Battle Talk ~ Battle Royale VII

[PureX]

Hello kidd94,

Originally posted by kidd94 ....But here is the kicker. This man's one goal in life is to do one thing. To prove the existence of a god using mathematical equations.

That took me for a surprise. Why. Because so many scientists are out there trying to look for the tangible smoking gun that will prove that this world and universe came into existence by chance. When here we have a man that realizes that God and physics go hand and hand.

This is not true. Scientists are NOT trying to prove that the universe came into existence by chance (or by some other means that would disprove a divine method). Science isn't trying to prove anything. It's trying to discover things by testing them.

Originally posted by kidd94 He didn't say that this god is the Christian God or the muslim Allah, but stated that there is a being who has created all this and one day would like to see his existence proven using math. He said all things can be proven using math.

It's good to have a hobby. *smile*

 

[Eireann]

Originally posted by Scrimshaw

I don't have to prove a negative. If you claim such a society exists, then the onus is on you to prove it.

I didn't ask you to prove one does exist. I asked you to prove that one has never and can never exist. If you'll recall, it was you who made the absolute statement that no such society has or can exist. As such, it is on you to support your assertion, otherwise it remains merely an assertion, unsupported.

But even monarchies have laws against "unlawful killing", murder. For example, it is morally WRONG to kill the King. So even monarchistic governments have a conscious awareness of "murder" (unlawful killing), and morally oppose it.

I'm not talking about a monarchistic government. I'm talking about the society of people that live under a monarchistic government. If that government makes the law without representing the will of the people, it's not a moral law. If that society makes the law, it's a moral law.

Even in Cuba they have a moral opposition to "unlawful killing". The commoners may have a different view of what is lawful or unlawful killing, but both the power elite AND commoners possess a conscious belief in unlawful killing (murder)

Yes.

and morally oppose it.

No. My example showed quite clearly that the society did not morally oppose it.

For example, while the commoners may not think it is wrong to kill a soldier, they definitely would think it is wrong to kill other commoners.

And again you argue in favor a relativistic view of "wrong." In both cases the commoners recognize the killing as "murder," but in only one case would they view that murder as "wrong."

So no matter how you roll the dice, every single human society has some form of conscious opposition to "murder" (unlawful killing).

Sure. But they don't always view murder under ANY circumstance to be "wrong," as I've shown.

No, all you did was show how a government and commoners can sometimes have different ideas about what "murder" is.

No, they have the same view of what murder is. Murder is killing that is against the law. Both the commoners and the soldiers live under the same law, recognize the same law, are subject to the same law. Where they differ is on whether or not they see murder, in a particular instance, as wrong.

Both governments and commoners share a conscious moral opposition to murder. (unlawful killing) They simply differ on WHO they think has a lawful/moral right to live.

In a society such as I described, where the law is not a moral law but a monarchistic or dictatorial law, who has the moral right to live has little to do with the law.

(In other words, they have differing views on who is "innocent of deserving death".)

Yes, but that has nothing to do with whether or not it is legal.

All things are possible to greater or lesser degrees because everything we judge to be possible or impossible is based on human logic, which in turn is based on fallible human knowledge. If our knowledge is fallible, then so is any logic that is based on that knowledge. That fallibility means we would be naive to categorically rule something out as "impossible".

Now you're catching on.

However, that fallibility does not mean we can't make absolute statements.

Sure you MAKE the statements. They just won't mean anything.

With that said, I am "absolutely" certain that there are no invisible pink martian bunnies living on the moon, just like I am "absolutely" certain there are no human societies that do not possess a conscious awareness of "unlawful killing", and morally oppose it.

As above, you can MAKE this statement all you want, but without that absolute certainty (and I'm pretty sure you don't have any such absolute certainty), the statement is nothing more than verbage.

You have sophistic tendancies. This is proved by your propsenity to quibble over semantics that have no bearing on the logical merits of the argument you are opposing. This is a condition also known as "Not Seeing the Forest for the Trees" Syndrome.

Should I translate that as: "I would prefer to left alone to redefine my terms anytime I need to just to make sure my argument never gets refuted?" That's basically what you're saying, because when I've quibbled over semantics it has generally been because you chose to redefine something, or were applying a more oversimplified or overgeneralized meaning to something than it deserves. Semantics, despite your protests, are pretty important.

