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

  • I classified this debate as a "TKO in the 8th round" Do you know what the acronym TKO means?
    That I do not.

    Tye,
    Born after 1973?
    |
    |
    \/
    www.survivors.la

    Comment


    • Technical Knockout
      BRXI: Should Christians support the Death Penalty?

      Comment


      • For all I knew you were gloating it up as TREMENDOUS KO.
        Born after 1973?
        |
        |
        \/
        www.survivors.la

        Comment


        • It's basically when a fighter hasn't been counted out, but can't/won't go on fighting.
          BRXI: Should Christians support the Death Penalty?

          Comment


          • Even if Zakath had stated to the world... "I lose, I now give my life to Jesus." you guys would still be claiming the debate was a draw.
            No I wouldn't... I may have said that technically and by the standards of formalized logic it was a draw, but I think it'd be apparent who won.

            In my opinion, the debate was headed for a draw. Then Zakath mysteriously disappeared. TKO is the correct call, but I didn't see it as a crushing defeat.
            Born after 1973?
            |
            |
            \/
            www.survivors.la

            Comment


            • ATTENTION ATHEISTS!!!

              Round number 10 of BR VII is not lost! Here is your chance!!!!
              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 Turbo
                It's basically when a fighter hasn't been counted out, but can't/won't go on fighting.
                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
                  LOL... you guys kill me!

                  Even if Zakath had stated to the world... "I lose, I now give my life to Jesus." you guys would still be claiming the debate was a draw.

                  Hey.... if you want to live your life as a knucklehead be my guest, but you better hurry because it looks like the spots are filling up fast.
                  Sure. It is the quality of the arguments that count, not personal statements of faith, or, in your case adolescent jibes.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by john2001
                    Sure. It is the quality of the arguments that count, not personal statements of faith, or, in your case adolescent jibes.
                    The quality of the argument does count in a debate. But in a larger sense, even debate won't vitiate the ontological reality of our Creator.

                    Hey John2001, You do know that your name means "God has been gracious". Do you agree?
                    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


                    • Specifically what did I dodge?
                      This is a major research project, I'm simply going to have to cut out some time and do it.

                      Please point them out. Don't make the charge without following up on it.
                      ditto my previous statement.

                      What, in your view, would make one person's understanding more valid than another's?
                      This one I can answer. If their understanding is more consistant with what the bible says.

                      please PM me and tell me who you are
                      Did you get my PM?
                      Good things come to those who shoot straight.

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

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by LightSon
                        But in a larger sense, even debate won't vitiate the ontological reality of our Creator.
                        An ontological "God proof" is not giving objective reality to the mindly concept of a creator.

                        It's a simple reasoning that can show that God must be denied objective existence, since neither an object outside of God can exist, nor can God itself be an object for an object outside of God, which therefore means: God can not have objective existence. The most perfect form of existence therefore as envisioned by man's consciousness, does not make it into objective reality.


                        Ontological God "proofs":

                        The Ontological Proof for God

                        The “Ontological Proof” for the Existence of God

                        Of the Impossibility of an Ontological Proof of the Existence of God

                        The Possibility of Ontological Proof
                        Last edited by attention; August 8, 2003, 12:08 PM.

                        Comment


                        • Hi Rob,
                          You have a great intellect. Much of your reasoning ability is well over my head. But before I jettison my faith, let's pause and make some observations.

                          Logic is a wonderful tool. I am a programmer by trade. The best program I can write, (assuming there is any level of depth) will probably have a bug in it. I recall having desk-checked certain snippits of code and sworn it was correct, only to have a bug pop-up later. Oops. Its a good thing that particular code, wasn't my logic to deny God His rightful place in my heart.

                          No, I will not risk my eternal destiny on my ability to reason God away. The risk of being wrong in my hubris is too great.

                          Originally posted by LightSon
                          But in a larger sense, even debate won't vitiate the ontological reality of our Creator.
                          Originally posted by attention
                          An ontological "God proof" is not giving objective reality to the mindly concept of a creator.
                          Right. As a subset of argument, my point is that proof won't make God exist any more than your "disproof" will make Him not exist.

                          Originally posted by attention
                          It's a simple reasoning that can show that God must be denied objective existence
                          Okay. I'll let you explain your reasoning to Him when the time comes. I do not have the courage.

                          Thanks for the links. I'll review them as time permits. It'll be fun, but as you should agree, there can't be much of a rush for me to reject the only chance I have to live forever.
                          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


                          • Originally posted by LightSon
                            The quality of the argument does count in a debate. But in a larger sense, even debate won't vitiate the ontological reality of our Creator.

                            Hey John2001, You do know that your name means "God has been gracious". Do you agree?
                            Many people *assume* that the existence of some sort of God is an ontological reality. Yet, there is not a single argument for the existence of these many and varied "Gods" that holds water or provides any usefulness whatsoever. Otherwise, there would be no issue. No one would disbelieve. Indeed, faith would be as unnecessary as "faith" in the idea that the sky is blue.

                            The whole construct of religious belief dances around this lack of evidence by pretending that this is a good thing, making it a condition of "faith". Yet to the nonreligious this is an order to carry around a bunch of useless baggage.

                            The nonreligious are condemned by the religious for recognizing this baggage as such and disposing of it.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by john2001
                              The nonreligious are condemned by the religious for recognizing this baggage as such and disposing of it.
                              It is not my place to condemn you John. Condemnation is God's alone.

                              I maintain that there is great value in a showing honor to the person of God; He gave me life and has cleared the way for my eternal joy. That's gotta be worth something to me.

                              I also want to recognize the fact that while you dispose of the trappings of the useless religious mindset, you still come to this theology board and spend your time engaging with us. What might be the value to you in arguing with us?

                              Are there answers that you are looking for? Is there anything that you do not know? Do you have the innate ability to open your mind to the possibility that God loves you and has a better plan for you than the existence you now experience?

                              God has been gracious "John". Even your name presumes His Providence.
                              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


                              • Hi Jim,

                                When you state that you were previously an atheist but not really an atheist because you were deluding yourself. Could it have been that you were never really an atheist?

                                I'm no scholar or anything but my common sense tells me that a real atheist could never become you.

                                So maybe you know nothing about atheist after all?

                                Regards

                                Corky

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X