Give ‘em the Silent Treatment

[taoist]

Why not say this to an audience in Japan?

There are only two options. Either God as understood in Buddhism is true, or the atheists are right in saying there is no God. Those are the only choices.

Well, first of all, because most of your audience will be Shinto. All, if you're lucky. And because Buddhists are atheistic.

Sorry!

:cheers:

 

[taoist]

Fool, can you figure out what my rebuttal to that would be? If not, I'll not discuss it with you, for it's probably been said hundreds of times on TOL, and saying it one more time won't help.

-Bob

Greetings once again, Bob,

Phy, let's speak clearly and directly with each other.

Well, if it's a clear and direct position you'd like to see, I think I can accommodate you.

I've heard your rebuttal, Bob, and it's nonsense. You invoke the existence of a first cause. All logical argument showing your reasoning leads to an infinite regression is met with stubborn defiance followed by once again invoking a first cause. Taking apart your stubborn defiance leads to your creation of dialog out of whole cloth to shove down the throat of your opponent in a cowardly withdrawal from the actual topics raised.

Ho hum.

Perhaps you've found a way to forget our last exchange, but neither I nor the world wide web will ever forget it. While I'd prefer to simply link this to the readers, the TOL thread which included it was somehow eliminated from the forum. The links illustrating the alphabetically ordered deconstruction of your methods are likewise gone with the same thread. The full pdf file including these insightful illustrations is still popular outside this little window to the world, however. Here is a relevant passage. The entire document is, of course, attached.

Re: The taoist concludes

The missing link

Pastor Enyart writes ...

This just gets funnier and funnier...

Taoist wrote, “Bob challenged me, ‘If Taoist’s point is that there is something wrong with our argument that a complex world requires a complex Originator, he should make that case.’

“But Bob has already made my case in his first post to Zakath in BR VII, "I will not accept an adult’s rationalization of complexity by his introducing even more complexity.

“I concur.”​

Taoist, I'll do this slowly...

Atheists believe all complexity arose from mere matter by the laws of physics.

Theists believe complexity is evidence of a complex Creator.

We don't have to justify or rationalize the existence of complexity to defend our position. The existence of complexity is the evidence FOR our position.

I realize this is a bit tough on you but... these are the parameters of the debate. I started out saying this was funny, but perhaps it's more sad, that you are incapable of understanding even the form of the argument. -Bob

Re: The missing link

A taoist appeal

Thank you for sharing your perspective, Bob. It helps me with my argument. That was the missing piece. It is not a bit tough on me, as you assume, to comprehend the parameters of this debate.

My difficulties arise in calling up patience to respond amicably to someone who (a) libels and slanders, (b) misconceives, (c) falsely assumes, (d) searches incompletely, (e) hypocritically endorses (ritual) cannibalism, Yikes!, (f) stifles debate with paradox, (g) consciously distorts personal awareness, (h) argues against logic, (i) confuses power with entropy, (j) summarily disregards arguments, (k) engages in false prophecy, yes, I'm still chuckling, (l) celebrates ignorance, (m) willfully embraces misconceptions, and practices double standards.

Enough is enough. It's time to turn this debate into a dialog before I run out of letters. Put aside your animosity, Bob. Come, let us reason together.

A logical construction

Consider the following three statements.

1. Theists believe complexity is evidence of a complex Creator.
2. There is no conceivable natural explanation for the universe more complex than your supernatural, eternal God.
3. I will not accept an adult’s rationalization of complexity by his introducing even more complexity.

The first was the missing piece, the second you've tacitly acknowledged, and the third belongs to both of us.

The BeGood is irrational

Pastor Enyart believes in a God who is the supernatural Creator of the natural universe, existing eternally, powerful, wise and knowledgeable, personal, loving, and just.

You have set out to prove the existence of a being I'll call the BeGood, as your definition includes attributes not generally found in an objective definition of God. Among Her attributes, She is the supernatural, eternal Creator of the natural universe.

By (1): You rationalize the complexity of the natural universe by assuming Her existence.
By (2): You tacitly acknowledge that no greater complexity is possible than Her.
By (3): You state the rationale for Her existence is not acceptable.

It follows that even if the BeGood exists, your argument is not acceptable. More, by (2) and (3), She is the least acceptable hypothesis.

Bob, though given weeks to withdraw or modify his position, chose instead to withdraw himself. What can I say other than recommend to ThePhy that he consider carefully the advisability of accepting a challenge from Pastor Bob misrepresented as debate.

As ever, in peace.

:chuckle:

 

[ThePhy]

Why not say this to an audience in Japan?

