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

Status
Not open for further replies.

jeremiah

BANNED
Banned
To Jim:
Since my analogies were not understood by you in the way that I intended, then I agree with you they must be poor analogies. People use analogies in the hope that the person hearing them will go "AHA now I see what you mean!" I utterly failed. Analogies always seem clever to the person who makes them up, and to me, at least, I still consider them to the point and clever.;)
I have found a couple of scriptures that apply directly to the point that I am trying to make. These are not the best ones but time and my memory has not allowed me to recall the others I am looking for.
1 cor 10 -24 says Let no one seek his own good but that of his neighbor. and 10 24-33 also apply when properly understood.
I reason that it is for Zakath's own good, not to sin, therefore I do not want to do anything that I KNOW will result in him sinning. Just as sensitive as this passage of scripture commands us to be, that is what I am trying to obey. Do you first understand what I am meaning? Do you secondly agree with it? This section is dealing with interaction between believers and unbelievers.
I wonder why you think Zakath was handing me my lunch. That was :jump: to a conclusion. If you really understand my point then it wouldn't matter who was handing who their lunch!:think:
I fully grasp your question about Jesus. No He was not sinning! When He knew that a person could no longer receive anything but condemnation from His words. He moved to the next Town. He left His hometown for this very reason. "a Prophet is not without honor except in His own home town" "because of their lack of faith He could not perform many miracles there."
However His disciples would be disobeying His command {sinning} If they did not leave a town that had rejected them and their words and they were supposed to "shake the very dust off their sandals as testimony against them."
Zakath has rejected the very words of God that he preached from his own pulpit in his own church. I think it is safe to say I would be breaking the spirit of the Lord's command, quoted above, by quoting often heard Scriptures to him. Do you grasp this point that I just made?
 

jeremiah

BANNED
Banned
I am sorry that I do not have time right now to answer your other questions to me. I usually only have enough to make my point or two on a couple of threads. I can not do the running point- couterpoint that you and Scrimshaw and others are doing. I really admire Scrimshaw and I think he says what many who hold similar views would like to be able to write. He makes his points very well and usually they would be my points also. I will try to copy a couple of them for you later. I really can't say much in 0.18 posts per day.:chuckle:
 

Hilston

Active member
Hall of Fame
Shake shake shake ...

Shake shake shake ...

Hi Jeremiah,

You write:
1 cor 10 -24 says Let no one seek his own good but that of his neighbor. and 10 24-33 also apply when properly understood.
Those verses apply to members of the Body of Christ, not to the world indiscriminately. Paul is urging the Body brethren to make sure that their liberties do not become an occasion for the weaker brothers (the Kingdom saints) to stumble. Since there is no Israel of God in this dispensation, the verse no longer applies.

Jeremiah writes:
I reason that it is for Zakath's own good, not to sin, therefore I do not want to do anything that I KNOW will result in him sinning.
Even if that means compromising the truth?

Jeremiah writes:
Just as sensitive as this passage of scripture commands us to be, that is what I am trying to obey.
Was Paul, who wrote 1Co 10:24ff, being insensitive when he told the Athenians that they were worshipping the Unknown God in willful and deliberate ignorance? Was Jesus, who revealed the truths of 1Co 10:24ff to Paul, being insensitive when He provoked the scribes and pharisees to blaspheme?

Jeremiah writes:
Do you first understand what I am meaning?
I think so. And I think it’s wrong.

Jeremiah writes:
Do you secondly agree with it?
No.

Jeremiah writes:
I wonder why you think Zakath was handing me my lunch. That was [jumping] to a conclusion.
That's not a conclusion that I jumped to. As I stated, it is just how it sounds to me, especially given how ridiculous the proposition is. Here's what I wrote: ... it sounds like something you invented to make yourself feel better because Zakath handed you your lunch. I don't know if he did or not, but it wouldn't surprise me, based on what you're saying.

Jeremiah writes:
If you really understand my point then it wouldn't matter who was handing who their lunch!
It would if my understanding of the impetus behind your point is the fact that someone handed you your lunch.

Jeremiah writes:
However His disciples would be disobeying His command {sinning} If they did not leave a town that had rejected them and their words and they were supposed to "shake the very dust off their sandals as testimony against them."
That was part of a very specific apostolic commission by Jesus to the Twelve regarding the proclamation of the Kingdom of God. They were to take no provisions because the people of Israel were to recognize and support the ministry of the Twelve (hence, worthy and unworthy households). This verse is very specific to the Kingdom of Israel and has nothing to do with the Mystery dispensation of today.

Jeremiah writes:
Zakath has rejected the very words of God that he preached from his own pulpit in his own church. I think it is safe to say I would be breaking the spirit of the Lord's command, quoted above, by quoting often heard Scriptures to him. Do you grasp this point that I just made?
I never thought I'd see the day when a Christian would discourage quoting the Word of God. I suggest you e-mail Bob Enyart and ask him if he agrees with your logic here. I'm guessing he would disagree.

Jim
 

LightSon

New member
Originally posted by jeremiah
Zakath has rejected the very words of God that he preached from his own pulpit in his own church. I think it is safe to say I would be breaking the spirit of the Lord's command, quoted above, by quoting often heard Scriptures to him.

Dear jeremiah,
I appreciate your sensitive spirit in this matter. There is a time and place for all good things. There is a time to speak the gospel and a time to not speak. I can't say when those times are specifically. There is a general call to preach the word and to take the gospel to every creature. But there is also the matter of Spirit leading. If the Holy Spirit dissuades one from continuing, say with Zakath, then it would be time to break off.

If the Holy Spirit is not moving us in a particular manner then I agree we should wait upon the Lord. But in general , it isn't our role to judge whether the scriptures we use or the preaching we are called to do will be effective. God honors His word; we should too. Atheists are already in de facto condemnation because they have not believed in the only begotten Son. We preach the truth (planting and watering) and God gives the increase. If the listener chooses to remain rebellious to the truth, then that is their choice. There is the OT story of the watchman. It is our job to sound the alarm. If they don't heed the warning, their blood is on them, not us.

