Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

ARCHIVE: Bob Enyart has already lost the debate ...

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

  • Yorzhik,

    I would love you to point me to somewhere where Evolutionists “clock were cleaned” by anyone.

    The only arguments against evolution I have ever heard are ridiculous unscientific junk. Surely you do not ascribe to the Young Earth Creationist view do you?? It is hard to equate that world view and reason…

    I can happily ascribe to a theistic evolutionist viewpoint.. in fact the most knowledgeable evolutionist I knew was a strong Christian.. but don’t give me view that is laughable in over 10 sciences.

    Comment


    • Head in the sand ...

      Hi Aussie,

      Aussie Thinker writes:
      I was trying to make a simple point that you cannot use a subjective argument that you argue from infallibility.. otherwise anyone could do and argument is pointless.
      I recognize that. Nor would I attempt to make that argument.

      Aussie Thinker writes:
      But you want line by line answers here goes ...
      Well, not necessarily. But the questions I ask are not usually rhetorical.

      Aussie Thinker writes:
      Sure I think mine is way more logical sensible and correct.
      Just to clarify, what are your criteria for "logical" and "sensible" and "correct"?

      Aussie Thinker writes:
      Mine is based on evidence, fact and reasoning. How about yours ?
      Mine, too. But I also include special and general revelation. Here are a few questions:
      • Regarding evidence: What kinds of evidence will you allow? Material only?
      • Regarding facts: What do you use to ascertain whether or not something is factual?
      • Regarding reasoning: How would go about assessing whether or not your reasoning faculties are actually reliable?

      To cut to the chase, my claim is that on the anti-theistic worldview, you cannot cogently justify your criteria or methods in each case. If you think you can, I am eager to hear it.

      Aussie Thinker writes:
      Because it is just completely circuitous to argue you are right with no firm basis except your book of mythology.
      All arguments are ultimately circuitous, but I have a firm basis for my argument in the utter impossibility that God does not exist. That is to say, the anti-theistic worldview cannot account for the necessary preconditions of logic, science, morality, the intelligibility of human experience or human dignity, whereas the Christian Theistic worldview does so exclusively.

      Aussie Thinker writes:
      Koran was written by God too according to Muslims.. what is the difference between it and your Bible. If I write a book declaring God inspired it would you believe it too ?
      The difference is stated above (by replacing "anti-theistic" with "muslim"). The Koran is not only internally incoherent, but it cannot rationally account for the things I've listed above.

      Jim previously asked: Have you evaluated the evidence yourself? Or are you basing this on the research of others?

      Aussie Thinker writes:
      I grew up in a religious background .. like most hardened atheists did (funny that).. I have read the Bible through many times. It is almost indistinguishable in terms of mythology and distorted history from that of many cultures. Many of its myths are plagiarised from earlier Sumerian culture and much of its “history” is completely unsupported by archaeology. There is little or no corroborative evidence.
      I like that: "Hardened atheist." Each of your objections here is not unique or original and each has been cogently answered elsewhere. What I'm interested in is knowing if you have ever required of yourself a rigorous explanation for the very things you use to evaluate evidence, namely logic and science. On what do you base your confidence in these?

      Aussie Thinker writes:
      You argument is simply that atheists are lying( quite offensive too) ...
      Well, I was explaining my position to other theists. When I directly engage anti-theists, I try to use less "wall-erecting" language. I do not back down from the claim, but I do not say it to be mean. I am simply restating what the Bible says (which you should expect me to do). The Bible also says you are a fool. So if I ever say that to you, it's not name-calling or an attempt to be mean. It's a description.

      Aussie Thinker writes:
      ... based on your mythological book. And that God existence is obvious because we are here (our ability to use logic and reason).. a ridiculously childish point I might add.
      That is rather simplistic, and it's not my argument. God existence is obvious in two ways: because nothing else coherently accounts for the things of your daily experience, and because God has indeed made Himself known within you. These combined inputs suffice to inform you of God's existence, which you will aggressively reject and push away from you, even to the point of deluding yourself. I know this must be irritating to read, but it's what the scripture says, and if true, it certainly seems to align with what I'm getting from you.

