Who won Battle Royale X?

[Delmar]

It is literally beyond my ability to comprehend how anyone, whether they agreed with Dr. Lamerson or not, could believe that he won this debate!

I would like for any of you who say that he did to explain as clearly as possible what your thought process is that leads you to the conclusion that the Dr. didn't get his hat handed to him in this debate because I don't see how it is rationally possible. Unless shown otherwise, I will take anyone's position that Dr. Lamerson won as objective proof of their intellectual dishonesty.

My challenge to any of you is to prove me wrong.

Resting in Him,
Clete

I think I understand it. Those who are convinced that the Bible clearly says that God knows the entire future simply believe that pretty much everything Bob said was off topic. if what he said was off topic he lost.

 

[death2impiety]

Wasn't Bob's topic premarily exposing the faulty foundation of Sam's argument?

Didn't he attack Sam's argument by supplying a strong argument against Sam's interpretation? How could Bob's arguments be off topic. Was the topic Free Will Vs. Predetermination? Did I miss something there..?

I wonder if those who claim Sam won ever even bothered to read Bob's posts. I'd be willing to wager that the majority of what Sam's supporters know about Bob's argument comes from reading Sam's misrepresentation of it.

 

[STONE]

Bob did well, and I appreciate all his information. A knock out? Wishful thinking.
Though I agree with Sam in some points, his efforts seemed half-hearted. I expected this since this site has an unbalanced OV/Enyartian majority.
Bob did have a plethora of points, but none especially strong. Each point on it's own is defeated without much difficulty, however collectively they appeared to overwhelm Sam who seemed under-motivated.
OV/CV is not a salvic issue. It should not divide believers, but only be discussed and reasoned. Unfortunately, there are questional beliefs held here at TOL that directly affect salvation.

 

[David22]

Bob did well, and I appreciate all his information. A knock out? Wishful thinking.
Though I agree with Sam in some points, his efforts seemed half-hearted. I expected this since this site has an unbalanced OV/Enyartian majority.
Bob did have a plethora of points, but none especially strong. Each point on it's own is defeated without much difficulty, however collectively they appeared to overwhelm Sam who seemed under-motivated.
OV/CV is not a salvic issue. It should not divide believers, but only be discussed and reasoned. Unfortunately, there are questional beliefs held here at TOL that directly affect salvation.

I would like to see you back up the point that "Each point on it's own is defeated without much difficulty." Can you back that up? Or do you just talk the talk and not walk the walk. Don't use the excuse that most of this site is OV/Enyartian. If Bob didn't use powerful arguments, there would not have been much support of him or his argument on this site. But the fact that he is able to explain things quite clearly lends to his popularity.
I am still confused as to where Sam stands. I think Sam is confused as to where Sam stands.

 

[STONE]

I would like to see you back up the point that "Each point on it's own is defeated without much difficulty." Can you back that up? Or do you just talk the talk and not walk the walk. Don't use the excuse that most of this site is OV/Enyartian. If Bob didn't use powerful arguments, there would not have been much support of him or his argument on this site. But the fact that he is able to explain things quite clearly lends to his popularity.
I am still confused as to where Sam stands. I think Sam is confused as to where Sam stands.

I use any reason (excuse) as is applicable. I didn't ask you to like it.
Yes Bob typically explains things clearly. That you would like to see me back up any point really doesn't encourage me to do so on this topic.

 

[Vaquero45]

Bob did well, and I appreciate all his information. A knock out? Wishful thinking.

I "wish" I had any idea how you could see it as anything other than a knock out.

Though I agree with Sam in some points, his efforts seemed half-hearted. I expected this since this site has an unbalanced OV/Enyartian majority.

Why would Sam put up a half-hearted effort just because of the balance of the site? That speaks lowly of his character, if true. (I don't believe it is true)

Bob did have a plethora of points, but none especially strong. Each point on it's own is defeated without much difficulty, however collectively they appeared to overwhelm Sam who seemed under-motivated.

I dare you to back up that statement. I think you are all hot air. Surely you will expend the small amount of difficulty needed to defeat the false teaching Bob has given us? Wouldn't that be the Christian thing to do?

OV/CV is not a salvic issue. It should not divide believers, but only be discussed and reasoned. Unfortunately, there are questional beliefs held here at TOL that directly affect salvation.

