Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Battle Talk ~ Battle Royale VII

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

  • Hey, we're doing pretty well on this debate so far. Over 750 views and one side hasn't even shown up yet...

    Comment


    • Jeepers, reading you all really got me in the mood to watch this one. I thought Zakath laid a great start. I'm looking forward to the response. this could be really interesting. I wait to take knowledge. God Bless us everyone.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by AROTO
        quote: why not just supply the simply answer to the simple question?

        He can't simply answer the question, or Zakath's argument will totally unravel.
        A little presumptuous, don't you think, since Zakath hasn't yet made his argument?
        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


        • Regarding a standard for evidence:

          Evidence should be:

          1) Directional and specific. It should point to what you are suggesting it points to, and you should be able to establish just why it points that direction.

          2) It should be testable. Once it is established that it points a specific direction, it should be shown to be reasonable and sound under the scientific method (which doesn't just apply to science, but to all things where a question of "proof" exists).

          3) It should soundly exclude rival theories. In other words, what Bob Enyart presents as evidence of the existence of God should not be able to be used by Zakath as evidence of the non-existence of God, nor should any alternative explanation be able to reasonably explain the evidence.

          4) It should be empirical and observable, not merely mythical. When relying on accounts of things long past, they should be reliable 1st Person eyewitness accounts, not 3rd Person third-hand hearsay ("he said that she said that he said") like what we tend to see in the Bible.

          5) It should be corroboratable by disinterested third parties, especially if it concerns accounts of the "miraculous" sort. I mean, if the only witnesses to alleged Christian miracles are Christians, then it really cuts the reliability way down if there is no one else to confirm that such-and-such really happened.
          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


          • Originally posted by Zakath
            And she used to treat me like a deity when we were first married, you know, the burnt offerings for dinner and all that...
            LMAO!!!! Gee, that means my wife has been treating me like a deity for our whole marriage!! :bannana:
            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


            • Originally posted by Scrimshaw
              LMAO!!!! Gee, that means my wife has been treating me like a deity for our whole marriage!! :bannana:
              Being treated like a deity always leaves a bad taste in my mouth. See this is why my girlfriend and I eat out a lot.
              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


              • My sympathies, gentlemen.

                Actually my lady has turned into a very good cook (as my waistline advertises). She "got in touch with her roots" (Italian) and our table has been the lucky beneficiary!

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Zakath
                  atheist - noun
                  One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods
                  You should have looked up "God" while you were at and skipped the "playing dumb" routine in your first round post.
                  BRXI: Should Christians support the Death Penalty?

                  Comment


                  • Turbot,

                    You should have read the entire post to see why I asked the questions...

                    Comment


                    • Just a few thoughts below....

                      Originally posted by Eireann
                      Regarding a standard for evidence:

                      Evidence should be:

                      1) Directional and specific. It should point to what you are suggesting it points to, and you should be able to establish just why it points that direction.
                      Agree.

                      2) It should be testable. Once it is established that it points a specific direction, it should be shown to be reasonable and sound under the scientific method (which doesn't just apply to science, but to all things where a question of "proof" exists).
                      Disagree. You are simply positing the self-refuting philosophy of Scientism here with point two. Proof can exist in non-empirical forms. For example, argumentation is a form of "proof" in itself. Also, you should consider legal evidence as well. Many times, legal evidence does not require empirical proof but simply enough indirect proof that is sufficient to overcome reasonable doubt regarding the cause of a past event.

                      3) It should soundly exclude rival theories. In other words, what Bob Enyart presents as evidence of the existence of God should not be able to be used by Zakath as evidence of the non-existence of God, nor should any alternative explanation be able to reasonably explain the evidence.
                      Disagree. You can have two rival theories that are to greater or lesser degree, both reasonable. Usually the reasonable theory that has the higher probability of being correct is the one that should be adopted.

                      4) It should be empirical and observable, not merely mythical.
                      Disagree. For example, logic is not empirical or observable in a physical sense, but we'd hardly consider it "mythical". Black holes are not directly observable or been subject to any empirical testing yet we know they are not mythical. In many cases, we can determine what an entity is, or if it exists by the effect of it's presence. This is not only true of black holes, but of gravity as well. We know of it's existence by it's effect.

                      5) It should be corroboratable by disinterested third parties, especially if it concerns accounts of the "miraculous" sort. I mean, if the only witnesses to alleged Christian miracles are Christians, then it really cuts the reliability way down if there is no one else to confirm that such-and-such really happened.
                      Disagree. You fail to consider the obvious fact that people who witness miracles are most likely going to become believers. For example, let's say I was an avid disbeliever in aliens. If an alien came and visited me and I directly observed the alien, by the time I reported the event to you I would have changed into a believer. In other words, the act of witnessing the miracle in many cases is the CAUSE of one's conversion from disbeliever into believer.....therefore, your stipulation on this point is very limited in scope and not realistic.
                      Last edited by Scrimshaw; June 17th, 2003, 03:00 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


                      • Originally posted by Turbo

                        You should have looked up "God" while you were at and skipped the "playing dumb" routine in your first round post.
                        "God" doesn't mean the same thing to all people, and the dictionary only provides a general, popular definition. You ask a Hindu, a Jew, a Christian, and a Muslim to define "God" and you'll get four different answers. You ask 10 Christians to define "God" and you'll get 10 different answers. Some believe in a God that is inclusive of Jesus, and some don't. This is even true among Christians -- you have Trinitarians who believe Christ is a part of or a manifestation of the Godhead, and you have non-trinitarians who believe that while Christ is "of God," that Christ is not God himself. So no, a dictionary definition of "God" is hardly going to suffice, unless both parties agree to use such a limited definition.
                        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


                        • On Pastor Enyarts question of truth.
                          A closed ended question such as, "Is there truth, YES OR NO" would seem almost entirely worthless unless he plans on using this question to springboard the discussion into a deeper look at the nature of the mind and metaphysics as a way to disprove a purely material universe.

                          I would say that truth is an attribute or property of our universe or existence. Nearly everyone would agree that there is some form of truth about our universe, however I'm quite sure that Mr. Enyart and Zakath do not agree on the constituents, the foundation, or the application of this truth. Who knows if this will even be an intelligible debate.


                          Guinness eh? I'll have a glass or two of that ambrosia if you have any to spare Zakath.
                          Born after 1973?
                          |
                          |
                          \/
                          www.survivors.la

                          Comment


                          • quuote: Enyart's home church is Derby Bible Church in Colorado. Its pastors teach that God changes his mind, and does not know the future (Moral Government Theology).

                            True, Bob teaches "open theology".

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Zakath
                              And she used to treat me like a deity when we were first married, you know, the burnt offerings for dinner and all that...
                              Good one!
                              BRXI: Should Christians support the Death Penalty?

                              Comment


                              • What type of beer do hedgehogs favor these days...
                                Guinness.

                                But I have this thing against drinking alone. I just don't drink enough to keep myself company. Now with the job I have in the town I'm in and the crowd that comes with it, and the church I'm in... it all adds up to no Guinness.

                                Now if I go to the local German clubs, they have a great number of good beers and good company. But no Guinness.
                                Good things come to those who shoot straight.

                                Did you only want evidence you are not going to call "wrong"? -Stripe

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X