Battle Talk ~ Battle Royale VII

[Cleohair]

Just wondering...

Just wondering...

Why is it that when there's a debate between ideas for or against God the one who's 'for' is clear & concise in what they believe & answering questions about it; but the 'against' usually don't answer direct questions & instead ramble on forever about side issues & almost always not of their own beliefs, but what someone else wrote????

 

[Zakath]

Re: Just wondering...

Re: Just wondering...

Originally posted by Cleohair
Why is it that when there's a debate between ideas for or against God the one who's 'for' is clear & concise in what they believe & answering questions about it; but the 'against' usually don't answer direct questions & instead ramble on forever about side issues & almost always not of their own beliefs, but what someone else wrote????

For example... ?

 

[Cleohair]

Fro example

Fro example

Almost your entire post in round 2.

 

[Zakath]

As I pointed out in my third post, I am not a molecular biologist, a physicist, or a cosmologist. Therefore to answer questions in those I am not going to try to pass myself off as an expert in those fields and I'm going to have to rely on other authorities who are acknowledged experts...

If you think my opponent is so "clear and concise" perhaps you'd care to list three pieces of concrete evidence he's presented to far to support his belief in the existence of his deity...

 

[philosophizer]

Originally posted by Zakath
You appear to have missed my point. Let's see if Enyart does better...

Well, you asked Bob how the laws of physics apply or don't apply to God creating the universe. But Bob argues no such thing. You're just trying to rattle him by bringing up "magic." Just trying to lose him in ridiculous semantics. You are basically saying God couldn't create the universe because the universe says so. Very circular. And then you assert that one can either claim this or claim that God used magic. You missed the point long ago.

Let's hear the explanation for the physics behind Pastor Enyart's God as creator and perhaps this atheist will reconsider his disbelieving position…

You're asking Bob to place physics behind God, which is something he does not believe nor argue. You are asking Bob to redefine God on your terms. Make God not God then you'll believe.

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by philosophizer
Well, you asked Bob how the laws of physics apply or don't apply to God creating the universe. But Bob argues no such thing.

Pastor Enyart's God allegedly created the universe. I want to know whether he gets an automatic waiver on the laws of physics to do so or not.

If so, why?

You're just trying to rattle him by bringing up "magic." Just trying to lose him in ridiculous semantics.

He brought up magic, not me. I am merely applying his words to his own argument (sparse as it has been thus far).

You are basically saying God couldn't create the universe because the universe says so. Very circular.

No, I am claiming that Pastor Enyart alleges that his God couldn't have done so. If that 's not correct, then let him explain what he does mean...

You're asking Bob to place physics behind God, which is something he does not believe nor argue.

Well he hasn't argued anything about it yet, why don't we just wait and see what he says before putting words in his mouth?

You are asking Bob to redefine God on your terms. Make God not God then you'll believe.

Pastor Enyart has already defined his "God". It's merely a matter of demonstrating that there is no reasonable logical proof for the existence of Pastor Enyart's God, since his apologetic method requires that his deity violate one of the good pastor's favorite "laws", the Law of Non-contradiction...

 

[RogerB]

Originally posted by Zakath
If you think my opponent is so "clear and concise" perhaps you'd care to list three pieces of concrete evidence he's presented to far to support his belief in the existence of his deity...

I'd like to see ONE piece of concrete evidence you've presented. Period.

 

[Zakath]

That isn't the point under discussion, Roger.

 

[Freak]

Originally posted by Eireann
I have some questions for you about good and evil.

Ok.

So while every culture may have catagories of "good" and "evil" as part of their belief system, the contents under those catagories are far from universal.

Eireann, think about this for a minute. "Good" cannot be anything but "good." Just as "spider" cannot be anything but "spider." Foundational logic. Same with "evil"--it cannot be anything but "evil." Every culture in the world has Natural Law --there is a good and evil. There is absoluteness in these elements.

1. What determines, to you, if a thing should be catagorized as "evil?"

Evil is evil. Look at the structure (in any language) of the word of evil and you'll see that it's not good. Therefore there is absoluteness.

2. What determines, to you, if a thing should be catagorized as "good?"

In the English language look at the way it is spelled. Good cannot be anything but good.

3. If a thing (read: person, being, creature, entity) is capable of being good, is it also capable of being evil, and vice versa?

Yes.

4. Are there beings that are capable of only one and not the other in any circumstances? In other words, are there things that are evil that cannot possibly, at any time under any circumstance, be good (or do good for the sake of good), and vice versa?

In Christian theological reality---humans have the capability of good & evil, angelic beings (at one point had the capacity) are either fallen or not.

5. If a demon is a fallen angel as many believe, although it may be barred from ever becoming an angel again and gaining the presence of God, is it also automatically barred from ever possibly becoming a good entity?

Yes. Matthew 25 speaks of this reality.

 

[Cleohair]

I haven't read all of Bob's Answer in Round 2; but in Round 1 he gave 2 evidences:

1.Complexity of design demands a Creator

2.Laws of Thermodynamics

You do not have to be an expert to understand those two very simple ideas, so again there is no reason for the mind-numbing theories of someone else.