If there is an official list of beliefs here at TOL, I would like the link? And as for the former, "OV/CV is not salvic" I actually agree, but when one becomes interested in the nature of God, the question quickly arises.

 

[Mustard Seed]

My challenge to any of you is to prove me wrong.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Again proof that dear old Clete and his Presuppositionalism simply take whatever parts or portions of reality that do not support their view of how things are and remove them from their reality, be that through accusations of irrelevance or by simple rejection to engage.

Clete you have a "system of apologetics" that cannot be proven wrong precisely because it is designed to remove from it's view of reality all things that might or do prove it wrong.

As evidence (not that it can do anything for the likes of Clete and his strict Van Tillian views) I but present his preceeding words--

I would like for any of you who say that he did to explain as clearly as possible what your thought process is that leads you to the conclusion that the Dr. didn't get his hat handed to him in this debate because I don't see how it is rationally possible. Unless shown otherwise, I will take anyone's position that Dr. Lamerson won as objective proof of their intellectual dishonesty.

See, right there Clete is ready to simply dismiss any and all who oppose his view of reality as intellectualy dishonest. He doesn't have to prove it because his system allows him to simply discard whatever might harm it, as he demonstrates in his execution of his "flawless" system here.

It is literally beyond my ability to comprehend how anyone, whether they agreed with Dr. Lamerson or not, could believe that he won this debate!

Clete is stating a truth here because his ability to comprehend anything is directly tied to his belief that he can remove whatever he wants and create his own reality. And when you can do such no one can ever show you something you don't want them to.

 

[STONE]

I "wish" I had any idea how you could see it as anything other than a knock out.


Why would Sam put up a half-hearted effort just because of the balance of the site? That speaks lowly of his character, if true. (I don't believe it is true)


I dare you to back up that statement. I think you are all hot air. Surely you will expend the small amount of difficulty needed to defeat the false teaching Bob has given us? Wouldn't that be the Christian thing to do?

If there is an official list of beliefs here at TOL, I would like the link? And as for the former, "OV/CV is not salvic" I actually agree, but when one becomes interested in the nature of God, the question quickly arises.

Back up your view that BRX was a knockout by going point by point in all arguments given explaining why Bob was knocking out Sam in each. Once you have done that I will decide if I agree with you. Wouldn't that be the christian thing to do? Once you have addressed all 6 weeks of material point by point then you can justifiably claim Sam knocked out (though I may still disagree).
If you came away with the idea that I was saying Sam didn't want to try to win the "debate" then I appologize. What I really meant is that the Enyartian/OV masses are brainwashed by their own desire to believe the OV. Sam was wise enough to soon realize there was no convincing this group of what they have already rejected. Unfortunately, once he realized he'd just committed 6 weeks of his life to the wind, his responses naturally reflected that realization. I wasn't putting down Sam's character, but the "closed" mind of the "open" viewers.

 

[Clete]

MS,

You're are a liar and a fool. You have taken now to following me around the site attempting provoke me and it will not work. I'm telling you now for the last time. Leave me alone! I will not discuss anything with you at all - ever! Any further posts like the one above I will consider to be outright harrasment and I very simply will not tollerate it.

 

[David22]

Pick one point that is easily refuted....

Pick one point that is easily refuted....

Back up your view that BRX was a knockout by going point by point in all arguments given explaining why Bob was knocking out Sam in each. Once you have done that I will decide if I agree with you. Wouldn't that be the christian thing to do? Once you have addressed all 6 weeks of material point by point then you can justifiably claim Sam knocked out (though I may still disagree).
If you came away with the idea that I was saying Sam didn't want to try to win the "debate" then I appologize. What I really meant is that the Enyartian/OV masses are brainwashed by their own desire to believe the OV. Sam was wise enough to soon realize there was no convincing this group of what they have already rejected. Unfortunately, once he realized he'd just committed 6 weeks of his life to the wind, his responses naturally reflected that realization. I wasn't putting down Sam's character, but the "closed" mind of the "open" viewers.

You were the one who said it would be easy to refute Bob's arguments. Not so easy is it. When one sees the truth, the mind tends to close around that truth. As in the case of abortion. I could never "open" my mind to the possiblity that it is not murder. It is murder and my mind is closed on the topic.