Well, first of all, because most of your audience will be Shinto. All, if you're lucky. And because Buddhists are atheistic.

Sorry!

:cheers:

Shinto is the native religion of Japan, but once introduced, Buddhism overtook Shinto(ism?) in % of adherents. But the difference between the two in Japan is immensely less important to the average Japanese than the same might be said for various Christian groups in America.

 

[ThePhy]

I must have perfect love (whatever that is)

I must have perfect love (whatever that is)

From BE:

Phy, let's speak clearly and directly with each other. I didn't "seem to take issue," I did take issue. And those four words are crucial to your objection. I think you should realize that, especially once I drew attention to them. If the physical universe has always existed, simply in different forms, other than the way "we know it" today, that would qualify for the first theoretical possibility I raised, that "the universe was always here," just in different forms, other than as "we know it." Agreed? I hope so. Otherwise, how can we dialogue?

Fascinating. In the world of science the commonplace definitions of worlds are often inadequate or even misleading. Yet I unconsciously inserted 4 words into a statement, words that in a technical document probably would have not warranted a raised eyebrow. But you feel those words are there as some sort of safety net into which I can retreat if logically cornered. Well, you impugn me wrongly. I will, without further objection (and definitely without fear), consent to their removal.

Phy, Can you drop the maybe? I hope so. Don't be like Sam... and come to think of it, don't be like Zakath. Don't be afraid of your position, and don't toss in so many caveats that you make the discussion so abstruse as to be able to safely hide in the confusion. Just drop the maybe, and boldly stick to your position.

You are insinuating that Sam and Zakath are guilty of hiding behind obfuscation. I will try to avoid that, though it seems that at least one Colorado pastor has a beam in his eye on that issue as well. So in consenting to avoid intentionally hiding behind words, I will require the same of you.

This is the kind of fear-based obfuscation I'm talking about. In a Battle Royale, I have to put up with that kind of immaturity. But not here.

A technique that you have openly advocated as being effective against the opposition is that of mockery. You use that tool here. You label me as immature and motivated by fear – so now all will understand that I am no more credible than an immature child facing something fearful. As a participant in this discussion, you may feel that painting me with such pejoratives will make your arguments more credible and mine less so. I am willing to leave such tactics to you. You are a mature man, with a demonstrated history of leadership in both your community and church. But (and you asked that we be forthright) you are scientifically poorly informed, and in many cases scientifically wrong. My attention will be on that weakness in your presentations.

You don't believe spirit beings exist. The at-large scientific community does not believe spirit beings exist. The laws of physics do not take spirit beings into account. The Big Bang does not consider the existence of spirit beings (neither before nor after the inflationary period).

More correctly, science does not consider supernatural things in its studies. The scientific community consists of a numerous and diverse population. Within that group is the full range of beliefs about the existence of spirits. I take your mention of the inflationary period to be an attempt to twist the point of this thread away from your initial statements of the tapes as I pointed out in the OP to a discussion of the credibility of the big bang.

So just drop the fear-based obfuscation, and restate your disagreement, that is, if you actually have one. Agreed?
Thanks, -Bob

Fine. Here is the point I was making.

BDQ1: Is it true that in your opening statement in discussing the creation of the universe you listed two options? Not one, not three, not some other number, but two.

BDQ2: You itemized those options – the first one was “the universe was always here”, correct?

BDQ3: The second option you itemized was “or a creator made it”, correct?

BDQ4: Then you inverted the order of those ideas when you rephrased them as: “Either an eternal God or eternal matter.” Correct?

BDQ5: The majority of the physicists in the world subscribe to the big bang as the most likely correct explanation for the origin of the universe. Is this a true statement?

BDQ6: The two options you enumerated did not include the big bang as a possibility, right?

BDQ7: Excluding the big bang but including “eternal matter” in your options means you elected to present a naturalistic idea that is not even close to the one accepted by the majority of the physics community, right?

 

[Bob Enyart]

Phy, I will answer your questions directly but you left open one of the prior stumbling blocks for which I called for agreement.

I wrote: "The at-large scientific community does not believe spirit beings exist."

You responded:

More correctly, science does not consider supernatural things in its studies.

"Less" correct can mean "wrong," no? So, if your answer is "more" correct, then that leaves the possiblity that a reader may think that my statement was wrong. In this case, identifying something believed by those "at-large," refers to the prevailing opinion of the scientific community taken as a group. With that clearly defined, then please indicate if this statement is true or false:

The at-large scientific community does not believe [that] spirit beings exist.