      Aussie Thinker writes:
      It must be fantastic to just “know” you are correct by some divine fiat.
      It is actually. Quite fabulous. That's the great thing about regeneration: Unwavering faith; full assurance; unshakeable confidence in Christ and His Word. And this is imparted to the believer from God Himself.

      Aussie Thinker writes:
      I would equate more to an Ostrich “knowing” he is safe from attack by having his head buried in the sand.
      Prove to me that you haven't done this very thing regarding your reliance upon the laws of logic, the precepts of science, and the verity of your rational faculties.
      Last edited by Hilston; June 25th, 2003, 11:55 PM.

      Comment


      • Posted by KNIGHT:
        Jim you are an extremely divisive Christian.

        I am saddened by your bizarre behavior.
        Am I wrong in understanding that you are very close to Bob Enyart?
        It's because of this that I can understand defensive statements such as this. He's a major point of authority in your life and it's easy to perceive 'attacks' on him.
        I don't really see how Jim is behaving any differently than you, or Bob behave in your debates. Bob is a very straightforward and honest man from all I've seen, and I don't think he'd be overtly offended by Jim's style. You live by the sword, you die by the sword.

        If I get the time, I'd like to post a more precise description of the Transcendental Argument for God's existence. This isn't a promise, but I'd like to see the debate head in that direction. I think it'd help clear up some of the strawman issues that Scrimshaw and Novice
        are fighting against.
        Born after 1973?
        |
        |
        \/
        www.survivors.la

        Comment


        • Jim

          I recognize that. Nor would I attempt to make that argument.
          But you are making a subjective argument. You BELIEVE the Bible is right. That doesn’t make it so.

          Well, not necessarily. But the questions I ask are not usually rhetorical.
          I didn’t think you were getting my .. I still don’t think you are.. until you did I thought it pointless to go of on a tangent .. but as you wanted your questions answered I will comply.

          Just to clarify, what are your criteria for "logical" and "sensible" and "correct"?
          Well it would be a little bit long winded to go down that path. But supplying supernatural answers for natural occurrences never makes much sense. I am yet to see any proof of anything supernatural so LOGIC dictates that supernatural occurrences are mistaken natural occurrences or they do not exist.

          Mine, too. But I also include special and general revelation. Here are a few questions:
          Lucky you.. God gave you special revelation.. I just got logic and sense.

          Regarding evidence: What kinds of evidence will you allow? Material only?
          In terms of history generally material evidence suffices but eyewitness accounts and supposition are allowed as long as they do not stray into the impossible. For example if I say to you I saw a man walk on water.. my eyewitness account is immediately dismissible as either mistaken or a lie.

          Regarding facts: What do you use to ascertain whether or not something is factual?
          Usually a combination of material evidence and logical human accounts are sufficient. If is something particularly difficult to understand or fathom. Expert scientific opinion is also acceptable.

          Regarding reasoning: How would go about assessing whether or not your reasoning faculties are actually reliable?
          Well I guess that can be said for both of us .. but having a high IQ, working in a skilled job , managing to have a wife and 3 children and several friends etc.. would imply I have most of my faculties in place.

          To cut to the chase, my claim is that on the anti-theistic worldview, you cannot cogently justify your criteria or methods in each case. If you think you can, I am eager to hear it.
          Well I think I did.

          All arguments are ultimately circuitous,
          Not really, certainly not as circuitous as the Bible is correct because it says it is correct.

          but I have a firm basis for my argument in the utter impossibility that God does not exist. That is to say, the anti-theistic worldview cannot account for the necessary preconditions of logic, science, morality, the intelligibility of human experience or human dignity, whereas the Christian Theistic worldview does so exclusively.
          Our logic is born of our intelligence which was formed from the natural evolutionary process. Our science was also born of this intelligence. Our moral are born of the inherent knowledge that if it bad for me it must be bad for another. Our intelligence also made this clear to us. Dignity is a subjective thing depending on your culture and again born of our leap up the evolutionary curve. My atheistic wordview easily accounts for all these things with NO requirement of a God.

          The difference is stated above (by replacing "anti-theistic" with "muslim"). The Koran is not only internally incoherent, but it cannot rationally account for the things I've listed above.
          And millions of Muslims would say the same about your Holy Book.