One of the main problems I see in the TOL concept, is that it allows immature (or carnal) Christians the opportunity to engage in polemics about spiritual things. Many times I've seen discussions degenerate into hateful name calling diatribes. I can't see how God is being glorified in that. I am trying to train myself to pray about each post and also for the content within. I am going to curtail my time on this board, unless God gives me the peace that there is ministry value here. Otherwise the following verse applied:

2 Timothy 2:23 "But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes."

Regards.
 
Last edited:

Aussie Thinker

BANNED
Banned
Jim,

Back to me

I've been busy, but eager to return to this discussion. I hope my window of opportunity hasn't shut.

Me too but I found this response eventually. If I sometimes miss one I’ll just happily assume I won and move on…lol

Because we are discussing matters that are ultimate in nature. In a debate between worldviews, we want to ascertain whose worldview is not correct and whose is correct, if either. To do that we must question, not the evidence itself because we will disagree based on our competing worldviews, but rather the underlying presuppositions that govern our assessment of evidence. You have admitted to putting your faith in logic and reason. I want to know if you can justify your reliance upon them, or if you blindly assume them.

You seem to misunderstand my worldview (which is similar I guess to most atheist) so I will try and simplify it for you. Bear with it please its not too long.

My Worldview.

1. The natural universe always was.. admittedly this is very similar to God always was but it cuts out an extra (unnecessary)step of God always was and then created a Universe that “seems” to operate on Natural forces.
2. Conditions in the Universe allowed for the formation of life. Condition were not really conducive but the formation of life was a possibility and given time and millions of chemical reactions and iterations it actually became likely and hence it formed.
3. Simple life could be extinguished as simply as any other material thing so that life that survived its natural creation would be tough (non tough life would have faded).. so evolution would begin happening at once. Failed life forms never took root.
4. Once Evolution took hold life would naturally keep pushing up more adaptable better suited forms. Eventually the best adaptation “Intelligence” was bound to come to the fore in evolution somewhere in the Universe.
5. The most successful form of intelligence would be one that can think abstractly so this again is a likely outcome from natural evolution.
6. As soon as an intelligent creature becomes self aware it has what we call “consciousness”. All this so far has come about Naturally and requires no need to justify itself happening. It happened because it did.
7. All other terms and philosophies like truth, logic, God are man made to explain the world in which he finds himself.

Now I wonder where in that wordview do you find I am failing to account for logic, reason etc and where they NEED to be justified ?

These are human creations of our advanced intelligence. Nothing more nothing less. They need no more justification than the curly tail on the back of a pig ! While they are eminently more important and useful they still came about as a natural accident, although one (as I explained above) that had a good chance of eventually happening.

Christ is eternal. By using logic and reason, one is benefitting from the realities of the Christian (Christ-created) world and its worldview.

But can’t you see that logic and reason evolved from my worldview in yours they are mysterious created. I think mine more logically explains how they came about !

That's the second time you've said this, and I would say that it is you who have the problem with naively (or disingenuously) de-mystifying it. You might get away with these specious claims about how everything has been figured out, but it's simply not true. Cognitive scientists and theorists continual to wrestle with this. Now, I'm not saying they couldn't all suddenly agree tomorrow and then the whole atheist world would be elated. But to suggest that this is a done deal is either dishonest or naive.

Why would I be disingenuous about de-mystifying intelligence. To me it is something just as likely to from naturally as anything else. If anything it sounds like you are being disingenuous to mystify intelligence for the reason of clutching at something (for lack of any real evidence) that would point to a creator being necessary.

How does logic dictate that? Are you a materialist, Aussie? Do you believe in the existence of anything non-material? From what you write below, it seems you are a materialist.

Well if you posted my entire quote I answer the question in it. But I will sate it again.. If the answer to EVERYTHING so far has been a NATURAL one logic would dictate that the answers to everything unknown will also be NATURAL..

That is how our man made logic works. If it is wrong and God has a different set of rules then he sure wired us wrong !

But would you say that logic exists?

According to the way we think yes it does. We have evolved a way of thinking if this happens this is then likely. It is gleaned from experience and what we are taught. If I have a sequence of numbers that go 1,2,3.. it is logical that the next number would be 4. If I was a primitive caveman I would not have a clue what the next number would be but if I was shown how to count I would know.

How do orderly invariant universal laws spring out of chaos?

I could use some of your own rhetoric here and say how do you KNOW they are orderly and universal. But as I think that is a pointless way to argue I will avoid it. The reason we have an orderly Universe is obvious to an atheist. The disorderly ones destroyed themselves or are no conducive to the formation of intelligent life. You get the universe you deserve.. In other words the universe we see is the only one we can see because we are formed from it.. to use it will always seem orderly.. to those in the Bizzarro Universe it would look a mess !

Why would chaos not last? Is order some kind of natural imperative?

Chaos may last but not in an orderly universe that formed orderly creatures like us. So we will never see it last.

You didn't answer the question. By what method have you determined the reliability of logic, reason, likelihood, independent corroboration of scientific study? What meta-method establishes the veracity of these methods?

I did answer the question but maybe I am not eloquent enough for you to understand the answer.

We have to just assume our facilities are functioning properly or we might as well be 2 lunatics in an asylum. Otherwise you can go of in a million Matrix situations (do you get that analogy) and argument becomes pointless.

Jim previously wrote: 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?

Your tools came from a natural evolution of intelligence. You have created a God to explain the existence of these tools. I KNOW your tools are reliable as I know they are very similar to mine. My assurance to their reliability is again something I can only reiterate stems from assumption that we are not in a Matrix world !

We just accept it? But that's not a justification. And in a discussion between competing worldviews, that's not a sufficient answer.

I think my earlier worldview definition explains my “accepting” it cover this. Because I think the Universe (and our subsequent evolution from it) just happened and you think a God just happened and he then set up a Naturalistic Universe what is the difference in acceptance. None in our world views. There is a lot in our assumptions though.. you are adding in a whole layer of complexity.

You just admitted to not only having faith, but a blind faith, in your own sanity and ability to reason in accordance with actual reality.