True or false?

-Bob

 

[fool]

The at-large scientific community does not believe [that] spirit beings exist.

True or false?

-Bob

The begining of a straw man is to state the opponents position. Bob; in order to stop me from following you around yelling strawman, try this. Simply find someone in particular that has stated there are no spirit beings, and then cite where they said it, and then attack their position. Makeing statements like " all these people think this" is a strawman from the very get go.

 

[taoist]

Shinto is the native religion of Japan, but once introduced, Buddhism overtook Shinto(ism?) in % of adherents. But the difference between the two in Japan is immensely less important to the average Japanese than the same might be said for various Christian groups in America.

Thank you, ThePhy,

Japanese beliefs might almost be called agglutinative, and more analogous to the English language than to the disputatious nature of those Abrahamic creeds who profess their adherence in English.

:chuckle:

The nature of these differences demands books, not threads, and not tangential posts for an adequate response. But if we're at all interested in adherence in a quantitative sense, it's useful to define the universe from which it is drawn.

From adherents.com

1979 survey "asked people about their membership... With regard to religious orgs., only 13.6 were members. This percentage, applied to the 1978 population, suggests that only 15.6 mil. people counted themselves as adherents of religious organizations. "

Reid, D. "Japanese Religions " in Hinnells, John R. (ed). A Handbook of Living Religions, Penguin Books: New York (1991) [reprint; 1st pub. 1984], pg. 379.

 

[ThePhy]

Stumbling over spiritual rabbits

Stumbling over spiritual rabbits

From BE:

Phy, I will answer your questions directly but you left open one of the prior stumbling blocks for which I called for agreement.

I wrote: "The at-large scientific community does not believe spirit beings exist."

You did not call for agreement, you simply made a statement. And I did not use good judgment in responding to that particular statement, since that is turning into another rabbit-trail that you would like to duck onto.

"Less" correct can mean "wrong," no? So, if your answer is "more" correct, then that leaves the possiblity that a reader may think that my statement was wrong. In this case, identifying something believed by those "at-large," refers to the prevailing opinion of the scientific community taken as a group. With that clearly defined, then please indicate if this statement is true or false:

The at-large scientific community does not believe [that] spirit beings exist.

True or false?

Do you have a problem with using plain English? If “at large” refers to the prevailing opinion of the scientific community taken as a group, then why not just say instead “the majority of scientists”? My answer to your irrelevant question – I honestly don’t know.

 

[servent101]

The Phy

The at-large scientific community does not believe [that] spirit beings exist.

The test for this Spirit beings existence - how do Scientists test for this????? - this is something science cannot test for under it's "cloak" of empiracal deduction - and since science is demanding proof of an empiracal nature for any and all observations - is it no wonder that after thirty to sixty years of demanding such proof - that there are few who have not conditioned their awareness in the Scientific community to what can be deduced and proved by Empirical standards.

Scientists are simply the victum of propaganda and dogma - that being that we have to verify every observation by Empiracal means - and if something is not verifiable by such means - well it is not Science then, and they cast any and every observation that is not verifiable by empiracal deduction into the realm of superstition and fairy tailes.

So how do Scientists stop science from becoming another dogma? As this is what the discipline is becoming - but how do I prove that by empiracal deduction?

With Christ's Love

Servent101

 

[Granite]

A "creator" does not necessarily need to be an "eternal God." Enyart seems to be posing a false dilemma.

 

[taoist]

Phy, I will answer your questions directly but you left open one of the prior stumbling blocks for which I called for agreement.

I wrote: "The at-large scientific community does not believe spirit beings exist."

You responded:



"Less" correct can mean "wrong," no? So, if your answer is "more" correct, then that leaves the possiblity that a reader may think that my statement was wrong. In this case, identifying something believed by those "at-large," refers to the prevailing opinion of the scientific community taken as a group. With that clearly defined, then please indicate if this statement is true or false:

The at-large scientific community does not believe [that] spirit beings exist.

True or false?

-Bob

Irrelevant! In multiple senses of the word. Quit turning tail and squirming under the fence. You don't get to ask new questions as an alternative to leaving old questions unanswered! I'll give you a hint. Every one of these true/false questions has the same answer.

BDQ1: Is it true that in your opening statement in discussing the creation of the universe you listed two options? Not one, not three, not some other number, but two.

BDQ2: You itemized those options – the first one was “the universe was always here”, correct?

BDQ3: The second option you itemized was “or a creator made it”, correct?

BDQ4: Then you inverted the order of those ideas when you rephrased them as: “Either an eternal God or eternal matter.” Correct?