          I like that: "Hardened atheist." Each of your objections here is not unique or original and each has been cogently answered elsewhere. What I'm interested in is knowing if you have ever required of yourself a rigorous explanation for the very things you use to evaluate evidence, namely logic and science. On what do you base your confidence in these?
          Hardened atheist.. lol.. I am not really .. I don’t usually care.. almost everyone I know and love is a Christian and I don’t care of they are theists.. sometimes though I just can’t help wondering what leads normal intelligent humans to concoct a mystical unlikely illogical deity.

          Well, I was explaining my position to other theists. When I directly engage anti-theists, I try to use less "wall-erecting" language. I do not back down from the claim, but I do not say it to be mean. I am simply restating what the Bible says (which you should expect me to do). The Bible also says you are a fool. So if I ever say that to you, it's not name-calling or an attempt to be mean. It's a description.
          Hitlers Mein Kampf said the Arians were a Master Race.. does that mean we can take it true ? Your Bible says I am a fool.. showing how foolish it is.

          That is rather simplistic, and it's not my argument. God existence is obvious in two ways: because nothing else coherently accounts for the things of your daily experience, and because God has indeed made Himself known within you. These combined inputs suffice to inform you of God's existence, which you will aggressively reject and push away from you, even to the point of deluding yourself. I know this must be irritating to read, but it's what the scripture says, and if true, it certainly seems to align with what I'm getting from you.
          Everything in my daily life is EASILY accounted for with natural explanations

          Its not irritating at all.. it is exactly what I know you think. The irony is you are the one who is deluded while I am able to think freely about life the universe and everything. God has not made himself known to me and he has not made himself know to you.. you are lying if you say he has because he does not exist (see it isn’t pleasant is it)..

          Provide for me when, where and how God made himself know to you.

          It is actually. Quite fabulous. That's the great thing about regeneration: Unwavering faith; full assurance; unshakeable confidence in Christ and His Word. And this is imparted to the believer from God Himself.
          Asylums are full of people who have unwavering faith and KNOW the answers to everything. People in the real world realise many things still need answers and keep searching for them.

          Prove to me that you haven't done this very thing regarding your reliance upon the laws of logic, the precepts of science, and the verity of your rational faculties.
          Unlike you I am perfectly willing to allow for a God in the universe. He would not be any of the ridiculous concoctions made up by man. And it seems to add another layer of complexity into the Universe but.. I am broadminded enough to accept the possibility.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by NATEDOG
            ...If I get the time, I'd like to post a more precise description of the Transcendental Argument for God's existence. This isn't a promise, but I'd like to see the debate head in that direction. I think it'd help clear up some of the strawman issues that Scrimshaw and Novice are fighting against.
            Great idea!

            Would you do it in a new thread so it doesn't get lost in this particular discussion?

            Comment


            • Borrowing capital ...

              Hi Aussie,

              Thanks for your replies. The aim of my questions has been to find out how careful you are about the things you claim to know and how you know them. I've asked you to account for certain realms of knowledge and the tools (logic, science, the verity of the senses and rational faculties) by which you assess truth claims. In your answers, you gave descriptions and/or identified your knowledge and their attending tools, but you haven't justified or accounted for them. In fact, as I will be pointing out, you must actually borrow these tools from a worldview that actually makes sense of them, even though you disagree with that worldview, namely, the Christian theistic position. I will say upfront that I don't think you can justify them and that you must take them on faith. You basically affirm this below. We all know that the stability of a structure is only as stable as its weakest part, and in your case, it appears to be the very foundation. I attempt to demonstrate that from what you've said below. If at any point I've misunderstood you, please offer clarification.

              You write:
              But you are making a subjective argument. You BELIEVE the Bible is right. That doesn’t make it so.
              I agree with you. That's not my argument. But I should point out to you that your ability to evaluate the difference between "subjective" and "objective" does not come from so-called natural processes or undirected natural phenomenon. Logic tells us that things cannot become their opposites, which is what the anti-theist worldview requires. In fact, the existence of logic itself must be taken on faith by the anti-theist, whereas, given God's creation and sustaining of all things, logic no longer has to be taken on faith. It makes sense. Its very existence makes sense because those laws reflect the nature and attributes of God (the Logos). Thus, your ability to make an intelligible statement in fact comes from God. The fact that you make predication and value assessments show that you are in fact borrowing from the Christian worldview, the only worldview that can sufficiently account for the existence of logic and reason.

