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

Status
Not open for further replies.

Nathon Detroit

New member
Originally posted by NATEDOG
I wouldn't exactly call this debate a KO knight. A draw sounds about right.
A draw?

How so?

A draw is when both combatants finish the fight and the judges cannot determine a clear victor. You obvioously dislike Bob and thats fine with me, but your bias is clouding your judgement.

A draw.... LOL :rolleyes:
 

john2001

BANNED BY MOD
Banned by Mod
Originally posted by Knight
A draw?

How so?

A draw is when both combatants finish the fight and the judges cannot determine a clear victor. You obvioously dislike Bob and thats fine with me, but your bias is clouding your judgement.

A draw.... LOL :rolleyes:

In terms of content Bob really made a very poor showing by bringing up all of those bogus scientific-sounding arguments.

We don't really know what has happened to Zakath.

At best, I would give them an incomplete.
 

Nathon Detroit

New member
Originally posted by john2001
In terms of content Bob really made a very poor showing by bringing up all of those bogus scientific-sounding arguments.
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.
 

NATEDOG

New member
A draw is when both combatants finish the fight and the judges cannot determine a clear victor.

Yeah, you're right. A knockout is when somebodies arguments get destroyed and they chicken out, change their minds, or are reduced to the point that all reason breaks down.

You obvioously dislike Bob and thats fine with me, but your bias is clouding your judgement.

I don't dislike Bob at all. I disagree with some of his theology, and the way he handles some things. I respect Bob for making some pretty bold stands on some issues I think are important. I know his son. I do think Bob's a good guy.

A draw.... LOL

A knockout...LOL
I think we were both wrong, I think it was a victory by default or forfeiture.
 

Nathon Detroit

New member
Originally posted by NATEDOG
A knockout...LOL
I think we were both wrong, I think it was a victory by default or forfeiture.
I classified this debate as a "TKO in the 8th round" Do you know what the acronym TKO means?
 

Turbo

Friendly Neighborhood Admin
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
It's basically when a fighter hasn't been counted out, but can't/won't go on fighting.
 

NATEDOG

New member
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.
 

john2001

BANNED BY MOD
Banned by Mod
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.
 

LightSon

New member
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?
 

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
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?
 

attention

New member
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:

LightSon

New member
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.
 

john2001

BANNED BY MOD
Banned by Mod
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.
 

LightSon

New member
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.
 

Corky the Cat

BANNED
Banned
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
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top