As I stated at the beginning of this post, I will adopt your definition of murder as (unlawful killing) in order to save time. However, the perception of innocence goes hand-in-hand with all human perceptions of murder. In nearly all cases, societies distinguish "murder" (unlawful killing) from lawful killing based on their perception of who is *innocent of deserving death*. If someone is killed who the society/government views as *innocent of deserving death*, then that killing will be defined as "murder" (unlawful/immoral killing). So my definition was not incorrect at all. I am only conceding it to save time and disengage semantical quibblings....and also because conceding that part of my definition has absolutely no bearing on the veracity of my argument.

As I predicted, you did change your definition a bit when challenged. First it was "intentional killing of the innocent." Now it is "intentional killing of the innocent of deserving death." Did I call that one to a T, or what? Are you ever going to just grab one definition and stick with it, or should I expect this constant redefining of terms, this constant adding on of conditions to keep your argument alive? Do you not realize that "innocent" and "innocent of deserving death" are two EXTREMELY different things? And even if I do concede that much-changed-from-the-original definition of murder (and I generally would agree with it), it still does not give you or anyone else the right to DECIDE who is or is not innocent of deserving death. That's why we have courts. If you see a man running out of a house with blood all over him and discover several dead bodies inside, you could jump to the immediate conclusion that he just killed them. If so:

• assuming the man is guilty, would you be morally right to kill them then and there?
• assuming the man is innocent but that you had decided he was guilty, would you be morally right to kill him then and there?

 

[Scrimshaw]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When all natural explanations have terminal problems and fail to explain the phenomena.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Stratnerd
all tested or all that exist?

Both.

also, since there has never been a demonstration of supernatural creation can we also use induction to suggest that it doesn't exist?

Not unless the supernatural explanation is terminally flawed and cannot theoretically account for the phenomenon it is attempting to explain. That's hasn't happened.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
we believe what we believe based on induction and probability
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

how does this work then for the supernatural since it has never been observed and probabilities associated with it cannot be calculated?

Probabilities for the supernatural CAN be calculated. For example, based on the terms of our observations we have only seen intelligent designers create products that have the attributes of intelligent design. (e.g., cars, yo-yos, airplanes, computers, staplers, etc., etc) The universe and biological life also contain the same attributes of design, therefore, it is more probable that it also had an intelligent designer.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
appearance of "evolution"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

a minute ago you were saying to use induction, which I assume you mean that we use logic and observation and make judgements. Now you are saying to to ignore that since some things are just apparent and not real.

When did I ever claim we should "ignore" induction?? What you are failing to understand is that there is no such thing as a creation process that DOESN'T involve evolution. Creation and evolution are closely related terms. When I sit down to build a model airplane, it requires an evolution process. The model airplane does not just "pop" into existence. It is created through an evolutionary creation process. Creation and evolution go hand-in-hand. I believe God created all things in progressive phases, just like any architech would create a building in progressive phases. As is true with ALL progressive creative phases, you can see a history of evolution. Rip out the walls in a building and you'll see evolution - you'll see the piping, electrical wires, insulation, etc. That is past evidence of the building's "evolution" process. But that doesn't mean it wasn't created by an intelligent designer!

So which is it? Plus those analogies are inappropriate since buildings and trikes hardly have the properties of living organisms (genetic code, reproduce, etc)

Wrong. They both contain the fundamental attribute of design, which is - numerous integrated parts that work together in order to perform as specific, purposeful FUNCTION. Since biological life and tricycles both contain that attribute of design, my analogy was perfectly sound.

also design is apparent because characters exist solely and explicitly for the benefit of another organism - something lacking in organisms

I have no idea what you just said. Perhaps you could rephrase it?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since there is no pre-cursor to the cell, it would HAVE to have "popped" into existence fully-formed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

do you know how to do science?

Produce a pre-cell lifeform and I'll be more than happy to "do the science" for you. I am not against searching for a pre-cell lifeforms, so don't try to act like I am opposed to scientific research. But unfortunately, your naturalist ilk have spent decades desparately trying to explain away the origin of life and have hit nothing but dead ends. The more we have learned about how complex the components and functions of cellar life are, the more ridiculous and implausible naturalistic explanation have become.

 

[novice]

What a joke!

Zakath's 2nd post is an embarrassment!

I was really expecting better!