              Aussie writes:
              I am yet to see any proof of anything supernatural so LOGIC dictates that supernatural occurrences are mistaken natural occurrences or they do not exist.
              Actually, you have. You witness the supernatural everyday, in every area of your life. From the stars in the sky to the fish in the sea to the air you breathe, the fact that you breathe and the effect that oxygen has on your brain. What you might view as "the natural order" or the cosmos, the verity of logic, and the reliability of science are not only supernaturally sourced, but they are supernaturally sustained.

              Jim asked: Regarding evidence: What kinds of evidence will you allow? Material only?

              Aussie writes:
              In terms of history generally material evidence suffices but eyewitness accounts and supposition are allowed as long as they do not stray into the impossible.
              Do you view the laws of logic as material or non-material?

              Jim previously wrote: Regarding facts: What do you use to ascertain whether or not something is factual?

              Aussie writes:
              Usually a combination of material evidence and logical human accounts are sufficient. If is something particularly difficult to understand or fathom. Expert scientific opinion is also acceptable.
              Take a step back. By what method have you determined the reliability of these criteria to establish facts?

              Jim previously wrote: Regarding reasoning: How would go about assessing whether or not your reasoning faculties are actually reliable?

              Aussie writes:
              Well I guess that can be said for both of us ..
              It was a question. As I indicated above, the tools I use to assess truth claims come from God Himself. Given God's existence, I have assurance that my faculties are generally reliable and that my assessments actually comport with reality. Where does your assurance come from, given your Godless view, materialist view?

              Aussie writes:
              ... but having a high IQ, working in a skilled job , managing to have a wife and 3 children and several friends etc.. would imply I have most of my faculties in place.
              There are insane people who go through life thinking that their faculties are in place. Even John Nash, as brilliant as he is, learned that he could not always trust his perceptions. How do you prove it, at least to yourself? Or do you take it on faith?

              Jim wrote: To cut to the chase, my claim is that on the anti-theistic worldview, you cannot cogently justify your criteria or methods in each case. If you think you can, I am eager to hear it.

              Aussie writes:
              Well I think I did.
              You've stated what they are; you have not justified them.

              Jim wrote: All arguments are ultimately circuitous, ...

              Aussie writes:
              Not really, certainly not as circuitous as the Bible is correct because it says it is correct.
              No one is making that argument. Pick any argument, no matter how simple or complex, and it will be shown to be circuitous.

              Aussie writes:
              Our logic is born of our intelligence which was formed from the natural evolutionary process.
              Are you then saying that logical laws are contingent and not universal? On your view, was modus ponens true before humans existed to think about it?

              Aussie writes:
              Our science was also born of this intelligence.
              Were the principles of the scientific method true before there were humans around to apply them?

              Aussie writes:
              Our morals are born of the inherent knowledge that if it bad for me it must be bad for another.
              What are you criteria for "bad"? And do you view morality according to consensus, for certainly we can point to people in history who demonstrated a masochistic perception of "good" and "bad."

              Aussie writes:
              Our intelligence also made this clear to us.
              How have you tested the verity of human intelligence? By using human intelligence? You realize that is circuitous, right?

              Aussie writes:
              My atheistic wordview easily accounts for all these things with NO requirement of a God.
              It hasn't yet. You're making circuitous arguments, which you seem to disallow above.

              Jim previously wrote: The difference is stated above (by replacing "anti-theistic" with "muslim"). The Koran is not only internally incoherent, but it cannot rationally account for the things I've listed above.

              Aussie writes:
              And millions of Muslims would say the same about your Holy Book.
              First, the number of Muslims is irrelevant. Second, the Muslims make the claim irrationally and self-refutingly, based on their professed tenets. They might want to counter with the same charge against the Christian worldview and scriptures, but it would be shown to be an erroneous charge.

