Battle Royale VII Specific discussion thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

novice

Who is the stooge now?
Originally posted by Zakath
No. Because I was not in error. If Enyart wants to discuss it, fine. But I'm certainly not going to hash that out with the peanut gallery. :nono:
By all means!

:D
 

ZroKewl

BANNED
Banned
Re: Re: Re: its a whole NEW day....

Re: Re: Re: its a whole NEW day....

Originally posted by novice
I mean Zakath in no uncertain terms basically called Bob a liar! He should retract and apologize since Zakath was obviously in error.

Do you agree?

If not, why?
This is asinine. Here is a progression of events:

Zakath Post #1:
[nothing concerning absolute right & wrong]

Bob Post #1:
Thus, my second question to you is, does absolute moral right and wrong exist?

Zakath Post #2:
"What do you mean by absolute right and absolute wrong?"

Bob Post #2:
BA5: An absolute wrong is a harm that cannot be justified.

Zakath Post #3:
Until Pastor Enyart can actually demonstrate that both "absolute right" and "absolute wrong" exist and the superhuman standard behind such absolutes, I am not inclined to believe in the existence of what is essentially a baseless assertion.

Bob Post #3:
BA11: Absolute morality can only exist if a moral authority above mankind exists; and I am happy to defend the crimes of rape and murder, for example, as unconditionally wrong, acts that would remain wrong even if every culture and person in the world approved of them, and it is absolutely right to refrain from committing such; and when you relativists apply ‘conditions’ trying to justify murder, you can unwittingly slip from talking about murder into discussing killing, confusing the two ideas; and theists sometimes add conditions (like child or racism) to basic crimes mercifully trying to embarrass atheists into acknowledging the absolute indefensibility of the most heinous of all acts; and our own conscience and the collective conscience of mankind, though damaged, still provides strong evidence of these absolutes…

Zakath Post #4:
When asked to provide the moral standard upon which he bases his absolute moral systems, he suggests the human conscience. Instead of providing a standard outside of humanity, a requirement for acts to be considered absolute, he appeals to human conscience as the source of his absolute moral standard.
...
I suggest that the subjective nature of human conscience, shaped and molded to a great extent by the society in which one is raised and educated, is not support for an allegedly absolute moral code.

Bob Post #4:
I do not base moral absolutes on the human conscience, as though our conscience was the ultimate standard.
...
“a conscience… reflects [God’s] own righteous standard.”
...
“absolute right and wrong would require a standard that transcends every man and every society.” In post 3: “Absolute morality can only exist if a moral authority above mankind exists. …and the collective conscience of mankind, though damaged, still provides strong evidence of these absolutes.”
...
An absolute standard exists by which acts can be correctly judged as morally right or wrong. The absolute standard has a set of rules, including do not murder, and do not rape.
...
This absolute moral standard declares that no one should ever do wrong hoping that good might come of it. Thus, if the human race would die out unless you raped a woman, you should humbly allow the human race to die out.


Zakath Post #5:
After asking me to drop my argument, Pastor Enyart then asserts that "an absolute standard exists by which acts can be correctly judged as morally right or wrong. This absolute standard has a set of rules…" I find it interesting that even after being asked more than once, Pastor Enyart has not shown us the standard to which he refers. He shows us only the example of the human conscience. He alludes to an absolute moral standard it in his third post with references to human conscience which I demonstrate is subjective and not absolute. His fourth posts claims again that an absolute standard exists, yet he shies away from plainly and clearly stating what the standard is and where it may be found.
...
Pastor Enyart, show us this unconditional, super-human standard so we may openly examine its validity and test your claims of its absolute nature.

Bob Post #5:
BA14: I have previously answered that the absolute moral standard is God’s righteous nature, which is “God’s own righteous standard,” and that therefore atheism undermines morality,
...
I follow God, and He is the standard you ask for. Of course I had indicated this in my first post, and repeated it later, that the absolute standard is “God’s nature,” which is “His own righteous standard,” and I stated in 4b that our “conscience… reflects God’s ‘own righteous standard.’”
...
[to Zakath's question:] “show us the absolute moral standard,” I will answer, the absolute moral standard is God’s righteous nature. Of course, Zakath could reject this by saying that God does not exist, and therefore my standard does not exist. But his pretending ad nauseam that I haven’t identified the standard is getting old.


Zakath Post #6:
Pastor Enyart chided me severely for either ignoring or not understanding his answer to the questions asking him to show us his absolute standard of morality.
...
how many times do you suppose the phrase "God's own righteous standard" appears as an answer to my question?
...
The answer is not at all.
...
Pastor Enyart has manufactured the alleged quotation from thin air
...
So, Pastor Enyart claims that his deity is the standard. It should be a simple matter then, to show us the standard behind his alleged absolute right and wrong by showing us his God.
...
1. Pastor Enyart asserts that an absolute moral standard exists.
...
2. Pastor Enyart asserts that the absolute moral standard is his deity.
...
3. Pastor Enyart asserts that an absolute moral standard is evidence for the existence of his deity.
...
So what is our conclusion supposed to be "Therefore: Pastor Enyart's God exists"?

Unfortunately, the only logical conclusion I can draw is that this is merely a demonstration of the logical fallacy of circular reasoning.

========================================

First of all, he didn't say Bob was a liar. He did just what you did: he summarized what he thought Pastor Enyart was saying. I could now call you a liar for calling Zakath a liar. But, I won't, because that is just childish.

Now, re-read everything. First read my clips of the conversation, and then go back and re-read all of the pertinent passages.

A couple things are clear to me:

1) Pastor Bob never directly answered Zakath's question with the answer he says he did. Bob outlines his answers very well. Yet, at no time did he ever succinctly answer Zakath's question in this way. It would have been easy, but he didn't do it. Instead, he beat around the bush, and worded his answer in a convulted way as to make it difficult to see what he was saying. It's a simple question, which he finally simply answered with his last response (BA14). The answer could have been as such: "The standard of Absolute Right & Wrong (which is evidence of the existence of God) is God's nature." Why didn't he say this? Because it's freaking insane!! Kudos for Zakath for finally getting Pastor Bob to clearly show his fallacious argument.

