wholearmor
Member
His brain, maybe.
Battle Talk ~ Battle Royale VII
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
His brain, maybe.
Eireann
New member
Re: Cowards
Re: Cowards
1) The forum for this debate is TheologyOnline, not Bob's radio show.
2) So far in this debate, Bob Enyart has not yet posted anything, so there hasn't been any question asked to be answered. What he may have asked on his radio show is completely and totally irrelevent to the debate we are following, as Bob Enyart has yet to provide his first input, question or otherwise. In short, you all are lambasting Zakath for refusing to answer a question that has not been asked.
3) The topic is "Does God Exist?", not "Does Truth Exist?".
Re: Cowards
Several of you have lambasted Zakath for refusing to answer a question in the course of this debate that Bob Enyart asked on the air. Let me remind you all of three very simple facts:
1) The forum for this debate is TheologyOnline, not Bob's radio show.
2) So far in this debate, Bob Enyart has not yet posted anything, so there hasn't been any question asked to be answered. What he may have asked on his radio show is completely and totally irrelevent to the debate we are following, as Bob Enyart has yet to provide his first input, question or otherwise. In short, you all are lambasting Zakath for refusing to answer a question that has not been asked.
3) The topic is "Does God Exist?", not "Does Truth Exist?".
wholearmor
Member
Re: Re: Cowards
Re: Re: Cowards
Does Zakath exist anymore or just Eireann?
Re: Re: Cowards
Does Zakath exist anymore or just Eireann?
wholearmor
Member
I'm with ya', Z Man. I'm wondering if Zakath will answer the question or not. I'm surprised Eireann hasn't answered it for him.
wholearmor
Member
Eireann, have you answered this one for me yet? I haven't seen it.
I'll admit I don't know much about formal debates. How is
Bob forced to state his position as asked by Zakath?
Thanks for your answer in advance.
I'll admit I don't know much about formal debates. How is
Bob forced to state his position as asked by Zakath?
Thanks for your answer in advance.
ApologeticJedi
New member
This debate has already started off with poor promise. Each poster has only 10 posts and we are starting with :
1) Define God?
Are we serious? "Define god?" ??? Is that the intelligence here, to reduce an otherwise interesting topic for debate to an issue of semantics?
It's like starting a 30 minute debate on the economics of World War I Germany, by asking your opponent which war they view as "World War I". If I didn't know at least that part of my opponents position then, any unfortunate listener would be guaranteed for boredom.
{If Bob starts his reply with "That's a good question. I'm so glad you asked it." - as he usually does - I'm afraid I'll have to use this debate as late night reading material when insomnia sets in.}
Eireann
New member
Debates generally follow a present/rebut format. One poster presents either an argument or a query, and the opponent is expected to respond directly to that argument or query, if the argument/query is relevent to the topic. Since Zak's question is relevent to the topic (is essential, in fact), it would not only be bad form but would even be deleterious to his own standing in the debate if Bob were to refuse to answer the question that was officially posed. If the debate were actually being scored in a formal manner, he would probably even be docked points for refusing to answer the question. Because Zakath asked Bob to define "God," Bob must then provide a definition that will serve as the working definition for "God" throughout the remainder of the debate. In a way, this also puts an extra onus on Zakath because by giving Bob the privilege of defining "God" for this debate, he is basically affirming that he accepts the responsibility of trying to debunk ANY definition of God that Bob chooses. It does pigeonhole Bob into establishing a definition from which he cannot thereafter deviate, but it also requires Zakath to debunk that definition no matter what it is.Originally posted by wholearmor
Eireann, have you answered this one for me yet? I haven't seen it.
I'll admit I don't know much about formal debates. How is
Bob forced to state his position as asked by Zakath?
Thanks for your answer in advance.
Since they are debating something that is generally agreed is impossible to either prove or disprove, both men will certainly have their work cut out for them. I do notice, however, that Zakath laid out another very neat trap for Bob. I won't mention yet what that trap is, because I'm curious to see whether or not Bob steps into it.
ApologeticJedi
New member
(chuckle) Oh yes, what a nodus! Or he could thwart it all by simply giving an obvious explanation like “The Christian God of the Bible (as opposed to the God of Koran or something else.) "
Congratulations, the paucity of intellect around here has managed to put “your man on the defensive” in such a way that even the curt of answer can frustrate and add nothing to the discussion.
I disagree. It isn't an example of putting anyone on the defensive, but is a poor beginning indicating slow progress going forward.
Zakath indicated the Wiccan god. Do you honestly think Bob could "change his position" to the Wiccan god at a later stage and hold credibilty? No. We all know what God Bob is indicating. Zakath's true tactic is to begin by changing the subject. Now Bob has two different subjects to try and establish, instead of one.
Before he might only have tried to show a God existed. That might have been sufficient for a debate entittled "Does God exist?" After all, if the Wiccan god exists, but not the Christian God, the answer would still be affirmative. Now Zakath is pulling a measure of obfuscation by setting a stage to which he can later state that Bob must also show which god exists. That is the true tactic being used, not nailing down a hard to understand position. By increasing the scope, and mudding the waters, he hopes to "outlast" any early knockouts.
Eireann
New member
Nope, that wouldn't work. Have you seen how many different and contradictory attributes have been assigned by different Christian sects to the "God of the Bible?" God is love, God is hate, God is anger, God is vengeful, God is forgiveness ... Jesus is God, Jesus isn't God but is "of God," ... and the list of different views goes on.
So far the only "curt of answer" has been offered by the followers of the debate, not by any of the debaters themselves, since your man has yet to show his face!
I said before that certainly appears that some of the Christians are just sore that Zakath got the first swing and did so in such a way to put your man on the defensive. ^ case in point.
[dripping sarcasm] Oh yeah, Bob is such a victim here, isn't he? Heaven forbid a Christian should ever be asked to play by the rules and actually work to establish his position! What utter pomposity! [/dripping sarcasm]
Rubbish. It is hardly unreasonable to ask Bob Enyart to establish what he individually means by "God" in this debate. After all, Zakath isn't debating TOL, he isn't debating me, and he isn't debating ApologeticJedi. He is debating Bob Enyart and no one else. Like I said before, if you were to ask 10 Christians to define "God, " you would get 10 different answers. If you were to narrow the focus and ask all 10 to define the "God of the Bible," you would still get 10 different answers! Since Zak is debating Bob Enyart and not some other random believer, it is incumbent that he debate the existence of Bob Enyart's notion of God, not yours or mine. Just for the sake of illustration, let's assume that Bob Enyart's notion of God is ... hmmmm ... let's say Odin. Now, let's assume that Zakath's assumed notion of God is ... oh ... let's say Apollo. Now, if we were to take your advice, the debate would go on and on something like this:
Bob: Odin exists!
Zakath: No, Apollo does not exist!
Bob: Odin must certainly does exist!
Zakath: I'm sorry, but you have no evidence of the existence of Apollo.
and on and on ...
Does that look like a debate that's ever going to get anywhere?
It's got little to do with "nailing down hard to understand positions." It's got a lot to do with pigeonholing the opponent into a position from which he cannot thereafter deviate. It's a very smart play on Zakath's part.
ibowatjesusfeet
Cosmic Redneck
While this is partly true, it depends on how Bob defines God. If Bob were to take the Deist approach (he certianly won't, but this is hypothetical) then he would say "God created the universe, created what is needed for us to survive, then went on to other business and stayed out of ours" then he really doesn't have much to work with. However, if he goes the "God is the creator of everything and has limitless love and power" route, then he has quite a bit more room to work with.
That might be the most asinine sentence ever posted on TOL.
- Status