              Aussie writes:
              ... sometimes though I just can’t help wondering what leads normal intelligent humans to concoct a mystical unlikely illogical deity.
              Your Christian loved ones may wonder what leads normal intelligent humans such as yourself to reject the ineluctable and glaringly obvious existence of the Creator. You've used the term "mystical unlikely illogical deity." I don't deny that God is "mystical," but not in an esoteric or arcane sense of the word. But what, in your view, is "unlikely" or "illogical" about the God of the Bible?

              Aussie writes:
              Your Bible says I am a fool.. showing how foolish it is.
              How does that demonstrate the Bible to be foolish? Certainly not in logical terms.

              Aussie writes:
              Everything in my daily life is EASILY accounted for with natural explanations ...
              Not without begging crucial questions. The alleged ease with which you account for them might be comparable to the ease with which I explain how the ATM system works to my 5-year-old ("put the card in, money comes out"). A careful analysis shows that the ways in which you "easily account" for your daily experience are actually, on your worldview, indefensible and arbitrary conventions that you must take on faith. On my worldview, there is a rational basis for your use of these tools and the veracity of your perceptions of reality.

              Aussie writes:
              God has not made himself known to me and he has not made himself know to you..
              But He has. You know in myriad ways. You know from within you that He exists. Of the many examples that can be offered, you have an innate sense of justice (although likely not perfect, and that due to your adopted worldview), you have an innate recognition of beauty, order, design, goodness and joy. These are all things which scream of God's existence and attributes, but you've chosen to suppress the truth and to push it away from you. On your own anti-theistic worldview, you cannot make consistent and rational sense out of these things in your daily experience. If we're all molecules in motion and electrical pulses in the brain organ and the result of undirected natural processes, such things as logic and science make no sense. You must somehow believe that things can become their opposites. That disorder and chaos can generate order, that non-living matter can become a living organism, that non-conciousness can become consciousness and self-awareness, and that an undirected and random universe can generate logical laws.

              Aussie writes:
              Provide for me when, where and how God made himself know to you.
              God has been making Himself known to me my entire life, just as He has with you. In every area of our daily experiences, He makes Himself known through the created order, the things I mentioned above, and within us, through the laws of logic, our reasoning faculties, the input through our senses, our ability to learn and to love. All of these things require the God of scripture, and without Him, none of these things make sense. All of the anti-theistic attempts to account for these things boil down to question-begging, all the while borrowing from the Christian worldview in order to even consider them.

              Aussie writes:
              People in the real world realise many things still need answers and keep searching for them.
              I don't disagree. I just don't think the anti-theist can do this without begging crucial questions and unwarrantedly borrowing tools from the Christian worldview.

              Aussie previously wrote:
              I would equate more to an Ostrich “knowing” he is safe from attack by having his head buried in the sand.
              To which I asked: Prove to me that you haven't done this very thing regarding your reliance upon the laws of logic, the precepts of science, and the verity of your rational faculties.

              Aussie writes:
              Unlike you I am perfectly willing to allow for a God in the universe. He would not be any of the ridiculous concoctions made up by man. And it seems to add another layer of complexity into the Universe but.. I am broadminded enough to accept the possibility.
              You didn't answer my request, Aussie. Please, if you can, prove to me that you haven't, in head-in-sand fashion, blindly accepted the uniformity of the laws of logic, the requirments and reliability of the scientific method, and the veracity of your senses and reason.

              Thanks for the dialogue,
              Jim
              Last edited by Hilston; June 26th, 2003, 09:23 AM.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Yorzhik
                This is more like it. Hilston (I don't say 'Jim' because the debates on the evolution forum of old always used 'Hilston') is not doing well arguing against a Christian, Scrimshaw. He is not doing well arguing against another Christian, Knight. His arguments against Bob Enyart's manuscript "The Plot" are not compelling. And it saddens me to see Hilston doing so poorly in these discussions. I'm not saddened so much by the poor showing (the majority of the Christians on this forum show poorly at any particular time), but because I remember Hilston arguing with evolutionists and cleaning their clocks! Hilston was the one who proved the value of the epistemological approach to me. In fact, I'd say after studying his style, I've really tried hard to emulate it.

                And now Aussie comes along so I can cheer for Hilston again. Just a warning to Aussie - don't bring up the Matrix. If you are an honest debater, you don't want to go there.
                Yorzhik, good post and I think your making my point.