2) Zakath was wrong when he said that Bob pulled the quote out of thin air. Obviously his search failed to account for the brackets. Bob had said this: "[God’s] own righteous standard.” and he stated that he had said this: "“God’s own righteous standard,”. Zakath asked how many times had Bob said "God’s own righteous standard", to which he said - none. But, he was wrong. Bob did say it. Once. (That I found.) Not in direct reply to Zakath's question - as he had done with every other question - but he had said it nonetheless.

NOW... whatever else happens... I hope this subject is done. It's freaking stupid. IMO (and I hope to God in anyone else's) Bob has now shown that God is the standard of Absolute Right & Wrong which shows that God exists. Since this is uber circular logic, this premise of his is moot. End of story.

Please carry on.

--ZK
 
Last edited:

August

New member
Zakath wrote:


<So you are telling us that you do not believe that humans reflect what is in the mind of your
deity? If that is true, then how was the bible written?>

I definitely do not believe that every human reflects the mind of God, but I suspect that some do, at least in part.
I personally do not believe that every word in the Bible was divinely inspired. It has to be approached under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. I would not expect you to accept that path.

< quote:

It doesn't seem reasonable to me. He has made them available to anyone who
desires them. endquote

Do you desire them? If so, then perhaps you could write down the first ten or so for us...>

I could start off with "Love God with all your heart" and, "Love your neighbor as yourself", but we both know that I would be wasting my time, because you won't accept any of it, because you don't desire it. That's why God's will isn't known to many. In science as well as theology, "truth enters only where it is received with welcome". It is a lot more fun to pretend that the truth can't be known, so that we can boost our egos by engaging in "intellectual" debates over doctrines.

<quote:

It seems reasonable to me that, if you heard an inner voice state that God is
real, it would just increase your disbelief.endquote


Because I'm a mental health professional, I have a strong bias against believing "inner voices".
Where I work, they're most usually delusions...>

QED, but if you really want to know about God from the source, you'll have to find some means of communication.

< Of course I'm not claiming sole understanding. Many other people read it the way I do. They're
usually called atheists.>

I'm certain that many more don't read it the way you do. I have only been able to decipher a bit of it.

<The fact that you Christians cannot even consistently interpret your
own holy writings is less than impressive.>

True, but not surprising.

< quote:

Good, we agree! Atheists are closed-minded, and are hypocritical when they
accuse others of being closed-minded.endquote


No we do not agree. Read what I wrote. I wrote "theistically..." as in, of or relating to beliefs
about gods.>

Okay, but being closed-minded about that one fundamental thing closes the door on a lot of possibilities.
BTW, I don't intend to be picking on you. I see plenty of weaknesses in Enyart's arguments, too, but just don't have the time now to spend on pointing them out.
 

.Ant

New member
Bob's latest post once again shows the fallacy of several of Zakath's arguments.

Is there anything in Zakath's last post that Bob didn't address?
 

AROTO

New member
Originally posted by .Ant
Bob's latest post once again shows the fallacy of several of Zakath's arguments.

Is there anything in Zakath's last post that Bob didn't address?
I think this is why Bob is winning the debate. If Zakath asks a question or makes a point, Bob responds to it. If Bob asks a question or makes a point Zakath either ignores it or says I dunno :confused:
 

heusdens

New member
Simple question

Simple question

Some rudimentary simple question:

Does God exist outside, apart from and independend from the mind?

If stated yes, then the question is:

Can you proof that?

To this rudimentary simple question, no theist has ever truthfully given a satisfactory answer that proofs that God is something outside, apart from and independend from the mind.

Since such is the situation when dealing with this concept of mind, named God, it is quite obvious that neither there can or has to be given a disproof of God's existence outside of, apart from and independend of the mind, neither as that does contribute ANYTHING to the positive proof of God's existence.

Do ducks exists that can talk? All biologist will respond no, yet have they proved that to be the case for all ducks that have existed, exist or will exist?

Nevertheless, we all have a concept in mind about a duck that can talk: Donald Duck.

Unless Mr Bob Enyard still provides us postive proof of ducks that can talk, I mean a God that exists outside, independend and apart from the mind, it is therefore obvious that he failed to proof the existence of God.

He deserves some points though in his arguing technique and the failure of his opponent to adress the real important question.
 
Last edited:

heusdens

New member
'Creation physics'

'Creation physics'

Originally posted by Bob Enyart
Creation Physics

Recall Zakath’s post 3a question ZQ12: “Let’s hear the explanation for the physics behind Pastor Enyart’s God as creator and perhaps this atheist will reconsider his disbelieving position.”

Here’s my BA12 summary: “A natural explanation for the universe is limited to natural possibilities; a supernatural Creator is not limited by the laws of the natural universe, and so could bring matter and energy into existence from nothing.” I now add that a supernatural Creator could create from nothing without even a seeming contradiction of natural law. So Zakath, have you reconsidered your atheism since hearing that natural law has no jurisdiction over a supernatural Creator?

We know that whatever the natural law says, it says to those entities which are under the law. Natural law governs only the natural sphere and has no logical jurisdiction over a supernatural Creator. Many atheists believe that all matter could have come from nothing by itself but could not have been created out of nothing by something non-material. Go figure.

Apparent contradictions exist between natural law and natural origins. But Zakath, your question implies that you think there is some challenge in, or an obvious contradiction between, the origin of the natural universe and the existence of a supernatural Creator. I can think of none. If you can identify some conflicts, or even just one, please present such. The following will lead to a question on this:

Institutional science today has a passionate anti-supernatural bias and lacks even a willingness to debate creationism. And most scientists now surveyed respond that they reject God as the explanation for origins, and a large percent are atheist or agnostic. However, before the a priori rejection of a supernatural realm, many brilliant men of science defended creationism as the intellectual solution to the dilemma of existence. My own list of defenders of creationism are fathers of science whom I have catalogued partly from my perusing their original writings in the Encyclopedia Britannica Great Books series, partly from reading their quotes elsewhere, and a few from third-party references.