Sorry Jim but your point here is getting annoying. If we don’t have faith in our own ability to reason you are just back to the Matrix again. You cannot equate us having faith in our ability to reason and faith in a supernatural deity. One MUST be assumed or we wouldn’t even be having this conversation. I having have given you CLEAR explanation for our existence without the assumption of a God.

Do you recognize that you then deliberately preclude even the possibility that there is more than the so-called natural in the universe? For someone who claims to be a freethinker, that seems a bit prejudiced, doesn't it?

I probably wasn’t accurate there. I don’t have faith in a Natural answer.. that would mean I would be shattered if the answer was not a natural one. I wouldn’t be.. I would be very surprised. I am open to there being a God, as when you get to the notion of infinity it probably gets easier to imagine some controlling intelligence.. if their was though he would not be anything like we poor humans have invented. The VERY manlike Gods of the human pantheon are vindictive small minded and frankly if one of them is the real God of the Universe we are in trouble.

Don’t you often think that the “real” god may be very disappointed in your arrogance for thrusting up these pathetic craven images and so so human gods before him ?

By limiting yourself to physical evidence, you are blindly precluding the possibility of any super-natural, or transcending so-called nature. You have committed the very thing you condemn, and that by stipulating a limit which you cannot justify.

No I don’t limit myself to physical evidence. What I do say is current physical evidence = NO God.. current physical evidence = no supernatural occurrences.. extrapolation.. God likely does not exist and supernatural occurrences likely do not happen. I may be wrong.. of course but at least I am coming up with a logical conclusion from available data.

That's exactly what you are doing by limiting what you will accept as evidence and blindly believing that only what is material is real. You believe that materialism is true and this therefore justifies everything else you believe. But you haven't given a cogent justification for why you limit reality to what is material, let alone your blind acceptance of immaterial laws such as logic.

Well if we don’t “blindly” believe what is material to be real we just head back to the Matrix again.. can we leave it out from now on ? I don’t blindly accept logic. I believe it is something humans have devised from their evolved intelligence to explain the world.

Jim previously wrote: 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?

Oxygen existed before we called it oxygen too .. natural things don’t have to be mystified.

You've just violated your own tenets. You believe in the existence of immaterial universal and invariant laws, but you cannot justify your reliance upon them. Then you stipulate that only physical evidence is acceptable and only the material is real, but that somehow doesn't apply to the immaterial laws of logic or to the scientific method? Isn't that hypocritical?

That’s a long winded and confusing paragraph. I believe that some natural laws exist that came about from a natural orderly universe. I can justify my reliance on them as observation and human teaching and experience have shown them to work. Physical evidence is ALL we have.. for what we don’t have evidence for we must use our non-physical abilities to extrapolate. The physical and non physical abilities all came about naturally. No hypocrisy there ???

What determines what is "aberrant behaviour"? The majority?

Generally.. but in a Natural sense it is whatever is not conducive to survival. Man of course with his great intelligence has expanded this into many other areas that are merely considered unsocial.

There goes your blind faith again. You blindly assume this, with no means of proving or justifying it.

No I can only say it again .. if we don’t assume our intelligence is capable of having this discussion why are we bothering.-

Your circuituous argument doesn't stem from opinion?

An opinion that outside of a Matrix world is fact. We either have intelligence or we don’t. To argue that my intelligence allows me to make certain judgment is completely different from saying what is written in this book is right because it says it is.

I'm glad you mentioned this so we can disabuse you of it for future reference. It is pointless to try to argue infinite regresses where God is concerned if indeed the existence of the God of the Bible is true. You might view it as some point of logic, but it is certainly, by no means, a logical imperative.

Neatly trying to remove the most annoying retort of the atheist. No matter how good an argument you give for God the argument will always be “well who made God?” You cannot brush it aside as even your own argument for consciousness having to be created implies that either your God does not have consciousness or he was also created.

On your view, why does it matter? If morality is not absolute, then what justified complaint can you have?

Theists ALWAYS have a problem with atheistic morals. I wonder that they think so poorly of themselves that they feel their morals had to be handed to them. Humans have natural empathy. When we became self aware we also became aware that other feel the same pain we do.. if it is bad for you it is bad for others.. hence natural morals.

For the record, He commands worship, but He doesn't need it. In the Creator-creature relationship, worship is necessary for the well-being of the creature, namely man. It is not merely that God demands (He does, and justifiably so), but it is also what man was created to do, and man is only fulfilled and in proper relation to reality when properly ascribes worth to God.

Then why don’t the Bible texts say.. “You should worship me it will be good for you” ? It seem petty even then to create a creature that only thrives if it worships its creator. I wouldn’t do that !

Aussie, you have yet to cogently justify what you call "real evidence," let alone lobbing a complaint against God on the basis of some willy-nilly blindly assumed criterion that you so conveniently stipulate.

You are right.. I should have said if the Gods created by man are real they seem horrifying to a human. I sure HOPE they aren’t.

More specifically, the Bible calls you a fool for using logic AND blindly assuming that these immaterial universal and invariant logical laws just sprung up out of chaos and the void into existence.

Instead of thinking that a Supernatural being sprang up from chaos and the void into existence.. lets just cut out a layer of complexity.

Do you forget that you admitted to "accepting" them without justification?

Accepting them or refusing to argue about Matrix style worlds.. I said they NEED no justification.. they just happened.. like your God.

He has given you more than enough, yet you still reject it. That is why the Bible calls you a fool. You blindly assume that the material universe disallows the existence of immaterial entities, yet you claim that logical laws (immaterial entities) are you standard for determining what is true and what is false. It's irrational, Aussie.

Sorry Jim but has given me nothing.. you either for that matter. I don’t “blindly” assume anything. I assume that there are no immaterial entities as it is a logical progression from only Natural explanation have EVER been found. “Logical Laws” are not immaterial entities they are evolved processes used by man. That IS rational !

Correction: God is not a creature. He is the eternal Creator.

Maybe I should use the word “entity” although creature does make more sense. By any argument I know (or even ones you have used) if a God exists it si just as likely he needs a creator as anything else.

