Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Battle Talk ~ Battle Royale VII

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Zakath
    :bannana: :bannana:

    I gotta TOL jones,
    I gotta TOL jones...

    We need to get the official TOL rock band "Uproar" to record that.
    Also be sure to.... Join TOL on Facebook | Follow TOL on Twitter
    TOL Newbies CLICK HERE or....upgrade your TOL today!

    Comment


    • Comment


      • Originally posted by Z Man
        *cue the Jeopardy music*
        OK, here you go...

        Jeopardy Music

        Comment


        • Originally posted by ApologeticJedi
          I agree. However, obviously the original point went over your head. So what would happen is that Bob gives a curt answer, Zakath asks him to narrow the definition, and 2 posts down the drain. The end result is that the real topic (which has nothing to do with the question asked) never gets touched.
          Yes, that is exactly what would happen, and because of the way Zakath played it, it would be Bob's fault for failing to provide an adequate answer to a straightforward question. Such a development would play in Zakath's favor and against Bob.

          Basically I agree with you, that is exactly the path that would happen … but I’ve thought through how that path leads where as you missed it. It leads to a debate of semantics which is totally irrelevant to the debate.
          Such a debate as the existence of God necessarily must begin with semantic questions. If Bob drops the ball, that's his problem.

          No one said he was a victim. I stated that Zakath’s questions are a different subject that “Does God exist”. That question can be answered without describing that particular God.
          Sure it could be answered ... eventually. But not in a debate where each participant is limited to only 10 posts each. If you want to accomplish your task in 10 posts you'd darn well better narrow it down a lot!

          For instance, you posted that Christians hold many different views on what God is like. What you didn’t consider is that such a point is moot to the discussion of whether or not God exists. First you can establish that God exists, and then in a different debate, establish which “version” of God exists. That would be acceptable. Immediately Zakath has tried to increase the scope of the debate it include both questions.
          Look, it's really very simple, so I don't know why some of you are having such a hard time with this. Defining your terms in a debate is basic Debate 101. You don't enter a debate without defining terms. It simply isn't done, not if you want a debate of any quality. However, defining the terms would actually work against the "God does exist" position, which is exactly why so many of you are so sore about it.

          As I said correctly, it is setting the stage so that the subject can be changed later on.
          No, in fact it's quite the contrary. He's setting the stage so that the subject CANNOT be changed later on.

          As I read the debate topic Enyart doesn’t have to prove Odin specifically exists, or Apollo specifically exists. Enyart can prove that EITHER Odin or Apollo exists (either would be affirmative to the question debated on).
          Then Bob needs to declare that. If Bob is going to argue for the existence of something, then he needs to define WHAT he is arguing the existence of.

          Zakath must provide evidence that neither can exist. So Enyart's approch could be that he proves that some god exists.
          But if he wants to prove any such thing he has to let Zakath know exactly what that means.

          First of all, if it were a formal debate, Zakath squandered his opening statement because he offered no evidence for his position.
          Until a working definition is established, he doesn't need to. If he were to start off arguing that there is no God and offering his evidences, without Bob first establishing a definition for God, the Zakath would have to establish a definition (and it is generally the more proper form for the positive position to establish what they are saying does exist than for the negative position to establish what they are saying does not exist, because the positive position would define from honest belief, whereas the negative position would define from invention).

          By default, unless Enyart also comes back with no evidence, Zakath conceded the opening round. No proof was offered despite being given the opening advantage.
          Not so at all. Unless the terms were clearly defined by the referee prior to the opening round (and in this case they were not), the opening round is generally used for establishing terms. That's just how it works.

          Secondly, it had nothing to do with pigeonholing anything. It had to do with trying to set the stage to later change the subject of the debate to WHICH GOD as opposed to just any supernatural deity. It’s an immediate dodge of the issue. Zakath thinks he can pull a victory if he redefines the issue and says "You only proved a god exists, you didn't prove your God."
          Wrong again. As I said earlier, he is actually setting the stage so that Bob CANNOT change the subject later on. If he doesn't, and Zakath shoots down some vague thing that he thought Bob was talking about, Bob would be free to simply say, "Well, that isn't what I was talking about." Unless at some point Bob actually laid out "what he was talking about," he would be free to jump logs like that throughout the entire debate. It would be impossible to have a quality debate in 20 posts that way. It would be impossible to have a quality debate in 20,000 posts that way, because Bob could leap back and forth between every god or goddess that's ever been believed in by man as well as inventing a few himself without ever having to commit to what he was talking about.
          Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs!

