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

Status
Not open for further replies.

Hilston

Active member
Hall of Fame
Hate ... hate ...

Hate ... hate ...

Hi LightSon,

This is a bit off-topic. I posted those e-mails in their entirety, so the remark you are referring to was not included to make any points in this discussion. But since your question can be answered briefly, here it is:

You write:
What would be the antithesis you embrace?

-love the sin, love the sinner.
-hate the sin, hate the sinner.
-love the sin, hate the sinner.

That's about it. Are one of these preferred in your view?
Hate the sin, hate the unrepentant sinner.

If you wish to discuss this further, I'd prefer to not do it on this thread. Let's either start a new one, or just send me a PM and I'll gladly elaborate.

Cheers,
Jim
 

Hilston

Active member
Hall of Fame
What Zakath thinks ...

What Zakath thinks ...

Hi Novice,

You write:
Jim, do you think Zakath THINKS he has a defense?
Yes. He needs to be shown that he doesn't have one. But that cannot be done using evidence that he dismisses. Rather, by answering the fool according to his folly, we show that the very tools he uses to make his defense (logic, science, uniformity, order, the intelligibility of human experience, etc.) are accepted on faith, which he claims to eschew. His entire worldview could be eviscerated by using a biblical argument. Instead we will get, "Well, if that doesn't convince you, have a look at THIS! ... Still not enough? How about THIS! ... Still not convinced? Well how about THIS! ... " and so on, ad nauseum. When in fact the existence and attributes of God are screamed at Zakath on a daily, nightly basis, from every sphere of his experience, from every facet of his life. It is inescapable, but he lies to himself and others, while he shines and maintains his altar to the unknown god (which, in his case, is logic and science). He fails to acknowledge that the unknown god is Jesus Christ, the true Source of logic (He is the logos) and science (He created the order of the cosmos that allows science to even function).

Jim
 

novice

Who is the stooge now?
Re: What Zakath thinks ...

Re: What Zakath thinks ...

Originally posted by Hilston
Hi Novice,

You write:Yes. He needs to be shown that he doesn't have one. But that cannot be done using evidence that he dismisses.
Says who????

I thought I had a defense once.

It wasn't until I was shown that I didn't have a defense that I began to realize maybe there was a God.

Anecdotal, evidence to be sure but true none the less.

You state:
Rather, by answering the fool according to his folly, we show that the very tools he uses to make his defense (logic, science, uniformity, order, the intelligibility of human experience, etc.) are accepted on faith, which he claims to eschew. His entire worldview could be eviscerated by using a biblical argument. Instead we will get, "Well, if that doesn't convince you, have a look at THIS! ... Still not enough? How about THIS! ... Still not convinced? Well how about THIS! ... " and so on, ad nauseum. When in fact the existence and attributes of God are screamed at Zakath on a daily, nightly basis, from every sphere of his experience, from every facet of his life. It is inescapable, but he lies to himself and others, while he shines and maintains his altar to the unknown god (which, in his case, is logic and science). He fails to acknowledge that the unknown god is Jesus Christ, the true Source of logic (He is the logos) and science (He created the order of the cosmos that allows science to even function).

Jim
I think your argument is a bit of a platitude but...

I think Bob will get to some of the points you are making but maybe in a slightly different way.
 

Scrimshaw

New member
Re: Zakath's "Unknown God" altar ...

Re: Zakath's "Unknown God" altar ...

Originally posted by Hilston
I'll ask the question again. I want an example of how NOT to answer a fool according to his folly.

The verse is saying - don't respond to folly, WITH folly. More on this below.....


Scrimshaw writes:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another example of answering a fool according his folly would be answering YOUR foolish arugment in this thread. For example, you foolishly used Proverbs 26:4,5 to argue against Bob's method of argument, ...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scrimshaw, since you claim I foolishly misapplied the Prov. 26:4,5, please give me the correct application of the verse. Thanks.

No problem. Since the verse is saying not to respond to folly, WITH folly, the correct application of the verse would be not to respond to a fool's folly in a way that commits the same folly. For example, say a fool throws a bag of cow manure at your front door. Proverbs 26:4,5 would say not to respond by throwing a bag of cow manure back at the fool's door, because by doing so, you'd be responding to the fool according to his folly.



Scrimshaw writes:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
... but, that act in itself is an unbiblical act because Proverbs also says - Proverbs 12:23 - A prudent man keeps his knowledge to himself, but the heart of fools blurts out folly. So we must believe that you are NOT a prudent man but a fool, because you did not keep your knowledge to yourself but opened this thread.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scrimshaw, if that is what you believe that verse is saying, then you too are sinning by sharing your knowledge. Clearly it's not what the verse means.