So here is my own list of fathers of the physical sciences who rejected natural origins:

Philip Paracelsus, died 1541, Chemical Medicine
Nicolas Copernicus, 1543, Scientific Revolution
Francis Bacon, 1626, Scientific Method
Johann Kepler, 1630, Physical Astronomy
Galileo Galilei, 1642, Law of falling bodies
William Harvey, 1657, Circulatory System
Blaise Pascal, 1662, Probability and Calculators
Robert Boyle, 1691, Chemistry
Isaac Newton, 1727, Gravitation
Carolus Linnaeus, 1778, Taxonomy
George Cuvier, 1832, Anatomy/Paleontology
John Dalton, 1844, Atomic Theory

For those who object that these brilliant men lived prior to the 1859 publication of Darwin’s Origin of Species, consider the following scientific giants all of whom in a time of more open debate, publicly rejected natural origins and Darwinian evolution, and indicated that the evidence supports belief in a supernatural Creator:

Michael Faraday, 1867, Electromagnetism
Gregor Mendel, 1884, Genetics
Louis Pasteur, 1885, Microbiology
James Joule, 1889, Thermodynamics
Lord Kelvin, 1907, Thermodynamics
Joseph Lister, 1912, Modern Surgery
G. W. Carver, 1943, Modern Agriculture

The many modern scientists and inventors, from the Wright Brothers (aviation) to Werhner von Braun (space exploration), from Raymond Damadian (MRI) to Los Alamos’ John Baumgardner (Terra geophysical simulator), to the 650 voting members with post-graduate scientific degrees at the Creation Research Society, and the above listed fathers of science show that great intellect also sides with the theistic explanation of origins. An atheist who mocks theism for being anti-intellectual is ignorant or worse. On an a priori bias, today’s scientific community dismisses creationism without debate and without even considering the merits of its technical arguments. Institutional science will look for aliens (SETI) and declare intelligent life in outer space if they detect a few prime numbers out there, but it refuses to debate scientists with extensive mathematical evidence for creation in the genetic code.

Medieval academics were intellectually enslaved to the geo-centrism of pagans Aristotle and Ptolemy. They had no justification to shut down debate on heliocentricity, and had only misinterpreted evidence on their side. Today’s institutional science, enslaved by its political correctness, similarly has no justification to shut down creation debate, lacking evidence for its own presupposition that the universe, biological life, or consciousness could arise naturally. If scientific academic debate on creation were permitted today, Zakath being well read might have realized that ZQ12 on creation physics was a non-challenge. Here’s another kicker: you cannot even find the context or the terms in which to frame a serious challenge regarding the physics of creation.

But don’t feel inept. The brilliant scientists listed above knew of no apparent contradiction either between natural law and a supernatural creation. And neither do today’s atheist scientists. But just to illustrate that the scientific advance of the last decades has not discovered a scientific or rational contradiction between the laws of physics and a Creator, I will officially ask you this: Zakath, can you identify any apparent contradiction between a supernatural Creator bringing the universe into existence from nothing, and the natural laws of physics?

I predict that Zakath can offer no answer for this question, which silence will belie his post 3a comment that, “The Problem of God as the Creator also essentially begs the question he raises about the violations of the laws of thermodynamics at the Creation. How did Pastor Enyart’s God create matter and energy from nothing?” To show the absurdity of atheists commonly making this non-challenge, I offer these back-to-back questions:

Do many atheists think it is possible that the universe came into existence from nothing?
Do many atheists think it is impossible that the universe came into existence from nothing by an outside Creator?


Zakath, I know you agree that we theists are not infallible, and in this long paragraph, I will address an error theists commonly make regarding the origin of the physical laws. Perhaps this will help you or some other atheist by removing this unnecessary hurdle which many Christians likely have put in front of you. God created the material universe, and the physical laws are simply the inherent properties of that universe, which properties we reduce to words in order to understand the functions of nature. The physical laws do not exist unto themselves, as though you could isolate one or see it with a microscope. Also, these laws are not arbitrary, as though they could have been any different. God could have made matter that exhibited different laws, but then He would have made a different universe. When He created the space and matter that He did, God did not then need to ‘invent’ a law of momentum. Rather, momentum is simply an inherent property of matter relating to mass and velocity, which we then reduce to a description; thus momentum describes the innate behavior of the kind of matter God created. God could have created different subatomic particles, and thus different kinds of atoms. If He had created matter without electrically charged particles, then that matter would have behaved differently. If He had done so, H20 might not exhibit the capillary action that lifts water against gravity to nourish tree tops. If He had made a different kind of water, then it might have behaved like most other compounds which contract when cooled and expand when heated, but then ice would be heavier than liquid water and so lakes would freeze from the bottom up killing all their fish. God comprehended the laws which would come into being, so to speak, attendant to Creation, and so He designed matter in order to achieve the functionality He desired, which functionality is described by those laws. Now here’s the correction of a common Christian error: God created the physical universe, not the physical laws. Some might think this a minor distinction but ignoring it presents an unnecessary stumbling stone to those non-theists like Albert Einstein who think clearly about this, as when he said “God Himself could not have arranged those connections [the physical laws] in any other way than that which factually exists” (Weinberg, Dreams of a Final Theory, 1992, p. 242). Theists assert wrongly when they say that God could have decreed the laws to be otherwise. God is not a magician. Making the laws arbitrary gives unbelievers like Einstein a valid objection to that part of the theist message. For he rightly rejected this sloppy theist notion that God could arbitrarily establish the physical laws. Perhaps this misconception led to Zakath’s non sequitur question about the physics of creation. Perhaps too, Zakath misunderstood my point that the absolute moral standard comes from God’s nature partly because the same misinformed Christians also say that God created the spiritual laws. He did not. They are a reflection of His nature. Thus, they could not be different than they are. Because God is righteous, the spiritual laws uphold righteousness and condemn evil. Many Christians have unwittingly undermined the holiness of God by suggesting that He can be spiritually arbitrary, because He is God. That’s wrong. God could not do evil (anything against the present description of His nature), and remain holy. He remains Holy because He acts consistent with His nature. God did not have to invent the command against kidnapping, nor the prohibition against perjury. Once He created beings made in His likeness, then the moral and spiritual commands followed automatically from His nature, and they are simply the properties of these beings, prohibiting behavior that inflicts harm and leads toward death. By the way, while spiritual and moral laws are absolutes, any symbolic ordinances that God may issue could be arbitrary, such as feast days which may symbolize spiritual truth. Thus God cannot issue righteous laws which defy His holy nature, for example, prohibiting all love and requiring envy. So, God created physical entities and spiritual beings, but He did not create the physical and spiritual laws.