          Comment


          • man's 'opinion'

            Most covet their own 'truth', unfortunately this is the defining gulf that no man can forde without his Maker.

            Comment


            • 'truth'

              Eireann, some of your wisdom is very refreshing!

              Comment


              • I agree!

                Comment


                • 'love'

                  Brother, your prayer was precious, ty!

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Scrimshaw

                    If you cared to look up the definition of "evidence" OR "proof", you'd see that they are defined as synonyms. In fact, here is the definition of proof:

                    - proof (pr¡f) noun
                    Abbr. prf.

                    1. The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true.

                    Excerpted from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition © 1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company.


                    Contrary to your claim above, I DID NOT "wrongly" equate proof and evidence. They are equated by definition.
                    Read it again, they are not equated, they are related. You overlooked the "that compels the mind to accept" part. To be equated with proof, the evidence MUST be able to compel in such a way. If it isn't so compelling, it isn't synonymous.

                    There can be many non-empirical "thing or things" that can be helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment. No where does the dictionary define evidence as "empirical". That is a stipulation that YOU are superficially adding to the word.
                    I didn't say evidence has to always be empirical. I said it is generally required to be empirical in order to be accept in legal cases. That is why laws are being enacted to prevent people from being convicted on eyewitness testimony alone, because eyewitness testimony, being non-empirical is also considered very unreliable. In those states, if you don't have something empirical to back it up, you're SOL.

                    Yes, and the operative word there is "alone". The fact is, eyewitness testimony is still a major form of legal evidence, even if it cannot be the sole evidence. Here is the legal definition of evidence -

                    3. The documentary or oral statements and the material objects admissible as testimony in a court of law.

                    Excerpted from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition © 1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
                    That's not a legal definition. That's a lay definition. A legal definition would be one you would find in Black's Dictionary of Law or some other similar law dictionary, not in the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language.

                    That is true in some cases, but in many other cases, the same body of evidence can be open to different interpretations that are equally valid, but not equally probable. Your stipulation on this point overlooked the fact that in many cases, evidence can be open to varying interpretations.
                    Not when you're trying to use the evidence as proof, to "compel the mind to accept an assertion as true." In such cases any evidence that can be interpreted more than one way would be self-refuting as proof.

                    I disagree because "myth" carries with it a connotation of falsity.
                    A myth does not necessarily connote to a falsehood. From Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 10th Edition, 1993 --

                    myth: 1a. a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon. 1b. A parable or allegory.


                    Note that there is nothing in the above which dictates that a myth is to be considered untrue. Also note that dictionaries usually list their definitions in order from most common usage to least common. This is definition #1, the most common usage. By that definition, the Bible is full of myth. That doesn't mean the myths aren't true.

                    o exclusively apply the term "myth" to supernatural explanations is nothing but an exercise of philosophical bigotry, and it is a logical fallacy as well since certain naturalistic explanations could be mythical.
                    Incorrect. You are presupposing a definition of "myth" that falls relatively low on the list of common usage (in Webster's it is actually #4 only, out of 6 given definitions).

                    For example, I could claim that the pyramids in Egypt were built by aliens. That is a perfectly naturalistic explanation, yet it is just as mythical as saying the pyramids were built by "gods". So your above generalization is inadequate and false.
                    Incorrect. See above.

                    Again, your dichotomy between theory and myth is prejudicial and inadequate. See above.
                    Incorrect. See above.