BINGO!!! I don't think that's a correct application of 12:23 for the same reason I do not think you have a correct application of 26:4,5.


Scrimshaw writes:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So if we are to use Proverbs as our textbook for debate method, ...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I've used Proverbs, Acts, Romans, Psalms. There are plenty more references to make the point. These ludicrous charges do not bode well for you, Scrimshaw. With every jab and the increasingly desultory points you make, you sound more and more desperate.

You have not produced a single verse that says anything to directly support your argument. All you have done is misapplied a few selective pretexts.



Scrimshaw writes:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually, we know of direct commands not to look at women lustfully, ...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Right, so you admit there are exclusions. Will you now revise your claim that the manner doesn't matter "as long as the end result is the gospel of Christ is shared"?

Since I am a Christian and assumed you were one as well, I didn't think it was necessary to state the obvious....just like Paul didn't think it was necessary to state the obvious in 1 Corinthians 9:19 when he said that he will become "ALL" things to "ALL" men. Certainly it is assumed that Paul didn't literally mean "ALL things", otherwise he would be saying he becomes a homosexual to homsexuals, a prostitute to prostitutes, a cheater to cheaters, liar to liars, etc. etc.

I'll tell ya what......I'll revise my statement to include those exclusions as soon as Paul revises his statement to include those exclusions....... but until then, me and Paul will see no need to state the obvious. ;)


There are proper and improper ways of answering the fool. Bob Enyart has answered the fool improperly, in both method and example, violating explicit biblical prescription and biblical models.

That is merely a blanketed assertion that you have yet to prove. In fact, I will disprove it later on in this post. (See below)



Scrimshaw writes:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The exclusions are obvious - excluded is all means that would violate a law of God.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Would you agree it is a violation of the law of God to lie?

Yes. Where has Bob "lied"?

To endorse a lie? To perpetuate a lie?

Where has Bob endorsed or perpetuated a lie? His arguments actually expose atheism by showing *WHY* its a lie.

That is what is happening when someone allows a person to claim to be an atheist and to claim that they haven't seen enough evidence for God's existence and attributes.

What the heck does that mean? What does it mean to "allow" someone to "claim" to be an atheist? What's Bob gonna do? Reach through the computer a stick a sock in Zakath's mouth so he can't claim a position in the debate? You can't prohibit people from claiming a position in a debate. In a debate format, each person is allowed to define the position they want to argue for, regardless of whether or not you think it is a legitimate position. In fact, the entire goal of a debate is to demonstrate that your opponents position is illegitimate, and therefore his claims are illegitimate.


Would you allow an alcoholic person continue to deny being an alcoholic? Would you allow a person to continue through life thinking that he is good enough to attain heaven without Christ? If not, then why would you allow someone to claim that they haven't seen enough evidence to believe in God?

Like I said, you can't stop people from claiming a position. But you can explain why the position they claim is incorrect. Bob is debating Zakath in order to show that Zakath's position is incorrect. So really, you are just quibbling over semantics here and its a total waste of your time.


Scrimshaw writes:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unforturnately for your hopelessly misguided arguments, there is no law of God that states you cannot call God an intelligent designer or appeal to the laws of physics when discussing the existence of God with a nonbeliever.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What I'm opposed to is the failure to confront the lie of atheism, which is their claim regarding the insufficiency of evidence.

But demonstrating that the evidence *IS* sufficient is the same thing as confronting the lie, because the "LIE" is that the evidence is insufficient! Hello?

It is biblically wrong to argue by first affirming a lie and, in this case, the myth that the anti-theist hasn't had sufficient proof for God's existence.

Nothing in Bob's arguments endorse the idea that Zakath has not had sufficient proof for God's existence. In fact, the entire purpose of Bob's arguments is to detail those proofs and explain *WHY* they are sufficient; which thereby refutes Zakath's LIE that they're not sufficient.


Scrimshaw writes:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If they already know and lie about the existence of God, then reiterating the evidence that reveals the existence of the Creator would function as a rebuke.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A rebuke of what? Their claim of insufficient evidence? Or their claim of God not existing? You can't prove they've had sufficient evidence by showing more evidence. That's a self-refuting proposition.

No, Bob is NOT providing "more" evidence that Zakath hasn't seen. There is no new evidence. The evidence that David described in Psalms 19:1 is the same evidence that Bob is describing now. Bob is simply *expounding* on the same evidence with a slightly higher degree of scientific/philosophical detail. Surely you are aware that our scientific knowledge of the universe has increased since the time of David, correct?