Mr Bob Enyart in his attempt to provide sufficient grounds for the God of creation in which he believes, present here his best shot at providing evidence that nothing else as his God can provide the sufficient grounds for there being a physical/material world in the first place, issuing and stating this at the basis of the following line of reasoning:


  • [1] God created the universe, all of matter, time and space

    [2] The universe in the form of matter, time and space does exist, and we happen to live in it and witness is

    [3] Therefore: God must exist


We can however show that this argument does not hold any real water. Statement [1] is that what has to be proved. So we argue wether that is or can be at all correct.
The conclusion to the argument, which is statement [3], however can only be a conclusive argument and be true, in the case that it would come out that statement [2] would be false if statement [1] would be false.

In other words, if we assume that statement [1] is false, does that mean that statement [2] is also false?

Let us just state straightforward here that our position is that we know of no God, and we know of no creation. So we just state: Statement 1 is false. God does not exist, hence there was no creation of space, time and matter

Now let us look at statement [2]. Has that now all of a sudden became false. Has the world itself suddenly disappeared, because we hold and state that statement [1] is false?

No, not at all

So there must be something peculiar with this type of argument then. Whatever we state at statement [1], does not at all influence the truth of statement [2] in any way. Statement [2] remains true, whatever we may state at statement [1]

In fact the world itself, is not subjective to any of our arguments. How could the world be? Wether we think the sun, the galaxy, the universe in fact does exist, does not in the least mean that it has any less objective existence. And how could that be the case?

Did I just proof that God does not exist? No, I just proved that the existence of God, and wether or not God created the universe, is of total irrelvance to the world itself.

This then lead to an interesting question, which is also known as the Fundamental Question. Why is there (at all) a world. Why is there (at all) SOMETHING instead of nothing?

If it could have been the case that instead of anything that has existence now, or think or assume that has or can have existence, it could have been the case that nothing whatsoever had existence, then this would of course trick or force us back into thinking that we must assume, a God created the world, the universe, matter, space and time.

But what would it mean for there being nothing. And with nothing, I mean nothing at all that can exist, has existence, or could exist, including your most favourite God.

Well what we know from pure reason is that, if that at all could have been the case, then this could never explain the fact that this does not seem to be the case.

Since: there is a world, and I happen to live in it

In fact it can be and has been argued that the nature of the question is, that it can not be answered. Since any anwer that would form sufficient grounds to the question of a form "Why is it the case that X?" needs an answer in the form "Because B is the case".
However the nature of the question itself dispermits us in total to assume anything at all, which then means that no B could exist, that could form sufficient ground for providing an anwer.

But is the question then unanswerable?
If that would be the case, we could still as well assume that God choose to actualize the world, instead of not actualize it.

Despite the argument that the nature of the question is such that it is said that the question is unanswerable, I can provide here sufficient grounds for answering the question.

The factual situation is namely that the question does not arrise in the consciousness of a purely hypothetical being which is such that it could not validate it's own existence, but this question is brought up in a factual context of there being a world, a world we can witness, and we know that exist.
With 'world' we did not in the least define as what form the world would be hold to be existent in. In fact I can not even assume - at this point of the argument - that it exists apart from, outside and independend of my own consciousness.

What we know at this moment is this.
Were it the case that no world would factually exist, that is: nothing at all that can be hold to have existence would factually exist, then we can state that the world would neither exist now. This conflicts with the fact that we know the world does exist. So the fact that the world exists now, means that it must have existed always.

There was never a time in which the world was not.

By stating that therefore the world must have always existed, I can from there hypothetize about in what form the world would have to exist. Since the world itself can never not exist, we must therefore assume that there is something indestructable about the world. There must be something that is primary to the world, which is not in any way dependend on anything else.

What could be that primary and essential substance?

Since I know about the world in first instance through my consciousness, I could hypothetize that that what is the primary and indestructable substance of the world, would be my consciousness.
I have - in first instance - no other knowledge about anything, outside and apart from my own consciousness. However, since we are to explore that hypothesis, we need to come up with an alternative hypothesis, which is that there must be something outside, apart from and independend of my mind, which is the primary and indestructable substance of the world. To state this in short, my hypothesis are then as follows:
  • The primary and indestructable substance of the world is formed

    [1] by my consciousness

    [2] by something outside, apart from and independend of my consciousness

    I call this matter, and I assume that anything I am aware of about the world outside my own consciousness, is made of matter. Matter denotes then the substance of which everything else is dependend, and which itself is not dependend on anything else. Matter is indestructable, infinite and eternal, and is the primary substance of the world

So which is it? Which of both hypothesis above is true?
If I were to take hypothesis [1] to be true, this would make my point of view that of a solipsists, who believes that apart from his own mind, nothing would exist.

However, from my own mind I can conclude that hypothesis [1] is not correct, since I do not have consciouss awareness before some definite point in time. I could speculate that with the emergence of my consciousness also the world came into existence, including time, but that would be wild speculation, which contradicts with an enormous amount of other evidence of there being a world before I came into being as a consciouss being.