                IF... Jim were in this debate (with Zakath) I would cheer him on! Even knowing that I might not agree on his style or approach.

                I certainly wouldn't start a thread two posts into the debate that stated: "Jim has already lost the debate", and then continue to undermine Jim's arguments in other threads in effect working against the Christian cause in battling atheism.

                I just don't see how differing styles or approaches warrants this type of criticism from Jim. This isn't to say Jim couldn't offer criticism, its just that you can so easily tell Jim has some sort of axe to grind or mountain to create (oh those little mole hills!!!).

                I realize that Jim feels strongly about what he is saying and good for Jim. But this seems to transcend the boundaries of normal criticism don't ya think?
                Also be sure to.... Join TOL on Facebook | Follow TOL on Twitter
                TOL Newbies CLICK HERE or....upgrade your TOL today!

                Comment


                • Jim if you and Aussie want to debate why dont you get a room...errrrr.... I mean open up a new thread.
                  Also be sure to.... Join TOL on Facebook | Follow TOL on Twitter
                  TOL Newbies CLICK HERE or....upgrade your TOL today!

                  Comment


                  • Re: Borrowing capital ...

                    Originally posted by Hilston
                    Hi Aussie,

                    Thanks for your replies.
                    .. And so, Hilston my old nemesis-- after two years, I finally find you!

                    Where is that God Axiom rebuttal? And why did I never hear back from you on the Matrix discussion?



                    =========

                    Good to see you, of course, my friend. Glad you're keeping the fires burning, even if you are on the wrong side of the fence!

                    ===TreMor===

                    A little boy sat in the audience with his father, watching a magician. "Dad, how does he do that?" the boy asked.

                    "Magic," the father replied.

                    "But how did he do it?" the boy repeated.

                    "Magic", his dad answered.

                    "But..."

                    "Magic, I said! MAGIC! That's the answer-- MAGIC!!"

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Knight
                      IF... Jim were in this debate (with Zakath) I would cheer him on!
                      I"m crushed, Knight! You mean you wouldn't cheer me on????

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Knight
                        Yorzhik, good post and I think your making my point.

                        IF... Jim were in this debate (with Zakath) I would cheer him on! Even knowing that I might not agree on his style or approach.

                        I certainly wouldn't start a thread two posts into the debate that stated: "Jim has already lost the debate", and then continue to undermine Jim's arguments in other threads in effect working against the Christian cause in battling atheism.

                        I just don't see how differing styles or approaches warrants this type of criticism from Jim. This isn't to say Jim couldn't offer criticism, its just that you can so easily tell Jim has some sort of axe to grind or mountain to create (oh those little mole hills!!!).

                        I realize that Jim feels strongly about what he is saying and good for Jim. But this seems to transcend the boundaries of normal criticism don't ya think?
                        Agreed. There's not a single Christian on this site that I have always been in 100% agreement with, but I'm not going to start undermining them in a debate about whether God exists or not. BTW--if it weren't for Bob Enyart's approach in general, and Bob Enyart's "Plot" in particular, I would still be in the atheist camp. It might not float everyone's boat, but it saved me." (Actually Jesus saved me, but I wouldn't have listened without it)
                        Last edited by Crow; June 26th, 2003, 10:16 AM.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Zakath
                          I"m crushed, Knight! You mean you wouldn't cheer me on????
                          Dude... its hot where your going, I plan to steer clear!

                          However, I will console your daughter when we are in heaven together... I am sure she will be devastated that she cannot spend eternity with her pop.
                          Also be sure to.... Join TOL on Facebook | Follow TOL on Twitter
                          TOL Newbies CLICK HERE or....upgrade your TOL today!

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Knight
                            Dude... its hot where your going, I plan to steer clear!

                            However, I will console your daughter when we are in heaven together... I am sure she will be devastated that she cannot spend eternity with her pop.
                            I didn't realize in heaven anyone would need consolation or be devasted by anything. Being in paradise and all.
                            ===TreMor===

                            A little boy sat in the audience with his father, watching a magician. "Dad, how does he do that?" the boy asked.

                            "Magic," the father replied.

                            "But how did he do it?" the boy repeated.

                            "Magic", his dad answered.

                            "But..."