Scrimshaw writes:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It'd be like showing the missing cookie to a child who stole it from the cookie jar and hid the cookie under his bed. Simply presenting the evidence that refutes the atheist lie is a good thing, and functions as a rebuke. There is nothing unbiblical about it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree. But Bob is not refuting the atheist lie (i.e. "there is not enough evidence and I don't believe in God").

Wrong. By showing that the evidence for belief is sufficient, Bob IS refuting the atheist LIE. If the atheist lie is that the evidence is "insufficient for belief", and Bob shows that it IS sufficient for belief, then the atheist's claim in support of "disbelieving" is proven illegitimate. I repeat, Bob is showing that Zakath's claim of disbelief is illegitimate. Get with the program and stop all this nonsensical, unnecessary quibbling.


Scrimshaw writes:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This knowledge displayed by creation not only expresses the existence of God, but His glory as well. Even if there are those who knowingly suppress this knowledge, exposing their deceitful tactics would function as a rebuke; and there is no better way of exposing a lie than by emphasizing the evidences that prove it to be a lie..........and that is exactly what Bob's arguments are doing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You're wrong. Bob's arguments are aimed at exposing the lie of atheism, which is the belief that there is no God. But there is no such thing as atheism. Bob is trying to discredit something that doesn't really exist.

But atheism DOES exist! It exists in the form of a LIE!! Bob's arguments are refuting a LIE. I repeat, by showing that the evidence for theism is *sufficient*, Bob is showing that Zakath's claim of disbelief is illegitimate. It's a lie.


What Bob ought to be arguing against is the lie that Zakath doesn't believe in God, just as Paul argued with the Athenians. Paul rebuked them for having the "Unknown God" altar. Bob should rebuke Zakath for his "Unknown God" altar.

That's a false comparison because the Athenians were theists. They believed in a god. Zakath does not. Remember, Romans 1 does not say that everyone *in the whole world* "believes" in God. It simply says that what can be known about God has made plain to everyone, so no one is has an EXCUSE for their disbelief. The text does not say that no one has disbelief. That is something that YOU are claiming. The text only says no one has an EXCUSE. You need to be careful not to misinterpret what Paul wrote.

Blessings,
 
Last edited:

Hilston

Active member
Hall of Fame
Platitude?

Platitude?

Jim previously wrote: He [Zakath] needs to be shown that he doesn't have [a defense]. But that cannot be done using evidence that he dismisses.

Novice writes
Says who????
Isn't it obvious? If Zakath dismisses the evidence, how does that show him that he has no defense?

Novice writes
I thought I had a defense once. It wasn't until I was shown that I didn't have a defense that I began to realize maybe there was a God. Anecdotal, evidence to be sure but true none the less.
I don't doubt that God used Bob to have an impact on your perceived defense. The fact is, people are often persuaded by bad arguments. We see this in politics all the time. It doesn't justify a bad argument. I'm sure some of the true things Bob said were used by God in spite of their unbiblical presentation, and that's fine. God uses our failures all the time. But that doesn't make it ok to use an unbiblical argument.

Novice writes:
I think your argument is a bit of a platitude but...
How so? Please look up the word "platitude," then come back and tell me if that's what you really meant to say.

Thanks,
Jim
 

novice

Who is the stooge now?
Originally posted by Hilston
Isn't it obvious? If Zakath dismisses the evidence, how does that show him that he has no defense?
In the same manner that any argument shows anyone ANYTHING!

Will he listen? I don't know. He might, he might not - I know that I did, not overnight but I did listen.

Jim states:
I don't doubt that God used Bob to have an impact on your perceived defense. The fact is, people are often persuaded by bad arguments. We see this in politics all the time. It doesn't justify a bad argument. I'm sure some of the true things Bob said were used by God in spite of their unbiblical presentation, and that's fine. God uses our failures all the time. But that doesn't make it ok to use an unbiblical argument.
Again... sort of like using the Blade Runner argument eh Jim? Thats pretty biblical isn't it??? :rolleyes:

Jim states:
Please look up the word "platitude," then come back and tell me if that's what you really meant to say.

Thanks,
Jim
That is what I meant to say and could you be anymore smug?
 

NATEDOG

New member
Comeon Novice,
I'm really interested to know if you took the time to listen to Bahnsen and Stein's debate, and what you thought about it if you did. Please give me some sign you understand the presuppositional method at all. :drum:
 

novice

Who is the stooge now?
Originally posted by NATEDOG
Comeon Novice,
I'm really interested to know if you took the time to listen to Bahnsen and Stein's debate, and what you thought about it if you did. Please give me some sign you understand the presuppositional method at all. :drum:
I am not familiar with either fellow.

And frankly I am really not interested nor do I have the time to listen to the debate.

If you cannot make your case here (at TOL) then I suppose we will have to agree to disagree.