For that reason, I have to assume that hypothesis [2] is true, and hypothesis [1] is false.

The truth of the presented argument is not in any way dependend on whatever anyone beliefs in, and in particular not depending on:
a) Bob Enyard (or anyone else) believing in a God of creation (or any other God)
b) atheist (or anyone else) believing in a 'begin of time' (or any other physical impossibility)

Is it by physical law dispermitted, disallowed or impossible to believe in something, that doesn't exist?

No. There is no physical law, neither a biological or psychological law that dispermits anyone to believe in something that is not factually there. Neither is there a physical, biological or psychological law that forces us to believe something.

The truth is out there, and can be known for anyone that wants to know.

End of discussion.

Thanks,

Rob

PS

See also my arguments in the threads:
The Fundamental Question
and
Why is it impossible that time had a beginning?
 
Last edited:

August

New member
AROTO wrote:
< Bob is winning the debate.>
I wish he were. IMO he is doing a terrible job.
1)His "absolute right - wrong " argument does appear to be circular.
2)In his latest post he says that God cannot violate physical laws, and then later seems to argue that the structure of the solar system violates physical laws, and this somehow proves that God exists. Jesus violated several physical laws, and then said that we could do even greater works.
Besides, the solar system argument is just another "gap in science" example.
3) But the origin of the universe does not represent a "gap", but a lack of foundation for natural science. There is a fourth alternative to add to Enyart's three. Whenever something that is impossible seems to happen, one should always consider the possibility that it didn't happen at all. Even if it did occur as a supernatural event, God didn't necessarily do it. It would be hard to find a motivation. One could argue easily that Satan did it. Jesus called him the "ruler of this world" and "the prince of this world", and also said, "My kingdom is not of this world". Satan shows up in the Book of Job controlling every earthling except Job.
Another theory is that the children of God created the universe as an act of rebellion against God, because in his consistent love He could not favor some above others (Plato's World of the Same). By utilizing bodies separated from one another, they could make distinctions and establish hierarchies (World of the Different).
4)Enyart's argument that the physical world is real is essentially that our perception of it correlates with the perception of others, from which we have various inputs. But Descartes never really argued that it wasn't real - only that the only testimony that we have of it comes through it's self. The argument of Solon, Plato, various Idealist philosophers (I think), Hinduism, and Buddhism is that it is an illusion (maya) somewhat like that of the "holideck" in Star Trek - Next Generation, or the Matrix - a virtually reality game for multiple players with the physical laws as the programmed rules of the game - perhaps a game invented to distract us from God.
)IMO, Enyart is on dangerous ground when he ties the validity of Christianity to Jesus's resurrection. That was only a historical event. The validity of Christianity comes through direct experience of the living Christ, in the present instant. (I am the first to admit that I can't prove this.) You can find evidence for miracles in many places, if you look for it. In the book, "MY SIX CONVICTS - A Psycholist's Three Years in Fort Leavenworth", by Donald P. Wilson, we find a prisoner named Hadad who performed many "supernatural" tricks, including lying dead in a morgue locker for three days and then sitting up on the autopsy table and walking away. ALl of this in the presence of doctors and psychologist.
 

heusdens

New member
August:

The assumption mentioned in 4# about a "virtual reality" is not a profound argument against reality, since no matter how many "embedded" virtual realities you may think of, it still is ultimately dependend on reality itself.

Besides we already have a defined domain for "virtual reality" which is the world of the consciousness. Consciousness is something entirely different as matter, although it is dependend on matter in specific forms. Your consciousness would not be there were it not for your brain, neither as your "virtual reality" game would be there without specific (computer) hardware.
 

XenBobForo

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Hey Huey...

Hey Huey...

Hey Heusdens, I know you've been trying to get an official response to your perennial:

Huey: "What is the point in arguing about the existence of God, if one does not distinguish and define what one means with existence. Objective existence? Subjective existence?"

I would love to answer that question. But I'm really in a quandry. You see, I can't figure out if that question of yours is objective or subjective. Please first define whether that question is objective or subjective. After all, without objectively knowing the subjective nature of your question, I would have to subjectively determine the objective nature of your question (which I think you would find fault with), so that any answser I give will be objectively subjective. And I am not even sure if your question actually exists outside of your mind. And since I cannot be an authority on what is in your mind, I (along with any other BR VII participant or moderator) may be ultimately incapable of giving an objective answer regardless of any offered qualification. I have no doubt that science will progress until one day it can bridge the gap between your question and my mind to where this question can be understood (even if only in a quantum sense). Until then, you might want to content yourself without being able to get an official answer. Wishing I could be more helpful, -Bob Enyart
 

heusdens

New member
To Mr Bob Enyart

Of course you realy don't want to talk that. The nature of the question is quite objectively, cause it is stated here, anyone can see this. I don't think an argument can be found by providing you subjective definitions of objectivity itself.

But despite that you refute to make a confession that, although we happen to be subjective beings, and that counts both for you for me and everybody else, this does not mean that no objective reality exists.

It might be you are running from that kind of confession all your life.
But reality happens to exist in a way there is no escape possible.
The only thing one can do is to fool oneself into thinking that apart from one's own mind and thought and awareness, no objective reality exist.

The fact that I acknowledge to the fact that such an objective reality, and therefore an objective truth exists, does not make me in any way special, neither does it entitle me to claim that I have a better understanding of that objective reality as anyone else.

All you do here, is in fact hiding for the truth and for reality itself, and choose the cheapest way out. Quarelling about the nature of posted questions, and looking for sideways, instead of finding ways to truthfully answer such questions.

But I guess that is just the nature of the game you choose to play.
Nature itself though, doesn't play games. It forms a honest and trustworthy truth base for anyone who wants to find real knowledge and real understanding. It is the most fruitfull source of knowledge we have for humankind, to deliver us necessary knowledge about our relation to this cosmos we happen to live in.