                    You began your statement here by saying "no", but I am not sure what you are disagreeing with. In the statement you were responding to, all I said was that we can determine the nature/existence of an entity by observing the effects of it's presence. Certainly, your statements reveal that you agree that gravity exists because we have observed the effects of it's presence.......so it seems we are in agreement on this point.
                    In saying "no," I was assuming that by "entity" you were referring to intelligent beings, such as demons, angels or gods, and that their existence or nature could be determined by observing their effects. They can't be determined in such a manner, but they can be guessed or theorized, just as black holes have been theorized but not determined. To determine something suggests an authoritative conclusion, not merely a posited opinion.

                    The existence of the attributes of design in nature do not require faith. They are observable, and measureable. To deduce the possibility of a designer from design is basic logic, not a leap of faith.
                    I agree, and for that reason I do believe there is a designer. But while it is perfectly logical to deduce the possibility of a designer, and perhaps even the probability of such, it is quite another thing to deduce that such is a proven fact.

                    Furthermore, some would say that believing complex universes popping into existence uncaused or self-caused is a "leap of faith". In fact, the idea of a self-caused or uncaused universe popping existence for no reason whatsoever, is just as unproven and just as mythical as any god theory.
                    I agree. I never suggested otherwise. But then, I'm basically a theistic evolutionist.

                    HAHA! Your real standards come out! So basically, you think the eyewitness evidence is no good if the testimony is second-hand, and it is also no good if its first-hand because then you'll consider it "tooting one's own horn". In other words, there is no form of eyewitness testimony you will accept.
                    Not true. I won't automatically accept 1st person first-hand DOER
                    or any version of "he said she said" on faith, but I am much more inclined to take 1st person first-hand WITNESS on faith.

                    1st person first-hand doer: I went on safari in Africa and shot the biggest lion of them all!

                    1st person first-hand witness: I saw him shoot the lion.

                    He said she said: Billy said that Gary saw Bob shoot the lion.


                    Assuming all three statements are true, and assuming that you could not personally attest to the honesty of Bob (the lion-killer), which statement would you be most inclined to believe?

                    My initial point was regarding legal evidences and the fact that eyewitness testimony is a legitimate form of non-empirical EVIDENCE.
                    The very fact that states have now enacted laws prohibiting conviction from eyewitness testimony suggests otherwise.
                    Last edited by Eireann; June 18th, 2003, 02:18 PM.
                    Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs!

                    Comment


                    • Roughly 5 1/2 hours and counting. Will he make it in time?
                      Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs!

                      Comment


                      • Stupidity gone wild!!!

                        This whole defining words thing is STUPID. I went to a public school, and even there they taught us the meaning of words. Everybody knows (or should know) the meaning of the word EVIDENCE (IF YOU DON'T YOUR A MORON AND NEED TO GO BACK TO PUBLIC SCHOOL FOR ANOTHER 12 YEARS). And everybody knows that if your a Christian you believe in the God of the Bible. So, what's the deal about (oooohhhh, we should define this and we should define that). That is so mindless.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Stupidity gone wild!!!

                          Originally posted by Brother
                          This whole defining words thing is STUPID. I went to a public school, and even there they taught us the meaning of words. Everybody knows (or should know) the meaning of the word EVIDENCE (IF YOU DON'T YOUR A MORON AND NEED TO GO BACK TO PUBLIC SCHOOL FOR ANOTHER 12 YEARS). And everybody knows that if your a Christian you believe in the God of the Bible. So, what's the deal about (oooohhhh, we should define this and we should define that). That is so mindless.
                          Ah, the fallacy returns. If you set out what you think is "the Christian" definition of "the God of the Bible," then you are going to have several million other Christians disagreeing with on some point or other. Your "God of the Bible" is not the same as the "God of the Bible" of your neighbor, friend, brother, sister, parents, pastor, or the stranger in the next town.

                          And if you're so afraid of defining your terms, don't get involved in a formal debate. It's that simple. If you get involved in a formal debate, then expect to play by the rules. Defining your terms is one of the most basic rules of formal debate. If you don't like it, don't debate.
                          Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs!

                          Comment


                          • Eireann,


                            I said:
                            --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            If you cared to look up the definition of "evidence" OR "proof", you'd see that they are defined as synonyms. In fact, here is the definition of proof:

                            - proof (pr¡f) noun
                            Abbr. prf.