You have no trouble assuming that the immaterial laws of logic have always existed and presume to use them to ascertain reality. But you refuse to accept God, who is back of those very things you blindly assume and employ, and why? Why do you blindly accept one (the invariance and eternality of logical laws) yet you flatly reject the other (the existence of God)? Is it just because it is one additional step? It's a step that is rational. Without that "additional step" you have an incoherent, inconsistent, and self-refuting worldview. By taking the additional step, everything makes perfect sense.

Logical laws in an ordered universe make sense. I cannot see how you cannot realise this. Perhaps a Universe of chaos exist where illogical laws apply.. we will never see it as we are a product of THIS universe. While I actually agree your worldview is not incoherent and inconsistent I cannot see how you fail to see my is also… go back to my original statement about my worldview and show me where it is either.

Not at all. It is a rational explanation that exclusively unifies my experience with reality. It grounds my assumptions and validates everything I see, sense, think and experience. On your view, you must blindly and irrationally try to make sense of conflicting standards that you cannot justify and makes your worldview irrational.

It is an irrational explanation as I have shown you a world view where the invention of a God is totally unnecessary. Matrix worlds aside I am not a gibbering idiot in spite of the fact that my worldview must drive me mad according to you.

When Jesus was on earth, performing miracles, doing the impossible, did more people believe in Him? No. Because when you put it in people's faces, the way you're demanding, people do not believe -- they resent.

No that is a cop out… YOU KNOW if God appeared to everyone today even skeptic like me would say well yeah.. I thought I was a dream .. but everyone.. same dream.. it must be real. It your excuse to explain why your God does NOTHING to reveal himself today.

Jesus said that even if a man were to rise from the dead, people would still not believe. It's not for a lack of evidence.

Again.. lets put God to the test in a modern world where these “miracles” could be verified. Aren’t just in the least bit curious or sceptical that ALL miracles and supernatural events where in the unverifiable past ?

It's a hatred of God and of His demands upon people's lives. He calls you to account, Aussie, and you're found wanting. He has given sufficient evidence, and while you suppress it and deny it today, you will someday be reminded why you have no excuse, no defense, no alibli before God.

I have no hatred of God. That would be saying I hate the Easter Bunny. I am still not sure wether mans fantasies about Gods have been good or bad. It may be a great survival trick of man to invent gods and maintain some archaic fear that they will face some judgement day.

He ahs not given sufficient evidence to me or you. If he had you could produce it. Doesn’t it EVER surprise you that you cannot produce ONE piece of physical evidence for you God ? You would NEVER accept anything else on so little evidence as you do for god.

Was your last bit the standard Theist threat when argument is getting desperate… oohh .. you will suffer at judgement day.. I thought you were beyond that one.. I would say I will have the last laugh on that one but.. I know I won’t you will be too dead to know you were wrong.

Until you can justify your criteria and cogently define and account for what you call "normal evidence," you should probably stop using the term. Just say instead: "[God provides] no evidence that meet my blindly assumed criteria."

I can only reiterate that we can ONLY accept evidence that our poor little brains can cope with. You can come up with a million esoteric, Immaterial, mystical evidences .. but would YOU accept any of them for ..say… the existence of Aliens in UFO’s ?

If this were a formal debate, Aussie, I would declare you the loser based on your previous paragraph. You've basically admitted that coherence and intelligibility are not important to your worldview, and this is exactly the point I've been trying to make.

Well I would declare you the loser to.. nyah nayh nyah.. oddly enough we don’t get to decide that and strangely enough we would have diametrically opposed scores. I never admitted that coherence and intelligibility are unimportant (where did you get that from). I said the reason they exist does not matter. Why do we need a reason for their existence. Your worldview does need a reason as it need something to justify a God fantasy.. mine doesn’t.

You admit to embracing a worldview in which not everything makes sense and somehow that's OK for you. You are confronted every day with God's existence, and secondarily by this very discussion, and you reject that which would make all of your experience, your logic, your perceptions, and your understanding of reality itself make sense. Again, this is why the Bible calls you a fool. And again, I'm not name-calling. You seem to be a nice guy, and I'm willing to bet we could be good friends given the right circumstances. But this is how the Bible characterizes you.

I reject adding another illogical layer to a worldview that already makes sense of all the above. The Bible calls this foolish as the author of it know that many will one day question it. They know this as they made up the stuff in it. Insulting those that are thinking for themselves is a clear way to keep fools in the flock.. it also shows that they are losing the argument.

Since you mentioned several times your opinion that Christianity derives from pagan religions, I should point out to you that (a) if the Bible is true, then (b) true religion has been around longer than pagan religion, and (c) mankind would have perverted and distorted true religious practices and beliefs and thereby developed what became pagan religions and practices. Thus, logically, (d) any similarities between pagan religions and true religion should be expected, and (e) it is therefore merely your erroneous assumption based on your unjustified worldview that pagan religion predates true religion.

That is true and a very good point. It could be easily argued the other way round to though. Maybe the pagans had it right and you Christians have it wrong.


Au contraire, as demonstrated above. On your view, it doesn't make sense, and it doesn't matter if it makes sense. Of course, you know that just doesn't satisfy and flies in the face of everything we experience in reality.

Once and for all let us stop saying I don’t think laws make sense and I don’t care of they make sense. That is totally different to no caring why they exist.

Sure you could. I've said this very thing myself in debates with people like yourself. How would you know otherwise? How would you go about testing it? Could you? How?

This shows that you CLEARLY miss my point about matrix situations. If the above situation are REAL it is pointless to argue about anything. For the sake of a coherent argument we have to assume that the above and other matrix style worlds are not real.

And there's the bottom line on your view. It's ok to blindly accept logic and science as being valid methods of inquiry, even though you can neither test them nor validate them. Yet, when presented with God and His existence and attributes, you reject Him because you claim you can neither test Him nor validate Him. It's irrational to accept former and reject the Latter, especially when the existence and attributes of the Latter solves the problem of the former.

Irrational to you as you are a theist. You have some NEED to add in a layer of complexity.

For future discussion can we accept that it is not a Matrix World ? na dargue as though we really exist ?

Why bother? Because we're created to have knowledge. To investigate and learn about our environments and our world. We're designed to be creative, to solve problems, to better our lives and that of those around us. This is how God is worshipped when He is acknowledged as the Creator of all this. I know many scientists who are Christians. When they do their work in the field, in their laboratories, in the libraries, they are worshipping God.

If God existed further examination of anything is pointless. Its one of the fundamental reasons that I reject the idea of a God. The pointlessness of creating a creature and feel worshipped by its scrabble to understand your nature is so ironic.

Jim previously wrote: 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.

I don’t think I can prove it to you.. although you do accept the existence of a supernatural creature with no proof.. but I can tell you. I don’t blindly accept anything. I observe, I see I am taught and I can study the experience and knowledge of humans for centuries. These have all developed my own sense of logic and understanding.. which (sigh.. do I have to say this each time .. Matrix worlds aside) can be assumed to function.

That's not the case. It's not a level field because you come to the table using tools which you cannot justify, espousing a worldview does not cohere and does not align with reality. I use the tools justifiably, because my Creator is back of them, and my worldview coheres and aligns with reality.

You cannot get your mind around the fact that our tools evolved. In much the same fashion as a Tigers claws did. The tools need the same justification as the tigers claws. My worldview is eminently coherent.. otherwise why would I keep it. I understand the coherence of your.. I can imagine a world with a creator.. it is a bit myopic of your to not be able to imagine a coherent world without one.

Without God, logic and science could not exist.

Logic and science are inventions of man just like God.

On my worldview, the differences between Black and White make sense. On yours, you must merely blindly accept the tools by which you evaluate those differences, and so, as you said above, why must it make sense at all? Why not say black is white? On your worldview, as you admit above, it really doesn't have to make sense. It's irrational, Aussie.

Like you blindly accept a God.. you are just going one extra layer… don’t you get that yet ? My world of Natural order is far more rational than your of supernatural deities.
 

heusdens

New member
Re: Definition of subjective?

Re: Definition of subjective?

Originally posted by Hilston
Hi Heusdens,

Thanks for your response.

Heusdens writes:OK, then what is the definition of "subjective"? (Please don't say "the opposite of objective.")

Guess what! Subjective IS the opposite of objective, and I can say that without being accused of using "circular definition" cause I already explained objectivity without referring to subjectivity.

So. But you could have already guessed, subjective is that what is dependend upon your mind and does not exists outside and independend of your mind.

Heusdens writes:On your view, how have you justified your reliance upon and your limitation to those methods?

The methods of science are reliable because they are not just based on subjective approaches, the resulst of science can be verified for by anyone.
Science doesn't need one to "believe" in things, but establishes the results in an objective way.

Do you believe in anything immaterial/non-material?

Yes, why not, there are concepts of the mind. Like geometry has the concept of a perfect shaped triangle or circle. These are abstractions from reality, which do not exist in reality.
God is also a concept, an idealised thought, but which lacks objective existence.
 
Last edited:

heusdens

New member
Originally posted by Scrimshaw
There is no reason to think that we wouldn't have already discovered all the basic physical laws by now, and there is even less reason to think that undiscovered physical laws would CONTRADICT the ones we have already discovered.

Physicists do think that there can be new laws, and they think that becuase they have no way of explaining what happened at the Big Bang under the temperature and pressure/density conditions then.
So, physics is still looking for a unification iof quantum theory and gravity to explain such phenomena.

Wrong, the cosmological evidence reveals that the universe is a closed system; and the law of entropy prohibits the existence of an "eternal" energy source for the universe's existence.

I think you apply the Thermodynamics beyond it's application, and it's not much meaningfull to refer to the universe as a closed system. Wether a system is "closed" or "open" is normally defined as wether or not we should or should not take "outside" influences into consideration, and to what extend.
By definition however there is no "outside" to the universe, so this leave the issue wether the universe itself is an "open" or "closed" system as an 'open' question.
Arguably the universe is 'open' in the sense that we can not conjecture that the universe would have a boundary.
A universe which would have a boundary, would raise the issue of wether or not energy could flow in or out of the universe, and that could permit us to answer wether or not we need to consider the universe as an "open" or "closed" thermodynamic system. The universe would be "closed" if no energy could permeat the boundary, and would be "open" if it does occur.
But if we conjecture the universe does not have a boundary, then the question wether or not the universe is an "open" or "closed" system becomes an issue without meaning.

Are you joking? You think it's a "FACT" that the universe had a history prior to the Big Bang? You must be joking, or have one the most deluded concepts of what constitutes a "fact" I have ever seen.

Most likely it had, and ther are models for a pre Big Bang universe that make pretty good predictions about the current observable universe.

Actually, we "know" nothing about any history of the universe whatsoever. There is no direct evidence that even proves the universe expanded from a singularity. In fact, a "singularity" is an imaginary object that has never been observed, tested, or reproduced. Its an entirely theoretical entity, just like a God. The COBE tests only confirmed that the universe is EXPANDING. Thats it. Any claims about how long it's been expanding, or what kind of state the universe expanded from, are totally unsupported speculations.

Even if the theory development in this field has not reached a point where it is a "proven" fact, the development in this field is reaching a point where there is a theoretical model that describes the state of the universe prior to the Big Bang, and second it is not just guess work or speculation, cause this model predicts certain things which can be tested for in the observable universe. I refer to the theory of open / eternal / chaotic inflation here.

You are speaking out of turn and making exaggerated claims that even Hawkings wouldn't make. We are "dead sure" of NOTHING. And contrary to your claim, the evidence in the universe points to a temporal universe which began to exist at some point in the past.

In contrary to your opinion, there is no "evidence" for a universe poping into existence from seemingly nowhere, or the "begin of time".
It is a pitty that Stephen Hawking himself promoted that idea in the first place. But if you have read a "Brief History of Time" very well, you know he talks about two time concepts: "real" time (having had a beginning in time) and "imaginary" time, having had no such beginning in time.
Hawking even argues that the "imaginary" time is to some point more "real" then the "real" time.

When citing ideas about scientists, please do not just cite the part of the idea you best like, but the idea in full.

I think Stephen Hawking is a very brilliant scientists, but also I assume that he is not totally free from influences from his environment, causing his popular works to reflect on some ideas that might lead to theistic interpretations.

Nevertheless, Stephen Hawking does make clear what his position is in regard to this, when he claims: "Physicists don't know how to make physics from nothing".

It just shows that even Stephen Hawking must at some point assume that there is a history prior to the Big Bang.

The law of entropy prohibits an eternal universe.

Perhaps in your understanding of it, but I don't see scientific back up for your argument, and I doubt you hav a profound understanding of entropy.

You can not make a definite conclusion on the entropy of the whole universe, based on experiments in a labaraotory with gas or other substances. Our laws of Thermodynamics are based on earth labaratory conditions. Although as we understand it, they have universal application, also outside of earth labaratories, applying them on the universe as a whole is for sure some difficult. We do not yet a full and fixed idea of what this system in total is, so how can we apply the law of Thermodynamics on this system as a whole?
I have no problem in applying the laws of Thermodynamics to systems we do at least understand as a whole, but in the case of the universe, we have to raise some questions.

There are many factors that compete with this overall approach of increase of entropy. What about gravity? What about black holes? Etc.. In fact the law of gravity alone acts against the laws of thermodynamics, cause it causes a system which was highly disordered (a cloud of gas) to become very ordered.

Take in mind that even if your claim were right, you will face another problem, how to explain where the unvierse came from.
From nothing?
A deity?

If you have the point of view of this eternal Deity, then please explain to us, how to apply the law of Thermodynamics to this Deity?
And if the existing material world would have started from 'nothing' then explain to us how motion can arise out of a state of motionlesness, and matter can be formed out of nothing.

All this using the same law of physics you used to conjecture against the universe, being in eternal motion.

And some more on entropy. Entropy is a statistical quantity, which refers to the "amount of disorder" of a system.
When I put a cube of sugar, which is a well ordered system into water, it dissolves, and appearently the amound of disorder, entropy, increases. Statistics applies to this, and says that there are far more possibilities for this sugar dissolved in water to be disordered then ordered (there are far more disordered states then orderered).

But we can distinguish between two kind of ordering:
- Grouping order
- Symmetry order

For example if I have two squares (x rows, Y columns) filled with balls, half red coloured and other half blue coloured then I could order them in two different ordered ways:
- All blue ones in the left square, all red ones in the right square.
This would be the highest grouping order
- In both squares I have blue and red balls, in a systematic order: blue - red - blue, etc. (so blue only touches red, and red only blue)
This is the highest symmetry order

When arranging them in any other order, we can do that only be INcreasing one order, and simultaniously DEcreasing the other order. As we can see, these forms of order are complementary. When increasing one order, we decrease the other order.
 
Last edited:

Hilston

Active member
Hall of Fame
Has Bob Enyart admitted that atheists do not exist?

Has Bob Enyart admitted that atheists do not exist?

Has Bob Enyart admitted that atheists do not exist?

Below is a partial transcript of Bob Enyart's dialogue with a caller named Tom from the Thursday, July 3rd, 2003 broadcast of Bob Enyart Live (Listen via MP3 here: Bob Enyart Live, Thu. 7-3-03 #131)

Tom: When I read [Zakath's] writings, what comes across to me is that his hatred for God is greater than his honesty, ...

Bob Enyart: Objectivity ...

Tom: Objectivity; His hatred for God overshadows everything.

Bob Enyart: I think you hit the nail on the head.

Tom: And my question is: Is it possible for a man to be a true atheist? Because I read in Paul when he says, you know "for the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness because that which is known about God is evident within them." And so, if puts the evidence in us, is it really possible for these people to be honest atheists or do they just have a hatred for God?

Bob Enyart: Well, Paul says in that same chapter, Romans 1, he says, although they knew God, they turned in their hearts and they basically began to despise God.

Tom: And Zakath knew God, because he was a minister.

Bob Enyart: Yeah, well, hey there are plenty of ministers who, you know, like the pharisees in the Bible, who hate God. But, Tom, when Paul said although they knew God, that tells us that we're made knowing there's a God. The human race, when we're born, the Bible says God put eternity in our hearts, and we know we're going to be around forever, we know that. But then we can start to deny it, and we could really try hard to deny it, but an atheist does not live by his claimed belief system. He doesn't believe as though there is no such thing as truth. He doesn't live as if there is no such thing as truth, or no such thing as right and wrong. He doesn't live that way. So his very life denies his supposed belief system. But this is the way I'll answer that directly: Is Zakath really an atheist? Is any "Zakath" in the world, any atheist, are they really atheists?

Tom: Is it possible for them to be truly an atheist?

Bob Enyart: This is my answer: When they die, and go to judgment day, not a one of them will be surprised when he sees God. Not a one is going to say, "You know, I really didn't think you were real." Not a one. So I, you know, although they give a very consistent intellectual argument that there's no God, but they don't live that way ...

Tom: You know I really never thought of that but, you're right, they're living a lie. ... It comes down to their hatred for God. They have a hatred for God.

Bob Enyart: Yeah.

[snipped discussion about atheist reality as illusion, etc.]

Bob Enyart: Anything else, Tom?

Tom: No, that's it, Bob. I just wanted to run that by you that I just didn't think it was possible that anybody could really be a true atheist.

Bob Enyart: So the question is not "Does God exist?", it's "Does Atheism exist?"

--------End of excerpt----------

My question is, if Bob recognizes this fact, and effectively acknowledges to another Christian that Zakath is lying about his atheism, why does Bob continue as an "enabler," allowing Zakath to assert his atheism without challenge? Bob is no slouch when it comes to exposing the lies of socialism, cultic religions, the pro-life agenda, homosexuality, and sexual immorality. From what I've read and heard of Mr. Enyart, he confronts these lies head-on and rarely misses a beat whenever a disputant asserts them. Why does he shift his tack with the so-called atheists, and affirm their false claim, rather than confronting the myth of atheism?

Tom, If you're following this thread, good job!

Jim
 
Last edited:

Aussie Thinker

BANNED
Banned
Hilston,

Ill tell you why Bob doesn’t “expose” atheists as liars… because he (like you) knows we aren’t.

You have this horrible suspicion that we are right. You KNOW you would never believe in any other sort of balderdash based on the same flimsy (nonexistent) evidence that you have for god.

If you argue we are just liars.. then what point is argument at all.. that is just silly and childish. We can just say you are liars too.. end of argument.. what point does that achieve.

In fact we KNOW you are liars.. not based on the testimony of a bronze age book .. but on what we KNOW now.

We know God does not talk to us so we know he does not talk to you. Unless he is selective and that seems ridiculous.

So therefore we actually have first hand eyewitness evidence that you lie.. or at least fool yourself.

I KNOW I tell the truth and it gauls me to think someone believes me a liar based on a cobbled together religious text that is full of lies and mythology.

The saddest thing is when you find out I am right you will be to dead to know about it !
 

heusdens

New member
Unsurprisingly, theism and atheism both exist as either a belief or conviction system, and there exist people regarding them as supporter of that very belief or conviction system. They are not more not less existing, as for instance: physics, mathematics, philosophy, liberalism, socialism, etc. etc.

The question though is wether or not the belief in a God is based on some real existence of any Deity. Not surprisingly the answer to that must be hold to be negative (based on the fact that there is no positive indication for the existence of any God). There has not been a proof or disproof for God, neither will there ever be. That is why there is a belief in God, and not knowledge about there being a God. Why would one believe in the existence of something, if we know that that something exists or does not exist?

The belief in a God stands apart from the knowledge wether there is or is not a God. For the belief in God we can admit that a person can in various degrees have a belief in God. As to the question if it would be possible for a person to have a total absence in a belief in God, we could state that it would not be surprising if at least to some extend people have beliefs. Believing itself is not a rare fact within human consciousness, cause we are not seldom put in a position in which there is a lack of knowledge, to base our actions on.
Not every person will attribute their belief to God. To the extend in which one does, it can be said that one has a belief in God, and to the extend in which one doesn't it can be said one doesn't belief in God. Even if we attribute our belief to a 'personal God' this of course stands apart from knowing that apart from one's mind and independend of it, there is a God. To the extend of the belief itself, and even to the extend of assigning this belief to a 'personal God', as part of one's own consciousness, there realy can be no problem with that.

The problem arises when one tries to externalise such a belief, and tries to assign external existence to such concepts of the mind. It is in this respect that we whould thus distinguish between harcore 'believers in God', who externalise their own mind concepts, and those who refrain from it, and keep that a personal matter.

Since God is a reality within the mind, and within the mind only, we should abstain from even trying to externalize such a concept, and make it to something it isn't. A belief, or to believe in general, is a personal matter, and we should leave the issue with that.
If we were only able of admitting the truth of the matter, for sure all kinds of wars, struggles and debates about such issues would have no necessity at all.
 
Last edited:

One Eyed Jack

New member
Most people that claim to be atheists do so because they don't like the idea of God holding them accountable for their actions.
 

heusdens

New member
To me my conviction to atheism is that apart from my own mind and concepts of my own mind, I recognize and acknowledge there is no God.

I think it therefore quite silly to even attempt to demonstrate, using for example physcical laws, to 'proof' God exists.
Since God can be residing within one's mind only, and does not have external existence, all such concepts put forward by 'believers' demonstrate or indicate a false belief, because it is a belief in something one knows does not exist.

Wether one lives up to one own's personal judgements and moral concepts, is entirely up to that person, and (to the extend as to living up the rules of society) is not something to be judged by others.

The personal judgements themselves take care of that. We are all responsible for the things we do or don't do to ourselves.

As a person we should take care of ourselves, and as a society take care of each other.
 
Last edited:

LightSon

New member
heusdens,
Having gone through your writings, I see a possible contradiction. I'll try to package it, and then ask you to elaborate. I may be misreading you and will appreciate your clarification.

Originally posted by heusdens
The problem arises when one tries to externalize such a [theistic] belief, and tries to assign external existence to such concepts of the mind. It is in this respect that we would thus distinguish between hardcore 'believers in God', who externalize their own mind concepts, and those who refrain from it, and keep that a personal matter.

You seem to be saying that as long I keep God in my mind and not "assign external existence" to the idea, I'm okay. You argue it is a "personal matter", implying that to bring our God into the public forum is questionable.

Again you reiterate this concept (as applied to theists):

Originally posted by heusdens
Since God is a reality within the mind, and within the mind only, we should abstain from even trying to externalize such a concept, and make it to something it isn't. A belief, or to believe in general, is a personal matter, and we should leave the issue with that.
If we were only able of admitting the truth of the matter, for sure all kinds of wars, struggles and debates about such issues would have no necessity at all.

And then you imply that theistic positions are the root of evil:

Originally posted by heusdens
If we were only able of admitting the truth of the matter, for sure all kinds of wars, struggles and debates about such issues would have no necessity at all.

As an aside, are you aware of Stalin's atheistic-driven genocides?

Having admonished the theist to keep his God in the realm of personal thoughts, you change gears, but only for the atheist. You speak of your atheistic "conviction" and "whether one lives up to one own's personal judgments and moral concepts"

Originally posted by heusdens
To me my conviction to atheism is that apart from my own mind and concepts of my own mind, I recognize and acknowledge there is no God.

Whether one lives up to one own's personal judgements and moral concepts, is entirely up to that person, and not (to the extend as to living up the rules of society) is not something to be judged by others.

I would rather argue that to "[live] up to one own's personal judgements and moral concepts, is entirely up to that person", is a universal prerogative, and NOT just an option for the atheist. At first you challenge the theist to keep his God-think to himself, but then suggest the atheist has a moral right to actualize his convictions.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, but by innuendo, you seem to be making this unfair distinction between the theist and atheist.

Certainly to the extent that I believe in God, I will live up to ensuing personal judgments based upon that belief. We call this being "a doer of the word and not a hearer only".

(edited for typos only)
 
Last edited:

heusdens

New member
Originally posted by LightSon
heusdens,
Having gone through your writings, I see a possible contradiction. I'll try to package it, and then ask you to elaborate. I may be misreading you and will apprecite your clarification.

You seem to be saying that as long I keep God in my mind and not "assign external existence" to the idea, I'm okay. You argue it is a "personal matter", implying that to bring our God into the public forum is questionable.

