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

  • Originally posted by Flipper
    Paul DeYonghe:


    Oh you've gone too far this time.


    It is actually a good movie with stunning visuals, okay? Not the greatest movie, and the story is-- shall we say?-- rather deliberately paced*.







    *Much like the old lady with the walker in the movie Office Space was "deliberately paced."
    "To deny Calvinism is to deny the gospel of Jesus Christ." - Charles Spurgeon

    Comment


    • Re: Presup', good. Evi', bad.

      Originally posted by Hilston
      Paul,

      I know there's a lot here, but you read carefully, you'll see that I don't make an argument from silence. The Bible condemns evidentialist reasoning. Presuppositional reasoning is not only biblically endorsed (and sourced), all other forms of reasoning are categorically condemned.
      Thanks. I'll re-read the thread more intently.

      Also, Paul, do you recall my debate with Zakath (from 2000)? Was that a quick one as Aussie suggests?

      Jim
      I recall the debate, but I don't remember it being short at all. (This occured at the now-defunct BEL forums.) Of course, my memory's not what it once was.
      Last edited by Brother Vinny; July 7th, 2003, 06:29 PM.
      "To deny Calvinism is to deny the gospel of Jesus Christ." - Charles Spurgeon

      Comment


      • Re: Presup', good. Evi', bad.

        Originally posted by Hilston
        The Bible condemns evidentialist reasoning. Presuppositional reasoning is not only biblically endorsed (and sourced), all other forms of reasoning are categorically condemned.
        Sadly, Jim has failed miserably at demonstrating this point.
        Also be sure to.... Join TOL on Facebook | Follow TOL on Twitter
        TOL Newbies CLICK HERE or....upgrade your TOL today!

        Comment


        • Oooowhoops ...

          Hey Paul, I just realized how demanding this sounded: but you read carefully .... I mistyped and forgot the word "if" -- but if you read carefully .... Sorry about that. I hate it when I skip words and it makes me sound like a big meanie.

          Jim

          Comment


          • Jim,

            I believe it probably would be a long debate but it fundamentally boils down to you calling the other guy a liar because the Bible says so.

            You seem a reasonably intelligent guy so I cannot understand how you cannot see how pointless this form of argument is.

            Let me say it for you slowly..

            WE KNOW WE ARE NOT LYING IN SPITE OF WHAT YOUR BOOK TELLS YOU.

            Try and convince us that we are.. don’t just state it !

            Comment


            • A little help ...

              Knight -- what more could you ask for?: I showed that the evidentialist method is neither used nor endorsed in Scripture. I can cut and paste those proofs if you'd like. I showed that the evidentialist method is prohibited in scripture. Cuts/pastes available upon request. I also demonstrated the presuppositional method as being uniquely biblical. I can cut and paste those sections too. I also soundly answered every objection and misquoted scripture lobbed by Scrimshaw and others. Those answers, too, can be cut and pasted.

              I would like it (and who knows, maybe I'll even benefit greatly) if you could either (a) explain how my case has not been proven or (b) cut and paste the refutations of my argument.

              By the way, this is a general invitation. Anyone if so inclined, not just Knight, is asked to provide proofs of Knight's assertion.

              Thanks,
              Jim

              Comment


              • Aussie, I as wrong as I believe your world view to be... I agree with you on this topic.

                And I am thankful that not all Christians (or even most) take this approach to evangelizing. I certainly wouldn't suggest that Hilston's approach doesn't work, as I am sure that it does work on certain people but it would have never made any impact on me whatsoever when I was an atheist.
                Also be sure to.... Join TOL on Facebook | Follow TOL on Twitter
                TOL Newbies CLICK HERE or....upgrade your TOL today!

                Comment


                • Why Theism can never win....

                  When we adapt to the perspective of Theism / Christianity (or any other belief system) as a mental virus (since it has all the properties of it, it "lives" in minds and takes that mind over, it spreads itself around, etc) only in theory this virus can "win", in that it has succeeded in infecting every living mind, and transplants itself from then on only to the next generation.

                  But what situation would that entail (if that ever could occur), if the whole world would have become christian? Would anything of significance realy change? Would we have eternal lives? End of wars? End of human conflicts? End of human suffering? No, of course not. Nothing of what it promises to salvate humanity from, will likely occur.

                  So, even if Christianity reached it's goals, what good would it be anyhow?

                  The fact that this virus has not infected everyone, means that some minds already are immune for the virus. And that is the case for any virus (wether biological, computer or mind based), ultimately it will find a natural counterpart, that can immunize it. Which means either the virus itself has to adapt itself, or it will go extinct.