Just to let you know, I'll have to respond to anything else later because my time is running out on this library computer-it's one of the reasons I haven't read all the posts yet. I was just commenting on what I'd read so far.

 

[PureX]

Originally posted by Soulman
Pure said,

Give us an example of an "absolute" that you haven't first "thought" about. There may be a difference between a “thought” and the “object” of thought (the chair and “thinking” about the chair), but thought has no power over the absoluteness of the chair, or anything else. If merely “thinking” about an absolute “taints the evidence” of the absolute, then the only solution is to STOP THINKING. The concrete reality of the “chair” is an absolute. Our “perception” of the chair, or our “thinking” about the chair, changes nothing. Either the chair IS, or it ISN’T. Bickering over the “kind” or “color” or “style” of the chair only proves that the chair exists.

Soulman

I don't see what is absolute about a chair, or any other object, for that matter. Aparently you are calling reality "absolute", and then claiming that because the chair is "really there" that it is also "absolutely there" and so is an absolute. But I don't see how you could have determined that reality is an absolute state. We humans know through our experience with reality that we do not perceive it in total, and so we also must accept that we don't know how much of reality we are not perceiving, or have never perceived. Maybe what we call reality is only a tiny fraction of what is real, and so our perceptions of it are quite inaccurate. There is no way for us to tell without having full knowledge of it, which we don't have. So for a human being to claim reality to be absolute is quite a stretch.

A chair is just a man made object designed for sitting on. There are all kinds of chairs because all kinds of men make them. There is no absolute or even "ideal" chair that I know of. And a spider is just a biological life form. There are no ideal spiders, just lots of different kinds of spiders. I see nothing absolute about spiders, either. And the fact that they exist is just a fact as far as anyone can tell.

 

[Freak]

Re: Re: Re: The Tao of the E(quip)ped

Re: Re: Re: The Tao of the E(quip)ped

Originally posted by PureX
Therefor he thinks an absolute statement equals an absolute.

Pure X I think you may have got it. :crackup:

 

[Freak]

Originally posted by PureX
I don't see what is absolute about a chair, or any other object, for that matter.

Can a chair be a spider? This is the essential point you refuse to deal with. There is absoluteness to the reality of chair (even down to the structure of the word itself). A chair cannot be anything but chair. If you have problem dealing with this absolute reality then please tell me when the word chair becomes anything but chair?

So for a human being to claim reality to be absolute is quite a stretch.

Reality not absolute? But why use "words" that have absoluteness then? Can "reality" be anything but "reality?'

There is no absolute or even "ideal" chair that I know of.

Can chair be anything but chair. Look at the structure of the word itself. It is absolute.

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Cleohair
I haven't read all of Bob's Answer in Round 2; but in Round 1 he gave 2 evidences:

1.Complexity of design demands a Creator

This is merely an assertion. In a debate, any assertion can be called into question. Where's the supporting evidence to prove that Pastor Enyart's God was the creator?

2.Laws of Thermodynamics

How is this evidence for the idea that Pastor Enyart's God created matter from nothing? Doesn't that concept violate the very laws you're claiming for evidence?

You do not have to be an expert to understand those two very simple ideas...

True, but you appear to have misunderstood them...

... so again there is no reason for the mind-numbing theories of someone else.

Just because you have difficulty following something does not necessarily invalidate it's usefulness as evidence. I don't understand the math behind quantum mechanics, but I can see that particle accelerators work...

 

[Freak]

Re: Re: Re: The Tao of the E(quip)ped

Re: Re: Re: The Tao of the E(quip)ped

Originally posted by Spartin
Are you serious?

Yes. Can a chair be anything but chair? Just take a good look at the structure of the word....can it be anything but chair? There is absoluteness to the word "chair."

Feeling to the need to say atheists are dumbed down is simple fallicy on your part when you state something like this.

Are you the product of the American public school system?

Fallicy?

 

[RogerB]

Originally posted by Zakath
That isn't the point under discussion, Roger.

Oh, right. You get to the end of the debate and when asked why you've provided no evidence to support your case you can say, "He never gave me a chance!".

7 posts left. Use 'em.

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Freak
Can a chair be a spider?

Yes, if it's a "spider chair" or a big spider chair... :chuckle:

Reality not absolute? But why use "words" that have absoluteness then? Can "reality" be anything but "reality?'

The question one has to answer first is whether reality is objective or subjective, or both...

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by RogerB
Oh, right. You get to the end of the debate and when asked why you've provided no evidence to support your case you can say, "He never gave me a chance!".

My opponent has claimed that he will prove his deity exists. If he does not do so, he fails. Period.

7 posts left. Use 'em.

I will, keep watching.

 

[LightSon]

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

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

Originally posted by Wedge
I love to watch fundamentalists do a tap dance whenever the massive problems of "Noah" and the "ark" are raised.

Sorry. Real fundamentalists don't dance. Where've you been?

 

[Zakath]

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

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

Originally posted by LightSon
Sorry. Real fundamentalists don't dance. Where've you been?

Particularly those holiness types! :chuckle: