Battle Talk ~ Battle Royale VII

[jeremiah]

I think that Zakath's 2nd post was his best, and his third post was his worst. How did he get to go from discussing evidences for, or against, the existence of an eternal Creator God; to attacking the God of the Bible, and all the Christians who believe in Him?
He does this practically daily on these other forums, why, when he should be presenting reasons why there is no God of any kind at all, he instead shows why he doesn't believe in the Christian God.
His reasons for not believing in the God of the Bible are contradictory. God should be just , He shouldn't allow anyone to be murdered, He allows people to be killed, His followers have murdered people, therefore He is not God. Other religions believe in different gods, they can't all be right, so they must all be wrong. Therefore there is no God? How can he make these judgments and leaps of illogic. What does he base these beliefs of what God should be like, and what He should do. upon?
Let's look at it this way. I don't believe in evolution. Why not jeremiah. Glad you asked. Because evolution is responsible for all the deaths that have ever occurred. Creatures who are evolving kill other creatures. Scientists who believe in evolution have so many different beliefs and theories about it, and are constantly contradicting each other, and some of these scientists are murderers as well. If there was such a thing as evolution there would not be any carnivores, or destuctive acts of "nature" These things are wrong, and I do not believe in that kind of evolution. Therefore evolution does not exist. If it did exist then the driving force behind it is all powerful and eternal; and should tell us humans what it is doing and why it is doing it. After all it is only fair. All powerful and self existent force speak up now and prove to me that you exist and I will believe in you. I for one have never heard its voice. I am an evolution Atheist. :ha:
Show me a species that evolved or that evolution has ever worked anywhere without killing another living thing and I will believe in EVOLUTION.

 

[Aussie Thinker]

Jeremiah,

Zakath only responded to “Christian” term raised by Enyart.

As Enyarts God IS the Christian version it is likely the debate will revolve around that God.

If they talk about Zeus they will just both agree !

You evolution analogy is flawed… Evolution is not a theology that says “death is bad” then includes death in its texts and tenets.

Evolution just happened.. the fact the good and bad, killing and living happen is even more proof that it is just undirected nature !

 

[cthoma11]

Originally posted by Zakath
I submit the following argument…

The Moral Knowledge Argument for Atheism:

• 1. If Pastor Enyart's God exists, then he is a being who is powerful, loving, and just.
  
  2. If Pastor Enyart's God exists, it would be in his interest (loving and just) and within his capacity (powerful) for all human beings to know his absolute standards perfectly.
  
  3. All humans do not know God's ethics perfectly, as is demonstrated by his followers disagreeing about many moral values.
  
  Therefore: Pastor Enyart's God does not exist.

....except, in my opinion, premise number 2 is wrong.

Is it God's, who is all loving, best interest to force knowledge and acceptance on humanity? I think for this line of reasoning to work, you have to prove that forcing humans to know his ethic's perfectly is in God's best interest.

For example, with my kids, I can force them through harsh discipline to obey me or else; or I can build a relationship with them and have them understand my rules are generally for their best interest.

Please note that I use generally because some things; such as them washing the car, mowing the lawn or taking out the garbage, etc., are clearly in my best interest, but please do not tell them that because the car is dirty and the grass needs cutting.

 

[jeremiah]

To Aussie Thinker.
To those who know Zakath's style, it was only a matter of time before we knew he would refer to some of his favorite Bible verses to mock Christians and mischaracterize God. However jumping on the mention of the word "Christian", and or relying on the knowledge of Bob Enyart's faith, to switch the focus of the debate so drastically and inappropriately shows a weakness in debating skills and an agenda, on his part.
My evoltion satire was more an argument absurdum, than an analogy. It is not a good analogy. However I was trying to mischaracterize evolution and scientists in the same way and to the same degree that Zakath mischaracterizes the God of the Bible and Christians. I thought I did that quite well.
Zakath believes if there is a God that he should behave in a certain way and that his followers will behave in a certain way. Additionally he thinks that they will all believe the same things with virtually no disagreements.
I simply tried to apply those same beliefs to Evolution. God never condones murder or takes anyones life without a just cause. Zakath sees all the unjust killing in the world, and certain Bible verses, and thinks that God is either unjust, or He does not exist. I can simply look at Evolution in the same light can't I? Evolution condones murder it takes the life of innocents without just cause all the time doesn't it. The fact that it is not a theology nor make any claim to be just does not make any difference to me. I want justice, Zakath wants justice. He doesn't see it in the Bible therefore the Bible is wrong about almost everything it says about God.
Evolution is unjust. Yet it is the most eternal and powerful unseen force in the known universe. Just as Zakath requires proof and a voice, so do I. My sense of justice demands it. Evoltionary force speak to me now. You who believe in it give me one shred of evidence that it really exists. Not its effects that you claim, but the actual impersonal force that you suggest. Let me see it face to face and then I will believe in it.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The vast majority of chronological indicators sh

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The vast majority of chronological indicators sh

Originally posted by Hank
Well it’s not what the dictionary I was looking at says but at least we have some kind of definition.

What does your dictionary say?

I think you are saying that if you believe they are related, then you would accept the comparison. But if you don’t believe they are related, you won’t accept it as a way of determining the relationship. Is that about right.

I'll accept the comparison, regardless of what I believe. Some people are going to automatically read a relationship into it somewhere, regardless of what the actual comparison reveals.

Well if we can’t tie down some kind of reference to something tangible then it will be impossible to discuss the subject with any degree of intelligence.

Give me a break, Hank. You're not trying to have an intelligent discussion -- you're looking for excuses to twist my words.

You’re really not interested in a rational conversation are you?

You're the one that brought up unicorns.

You’re saying he went fishing for all the carnivores until the other animals were able to reproduce enough to replenish their stock?

No. Most of them could probably fish for themselves. All Noah had to do was keep them away from the livestock.

Do you have any idea the ratio of prey to predator it takes to support carnivore population?

Few animals are true carnivores, in that they only eat meat. Some of the most ferocious predators out there are omnivores -- like bears (which are very good at catching fish, by the way).

And do you really expect to carry on a conversation with statements like that?

You can leave anytime you'd like.

What a joke and a waste of time.

Why do you keep coming here then?

You said they walked.

I said most of the animals probably walked. How else were they going to get here?

How else did they get there?

How do you think they got here? I'm asking you now.

And give me a break. How far can a sloth go in a day?

I've never really sat and watched one. According to this website some sloths move "rather long distances in one night." It doesn't get specific as to what it means by 'long distances,' but presumably it's more than the 101 feet per day your 2,000 year projection allows for.

Did he have a map? Did he just think, “hey I’ll take a trip to South America. So Noah if you’ll point me in the right direction, I’ll just head out.” How ludicrous can you be?

Not much more ludicrous than that...

And they all made that long trip across 12,000 miles just 4000 years ago and then conveniently died out soon afterwards?

Animals go extinct all the time. Especially if people hunt them.

And the way was?

What do you think? I'm asking you.

I was thinking at least a 1000 years. But you pick a time and I’ll use your number for the debate.

I'd hardly call that 'right after,' but if you want to go with that time, that's ok with me. I have little doubt that there were foxes and wolves 1,000 years later.

I did pay attention.

You could have fooled me.

My quote” 3. Only one cat-kind of animal was created and never changed over the first 2000 years. Noah took a pair of those and after the flood evolution took over and all the cat-kinds evolved.”

Your answer: Number 3 is close to what I believe may have happened, but I wouldn't say that no variation occured before the flood.

At the very least you implied that there was very little variation before the flood. So I’ll rephrase my question. Why was there so much more variation after the flood than before.

There was more time after the flood than before. Plus conditions had changed somewhat.

No it doesn't.

Yes it does fit what we observe.

We don’t observe the earth revolving around the sun.

That doesn't matter -- it fits the model. We couldn't do parallax measurements on nearby stars if the Earth weren't revolving around the sun.

We observe the sun moving through the sky and it appears the sun is rotating around the earth.

The sun couldn't possibly 'rotate' around the Earth, unless the Earth were inside the sun. I don't think you know what the word 'rotate' means.

So what makes you believe the earth revolves around the sun?

What makes you think it doesn't?

 

[Brenda]

ditto Jeremiah

ditto Jeremiah

Jeremiah,
I've enjoyed your last couple posts. You said in a more involved and interesting way what I was trying to say more briefly a while back. If you'll stick around, I'll feel free to stay in my more comfortable lurking mode.

 

[jeremiah]

To Aussie Thinker:

A couple of questions for you to ponder? If it is as you say that Evolution is not a theology that says death is bad: and every living thing is a product of evolution from billions of years of process: How can all living things act so repulsively to it. Would it not seem more realistic that it would be accepted peacefully by all. Why would "silly" human inventions of the last several thousand years overcome so easily this impersonal evoltionary force and in fact REBEL against it. Why would mankind so easily accept the ideas of silly men that evoltion does not exist. Why would men fight so fiercely against death, and against injustice, and killing when the most certain and powerful force of evoltion is in fact, death itself, through impersonal injustice! Yes man is in rebellion, not against a God who does not exist, but against the impersonal forces of Evolution's "nature" which do exist. This must be a true Evolutionary Atheists position, don't you think.
The Bible has it the other way around. It says that mankind is is rebellion against a God who does exist, and mankind is in an alliance with his fallen and DEAD nature.
You said Evolution just happened. Isn't that the same as saying God just happened. Which is easier to believe? Which requires more faith. Which requires more proof?

 

[jeremiah]

To Brenda:
Thanks, I have noticed your posts as well in these 67 pages. They are a welcome relief from all those "chair" posts. I am not just saying that because you complemented me first, I really have noticed you. I also really am enjoying One Eyed Jack. He is really hanging in there against several of the atheistic scientific people. He has a wealth of knowledge to fire right back at them. I couldn't stand in there with Stratnerd very long at all, since I only dabble in scientific Creationism.
I think that Bob's next post is going to be great. I think Zakath has left himself very vulnerable in his last post, after being very defensive, in his first one especially.

 

[Yorzhik]

BOB B.! Please tell us you are at least keeping an eye on us here.

Jeremiah: I don't think OEJ is doing well. He obfuscates when he should say "I don't know." But I can't be too harsh, since I'm not taking up the standard. Go OEJ!

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by Yorzhik
Jeremiah: I don't think OEJ is doing well. He obfuscates when he should say "I don't know."

I've admitted to not knowing many things. Can you show me an example of how you think I'm obfuscating? That's something I'd just as soon not do. Thanks.

 

[jeremiah]

He is not doing perfect, but he is doing very well. He is badly outnumbered. I think he should say he doesn't know if he doesn't, but will that be reciprocated by evolutionists? Most evolutionists at least "act"as if they know with tremendous certainty what happened in the distant past. If they quote a scientific study, and you say that you don't know if that is true, they win, don't they. After all, they are quoting scientists, and scientific research: True science can not lie, and is never wrong, is it?

 

[Flipper]

Freak:

Nope, gotta allow it - you've finally defined an absolute, after all these years. You can finally have that cookie, Jay

Ironically, although its a real-world absolute - describing a real-world property (5 letters in C-H-A-I-R) - it is not really very useful compared to a hypothetical (i.e. not real world) absolute definition, like like "point", "right-angled triangle" 'prime number' or "polygon." It is a qualified real-world absolute, meaning that it is an absolute in a relative frame of reference. It is likely to have this in common with all material objects, I would argue.

What then do the hypothetical absolutes of math and your real world absolute example have in common? What they share that allows us to determine them as absolute is that every property they have is known and defined. The definition of them has become so narrow that there can be no additional properties other than those outlined in the definition itself.

So once you divested the world "chair" of meaning and considered it symbolically, you discovered two absolute properties - to spell chair, you must use 5 letters, and that to spell chair you must use a specific sequence of symbols. Until you reduced your definition to the barest essentials, you couldn't find the perfection that you sought to ascertain that it was indeed an absolute.

Of course, most things in the real world are a bit more complex and have many properties. Furthermore real world objects do not generally have the quality of perfection, unless you limit yourself to the most simplistic of statements. This is why I suggest that reality is objective but I can't say for sure that it is absolute. I would suggest that foundationally it is not, but we can't know that for a certainty.

Furthermore, let's say we are trying to conceive of the absolutely largest quantity possible of some abstract material. We all sit around, sweating bullets in trying to come up with the biggest amount possible. We might reach a stage where we have a mental picture or a number where we are unable to think of any larger a quantity. Does that make it an objective absolute - i.e. the largest quantity that there can possibly be? It does not - it only shows that we are not able to conceive of a larger quantity.

Bear this in mind when the conversation turns to absolute morality again.

Also, you still have yet to overcome the obstacle that you faced earlier in proving the absolute nature of the word "chair" - once you move beyond simplistic concrete statements about narrowly defined physical properties, you find yourself plunged into a more conceptual and abstract world. I would suggest that ascertaining the absolute nature of something here is an impossible task.

I'm sure you will disagree.

 

[Aussie Thinker]

To Aussie Thinker:

Jeremiah,

A couple of questions for you to ponder? If it is as you say that Evolution is not a theology that says death is bad: and every living thing is a product of evolution from billions of years of process: How can all living things act so repulsively to it. Would it not seem more realistic that it would be accepted peacefully by all. Why would "silly" human inventions of the last several thousand years overcome so easily this impersonal evoltionary force and in fact REBEL against it. Why would mankind so easily accept the ideas of silly men that evoltion does not exist. Why would men fight so fiercely against death, and against injustice, and killing when the most certain and powerful force of evoltion is in fact, death itself, through impersonal injustice! Yes man is in rebellion, not against a God who does not exist, but against the impersonal forces of Evolution's "nature" which do exist. This must be a true Evolutionary Atheists position, don't you think.
The Bible has it the other way around. It says that mankind is is rebellion against a God who does exist, and mankind is in an alliance with his fallen and DEAD nature.
You said Evolution just happened. Isn't that the same as saying God just happened. Which is easier to believe? Which requires more faith. Which requires more proof?

One of the processes of evolution is to avoid death.. it is actually one of the hallmarks of success to avoid death. It is why all current animals have a strong sense of survival.. those that didn’t last long during evolution.

My point was evolution is just blind nature. The Bible is supposed directed by a sentient being, so when we see contradictions or evil.. we think either the sentient being is dumb, cruel or doesn’t exist.. I prefer to go with doesn’t exist.

I have NO faith in evolution. I know for a fact animals changed significantly over time and the mechanism supplied by the theory of evolution seems to answer most of the question how.

Its like most thing I assume a natural explanation.. why..

Adding in a God is really another level of complexity.. where did the God come from, does he have a God, who created the God.. what was before the God.. etc etc..

 

[Flipper]

Lightson:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Flipper
Wow - someone should tell the theistic evolutionists that. I'm sure they'll be very upset.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Good catch. I was remiss not to exclude theistic evolutionists from point being made. It did occur to me at the time, but I just blew it off. They need to be discussed as a special case.

Fair enough. I would venture to suggest that there are probably a lot more theistic evolutionists than atheistic evolutionists. I don't have any specific figures to back this up, but it is based on the relatively small number of atheists in any society vs the number of people who accept evolution. I would argue that this is probably the case, even in the sciences themselves. Furthermore, I might observe that Darwin himself was a theistic evolutionist.

So theistic evolutionists may be a special case, but I suspect that they are still in the majority.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Flipper
There's not really a mound of supporting evidence for that, other than the gospels, no?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Well there's the testimony of 4, which you dismiss. What would be an acceptable level of evidence or testimonial in your opinion?

Excellent question. Obviously, I start from a position of extreme skepticism regarding apparently supernatural occurrences. I am quite equal opportunity here - I am deeply suspicious of the claims of astrologers, UFOlogists, theosophists, and remote viewers, plus a whole spectra of new age wackiness and fuzzy thinking (harmless though it may be).

Now there are tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands, of people who claim they have seen a UFO. There are still photographs, videos, and radar footage of UFOs. There are thousands of people who claim to not only have seen UFOs, but to have met their occupants. The prevailing opinion is that these sightings are of alien craft.

Now I accept that many of these people have seen UFOs, in the strictly boring definition of the term. However, despite the mountains of evidence from a multiplicity of sources (including thousands of living witnesses), I don't accept that these sightings are supernatural or alien in origin. I don't believe that anyone is being abducted by aliens. At the same time, I don't doubt the sincerity of many of the abductees and the UFO witnesses.

I have good reasons for doubting the alien nature of these craft. I allow that I cannot prove that they are not. If I were generous, I would consider these UFO/alien stories under "intriguing but unknown/not proven". If more evidence was forthcoming, I would be happy to reassess my views.

But it seems you're expecting me to make an exception for Christianity, despite the fact that we only have four sources. The situation is muddied further when you consider that there are credible theologists (assuming you accept that any non-fundamentalist theologist can be considered "credible"), who argue for the existence of a Q gospel, or that the authors cribbed from the first of the gospels. After all, this was not an unusual practice.

A nice overview of some of the different POVs regarding Q can be found here:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/gosp_q.htm

So, when confronted by a number of explanations for a series of events, and one of those explanations is a supernatural one, I will generally go for the non-supernatural explanation for two reasons. Ockham's razor and it is in keeping with what we have observed about the world.

Furthermore, I already consider the bible to be of doubtful credibility because of the creation story/flood/age of earth content. If this is untrue and doesn't match up with what we observe about the world/universe, then on what grounds should I believe the rest of it?

Problems come in different magnitudes. If I am mistaken, then what have I lost? My 70-80 years of life won't be substantially different that yours. If you are mistaken, the problem magnitude increases beyond calculation.

I'm sure you're aware of the arguments against Pascal's wager. I won't rehash them, but I will describe my own position.

I am sufficiently confident that the probability of the existence of any God, let alone the Christian God, is low enough to not lose any sleep over the prospect of losing this wager. Besides, you are asking me to believe in something that I genuinely do not think exists. If I asked you to temporarily transfer your world-view from Christianity to Hinduism, would you be able to do it?

 

[Flipper]

Freak:

It's funny watching atheists quote from God's Word. You really like His Word, huh?

The older translations are quite beautifully written. Even though I think a literal interpretation of Genesis is utter BS, I can appreciate the lyrical verse of the KJV. Parts of the bible can be inspiring and uplifting. So can a number of other religious books. Religions of all kinds have inspired man to transcend himself in art, architecture, science and literature (except the book of mormon and scientology/dianetics - they're just plain dumb).

I am happy to acknowledge a debt to Christianity and the bible, just as I acknowledge a debt to ancient Rome, ancient Greece, 6th century India, the Caliphates, the Fertile Crescent and any number of places and personages that have influenced the cultures in which we live.

As far as my knowledge of biblical quotes? The remnants of a fairly religious schooling, most likely.

 

[Aussie Thinker]

Ah Flipper,

How well you mirror my thougths I just wish I could mirror your eloquence.

 

[RogerB]

I am sufficiently confident (but not certain) that the probability (again, not certainty) of the existence of any God, let alone the Christian God, is low enough (but not zero) to not lose any sleep over the prospect of losing this wager. Besides, you are asking me to believe in something that I genuinely do not think (not 100% sure) exists.

If I asked you to temporarily transfer your world-view from Christianity to Hinduism, would you be able to do it?

No, because I am absolutely, positively certain that Jesus Christ is the way, the truth and the life.

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by cthoma11
....except, in my opinion, premise number 2 is wrong.

Is it God's, who is all loving, best interest to force knowledge and acceptance on humanity? I think for this line of reasoning to work, you have to prove that forcing humans to know his ethic's perfectly is in God's best interest.

I never indicated the use of force was necessary. Consider the following metaphor: humans, with the exception of those born blind, can all see light. As such, the existence of light can be considered as absolute statement for the vast majority of humans. As a function of light, humans can see rainbows. The pattern of a rainbow is unvaryingly the same: red-orange-yellow-green-blue-indigo-violet. I am merely proposing that it is within the capability of an extremely powerful (since Pastor Enyart does not believe in divine omnipotence) being to demonstrate his required moral code to the entire race in an equally clear, unequivocal fashion as he or she allegedly does with the rainbow.
The situation we have currently in the earth is a bit like the deity(ies) as teacher(s) giving a pop quiz to the human race without clearly telling them which questions they have to answer to pass the quiz. The outcome of this quiz of particular importance since religionists of various types claim that humans will be judged in some fashion for how well they adhere to these principles or laws.

Thus my premise does not involve forcing knowledge on people, merely making available to the entire race across the entire span of history on an equal access basis. Something that no religion with which I am familiar has managed to demonstrate thus far...

 

[shima]

>>The second law of thermodynamics precludes it. If the universe had always been here, it would have run down by now, and there would be no energy available for work.

Not if it?s cyclic like everything else. If there is enough matter in the universe to stop the expansion, then everything is sucked back in to a big bang and starts over again.<<

Also, the second law of thermodynamics doesn't preclude it IF the universe isn't a closed system. As anyone will know, the "winding down" of energy happens all the time, but if NEW energy is coming into the system this will NOT specify that the universe MUST have a beginning. The NEW energy is ofcourse still available for work.

Now, I'm not suggesting that this universe is an OPEN system, but the arguement from 2nd LoT can only be used if it is CLOSED.

 

[PureX]

Originally posted by Freak
So, one day someone discovered there were moral attributes like goodness or justice?

No, people eventually realized that some characteristics of human behavior are good for humanity collectively, and not just individually, while others are not. We humans are each different, and so on an individual scale, good and evil are very subjective. But when viewed more generally, human beings are all very much alike, and so there is also a collective good and a collective evil. This more inclusive view of good and evil is still based on self-preservation, however, even though it's now become a collective idea of self-preservation.

Eventually, some folks imagined that their own well being, and/or humanity's collective well being was "God's will", and thus, what they believe is good for all then also became claimed as a divine mandate. And this is where we get today's claims that good and evil are "universal absolutes", handed down from God.