He could have easily answered Bob's questions but instead he obfuscated!!!

This is going to be a blow-out of monumental porportions!

Come on Zakath can't you do better?????

 

[novice]

Oh, and one more thing, why couldn't Zakath have asked Bob some questions that were relevant to the debate?

 

[Freak]

Originally posted by novice
Come on Zakath can't you do better?????

No, he can't. He's already been knocked down once and he's stumbling around...

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by Freak
No, he can't. He's already been knocked down once and he's stumbling around...

I agree. He was obviously still reeling from Bob's first post.

 

[frugalmom]

Zakath's post no. 2

Zakath's post no. 2

....stepping out of lurk mode here......

Zakath seemed to need to use the hesaidthis and hesaidthat alot instead of talking directly to Mr. Enyart. This is characteristic of one who is feeling threatened in a debate; in other words ya'll come help me now because I'm losing type thing...

Also he acts dumb on basic things like "truth". Where is his dictionary when he needs it????

I shall not close without giving at least some credit where credit is due. "Zakath post #2" IS appropriately named, seeing as it was so full of ____.

 

[DEVO]

I read Zakath post and I decided to document all the points he made and determine if they were relevant to the topic or if he answered or didn't answer the question at hand and here was my analysis:

Relevant
Irrelevant
Irrelevant
Irrelevant
Irrelevant
Irrelevant
Didn't answer question asked
Irrelevant
Irrelevant
Didn't answer question asked
Irrelevant
Answered Question
Relevant
Relevant
Answered Question
Relevant
Irrelevant
Irrelevant

Zakaths Questions for his opponent:
Dumb question (proof is subjective)
Dumb question (Bob simply asked Zakath if HE believed ini truth Zakath could have used his own definition if he believed in it)
Irrelevant
Irrelevant
Irrelevant
Irrelevant

All in all, this is a one sided debate.

 

[LightSon]

What is truth?

What is truth?

Zakath references the moment where Pilate asked Jesus, "what is truth"?

Zak says "According to the gospel record, the questioner never received an answer."


I maintain that there was an answer to the question. The tacit response came back in the form of Christ's presence. Pilate was looking at truth personified. Jesus is the truth. Nothing further needed to be articulated.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Re: What is truth?

Re: What is truth?

Originally posted by LightSon
Zakath references the moment where Pilate asked Jesus, "what is truth"?

Zak says "According to the gospel record, the questioner never received an answer."


I maintain that there was an answer to the question. The tacit response came back in the form of Chirst's presence. Pilate was looking at truth personified. Jesus is the truth. Nothing further needed to be articulated.

Excellent point.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

People have been asking me....

People have been asking me....

For the record:

I am not going to comment on this debate other than say I am VERY thankful to both Bob and ZAKATH for taking the time to engage in the debate.

These debates take allot of time and thought and I am very appreciative to both of them for their efforts.

 

[Eireann]

Re: What is truth?

Re: What is truth?

Originally posted by LightSon
Zakath references the moment where Pilate asked Jesus, "what is truth"?

Zak says "According to the gospel record, the questioner never received an answer."


I maintain that there was an answer to the question. The tacit response came back in the form of Chirst's presence. Pilate was looking at truth personified. Jesus is the truth. Nothing further needed to be articulated.

That's a good point IF one supposes that Christ is all that the myths portray him to be.

 

[Brenda]

Originally posted by philosophizer
In the same way that the dog can't fully understand what it means that we are physically real, maybe we can't understand what it means that God is spiritually real. The dog analogy still seems valid to me.

The original question was "Can we know God?" This comment seems to say we can't.

It is clear that we can't FULLY understand what it means that God is spiritually real, unless, as PureX says, we are omniscient ourselves. The question is, can we understand in part? Maybe we have a spiritual component that has communion with God. Also, we can know God IF he chooses to show himself to us in terms we can perceive, as Christians believe he has done through creation and scripture.

 

[Scrimshaw]

I actually thought Zakath did a reasonable job in his second response. He answered all of Bob's questions. The main thing I found lacking in Zakath's response was he really didn't give any evidence for why his naturalistic explanations should be considered superior to Bob's theistic explanations. However, he was correct that Bob will need to explain more thoroughly exactly HOW and WHY those things he described should be considered "evidence" for God.