                            1. The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true.

                            Excerpted from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition © 1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

                            Contrary to your claim above, I DID NOT "wrongly" equate proof and evidence. They are equated by definition.
                            --------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                            Originally posted by Eireann
                            Read it again, they are not equated, they are related. You overlooked the "that compels the mind to accept" part. To be equated with proof, the evidence MUST be able to compel in such a way. If it isn't so compelling, it isn't synonymous.
                            I read it again, and they are definitely equated. "Proof" means "evidence". Proof is evidence and evidence is proof. They are synonymous terms. Grab your Thesaurus and look it up.


                            I said:
                            --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            There can be many non-empirical "thing or things" that can be helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment. No where does the dictionary define evidence as "empirical". That is a stipulation that YOU are superficially adding to the word.
                            --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            I didn't say evidence has to always be empirical.
                            Ermm....actually, you did say evidence should be empirical. I'll quote you:

                            Originally posted by Eireann Evidence should be:

                            4) It should be empirical and observable, not merely mythical.
                            Since I pointed out that there are valid forms of non-empirical evidence (i.e, logic, argument, and legal evidence), your claim was falsified.



                            That's not a legal definition. That's a lay definition. A legal definition would be one you would find in Black's Dictionary of Law or some other similar law dictionary, not in the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language.
                            So what? Are you going to argue that the lay definition is incorrect or opposed to the "legal" definition? If not, what is your point? In reality, the Law dictionaries include definitions for numerous forms of evidence, such as - indirect evidence, collateral evidence, secondary evidence, circumstantial evidence, circumstance constructive evidence, suppositional prima facie evidence, internal evidence, presumptive evidence, direct evidence, demonstrative evidence, final evidence, conclusive evidence, counterevidence, ex parte evidence, etc.

                            The point I am making and have made from the very beginning is that there are many forms of evidence that are non-empirical, but are perfectly valid. Therefore, your original claim has been falsified.


                            I said:
                            --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            That is true in some cases, but in many other cases, the same body of evidence can be open to different interpretations that are equally valid, but not equally probable. Your stipulation on this point overlooked the fact that in many cases, evidence can be open to varying interpretations.
                            --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            Not when you're trying to use the evidence as proof, to "compel the mind to accept an assertion as true." In such cases any evidence that can be interpreted more than one way would be self-refuting as proof.
                            Huh??? But proofs are not self-explained. All proofs have to be explained by someone, and those explanations are largely based on interpretations and key assumptions. One interpretation of the evidence is not "self-refuted" just because it has a rival interpretation that competes with it. Your claim makes no sense. The competition of two theories does not equal the self-refutation of those theories. I have no idea where you got that strange notion.


                            A myth does not necessarily connote to a falsehood. From Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 10th Edition, 1993 --
                            Oh please! In the secular world of iconoclasts and skeptics, you know as well as I that "myth" is almost always used with the connotation of falsity attached to it. When skeptics say "myth", they most commonly use it in the context of definition 4:

                            "4. A fictitious story, person, or thing:"

                            This is definition #1, the most common usage. By that definition, the Bible is full of myth. That doesn't mean the myths aren't true.
                            As mentioned above, the definition that has the "common usage" varies depending on who you are talking to. When talking to atheists and skeptics in general, 9 times out of 10 they will be using the term "myth" with a connotation of falsity attached to it. There is no point in denying or arguing against this. It is intuitively obvious to anyone who has spent any amount of time debating skeptics.


                            quote:
                            --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            o exclusively apply the term "myth" to supernatural explanations is nothing but an exercise of philosophical bigotry, and it is a logical fallacy as well since certain naturalistic explanations could be mythical.
                            --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            Incorrect. You are presupposing a definition of "myth" that falls relatively low on the list of common usage (in Webster's it is actually #4 only, out of 6 given definitions).
                            Even if I were to concede that definition #1 is the most commonly used definition BY SKEPTICS, (which I am not conceding).... my rebuttal would still remain effective because even in definition #1, it mentions natural entities, such as ancestors and heroes, both of which are NATURAL entities. (Examples - the myth of Atlantis, King Arthur, etc.) So since natural explanations can also be mythical, your initial claim that - "the theoretical seeks naturalistic explanations, and the mythical seeks supernatural explanations" - is not accurate.


