically said "30,000," while I merely said that there are a whole lot of different interpretations of God within Christianity. But the quote to which I was responding was directed to my assertions, not to his.
A little quick to judge, aren't we, considering that each party has only put forth one post so far?
You may be right, but I don't think so. He may not be able to jump logs between several different world views of God, but he could jump relatively freely between the numerous different Christian views of God without raising hackles. Remember, he's arguing "Does God exist?", not "Which version of God do I love the most?"
Then please show me where you did so. You merely asserted that in your debate experience the participants didn't have to establish working definitions for their terms, but you also admitted that in those cases the definitions were already clearly laid out before the debate began. You mentioned "social security" as a specific example. However, "social security" doesn't have a gazillion different subjective definitions like "god" does. I'll wager you weren't generally debating philosophical concepts with subjective definitions all that often, were you?
Wedge
New member
So do you admit that God is causing some suffering then?
This says nothing. It is equivalent to saying that the universe is eternal. It wins no points on either side of the debate. If Enyart wants to enforce the premise that everything has a cause, this should also apply to any gods.
If its not important to proving the non-existence of a god then why should Zakath be asked to devote time in answering the question? Sounds like a case in which Enyart wants to say "heads I win, tails you get nothing".
Another poster made this point, but I think it is worth repeating: Many people on this board have already made up their minds on who will win the debate, even before the debate has finished. I would encourage these people (and you know who you are) to at least try and read the debate with an open mind. Remember that one side of the argument can "win" a debate, yet still be wrong. What do you think a lawyers job is - to find the truth or win an argument?
This is not true. There may be a vocal minority, but the vast majority on this board are either non-Christian or liberal-Christian. I'm a right-wing Christain and I have few friends here.
I'm sure this doesn't matter to you, but I used to view you as a worthy adversary. But after this comment, you show yourself as a non-thinking canned answer man.
Last edited:
Eireann
New member
Non-thinking canned answer man. That's a new one. But it's really very simple, regarding BRII.
1) Zakath argued in favor of Moral Relativism. Whether or not he succeeded in proving relativism, at least he argued in its favor. That's points on his side, if the debate had been judged fairly.
2) Knight attacked Zakath's position, attacked Zakath's opinions on morality, but never took it upon himself to build a case for moral absolutes. It isn't that he failed to make a case. He didn't try to make a case. He instead hoped that if he could break down Zakath's case, that his would be made by default. That would presuppose the fallacy that a failure to prove relativism would in fact prove absolutism. It doesn't. To win, Knight would have had to build a case FOR absolutes, not merely attack a case for relativism. Knight didn't attempt to do that.
Had the debate been fairly judged, Zakath would have won points for at least attempting to build a case for relativism, but Knight would not have earned points because he committed to a position in favor of absolutes but did not try to build a case for it. Had his committed position been "Moral Relativism is Untrue," he would have earned some points for his approach, but that wasn't his committed position. His position was "Moral Absolutes Exist." He should have tried to build a case for that, but did not.
Therefore, technically, had the bout been judged correctly, Zakath would have won by default. The conservative Christian majority voted in Knight's favor for one reason and one reason only: because his opinion on moral absolutes mirrored their own.
Argument from Ignorance
Argument from Ignorance
And bob Enyart starts with an over-extended ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE!
For the uninitiated, Bob is saying "I cannot explain cells, the existence of the universe, and lots of other complicated scientific things, except by saying that God did it. If you (Zakath) cannot explain these things any more clearly than I can, then I win by default, because I have an answer, and that answer is God Did IT!"
No matter what Zakath says, it will not be good enough for Bob, because scientific knowledge is always imcomplete. Even if we are able to more fully understand how a cell can form naturally, we will always have some gaps of knowledge, and Bob can point to the gaps, and say "But you can't explain that, so God did it!"
Argument from Ignorance
And bob Enyart starts with an over-extended ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE!
For the uninitiated, Bob is saying "I cannot explain cells, the existence of the universe, and lots of other complicated scientific things, except by saying that God did it. If you (Zakath) cannot explain these things any more clearly than I can, then I win by default, because I have an answer, and that answer is God Did IT!"
No matter what Zakath says, it will not be good enough for Bob, because scientific knowledge is always imcomplete. Even if we are able to more fully understand how a cell can form naturally, we will always have some gaps of knowledge, and Bob can point to the gaps, and say "But you can't explain that, so God did it!"
PureX
Well-known member
Every one of Bob's lines of evidence, so far, rest on one assumption: that if we know of no other explanation, then the explanation must be God. Thus, he is trying to make Zakath explain everything (origins of life, morality, the universe, etc.) to refute his "evidence". But the basic premiss is flawed. The only evidence that he is actually presenting is man's ignorance. And that does not lead to any conclusions. Just because we can't explain how something came to be, does not necessarily mean that it then HAD to come to exist by some divine means. "We don't know" does not automatically equal, "It must have been God".
Zakath is very intelligent, and will recognize this flaw right away. By directly addressing the flaw, he will not have to address ANY of Bob's lines of "evidence", because the reasoning behind each of them is the same. Once the error in that reasoning is exposed, the particulars will no longer need to be addressed.
But I can already see how this whole "battle" will end up. As usual, people will see, hear, and recognize only the ideas they wish to, and they will ignore or deny the others. No one's mind will be opened or changed. They will merely become more entrenched in what they already believe to be the "truth". Bob will be declared the "winner" regardless of anything he or Zakath posts, because Bob represents what most people here want to believe. The truth has nothing to do with it.
But I'm sure that Zakath knows this already.
Zakath is very intelligent, and will recognize this flaw right away. By directly addressing the flaw, he will not have to address ANY of Bob's lines of "evidence", because the reasoning behind each of them is the same. Once the error in that reasoning is exposed, the particulars will no longer need to be addressed.
But I can already see how this whole "battle" will end up. As usual, people will see, hear, and recognize only the ideas they wish to, and they will ignore or deny the others. No one's mind will be opened or changed. They will merely become more entrenched in what they already believe to be the "truth". Bob will be declared the "winner" regardless of anything he or Zakath posts, because Bob represents what most people here want to believe. The truth has nothing to do with it.
But I'm sure that Zakath knows this already.
- Status