Battle Talk ~ Battle Royale VII

[RogerB]

Originally posted by shima
tenkeeper
>>A glint of the True Light
Will get through
To an elect few<<

Tell me, tenkeeper, if only an elect few see the "True Light", and if 95% of the worlds population believes in one God/Gods or another, are they then the "select few"? Or, rather, are those 5% atheists the "select few"?

Those who know Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior see the True Light. The decision is YOURS.

 

[shima]

>>Those who know Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior see the True Light. The decision is YOURS.<<

They are 34% of the worlds population. Hardly what I call a "select few".

 

[Lion]

Who’s the believer?

Who’s the believer?

Pure-X, you said:

We humans do not possess all knowledge of the natural universe. There could and very likely are aspects and functions of the natural universe that are so far beyond our perception and understanding that we have yet to even recognize them. This does not make them "supernatural" just because we don't know of them, yet they could be the solution to some of our unanswered questions about the origins of existence. Thus, this "Arkansas Atheist" could be referring to as yet unknown processes that would appear unnatural to us because they are so unfamiliar to us, yet that are NOT outside natural laws and functions and so are in no way actually "supernatural

Well, that is exactly what Bob stated in his last post, wasn't it? He stated that we choose to believe in a creator, not because of what we don't know, but rather because of what we do know.

We do know that in every possible test case, that we have observed, the laws of thermodynamics prevail. We do know that in order for a complex machine to exsist, there has to be a designer. You, on the other hand, have to hope that numerous physical laws will be proven wrong, so that your belief systems can stay in tact.

Pure-X you are a man of great faith.

 

[cheeezywheeezy]

PureX, you say…

“To a theist, God = truth”

I don’t think that is accurate. I would say a Christian believes that God = “the” truth. Just as God is or =…

The way…

The life…

Even if someone does say God = truth, that seems to suggest that truth is God. I think it is true that Zakath presented three bulleted items. That doesn’t mean I think that is God.

Similarly God is love. Or God = love. That doesn’t imply that when you tell someone you love them that you actually “God” them. It is merely a description.

Even someone who hates God is capable of loving. So even though God is love, the God hater can still love.

 

[shima]

Lion:
>>We do know that in every possible test case, that we have observed, the laws of thermodynamics prevail.<<

Yes, as far as we can tell, the laws of thermodynamics hold within this universe. It however makes no statement of "laws" that apply "outside" out universe, as in the case BEFORE the beginning of our universe.

>>We do know that in order for a complex machine to exsist, there has to be a designer. <<

Nonsense. We do know that such "complex machines" like humans have evolved from other, less complex precursors.

>>You, on the other hand, have to hope that numerous physical laws will be proven wrong, so that your belief systems can stay in tact.<<

A, a pot calling the kettle black.

 

[Stratnerd]

Actually, there is ZERO evidence that suggests complex, life-permitting universes would explode into existence out of nothing. There is no test, no body of data, no observation, no experiment - nothing that has proven any such thing would happen, or *could* happen.

interesting standard for inference.... if the history of the universe is a singular event then it cannot be repeated, experimented, etc because these methods must fail at explaining history. We also know that there is zero evidence for the instantaneous supernatural creation. It has never been observed, repeated, or experimented with and with your logic it MUST not exist. Perhaps you should expand your methods of gaining knowledge.

 

[philosophizer]

Originally posted by shima
Yes, as far as we can tell, the laws of thermodynamics hold within this universe. It however makes no statement of "laws" that apply "outside" out universe, as in the case BEFORE the beginning of our universe.

Well duh. Of course our laws of the universe only apply within our universe. Unfortunately that has nothing to do with what Lion was talking about.

 

[Lion]

Ouch! Those new gills I'm growing sure hurt!

Ouch! Those new gills I'm growing sure hurt!

Shima, you said;

Yes, as far as we can tell, the laws of thermodynamics hold within this universe. It however makes no statement of "laws" that apply "outside" out universe, as in the case BEFORE the beginning of our universe.

Oh, sorry, I forgot about that Borg Universe they found in Star Trek. Go ahead and take your chances with science fiction if you like. I’ll stick with real science.

Nonsense. We do know that such "complex machines" like humans have evolved from other, less complex precursors.

Liar, liar pants on fire, nose is longer than a telephone wire.

 

[Eireann]

Originally posted by Stratnerd
interesting standard for inference.... if the history of the universe is a singular event then it cannot be repeated, experimented, etc because these methods must fail at explaining history. We also know that there is zero evidence for the instantaneous supernatural creation. It has never been observed, repeated, or experimented with and with your logic it MUST not exist. Perhaps you should expand your methods of gaining knowledge.

LOL. Yeah, I'd like to see someone replicate that whole farcical pull out a rib, poof: it's a woman! thing!

 

[Scrimshaw]

Originally posted by PureX
Seems you should have Steven Hawkin's job, then, as you are far more informed about what is universally possible and what is not.

I don't have to have Steve Hawkin's job in order to identify the fact that many of his theories are based on pure speculation and naturalistic wishful-thinking.

Hmmm, well, you don't seem to be very "agnostic" regarding anyone else's theories. Somehow, you "know" enough to be absolutely sure that all the other theories are baseless, but you don't actually "know" enough to prove your own.

I said I was agnostic about the origin of the universe, not the laws of physics. The naturalistic origin threories violate the laws of physics, therefore, they are not viable as "naturalistic" possibilities.

Since we do not possess all knowledge of natural law, it is quite possible, and even likely that there are natural processes that exist that are beyond our current knowledge and comprehension, and that could be responsable for some of the solutions to our questions.