BDQ5: The majority of the physicists in the world subscribe to the big bang as the most likely correct explanation for the origin of the universe. Is this a true statement?

BDQ6: The two options you enumerated did not include the big bang as a possibility, right?

BDQ7: Excluding the big bang but including “eternal matter” in your options means you elected to present a naturalistic idea that is not even close to the one accepted by the majority of the physics community, right?

There's no hold button here, Bob. You are flat out busted. Take it like a man. Plaster a grin on your mug and ask for the salt, cause you've got some words for dinner. If they tasted good on the way out of your mouth, they ought to taste good coming back in.

As ever, Jesse

 

[Zakath]

...So how do Scientists stop science from becoming another dogma? As this is what the discipline is becoming - but how do I prove that by empiracal deduction?

Servent,

Dogma is essentially a belief or set of beliefs that is unquestioningly held to be absolutely true. Science has developed processes to move ideas from dogmatic status to questionable and testable status where they can be examined. When those processes of investigation and testing are applied, the beliefs are shown to be either true or not true within the bounds of certain circumstances.

It is religion that concretizes its dogma and demands unquestioning obedience of belief on pain of punishment, death, or some variant on eternal torment.

The difficulty science has with the supernatural is that science is based on observation and testing within the natural universe. Things outside the natural (supernatural) are not generally considered to be empircally measurable and, as such, are not really within the domain of knowledge we call "science".

Most scientists of my acquaintance do not feel they require the existence of a supernatural to explain what they observe in the natural universe. Nor do they require the level of certainty that drives some religionists to place one or more supernatural entities into the gaps in human knowledge (i.e. "god of the gaps) to fill those gaps. Science is quite capable of dealing with relative certainty, and does not require absolute certainty as some religionists appear to do.

 

[Turbo]

Bob, though given weeks to withdraw or modify his position, chose instead to withdraw himself.

How does one withdraw from a debate one never agreed to participate in to begin with?

 

[Servo]

Is this Battle Royale IX? Why wasn't I informed?

 

[Zakath]

Is this Battle Royale IX?

I don't think so... it appears to be just a bit of sparring practice.

 

[taoist]

How does one withdraw from a debate one never agreed to participate in to begin with?

Thank you, Turbo!

The taoist will not respond directly

Pastor Enyart writes ...

Of course Taoist has no opportunity to respond in this post game show. But I am so accustomed to atheists ignoring the main points and obfuscating that I predict he will not directly respond to these points anywhere on the boards. For example, how could he possibly have even brought himself to say that “personal” is an attribute of mere “mortals” without first responding or admitting an inability to respond to my argument about consciousness?

I cannot do that. If an opponent has a strong point against me that I cannot answer, my desire for intellectual honesty drives me to admit that I can’t answer it. Unlike Taoist and the atheists I debate, I simply could not ignore such an unanswered point and go on pretending to make a further argument when I have not admitted my foundationless predicament.

Re: The taoist will not respond directly

Cross my heart and hope to die

“I predict he will not directly respond to these points anywhere on the boards.”

I hereby do solemnly swear that I read the good pastor's challenge to me for the first time while composing this particular post. Nor do I recall hearing it in his radio broadcast, which I'll admit I tuned out to cook dinner while it played behind me, having already jotted down a stream of insults directed at me.

*chuckles for reasons that should be readily apparent*

Do you know how they dealt with false prophets in old testament times, Bob?

Okay, I'll lay off, but I won't stop laughing.

 

[Zakath]

Here's the link if anyone desires to read the entire piece that Taoist is citing.

 

[koban]

Gee - I'd forgotten all about Huesden and Flipper - where they go to?

 

[Zakath]

Gee - I'd forgotten all about Huesden and Flipper - where they go to?

Flipper's still kicking around. We communicate on occasion.

I haven't heard from Huesden... :nono:

 

[GuySmiley]

Why did he elect to summarily disregard the idea that these same scientists feel there is strong and growing evidential support for, the Big Bang? I would be most interested to see if he could specifically tell us why he chose to restrict the scientific options to a single view held by a small minority of the physics community and totally omitted any mention of the majority scientific view.

Does the Big Bang theory include that at some point in time, there was 'nothing?' By the way, this is an honest question and not an argument since I really dont know. But if the BB theory doesn't say that at some point in time there was nothing, then at some point, everything came into existence, I think Bob's statement isn't wrong. By saying the universe always existed, maybe Bob isn't leaving out the BB.

EDIT: Wow was this post late! Didn't read ahead when I made it.