                            "Magic, I said! MAGIC! That's the answer-- MAGIC!!"

                            Comment


                            • Re: Throwing manure bags ...

                              Hi Jim,


                              I said:
                              --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Since the verse is saying not to respond to folly, WITH folly, the correct application of the verse would be not to respond to a fool's folly in a way that commits the same folly. For example, say a fool throws bag of cow manure at your front door. Proverbs 26:4,5 would say not to respond by throwing a bag of cow manure at the fool's door, because by doing so, you'd be responding to the fool according to his folly.
                              --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              Good example! So we agree on the general gist of the verse. But you still haven't answered my question: How would you NOT answer the fool according to his folly so that he will not be wise in his own conceit?
                              A fool would think himself wise if he can get others to participate in his folly. So by responding to a fool according to his folly, the fool would have gotten you to participate in his folly, thus, making him feel wise, influential, etc.



                              Scrimshaw writes:
                              --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              BINGO!!! I don't think that is correct application of 12:23 for the same reasons I do not think you have a correct application of 26:4,5.
                              --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              But the application you explained above is exactly what I'm talking about. Zakath is throwing bags of cow manure at Bob's door. Bob is doing the same thing back at Zakath.
                              No, Zakath's folly is his claim that there isn't sufficient evidence for belief in God. The only way that Bob could be responding WITH that same folly is if Bob's response ALSO stated that there "isn't sufficient evidence for belief in God". But as we can see, that is NOT the case! Bob is arguing JUST THE OPPOSITE!


                              Scrimshaw writes:
                              --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Since I am a Christian and assume you were one as well, I didn't think it was necessary to state the obvious ...
                              --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              You've forced yourself into that situation, Scrimshaw. Try to see this: You quoted the verse in support of an "anything goes" type of argument. I asked you for your exclusions because obviously I think Bob's form of argument should be one of those exclusions.
                              I haven't forced myself into anything but a position of strength. The exclusions to my statement (as well as the VERSE I QUOTED) is anything that violates God's LAW. You have not shown a single LAW of GOD that Bob's method violates.


                              The Heart of Your Argument


                              Scrimshaw writes:
                              --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              And then, explain exactly how Bob has committed the *same folly* in his responses.
                              --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              (1) Bob tacitly affirms Zakath's claim to atheism, which is a lie
                              No, the Bible does not say atheism doesn't exist. That is only what Mr.Hilston says. Romans 1 only states that men are without EXCUSE for their disbelief/ungodliness/rebellion. Furthermore, Jesus himself disproves your claim that everyone knows God. Here is Jesus' refutation to Mr.Hilston's claim:

                              John 17:25 - "Righteous Father, though the world does not know you, I know you, and they know that you have sent me."

                              And Paul also agrees with Jesus, and says -

                              1 Corinthians 1:20, 21 - "Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.

                              Your first point has been soundly refuted by Jesus himself, as well as Paul. Everyone in the world does not necessarily know about God.

                              (2) Bob concedes Zakath's claim that there has been insufficient evidence......
                              Wrong. Bob has never conceded any such thing. In fact, if Bob believed the evidence wasn't sufficient, he wouldn't bother debating Zakath in the first place. Bob is not attempting to provide NEW evidence. He is simply elaborating the evidence that ALREADY EXISTS, thereby, refuting Zakath's FALSE *excuse* for his claim of atheism.

                              Point 2 of your argument has been soundedly refuted. It's time for you to show your honesty and concede your debunked arguments.



                              Scrimshaw writes:
                              --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Bob is debating Zakath in order to show that Zakath's position is incorrect.
                              --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              Now that you've put it that way, why is Zakath's position incorrect?
                              It is incorrect because it falsely claims that there is not sufficient evidence for belief in God. That's it.


                              Perhaps this will help you to grasp what I'm trying to convey.
                              What you are trying to convey is the false claim that "atheism doesn't exist" based on your mistinterpretation of Romans 1. That claim has been soundly refuted by Jesus and Paul.


                              Scrimshaw writes:
                              --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Bob is simply *expounding* on the same evidence with a slightly higher degree of scientific/philosophical detail.
                              --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              For what purpose? To convince Zakath that there is a God? He already knows that.
                              No, the purpose is to REFUTE Zakath's LIE, which is his claim that the evidence isn't sufficient.