                  Viruses are the cause for their own counterparts in the form of anti-viruses and immune systems.

                  Comment


                  • Re: A little help ...

                    Originally posted by Hilston
                    Knight -- what more could you ask for?: I showed that the evidentialist method is neither used nor endorsed in Scripture. I can cut and paste those proofs if you'd like. I showed that the evidentialist method is prohibited in scripture. Cuts/pastes available upon request. I also demonstrated the presuppositional method as being uniquely biblical. I can cut and paste those sections too. I also soundly answered every objection and misquoted scripture lobbed by Scrimshaw and others. Those answers, too, can be cut and pasted.

                    I would like it (and who knows, maybe I'll even benefit greatly) if you could either (a) explain how my case has not been proven or (b) cut and paste the refutations of my argument.

                    By the way, this is a general invitation. Anyone if so inclined, not just Knight, is asked to provide proofs of Knight's assertion.

                    Thanks,
                    Jim
                    Asserting that you have made good arguments and refutations does not make them so.

                    Personally, I think this is one of the weakest arguments I have ever witnessed (no offense to preterists ).
                    Also be sure to.... Join TOL on Facebook | Follow TOL on Twitter
                    TOL Newbies CLICK HERE or....upgrade your TOL today!

                    Comment


                    • Getting the point ...

                      Aussie Thinker writes:
                      I don’t think in this entire thread you have gotten the point. If you merely declare the other side as liars.. there is NO point debating at all.
                      Why not?

                      Aussie Thinker writes:
                      I can do exactly the same to you.. you are lying about God .. therefore anything you say after that is wrong.. hence I win the argument.
                      The difference is, my worldview is coherent and consistent. You said so yourself. But yours is not, which I've demonstrated (and will again when I start the new thread later this evening). Sure, you can say I'm lying, but I'm not the one walking around blindly believing that things can become their contradictions.

                      Aussie Thinker writes:
                      It is an incredibly frustrating line to argue against..
                      Of course it is, but any Christian who claims to believe that the Bible is the Word of God ought to recognize this and state it plainly to the gainsayer. The fact that you don't encounter this more often is itself disturbing. It shows that very few professing Christians are very aware of the statements of scripture about the so-called atheists and how to rebut them.

                      Aussie Thinker writes:
                      I believe it probably would be a long debate but it fundamentally boils down to you calling the other guy a liar because the Bible says so.
                      Sure, and that is what you ought to expect from the consistent Bible-believing Christian. I don't expect you to like it, but you should not be surprised by it.

                      Aussie Thinker writes:
                      You seem a reasonably intelligent guy so I cannot understand how you cannot see how pointless this form of argument is.
                      It's not pointless. Your folly is exposed by clear logic and the sound exegesis of scripture. Your reactions are predictable. The fact remains that atheists do come to faith in Christ through having profound realizations about the inanity and internal incoherence of their worldview.

                      Aussie Thinker writes:
                      Let me say it for you slowly.. WE KNOW WE ARE NOT LYING IN SPITE OF WHAT YOUR BOOK TELLS YOU.
                      Aussie, I know you think that, but you're self-deluded. The fact is, you don't know what you know, because you have failed to account for how you can know anything in a materialist/naturalist universe where you blindly assume the verity, universality and invariance of logical laws. (I get into this more in the post that I will offer later tonight).

                      Aussie Thinker writes:
                      Try and convince us that we are.. don’t just state it !
                      I don't need to convince you. You already know it. I realize that it can be quite galling, and that is the expected reaction. All I need to do is declare the truth to you and expose the incoherence of your worldview.

                      Jim

                      Comment


                      • Knight,

                        Thanks I agree with you to on this point. After all even if Jim is right it makes debate pointless. So for sake of argument you have to assume that atheist are not lying and try and show them why they are mistaken.

                        Jim writes

                        Why not?
                        You are arguing that there is no point arguing with atheists… begging the point as to why you are arguing with us ?