That arugment is totally elastic and could be stretched to support any mythical notion whatsoever. I could say that alchemy may be true, we just haven't yet discovered the natural process that would make it possible. Or perhaps there is a moon made of cheese, we just haven't yet discovered the natural process that would make it possible, etc., etc., ad nauseum ad infinitum.

What you don't realize is you (and other atheists) are advocating the all-elastic, all-stretchable, all-encompassing "natural-process-of-the-gaps" theory.

But just because we don't know of them does not make them "supernatural".

I don't recall making that claim. I disbelieve in the naturalistic theories because what we *DO* know about the universe *contradicts* them. I said theism is the most evidential and logical position based on the evidence, and I can sum it up for you below. Here are the most basic and effective arguments for theism:


(i) All or nearly all observed physical events have causes.
(ii) The origin of the universe is a physical event.
(iii) Therefore, the origin of the universe, most *likely* had a cause.

and.......

(i) The universe represents all physical reality.
(ii) All or nearly all causes are *separate* from their effects.
(iii) Therefore, the cause of the universe was most likely *separate* from the universe.
(iv) Since the universe is all physical reality, and the cause of the universe was most likely separate from the universe, the cause of the universe was most likely *supernatural*.

 

[AROTO]

Shima quote:
Yes, as far as we can tell, the laws of thermodynamics hold within this universe. It however makes no statement of "laws" that apply "outside" out universe, as in the case BEFORE the beginning of our universe.

Could you tell me what other universe that you are talking about?

 

[Stratnerd]

I’ll stick with real science

because I'd like to do real science, what are the rules concerning things we don't fully understand? do we...

a. declare that the problem doesn't exist because it wasn't consistent with Biblical literalism in the first place (for Big Bang to be true the universe must be >>> 10 K years old)

b. infer that God did it

c. have tentative explanations and await more data to sort them out

 

[Freak]

Originally posted by PureX
Are you incapable of recognizing the difference between an object, and an idea?

There are elements within the reality of cosmos---good is a element as is a chair.

A spider and a chair are physical objects.

Earth to Pure X!!!

Good and evil are value judgments.

This is where you are utterly confused. Good is good--absolute. Evil is evil--absolute.

Is a chair a good chair or a bad chair? Is a spider a good spider or a bad spider?

No need for adjectives----a chair is a chair--absolute. It cannot be spider. Another absolute.

And if someone else evaluates the chair using a different criteria than you, won't they likely come to a different evaluation?

Chair cannot be spider. Spider cannot be chair. Foundational logic.

How about a person. Is a person a good person or an evil person? How will you evaluate them? What criteria will you use?

A person is not a window. A window is not a person. Again, foundational logic. How come you don't see the aboluteness of reality? Can person be a window?

OK, now how about deeds.

A deed is a deed. A deed is not a tiger. *sigh*

Natural Law speaks of elemental reality----good is good, evil is evil. It cannot be anything else. No wonder God tells us, "woe to those who call evil good."

What is a good deed and what is an evil deed?

Quite easy. Good deed is a good deed. It is a universal reality. A good deed cannot be a window--- a evil deed cannot be a spoon. Again foundational reality.

 

[Lion]

Right on!

Right on!

Scrimshaw-AWESOME POST!

 

[Lion]

The vast majority of chronological indicators show a young Earth.

The vast majority of chronological indicators show a young Earth.

stratnerd- because I'd like to do real science, what are the rules concerning things we don't fully understand? do we...

a. declare that the problem doesn't exist because it wasn't consistent with Biblical literalism in the first place (for Big Bang to be true the universe must be >>> 10 K years old)

b. infer that God did it

c. have tentative explanations and await more data to sort them out

(D) The universe isn’t older than ten thousand years, just as the Bible states.

 

[Stratnerd]

Lion, that's "a"

 

[Hank]

Re: The vast majority of chronological indicators show a young Earth.

Re: The vast majority of chronological indicators show a young Earth.

Originally posted by Lion
(D) The universe isn’t older than ten thousand years, just as the Bible states.

And Noah jammed all those animals on the ark which evolved into all the species we have today in a couple of thousand years. LOL

 

[Bob Enyart]

I just learned my post was three minutes late...

I just learned my post was three minutes late...

To all, I was suprised to find out that my post was three minutes late. I was posting by the Battle Royale countdown clock in the forum, by which I had ten minutes to spare. I did not notice Knight’s post, which immediately precedes my late one, which states:

NOTE: I cannot make the countdown clock be exact. Therefore please only use the countdown timer as a "rough" guide. As long as the combatants post near or around the time of the countdown timer that will be fine.

I apologize for any inconvenience and of course I am happy to abide by any rulings of the moderator.

Sincerely, Bob Enyart

Ps. While I’m posting in the Grandstands (which I’ve been reading... whew!), I’ll comment on Zakath’s post from 43 pages ago:

“I also find it interesting that Rev. Enyart plans to use the debate as sermon and discussion fodder, soliciting input from his church congregation to use in the debate. I'm sorry he feels threatened that he has to get his entire church involved so that I'm, in effect, debating Denver Bible Church, not just its pastor...”

When I debate, I hope my opponent can effectively bring the collective knowledge of the world to bear in his argument. For I’m not interested in whether I can defeat my rival, I want to know whether or not I can beat his position. I hope Zakath is sufficiently well-informed that he can produce any existing knowledge or reasoning capable of defeating my position, if such exists. In any debate there is opportunity to err, and if Zakath can show me where some of my evidence or reasoning is wrong, I will be very thankful. -BE

 

[cheeezywheeezy]

Hey Hank...

How many animals did Noah need to take on the ark? Do you even know...or are you just throwing that comment out there thinking it is actually making a point?

 

[tenkeeper]

Shima, Matthew 13:11-15