I was referring to the idea or believe in an external God, as something that could exist outside and apart of one's mind. It's that idea of God I bring into question as being "questionable". At least I myself do not recognize such a God, which on the other side does not abstain me from having my own concept or thought of what the concept of God is all about. And as a matter of fact, most or many of the attributed properties assigned by theism to God, do in fact not realy resemble my thoughts on what God is or is not, which is a source of confusion somehow, and what is why I raised the question.

It's not my argument that to debate a certain issue is "questionable", since as a matter of fact, we do debate it, and find it meaningfull to debate about it.

Again you reiterate this concept (as applied to theists):

And then you imply that theistic positions are the root of evil:

They aren't my exact words. Nevertheless I think it is a mistake to take the concept of God apart from one's own mind.

Certainly we can point out to certain historic events, in which for example Christianity 'convicted' people with force and violence to the belief of Christianity. As happened in the case of other belief systems as well.

As an aside, Are you aware of Stalin's atheistic-driven genocides?

Whatever you are referring to, I don't see a point in calling the events which took place during the Stalin period as genocide. Genocide is a term referring to the elimination and mass-murder of people of certain ethnic background, and based on the ethnic background only. I see no facts in support of attributing the word 'genocide' to these events. The struggle that took place in the Soviet-Union was not an etnic clash, but class-struggle.

Whatever is your attitude and opinion on this historic episode of the Soviet-Union under the leadership of Stalin, and whatever wrong may or may not haved occured during that period, and who is to blame for that, is in itself a whole new discussion.

Not that I won't want to debate about that, but I think it's a little besides the current topic.

Having admonished the theist to keep his God in the realm of personal thoughts, you change gears, but only for the atheist. You speak of your atheistic "conviction" and "whether one lives up to one own's personal judgements and moral concepts"

Not just theist, but anyone who tries to make a belief into something it isn't.

I would rather argue that to "[live] up to one own's personal judgements and moral concepts, is entirely up to that person", is a universal prerogative, and NOT just an option for the atheist.

I did not imply that it would be the option for just the atheist.
And I added the phrase that as far as one's actions are concerned, we have to deal with certain societal rules.
That is, certain actions based on a belief, might be in conflict with societal rules, which can dispermit those actions.

At first you challenge the theist to keep his God-think to himself, but then suggest the atheist has a moral right to actualize his convictions.

Not just theist, but anyone who tries to make a belief, someone's personal value system, into something it is not (i.e. something that is 'above' or 'outside' of the human mind).

I do not understand your statement about suggesting that atheist have a moral right to actualize his / her conviction.

What is or is not a moral right to them is not to be understood something different then to anyone else.

I only differentiated about the belief itself, which is to be seen on a personal level, and not to be taken outside of that.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, but by innuendo, you seem seem to be making this unfair distinction between the theist and atheist.

I was making a distinction between a fair belief and an unfair belief, and make the disctinction between a belief in something and the knowledge about something.

Certainly to the extent that I believe in God, I will live up to ensuing personal judgments based upon that belief. We call this being "a doer of the word and not a hearer only".

I don't think that would be anything different for anyone else.
 
Last edited:

Aussie Thinker

BANNED
Banned
Hilston,

I assume as you have not replied to my previous arguments that we can accept that as tacit approval of them.

1. That consciousness is merely a product of evolution
2. That absolute truth or any such concept is merely an invention of man
3. Atheists are not lying based on a mythological book
4. Theists are lying as no God has ever “appeared” to them or given them anything like real evidence of its existence.

I am only making this assumption as you have posted several times after my assertions so I am assuming you accept them.

Thanks !
 

Brother Vinny

New member
<sidenote>

Scrimshaw said,

2 Tim 3:16 - "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

That verse says that the scriptures are sufficent to THOROUGHLY equip the man of God for EVERY good work.

Wrong. Read the verse again. It merely says that Scripture is useful for the thorough equipping of the man of God for every good work. It nowhere says that Scripture is solely sufficient.

A strong-headed Catholic apologist would eat your lunch for you. Good thing I'm not one. . ..

<sidenote ends>
 

Brother Vinny

New member
I have to say I think Hilston is pretty much on-target when he says the evidentialist method is unbiblical. I do think Hilston needs to clarify the difference between unbiblical and antibiblical, though. Driving to church on Sunday is unbiblical; there were no automobiles when the Bible was written. Having 66 and only 66 (or 73, depending on your theological leanings ;) ) books in the Bible is unbiblical, unless one ascribes to the "inspired Table of Contents" theory.

The question should be: Is Bob Enyart's apologetic approach antibiblical? Personally, I don't feel qualified to answer, but I offer an observation: Nowhere in the Bible do we see a drawn-out treatise citing evidence to prove God's existence. The Bible is written from points of view that takes the existence of God as a given.

If the way Bob handles apologetics is antibiblical, then by all means Hilston should set him straight. If it is merely unbiblical but not antibiblical, then I only see problems as far as practicality is concerned: In proving the existence of the sun, it is far more effecient to point to the sun than to all of which it illuminates.

I do believe those who have chalked up Hilston's posts to be mean-spirited or vindictive have done him a disservice. Iron is meant to sharpen iron (Proverbs 27:17), and Hilston's one of the sharpest men I've had opportunity to speak with.
 

novice

Who is the stooge now?
Originally posted by Paul DeYonghe
I do believe those who have chalked up Hilston's posts to be mean-spirited or vindictive have done him a disservice. Iron is meant to sharpen iron (Proverbs 27:17), and Hilston's one of the sharpest men I've had opportunity to speak with.
Apparently you have been gone from TOL for awhile and missed some of Hilston's greatest theological blockbusters of all time.... The Blade Runner and MATRIX parallels. :rolleyes:
 

Brother Vinny

New member
Originally posted by novice
Apparently you have been gone from TOL for awhile and missed some of Hilston's greatest theological blockbusters of all time.... The Blade Runner and MATRIX parallels. :rolleyes:

Hmm. Apparently I have. I'd read his article on The Matrix at his website some time ago, and I thought it was pretty smart, though.

Blade Runner? You mean he was able to stay awake through it? :shocked:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top