Some people are not not equipped for facing real truths, but instead choose to play games with it, or invent their own truths.

The question I put forward, is quite profound and goes profoundly deep, since it is a straight forward question. So I take it that the issue, which is profoundly discussed and debated here, wether or not there exists a God urges one to at least make clear what one defines as 'existence' and what one defines as 'God'. It then takes urges us to define what those words in fact mean.

The issue of the existence of God, when faced with a direct question about it, how 'real' that God is, then takes you to in fact deny or doubting at least that anything, anything at all, could be objective.
You doubt the objective existence of my question, as well as anything else.

Is that the nature of your belief? Denying objectivity, and denying the objective existence of the world itself?

It then must be, perhaps, that since you argue about objective existence, and assume that therefore all we can know, are nothing but private opinions, which are just subjective interpretations of reality.

Your belief in God means that in your mind, the world in fact does not even exist in an objective way, outside of your own mind.

God is in your mind a subjective consciousness, which supposedly had eternal existence, and created the world. Nothing outside of your mind, in your interpretation of truth and reality, has objective existence. Hence it follows that the God Mr Bob Enyart has in mind is nothing more or less then Mr Bob Enyard himself.

Any claim beyond that subjectivity, is in the interpretation of Mr Bob Enyart himself of reality as a purely subjective entity, impossible.

We may ask however the relevant question, wether or not such a question exist in an objective way, as to what does that consciousness experience, if it does not experiences anything beyond it self. Everything is pure self imagination?
Or do conscious beings experience something which is outside, apart from and independend of their consciousness, which is objectively there. A wild speculation? Unprovable?

Even if your belief system does not permit us to acknowledge the truth, it must have appeared for your stomach for instance that the meal it had digested (let us hope here, that it tasted well) was undoubtly there. No way for your stomach to take any other approach here.

As for your belief system itself, since it puts itself in the position that it simply denies any outside objective reality, any reference to there being a God, can be hold to have no significance. God can not be something else then subjective, so we would not have to look elsewhere for this mighty God then the consciousness of Mr Bob Enyart himself.

It can be claimed then that the belief system of a solipists, who deny there being something outside of one's own head, has every resemblance with the belief system of Mr Bob Enyart, and is in fact one and the same belief.

Even so, of most solpisists it is known that despite there belief system, in ordinary life they go for the safe approach, and deal with their daily facts as were they the real facts of life.
They do not run over busy streets, pretending that everything they see is merely a creation of their own imagination, but deal with reality as an objective entity.

Which is of course the best way one can perform ones life.
 

Aussie Thinker

BANNED
Banned
Theists,

Forget that Bob explained what the absolute moral standard address the fact that it is RIDICULOUS.

No One has addressed this doosy yet.

1. God exists because we have an absolute moral standard
2. The absolute moral standard is Gods righteousness.

How can you theists live with this circular statement ?

If I said to you “UFO’s exist because they leave an unknown trail in the sky”.. what is the unknown trail ?.. “it is the trail their spaceships leave”.. would you consider that an argument at all ?

The Solar System

Bob rambles about some specific things about the Solar System that have aided the formation of life on Earth.

It always amazes me how people desperate to have God turn their logic around to incorporate a God.

They look at the improbability of life arising and are then amazed how conducive all our natural surroundings are to the formation of life.

I look at the FACT that life exists and are completely un-astounded that the conditions suit it.. It is bleedin’ obvious that if life exists natural conditions must suit it…

Now if we were all alive on a Planet that had no Oxygen then I would say… wow how does that happen.. thanks to God I guess !

The amazing coincidences that Bob points too about the Solar System really disappoint me.. they have lowered him to the level of a Hovind style Charlatan.. He is trying to woo the moronic element that are amazed by the seeming magic of coincidence.

Lets break down most of the coincidences and “anomalies”.. Ratios for a start.. although the ratios mean nothing.. (Why would a god want them except to impress and he could do far better by just appearing to us).. they are not even EXACT.. notice Bob often says ALMOST ½ and ALMOST twice ??? Is this the God of ALMOST ?

Second as I said (except perhaps for the tidal effect of the moon) what do all these oddities mean… NOTHING !.. Is his god a child to make little special Solar System tricks for NOTHING ?

Or do Pluto’s rotational habits effect life here ????

Childish moronic argument… show us some more magic Bob.. the audience here LOVE it !
 
Last edited:

Flake

New member
So, do we live in a supernatural universe or a natural one? Does evil exist in a supernatural world, if not, then did god create evil? If he didnt create evil, and we where made in his image, then is god, in part, evil? If god is not evil, and evil is just a human preserve, and god didnt make it, then god in his infinate wisdom created beings capable of it, in full knowledge that evil will be perpetrated by his creations. In fact, it could be reasoned that god, as a byproduct of creating man, created evil in full knowledge of the fact that evil wasnt there before, which is an evil act in itself. I thought god could not do evil.
Do you theists ever reason things out?
 

.Ant

New member
Solid counters to the above

Solid counters to the above

Originally posted by August
AROTO wrote:
< Bob is winning the debate.>
I wish he were. IMO he is doing a terrible job.
1)His "absolute right - wrong " argument does appear to be circular.
Originally posted by Aussie Thinker
Theists,

Forget that Bob explained what the absolute moral standard address the fact that it is RIDICULOUS.

No One has addressed this doosy yet.

1. God exists because we have an absolute moral standard
2. The absolute moral standard is Gods righteousness.

How can you theists live with this circular statement ?

If I said to you “UFO’s exist because they leave an unknown trail in the sky”.. what is the unknown trail ?.. “it is the trail their spaceships leave”.. would you consider that an argument at all ?
Yes, I would consider that the beginning of an argument.

The argument is not circular. This is Bob's argument:
1. One piece of evidence for God's existence is the absolute moral standard.
2. One (strong) piece of evidence for the absolute moral standard is the human conscience.
BTW, the absolute moral standard is God.



Originally posted by August
2)In his latest post he says that God cannot violate physical laws, and then later seems to argue that the structure of the solar system violates physical laws, and this somehow proves that God exists.
No, it proves the Big Bang didn't happen.

Originally posted by August
Jesus violated several physical laws, and then said that we could do even greater works.
Besides, the solar system argument is just another "gap in science" example.
It's not a gap argument - it's a contradiction between science and evolution.

Originally posted by August
3) But the origin of the universe does not represent a "gap", but a lack of foundation for natural science. There is a fourth alternative to add to Enyart's three. Whenever something that is impossible seems to happen, one should always consider the possibility that it didn't happen at all. Even if it did occur as a supernatural event, God didn't necessarily do it. It would be hard to find a motivation. One could argue easily that Satan did it. Jesus called him the "ruler of this world" and "the prince of this world", and also said, "My kingdom is not of this world". Satan shows up in the Book of Job controlling every earthling except Job.
Another theory is that the children of God created the universe as an act of rebellion against God, because in his consistent love He could not favor some above others (Plato's World of the Same). By utilizing bodies separated from one another, they could make distinctions and establish hierarchies (World of the Different).
August, that's stupid. None of the above are alternatives, as they all assume God exists.

Originally posted by August
)IMO, Enyart is on dangerous ground when he ties the validity of Christianity to Jesus's resurrection. That was only a historical event. The validity of Christianity comes through direct experience of the living Christ, in the present instant. (I am the first to admit that I can't prove this.) You can find evidence for miracles in many places, if you look for it. In the book, "MY SIX CONVICTS - A Psycholist's Three Years in Fort Leavenworth", by Donald P. Wilson, we find a prisoner named Hadad who performed many "supernatural" tricks, including lying dead in a morgue locker for three days and then sitting up on the autopsy table and walking away. ALl of this in the presence of doctors and psychologist.

1 Corinthians 15:12-19
But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men.


Aussie Thinker, the anthropomorphic principle is not a bad argument. It has puzzled many evolutionists, to the point where they start inventing infinite parallel universes to explain it...

Flake, that's an old argument that often comes up and is easy to explain: God created free-willed beings. That means that those beings have the possibility of doing evil. God did not create evil, though he did create the possibility of it, as a necessary part of creating independent, free-willed beings.
 

Flake

New member
So god, being evil free, doesnt have free will? Its an oldie but a goodie.

So, who created evil?
(Hint: The answer is closer than you realise)
 
Last edited:

.Ant

New member
Originally posted by Flake
So god, being evil free, doesnt have free will? Its an oldie but a goodie.
No, God has free will. Evil is defined as anti-God.

Originally posted by Flake
So, who created evil?
(Hint: The answer is closer than you realise)
You got it. Me and you.
 

heusdens

New member
Subjectivity and Objectivity

Subjectivity and Objectivity

Subjectivity and Objectivity

The idea about God is the thought that there could be consciousness, a subjective entity, without there being a real material world, an objective reality. But is that a possibility? Let us explore that issue.

The nature of my thinking as that of anyone else is of course that I have a subjective vision on reality. Even so, the hypothesis of there being a subjective entity without there being an objective world, is something we can dig into, and explore it's truth.

In first instance, I do not know about objective reality. It is of course that I have in my mind all kind of reflections on and thoughts about an outside reality, which are projected in my consciousness, but I could still assume that the nature of everything I perceive of, arises within my consciousness. I would not even have to assume that something outside, independend and apart from my consciousness has to exist.

As we have already argued this, this would take me into the realms of so-called subjective Idealism, which is the worldvision of solipsism. Solipsism is the outlook on the world in which nothing outside, apart and independend of one's own mind realy exists. It only exists in the form of my (or anyone else's) consciousness.
It is clear though that for being a solipsist, one must deny some very basic features of reality. It would for instance undoublty be so in the vision of a solipsist that the world comes into existence together, or as a consequence of oneself becoming consciousness. In the worldvision of a solipsist this is stated as that the outside material world, is created by consciousness itself. And since only one's own consciousness in fact does exist, this means that neither there was a world before one became consciousness of it. In the mind of a solipsist therefore the 'begin of the world' happens, and is a fact.

Fact is however also that there are some truths even in the life of a solipsist that he can not realy deny or explain in his worldvision.
For instance the fact that his/her own mother gave birth to him/her, and that there was a world and people before he/she came into being, is something that does not fit into the world vision of a solipsist. It could never have happened.

For any practical treatment of philosophy, solipsism therefore does not make it into a worldvision. Solipsist would not feel any practical urge to discuss there worldvision with others, since in their worldvision, the other does not even exist.
However, this does not mean that all people have given up on denying the objective existence of the world. The most common form of Idealism therefore is that of objective Idealism, which is the idea that the world exists in primary instance in the form of consciousness, and only secondary and as a result of consciousness in the form of matter, a material world.
The idea is therefore that this conscious being existed independend of anything else since there was in first instance no objective world. That what we now hold or portray as the objective world, is a creation of that conscious being, who itself existed only in 'spiritual' form.

This therefore begs the question: is such a thing at all possible? How can there be a subjective being, if there is no objective world? WHAT is it subjective to, since there isn't anything outside of itself to which it can relate in a subjective sense.
And how can something be conscious, and of what could it be conscious, if there would not be anything outside of it, which is objective to it?

The fact is that this is as unimaginable as for instance there being a software program, that is performing calculations and operations, but which exist only in the form of software itself. At the highest levels it operates with one type of software, while making use of a deeper layer of software, and so on, without there being a hardware basis, the electronics and magnetics, that could provide the grounds for the artihmetic and operations going on.
No software engineer, no matter how smart, can built such a arithmetic thing, that operates solely on software without there being any hardware at the bottom layers. And it is not a technical impossibility, it is not that our software is not yet developed enough that it could not run without the specific hardware. It is the fact that such a thing itself is an impossibility in itself.