                              Scrimshaw writes:
                              --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              It exists in the form of a LIE!! Bob's arguments are refuting that lie.
                              --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              No, he's not. He is affirming the lie by allowing the myth of atheism to be perpetuated.
                              You are using very poor logic. Atheism is not a myth. It is an actual belief system that is exists in the form of a LIE. Again, you are basing your argument on a misinterpretation of Romans 1. No where in Romans 1 does it say that no one has disbelief in God. That is a stipulation that YOU are falsely reading INTO the text.


                              Scrimshaw writes:
                              --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              [Romans 1] simply says that what can be known about God has been made plain to everyone, so no one is has an EXCUSE for their disbelief. The text does not say that no one has disbelief.
                              --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              If there is no excuse for their disbelief, then it follows that God has sufficiently revealed Himself to them, right? In other words, nothing further needs to be done to demonstrate His existence to them.
                              No, the text implies that they have no LEGITIMATE excuse, but it doesn't say they don't make up excuses. Bob's arguments are exposing the illegitimacy of the atheist's excuses, and exposing them to be FALSE excuses.

                              If there is further need, then they do have an excuse, and God has NOT sufficiently revealed Himself to them.
                              You are correct that there is no need of providing further EVIDENCE. However, there is a need to refute the false excuses. There is a need to clarify the evidence that the atheists distort. Atheism is a belief system that denies and distorts the evidence. Bob's arguments are exposing the atheist's distortion/denial of the evidence by clarifying the true nature of the evidence.

                              I am not one to go around and around on the same arguments over and over again. I have adequately refuted the premise of your arguments and I have no need to repeat myself any further. If you want to have the last word, that is fine. The arguments I have laid out in this post have exploded your arguments, and they are more than sufficient to survive any rebuttal you could possibly conceive. If you are wise, you will just concede your arguments and admit that your interpretation of Romans 1 was not accurate, but actually contradicted other scriptures. (1 Cor 1:21; John 17:25, etc.) Here are some others too:

                              Psalms - 78:21 "When the LORD heard them, he was very angry; his fire broke out against Jacob, and his wrath rose against Israel, for they did not believe in God or trust in his deliverance."

                              Gal 4:8 - "Formerly, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those who by nature are not gods."

                              1 Thess 4:5 - "....not in passionate lust like the heathen, who do not know God;"

                              2 Thess 1:8 - "He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus."



                              Blessings,
                              Last edited by Scrimshaw; June 26th, 2003, 12:47 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


                              • Re: Borrowing capital ...

                                Originally posted by Hilston
                                the fact that you breathe and the effect that oxygen has on your brain. What you might view as "the natural order" or the cosmos, the verity of logic, and the reliability of science are not only supernaturally sourced, but they are supernaturally sustained.
                                Well said Jim!

                                Via true scientific observation, the 1st two laws of thermodynamics have been derived:
                                (1) That matter/energy can neither be created nor destroyed.
                                (2) That entropy increases in a closed system.

                                Based upon these laws, our existence is not explainable . We should not be here.

                                There is a piece of the puzzle missing.

                                Comes along evolutionary theory to 'splain it to us. Evolution fills the hole. It "cleverly allows" both laws of thermodynamics to be broken. If the laws themselves are natural (within nature), then evolution is above these laws; evolution surreptitiously breaks these laws and is consequently "above" the law. The latin prefix for "above" is "super". Hence evolution is a codeword for a SUPER NATURAL phenomena. Evolution seeks to explain our existence when nature would otherwise dictate we would never exist.

                                The missing puzzle piece is necessary. It is necesary because things don't make themselves. The laws require that we should not be here.

                                The theist is looking at the same nature and the same laws. Instead of inventing a codeword for a non-diety, non-intelligent non-design of some inexplicable supernatural force, we simply submit to the more reasonable premise that God is the missing piece. Unlike the irreverent codeword of "evoluion", we know our creator to be the unique intelligent designer who stands above nature, and commands into existence all things for his own purposes.

                                We are here; that is a fact. Our existence is No accident of time, space & energy. Our existence is by His design.
                                That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world.
                                Philippians 2:15

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X