                            quote:
                            --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            For example, I could claim that the pyramids in Egypt were built by aliens. That is a perfectly naturalistic explanation, yet it is just as mythical as saying the pyramids were built by "gods". So your above generalization is inadequate and false.
                            --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            Incorrect. See above.
                            It's not incorrect at all. I just gave you a mythic, natural explanation regarding aliens building the pyramids! That means that "myth" can and does include naturalistic explanations. If you are an honest debater, you will concede your argument on this point. It has been refuted.

                            quote:
                            --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            You began your statement here by saying "no", but I am not sure what you are disagreeing with. In the statement you were responding to, all I said was that we can determine the nature/existence of an entity by observing the effects of it's presence. Certainly, your statements reveal that you agree that gravity exists because we have observed the effects of it's presence.......so it seems we are in agreement on this point.
                            --------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                            In saying "no," I was assuming that by "entity" you were referring to intelligent beings, such as demons, angels or gods, and that their existence or nature could be determined by observing their effects.
                            Actually, I was referring to something more general, like an "intelligent designer". If there exists an intelligent designer for the physical world, the evidence (or effect) would be the existence of design in the physical world. Design in the natural world would be the *effect* of a designer's presence......just like falling apples would be the effect of gravity's presence.


                            I said:
                            --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            The existence of the attributes of design in nature do not require faith. They are observable, and measureable. To deduce the possibility of a designer from design is basic logic, not a leap of faith.
                            --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            I agree, and for that reason I do believe there is a designer. But while it is perfectly logical to deduce the possibility of a designer, and perhaps even the probability of such, it is quite another thing to deduce that such is a proven fact.
                            Of course. Very few things can be considered "proven fact". Most of the elements of ALL origin theories are highly unproven. The theory of evolution, big bang cosmology, etc., are riddled with speculative claims that can never be empirically verified. Unless we can put the past in our laboratories and directly observe the events of the last 15 billion years, all we are left with is guesswork and speculative theories that are based on indirect, residual, secondary evidences. (which are open to varying interpretations)

                            Not true. I won't automatically accept 1st person first-hand DOER
                            or any version of "he said she said" on faith, but I am much more inclined to take 1st person first-hand WITNESS on faith.
                            Okay, fair enough. So there is ONE form of eyewitness testimony you will accept and that is the 1st person, first-hand eyewitness. But what about events that people report happened TO them? In other words, not feats they accomplished, but rather, events that happened TO them that were outside of their control. For example: "I went on a Safari in Africa and got chased by a lion."

                            Also, you should be aware that the gospels of Matthew, Luke, and John would fall under the category of 1st person, first-hand eyewitness testimony.....the kind that you said is acceptable.

                            I said:
                            --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            My initial point was regarding legal evidences and the fact that eyewitness testimony is a legitimate form of non-empirical EVIDENCE.
                            --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            The very fact that states have now enacted laws prohibiting conviction from eyewitness testimony suggests otherwise.
                            Those states have simply made the ammendment that eyewitness testimony cannot be the *ONLY* form of evidence. They did not say it was no longer a form of evidence altogether. These states you speak of still have eyewitness testimony as a legitimate form of evidence. Therefore, my point still stands and your initial claim that - "evidence should be empirical and observable" - is false. It is false because logic, argument, and eyewitness testimony are all valid forms of evidence that are not empirical or observable.

                            Regards,
                            Last edited by Scrimshaw; June 18th, 2003, 04:48 PM.
                            SCRIMSHAW

                            "Passions act as winds to propel our vessel; our reason is the pilot that steers her, without the winds she would not move; and without the pilot she would be lost". - The French

                            Comment


                            • If I were Bob, I'd define God as "wet". That way it'd be pretty easy to prove God exists.

                              Comment


                              • If God does not exist, then the only "truth" that exists is relative. And my relatives, at least, can be a lot of trouble.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X