                        The difference is, my worldview is coherent and consistent. You said so yourself. But yours is not, which I've demonstrated (and will again when I start the new thread later this evening). Sure, you can say I'm lying, but I'm not the one walking around blindly believing that things can become their contradictions.
                        I agree that your world view has coherence.. but I also KNOW mine does. I have explained it to you dozens of times and you have failed to point out where it doesn’t. You just SAY it doesn’t. Mine in fact is more COHERENT than yours as it cuts out an unnecessary layer of complexity. (please go back and read my worldview and dispute where it is incoherent)

                        Of course it is, but any Christian who claims to believe that the Bible is the Word of God ought to recognize this and state it plainly to the gainsayer. The fact that you don't encounter this more often is itself disturbing. It shows that very few professing Christians are very aware of the statements of scripture about the so-called atheists and how to rebut them.
                        But the whole debate is wether God exists and therefore wether the Bible is the word of God. You just jump ahead and say “Well it is” .. end of argument. How coherent would my argument about their being no God be if I just said.. “Well he just doesn’t exist.. so there”

                        Sure, and that is what you ought to expect from the consistent Bible-believing Christian. I don't expect you to like it, but you should not be surprised by it.
                        Its not so much I don’t like it but it is just pointless.. don’t you realise what we hear from you is.. “Just tell them they are wrong .. that is the only argument you need”

                        It's not pointless. Your folly is exposed by clear logic and the sound exegesis of scripture. Your reactions are predictable. The fact remains that atheists do come to faith in Christ through having profound realizations about the inanity and internal incoherence of their worldview.
                        Your circuitous argument is just ridiculous to us.. God exists because the book he inspired tell us he does. If I right a book saying I am God does it make it so… I can point to the script I wrote ?

                        Aussie, I know you think that, but you're self-deluded. The fact is, you don't know what you know, because you have failed to account for how you can know anything in a materialist/naturalist universe where you blindly assume the verity, universality and invariance of logical laws. (I get into this more in the post that I will offer later tonight).
                        You are one who is self deluded but where does it get us calling each other that.. lets show each other where we are.. that is what the debate is about.

                        I don’t blindly assume anything.. logical laws are man made concepts which stemmed from mans evolved intelligence. I use the concepts as I am a man and they make sense to me.

                        I don't need to convince you. You already know it. I realize that it can be quite galling, and that is the expected reaction. All I need to do is declare the truth to you and expose the incoherence of your worldview.
                        I know YOU don’t need to convince me.. YOU just basically say “It is so”.. at least Enyart and Knight etc. try and make logical sense of their belief

                        You already know that the concept of God is a ridiculous one. I know that is galling for you too and you are going through many circuitous mental hoops to try and get around it .. but the simple fact is your own man evolved sense of logic tells you the idea makes no sense.

                        You have yet to expose my worldview as incoherent. Please at least try.

                        Comment


                        • Show me the money ...

                          Knight writes:
                          Sadly, Jim has failed miserably at demonstrating this point.
                          How do you know it's not your own failure to understand my point?

                          Knight writes:
                          Asserting that you have made good arguments and refutations does not make them so.
                          Fine. Show me the poor arguments I've made. Show me the fallacies of my reasoning. These questions sound familiar, don't they? I've asked you them in other threads. You seem to show a pattern of making bald assertions and failing to put your money where you mouth is.

                          Knight writes:
                          Personally, I think this is one of the weakest arguments I have ever witnessed.
                          What is quite telling to me is how diametrically opposed your opinion is from those who actually understand the point. I'm not convinced you even understand my plaint against Bob's method of argumentation. I heard you tell Bob that I'm against presenting evidence to the so-called atheist. I'm not at all. What I'm against is the presumption that a so-called atheist has the wherewithal to evaluate evidence at all on his worldview. It's not a battle of evidences (which typically boils down to a Mexican standoff), but rather of one's fundamental governing assumptions about the world and one's experience in it.

                          Jim

                          Comment


                          • Re: Getting the point ...

                            Originally posted by Hilston
                            Aussie Thinker writes: Why not?
                            I think that is quite evident. Who wants to debate with people who call you a liar?

                            Of course it is, but any Christian who claims to believe that the Bible is the Word of God ought to recognize this and state it plainly to the gainsayer. The fact that you don't encounter this more often is itself disturbing. It shows that very few professing Christians are very aware of the statements of scripture about the so-called atheists and how to rebut them.
                            Has it ever occured to you, that we are now living 2000 years after the Bible has been written? Doesn't it appear to you that being an atheist in the time of the Bible, and being an atheist in present days, may have a bit developed, and that one should adapt ones methods to that of contemporary times?

                            It's not pointless. Your folly is exposed by clear logic and the sound exegesis of scripture. Your reactions are predictable. The fact remains that atheists do come to faith in Christ through having profound realizations about the inanity and internal incoherence of their worldview.
                            Atheism is not just one type of conviction, and the claim that anyone committing oneself to atheism, therefore has an incoherent worldview, is a grandelosque statement.

                            It shows arrogance, as if only those who belief in Christ have the truth. Well it didn't escape my attention, that that is the way, how Christians in general look upon others, but it is plain arrogance. Luckily though I know also of Christians who are not that arrogant.