Bob asked Zakath to answer:

1. Does truth exist?
a) Yes
b) No
c) I don’t know

He chose to let Bob define "truth" before proceeding to answer. Nothing wrong with that.


2. Does absolute moral right and wrong exist?
a) Yes
b) No
c) I don’t know

Zakath wanted to know EXACTLY what Bob meant by "absolute right and wrong" before answering. This is reasonable since Bob didn't really explain exactly what he meant by "absolute".

3. Regarding the origin of the natural universe:
a) The universe is a perpetual motion machine
b) It came into existence from nothing
c) It was brought into existence by a supernatural creator
d) Other
e) I don’t know
If D, please explain: ___________________

Zakath answered this question by selecting options E and D. He said he didn't know, but also gave some explanations for how the universe MAY have come into existence without divine intervention. Again, nothing wrong with that.


4. Zakath will attempt to conceptually explain, apart from a creator:
a) how the first cell developed, or;
b) the functional simplicity of pre-cell life forms, or;
c) nothing substantive about life’s origin
If A or B, please explain: __________________

We must give him credit for answering this question directly, but his response to this question was perhaps the weakest. He mentioned protobionts but did not provide any evidence for how they could have made the evolutionary leap from protobiont to cell, or what natural processes could have made such a feat possible.

I look forward to seeing how Bob responds in post 3.

 

[Valmoon]

Zakath please dont begin to argue against aboslutes by appealling to conditions

Zakath please dont begin to argue against aboslutes by appealling to conditions

If I remember correctly you did this in a debate on absolute morality and I strongly disagreed then and I do now as well.

Although somewhat interesting the question can always be reduced to it's most basic form as in:

"Is it absolutely wrong to kill another human being for NO other reason other then you dont like his: skin color, way he looks, his smell, what he eats, etc etc".

The above is the question you need to be able to answer. If your answer is yes then yes you believe in absolute morality. If no then you do not.

I can honestly answer that it's not absolutely wrong. I used to feel bad about it until I realized the reason I dont think it's absolutely wrong is because there is no such thing as moral absolutes. Not for me and not for the people who believe in them either.

Bob will be as unable to "prove" that moral absolutes exist as he will be "proving" god exists. Just dont get sidetracked dealing with an issue that Bob can easily bypass.

I would be more interested hearing an argument against god's existence such as a problem of evil argument.

 

[PureX]

Hi Brenda,

Originally posted by Brenda It is clear that we can't FULLY understand what it means that God is spiritually real, unless, as PureX says, we are omniscient ourselves. The question is, can we understand in part? Maybe we have a spiritual component that has communion with God.

Maybe, but how can we tell? What objective criteria can I use to determine whether or not my "spiritual side" is indeed spiritual, or just the result of an over-active imagination? This is why I say that beliefs such as these must remain beliefs.

Originally posted by Brenda Also, we can know God IF he chooses to show himself to us in terms we can perceive, as Christians believe he has done through creation and scripture.

Christians believe it, true, but they don't actually know it. Even if God did show himself, how could we tell it was God? What criteria can we use to determine authentic "Godness"?

 

[drbrumley]

Mr. Porter,

Man, do I agree with that! But it is hopeful Mr. Z has come to these questions and gets them answered approiately to see what nonsense his seminary training was.

I can understand Z's reasons for leaving the faith. He has mentioned it in other posts. But it seems to me, He never got the real answers to the hardest questions. So I do hope Bob uses this to answer Z's questions. And then we can welcome him back into life eternal.

 

[Nineveh]

Hi Tye
Look what he might get from personal gain, though Being a loser in this debate might make him an eternal winner

...I ponder why Z, being an athiest, hangs out in a theology forum...

BTW, Z, if you read this, seeing your name is from a work of fiction ( I had wondered about that, thank you) does this mean after the Rapture you might change your SN to Capt. Rayford Steele?

 

[NATEDOG]

I have to agree with Scrimshaw on this one.

I think that Zakath's opening was a weak left jab that opened him up to a hard right from Enyart. However, I think Zakath's second post (which was far better than I thought it would be) was a nice counter punch to even the match.

Z's 1st. 2/10
BE's 1st 7.5/10
Z's 2nd 7.5/10
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I know a lot of you may disagree with me here, but I doubt Bob Enyart's ability to smashingly win this debate because I don't think his Open View notions of God quite fit the neccessity for God.