To be honest, I think Scrimshaw has pretty much abliterated yours and Hilstons arguments already.
 

Aussie Thinker

BANNED
Banned
Hilston,

You have ridiculous logic.

I am an atheist and can assure you God has never revealed himself to me regardless of what your book tells you.

Furthermore I do not think the Bible is infallible. It is a cobbled together conglomeration of history and religious myth and philosophy.

By your definition argument about anything is pointless.

The Bible also says the earth has corners.. therefore from now on regardless of what science says and any logical argument to you it MUST have corners.

Enyart is doing an admirable job of at least living in the real world and trying to prove the “unprovable”.. your way of living in ignorance is pathetic !
 

Aussie Thinker

BANNED
Banned
You betcha Jack.. didn't think you could get away from me forever.. didya ?

Seriously nice to catch up again... I notice you are havign fun on another thread trying to justify that fairy story about Noah.. lol

:)
 

Nathon Detroit

New member
Originally posted by Aussie Thinker
You betcha Jack.. didn't think you could get away from me forever.. didya ?

Seriously nice to catch up again... I notice you are havign fun on another thread trying to justify that fairy story about Noah.. lol

:)
"Fairy story" easy now.....
 

Hilston

Active member
Hall of Fame
Ridiculous and pathetic ...

Ridiculous and pathetic ...

Hi Aussie Thinker,

You write:
You have ridiculous logic.
How so? What brought you to that conclusion?

Aussie Thinker writes:
I am an atheist and can assure you God has never revealed himself to me regardless of what your book tells you.
Sure He has! You've just deluded yourself into thinking otherwise. We obviously have a difference in opinion on this. How would you propose we went about resolving that difference?

Aussie Thinker writes:
Furthermore I do not think the Bible is infallible. It is a cobbled together conglomeration of history and religious myth and philosophy.
On what do you base that assessment?

Aussie Thinker writes:
By your definition argument about anything is pointless.
Not at all. Differences of opinion can be explored by arguments. There is a point to that.

Aussie Thinker writes:
The Bible also says the earth has corners.. therefore from now on regardless of what science says and any logical argument to you it MUST have corners.
Did you say "what science says"? Is "science" a person with vocal ability, or were you using a figure of speech?

Aussie Thinker writes:
Enyart is doing an admirable job of at least living in the real world and trying to prove the “unprovable”..
It isn't surprising that you would (a) favor an opponent whose argument you could easily refute and (b) paint him as a formidable opponent. Fight promoters do this all the time. You and I both know that you (or perhaps some other anti-theist you may know) could handily deal with Mr. Enyart's arguments.

Aussie Thinker writes:
... your way of living in ignorance is pathetic !
Please elaborate. What is so ignorant about my way of living?

Thanks for posting,
Jim
 

One Eyed Jack

New member
Originally posted by Aussie Thinker
You betcha Jack.. didn't think you could get away from me forever.. didya ?

Seriously nice to catch up again... I notice you are havign fun on another thread trying to justify that fairy story about Noah.. lol

:)

And doing a pretty good job of it, I might add. :D

So what brings you here?
 

Nathon Detroit

New member
Originally posted by Aussie Thinker
Knight,

Sorry there where no fairies in it.. they left them (and the unicorns of the Ark)

I should have said Christian Religious Myth.
Yea.. there were no FAIRIES on the ark!!! :shocked: :vomit:
 

Nathon Detroit

New member
Re: Ridiculous and pathetic ...

Re: Ridiculous and pathetic ...

Originally posted by Hilston
It isn't surprising that you would (a) favor an opponent whose argument you could easily refute and (b) paint him as a formidable opponent. Fight promoters do this all the time. You and I both know that you (or perhaps some other anti-theist you may know) could handily deal with Mr. Enyart's arguments.
Jim you are an extremely divisive Christian.

I am saddened by your bizarre behavior.
 

Aussie Thinker

BANNED
Banned
Jim,

Simply put you are unwilling to argue about anything that the Bible disagrees with.

And you refuse to accept that the Bible may be wrong because it “can’t” be !

That is like me saying you don’t really exist you are just a computer program in the Matrix.. anything you say can be disregarded because you don’t really exist.

For you to have any coherent acceptable argument in anything you must always accept that the other side may be right..

In other words you have to accept that the Bible may be wrong and constantly strive to show it isn’t…

2 completely logical fallacies that you employ

Just saying something is right doesn’t make it so.

Using a text as proof of itself is ridiculous.

Jack,

I saw the great debate posted in one of the other forums.. I must admit both debaters are pretty good and I am sure would blow me away.

Naturally I think Zakath makes the most sense.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top