Pick one point that is so easily refuted....

 

[STONE]

You were the one who said it would be easy to refute Bob's arguments. Not so easy is it. When one sees the truth, the mind tends to close around that truth. As in the case of abortion. I could never "open" my mind to the possiblity that it is not murder. It is murder and my mind is closed on the topic.

Pick one point that is so easily refuted....

Defeated without much difficulty were my words thank you. First let me state that I am not a calvinist so Sam and I would not agree across the board; however we would likely agree more than Bob and I (though Bob and I would and do agree on many issues). Bob did a fine job presenting his material, better than Sam I might add. Bob has also likely spent countless hours preparing the material for this "debate", which he also uses in seminars on the topic. I agree with some of Bob's points in principle also.
Would it be easy to refute ANY one point Bob made? Yes, assuming the hearer's mind is not already closed, otherwise it would be very difficult. Why? Because most of Bob's posts are not especially strong as I have said.

To be fair I am willing to let OV'ers decide which was Bob's strongest specific point he made establishing the open view and I will refute it.

 

[Mr. 5020]

:taoist:

:darwinsm:

 

[Mustard Seed]

MS,

You're are a liar and a fool. You have taken now to following me around the site attempting provoke me and it will not work. I'm telling you now for the last time. Leave me alone! I will not discuss anything with you at all - ever! Any further posts like the one above I will consider to be outright harrasment and I very simply will not tollerate it.

Then simply block me as a user, then you will not see what I say.

When you go about calling someone "intellectualy dishonest" or accusing them of a third grade mentality you call down on yourself retribution of the kind I've been sending.

I consider your stance with me to be unwarented maligning which you are unwilling to actually defend beyond simple assertions, it's libel and I will not stand by and allow them to go uncontested. Stop calling me a liar and a fool and retract your statements or learn to live with me and my comments regarding the absurdity of your position.

 

[fool]

Clete's challenge was to "any of you", perhaps he meant "any of you except Mustard Seed".
From where I'm sittin, Clete just threw down a challenge, got his butt handed to him, and then refused to respond on the grounds that he's a :baby:

 

[Mr. 5020]

Clete's challenge was to "any of you", perhaps he meant "any of you except Mustard Seed".
From where I'm sittin, Clete just threw down a challenge, got his butt handed to him, and then refused to respond on the grounds that he's a :baby:

:chuckle:

 

[Clete]

Then simply block me as a user, then you will not see what I say.

When you go about calling someone "intellectualy dishonest" or accusing them of a third grade mentality you call down on yourself retribution of the kind I've been sending.

I consider your stance with me to be unwarented maligning which you are unwilling to actually defend beyond simple assertions, it's libel and I will not stand by and allow them to go uncontested. Stop calling me a liar and a fool and retract your statements or learn to live with me and my comments regarding the absurdity of your position.

I couldn't possibly care less about what you consider to be unwarrented! If you want not to be called a liar and a fool then stop lying and acting foolish. Until then I will call it as I see it and if you don't like it tuff, get over it. My comments are based on the demonstrable facts of your behavior (as I will demonstrate in this post). You, on the other hand, have just admitted that you are intentionally provoking and harassing me as "retribution".

Nearly every single thing you posted earlier in this thread is false and was designed specifically to provoke me.

Again proof that dear old Clete and his Presuppositionalism simply take whatever parts or portions of reality that do not support their view of how things are and remove them from their reality, be that through accusations of irrelevance or by simple rejection to engage.

Complete fabrication! Not one single syllable of this is true. You've made it all up! That's called lying MS! You are a liar!

Clete you have a "system of apologetics" that cannot be proven wrong precisely because it is designed to remove from it's view of reality all things that might or do prove it wrong.

This is not only wrong, it is an outright lie! You don't even understand what Presuppositionalism is and yet are pretending that you do and are making statements in public as though you do. That's called lying MS! You are a liar!

As evidence (not that it can do anything for the likes of Clete and his strict Van Tillian views) I but present his preceeding words--

I do not hold anything that would remotely qualify as "strict Van Tillian views". Van Til made some brilliant presuppositionally based arguments for the Christian faith but he was as hard core a Calvinist as you could possibly be and I am an equally hard core open theist. Things you would have known had you done 10 minutes worth of real research into the topic I introduced in the other thread.