                            IF THE CHRISTIANS ALL HAVE SUCH GREAT FAITH WHY DIDN"T THEY FOR CHRIST SAKE STOP THE NAZI'S FOR EXAMPLE?
                            WHY DIDN'T THEY, WHILE THEY COULD AND KNEW IT?

                            It just shows that to have fait, and to base your own actions on it, in the time and circumstances one has to, most people turn intio cowards, and don't do what they have to.
                            Not everyone, but most people.

                            And as the history of WW 2 showed out, we don't have a record that the Christian community as a whole tried to stop the nazi's.
                            We know that if they have the faith as they said they have, and knowing the numbers of those of Christian faith in Germany and the countries they occupied, that they had the possibility to stop the nazi's. But they failed to.

                            Not that I don't know of Christians who did their duty, and who were offering their lives for stopping the nazi's cause there are historic records of these facts, but there weren't so many as one would have expected from the numbers of people that had (or were supposed to have) the Christian faith.

                            Aussie, I know you think that, but you're self-deluded. The fact is, you don't know what you know, because you have failed to account for how you can know anything in a materialist/naturalist universe where you blindly assume the verity, universality and invariance of logical laws. (I get into this more in the post that I will offer later tonight).

                            I don't need to convince you. You already know it. I realize that it can be quite galling, and that is the expected reaction. All I need to do is declare the truth to you and expose the incoherence of your worldview.
                            What is the coherence of the Christian worldview?
                            How does the Biblical account of Genesis match with that of science for example?
                            Isn't the Biblic outlook on reality not plain false? As if one could assume the natural world not to have developed, but simply put there by acts of 'magic'? As if species are immune to change, and can't over millions of years change? As if it would be that everything that is (life or lifeless) are static things, as if anything that is not changing, could at all exist?
                            Isn't all that what science discovered the world to be, and will likely to discover, more acceptable then Biblical mythology?
                            That the future of human society, and the possibility for all people, to live a life worth living, is not "in the hand of God" but in the hand of man himself, that is if we are able of controlling society and economy and political power, and to alter those institutions and centers of power, to work in the interest of humanity and all that humans need to have a decent life, and not just for the profits of the elite?

                            etc. etc.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Show me the money ...

                              Originally posted by Hilston
                              Knight writes: How do you know it's not your own failure to understand my point?
                              Whoa.. this is deep. Maybe I am a replicant and just don't know it?

                              You continue...
                              Fine. Show me the poor arguments I've made. Show me the fallacies of my reasoning. These questions sound familiar, don't they? I've asked you them in other threads. You seem to show a pattern of making bald assertions and failing to put your money where you mouth is.
                              I cant show you your poor arguments Jim! Don't you remember... you will only choose to do what you choose to do!

                              You continue...
                              What is quite telling to me is how diametrically opposed your opinion is from those who actually understand the point. I'm not convinced you even understand my plaint against Bob's method of argumentation. I heard you tell Bob that I'm against presenting evidence to the so-called atheist. I'm not at all. What I'm against is the presumption that a so-called atheist has the wherewithal to evaluate evidence at all on his worldview. It's not a battle of evidences (which typically boils down to a Mexican standoff), but rather of one's fundamental governing assumptions about the world and one's experience in it.

                              Jim
                              Speaking of Mexican standoff's your debate RIGHT HERE with Aussie is about as standoff-ish as I have seen! At least with BR VII we can delve into interesting tidbits of knowledge and read fascinating compositions. Can you imagine if BR VII would have been Jim and an atheist??? Well.... if you cant imagine it just read this thread and I am sure you will see what I mean.

                              Which brings us to another point...

                              Do you really think BR VII is designed to convert Zakath? I mean... it would be great if that happened but don't you realize that this debate is for the TheologyOnLine audience? Those reading can ponder both sides of the debate and ask themselves which arguments are the most logical, realistic and truthful. Bob isn't directly evangelizing to Zakath as if they were at the airport waiting for their flight. Bob is simply deconstructing the fallacy of atheism in general and using Zakath as his springboard. Conversely I doubt Zakath is attempting to convert Bob Enyart to atheism yet Zakath is attempting to cast doubt that the supernatural exists. The debate is a battle of worldviews much more than a battle between two individuals which is what you are basing your argument on.
                              Also be sure to.... Join TOL on Facebook | Follow TOL on Twitter
                              TOL Newbies CLICK HERE or....upgrade your TOL today!

                              Comment


                              • Well summed up Knight...

                                Amazing that we can be on opposite side but agree that even though the other is wrong debate is valid !

                                Hilston.. who ironically debates a lot basically says debate is invalid.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X