I would like for any of you who say that he did to explain as clearly as possible what your thought process is that leads you to the conclusion that the Dr. didn't get his hat handed to him in this debate because I don't see how it is rationally possible. Unless shown otherwise, I will take anyone's position that Dr. Lamerson won as objective proof of their intellectual dishonesty.

See, right there Clete is ready to simply dismiss any and all who oppose his view of reality as intellectualy dishonest. He doesn't have to prove it because his system allows him to simply discard whatever might harm it, as he demonstrates in his execution of his "flawless" system here.

One is not required to prove the self evident MS. The evidence is clear and the conclusion is sound. My challenge for people to prove me wrong belies your accusation that I am "ready to simply dismiss" anything.
Further, my system does not allow me to discard anything that might harm my position. Again, you do not even understand what a presupposition is never mind what Presuppositionalism is and I don't even consider myself to be a presuppositionalist! I simply think that the system has a hand full of really excellent arguments and so I use them. And so again, you pretend to know what you are talking about when you know you do not and that is a lying MS. You are a liar.

It is literally beyond my ability to comprehend how anyone, whether they agreed with Dr. Lamerson or not, could believe that he won this debate!

Clete is stating a truth here because his ability to comprehend anything is directly tied to his belief that he can remove whatever he wants and create his own reality. And when you can do such no one can ever show you something you don't want them to.

This is simply nothing but a flat out lie! You have nothing which could possibly substantiate this stupid lie. You are a huge liar and I will never stop calling you one until you admit it is so and repent.

Now, I gave you repeated chances to engage the actual argument that I brought up in the other thread and you openly refused to do so and so fine. I am not required to debate you or respond to you at all. You can present all the idiotic arguments on unrelated topics you like and you will no doubt win the approval of other fools (including self proclaimed ones) but I have been posting on this site for a very long time and my posts have consistently been among the most substantive on the entire site (as attested too by others on the site) and I've been among the least likely to bail on a discussion no matter how many times I've had to repeat myself of reclarify a point and so I will happily allow my record to stand for itself. I have no need to prove myself to dishonest pagans like yourself and your little gang of buddies.

When someone wants to substantively take on my challenge, I will welcome it and respond substantively, but not with you (and now not with fool or Mr. 5020 either, not that either of them would have been capable to doing so anyway). If you admit your dishonesty both on this thread and on the other and repent of it, I am more than willing to forgive but until that happens, I am not required, nor am I willing to have any further discussions on any topic with you whatsoever.

Now, that's it. Do not respond to this post, do not quote me, do not PM me, do not respond to me or engage me in any way. If you do so again, I will simply report your harassment to the moderator and let them deal with it.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Mr. 5020]

If you've got a problem with him, Clete, you need to ignore him. You're acting like a baby.

 

[Clete]

If you've got a problem with him, Clete, you need to ignore him. You're acting like a baby.

I didn't ask for you input and couldn't care less what you think I ought to do.

Have you read the other thread which has generated this conversation which I unsubscribed too in an effort to ignore this fool? Why are you correcting me without even knowing what the hell you're talking about? Mind your own business or you can ignore me if you don't like the way I handle my own problems. MS is being a fool and intentionally provoking me. You should be ashamed of yourself for choosing to take his side without finding out the pertinent information.

 

[death2impiety]

Whats more...MS didn't even provide a reason that Sam won (at least not here). He attacked Clete's character and process of belief which is totally :nono:

Questioning or attempting to cause introspection is one thing, attacking is another and would get anyone just as riled up. Clete ain't no baby.

Anyway, it really seems that no can objectively meet Clete's challenge. Except me of course

 

[Mustard Seed]

Whats more...MS didn't even provide a reason that Sam won (at least not here). He attacked Clete's character and process of belief which is totally :nono:

I'm responding to his maligning of my character when and where I can. He, despite the appearance in this thread, was the one to initiate the assault on character.

Questioning or attempting to cause introspection is one thing, attacking is another and would get anyone just as riled up. Clete ain't no baby.

Exactly the problem we have with Clete, I try to receive proof, just clear validation of his points in the character asaults he's carried out on me and he refuses, he will not do more than give broad generalizations and accusations, no backing it up it's just smear and run.