In this anology, subjective consciousness stands for sofware, and material brains stand for hardware. We know that our consciousness must be based on our brain, and we can convincingly prooof that the mental operations that happen within our consciousness, have a correspondence with a hardware feature, electric potentials that arise in part of the brains and chemical compounds that are formed, etc.
This however does not enable us to conclude that consciousness is something like matter. Fact is that our thoughts themselves are not made up from matter, so it isn't anything material. Likewise a program is not a hardware thing itself, which does not deny the fact that for any software program to exist and to perform anything, it must be encoded on a hardware basis. For programs we know that it can run in different parts of memory, and can be stored on different media, without the features of the program itself to change (this depends of course on the program; some programs make assumptions about what part of mempery they are stored; this makes them operate differently or errouneously when they operate in a different part of memory). We could even move the program outside and run it on a different computer, if the hardware needs of the program are fulfilled, it should work the same. Although this is pure speculation, I think that for human consciousness this could also be the case in theory. The problem is purely technical, but not principle. Despite this, consciousness, neither as software, are able of performing anything without there being a specific material basis for it to operato on/with.

So how can we think of this conscious being then, that had a subjective nature without there being an objective world to which it could have been relating to in a subjective way?
The nature of the being is, that it only exists in a subjective form, and therefore can not be known objectivley.

To think such a being, is performed in no other way as the worldvision of a solipists is arrived at. It is to deny in first instance the existence of any objective world, and reflect on reality as if anything that exists, is part of one's own consciousness. There is no other way to perceive or imagine of such a being, since it can not be known objectively.

Therefore the vision that a consciouss being would have been the primary thing to the world, is conecptualized in one's mind as the worldvision of that of a solipsist, who in first instance denies that anything outside, apart from and independend from one's own consciousness could exist. The belief in God as portrayed by Mr Bob Enyart here, is therefore in no way different as the outlook of a solipsist. The only difference that could exist would be to acknowledge that one does not have subjective experience of this God, but that this God is a real entity outside, apart from and independend of one's mind.
But Mr Bob Enyart never let's himself state such a thing, and only circumvades those nasty questions, cause that would urge him to take the apporach to objectively proof the positive evidence for his God, which he of course can't. He can not proof the objective existence of God, because God does not exist in objective form.

Now, let us turn back to objective reality itself. Despite that our conclusions remain that, from the fact that we ourselves are subjective beings in this world, we have to assume that something outside, apart and independend from our mind must exist in the form of an objective reality.
This objective reality is of course not totally hidden and alien to us. In fact it is all around us, and in our daily activities, we do not even doubt it's objective existence. We know that if a door is closed, that that is an objective reality, and we would not consider it possible to walk through that door without opening it, based on the assumption that that door has no objective existence but only exists in our mind, and just by thinking of that door going open, opening that door.
The nature of objective reality itself, forces or urges us to admit that reality, and act on reality accordingly.
This is of course the same for anyone of us. Nevertheless we are amazed and fascinated by people who perform tricks, that would seemingly break these laws of reality. We enjoy the spectacle of an illusionist that performs before our eyes tricks that break all known rules of reality. But we know of course at the same time, that in reality no rules are broken, but that there are tricks performed. It might be that some tricks are so clever, we never get a clue as to how it is performed.

Despite all this, and even when acknowledging the fact the we have to assume that an objective reality exists in primary instance, this does not allow us to 'speak in the name of objectivity', since all we ever are able to perform, are expressing subjective facts about reality. Even when we know more and more about reality, and have examined it thoroughly, this will not provide us in any instance the possibility to know all of objective reality. Nevertheless, our knowledge about reality increases, and allows us to say that our subjective interpretations are coming closer to truth. Truth itself, we can never achieve.

However, I can satisfactory state that the world itself does exist in primary instance in the form of an objective material reality, and secondarily in the form of conscious beings.
Consciousness is subjective in the sense that it depends ultimately on there being a material reality in whatever form to exist in an objective way. Without an objective world, no subjective world could exist.
 
Last edited:

Flake

New member
Originally posted by .Ant
No, God has free will. Evil is defined as anti-God.
Interesting that god would allow an anti-god situation, but as you say we have free will...

Originally posted by .Ant
You got it. Me and you.

Exactly correct, not us personally but I get your gist. And does it not follow that we also created righteousness, goodness etc? Why ascribe the bad things only to us people, created in gods image and purported to be endowed with his qualities of righteousness etc, and the good things to a supernatural ideal?
Please refer to my previous "old" argument of the evil nature of creating evil possibilities where there was none before, and recognise the contradictory nature of an evil-free god being only predisposed to make evil capable creations, the concept as you point out, is anti-god, and the supposition you make that only a combination of evil/good allows free will, something that god must not possess.

Although, this particular thread is meant to keep inline with the comments made by the combatants and maybe we shouldnt hijack it, but I suspect it will be mentioned more in the battle soon.
 
Last edited:

Michael12

BANNED
Banned
Re: Solid counters to the above

Re: Solid counters to the above

Originally posted by .Ant
Yes, I would consider that the beginning of an argument.

The argument is not circular. This is Bob's argument:
1. One piece of evidence for God's existence is the absolute moral standard.
2. One (strong) piece of evidence for the absolute moral standard is the human conscience.
BTW, the absolute moral standard is God.
This is called a "house of cards". Facts not in evidence, yet assumed to be true by the story teller, rest on each other. As for number two, your "strong" evidence, even if conscience suggests an absolute standard (it doesn't), it's no more evidence of a God then it is of creation by aliens, or a magic pink unicorn. I never understand why you guys make this so hard on yourselves. Why is "faith" not a good enough answer for you to respond with? Why is it that twisting science to meet your needs has become a better, more effective tactic then simply saying "I believe because I have faith"?
No, it proves the Big Bang didn't happen.
Another room in the crumbling house of cards.
 

August

New member
.Ant wrote:
<August, that's stupid. None of the above are alternatives, as they all assume God exists.>

The use of invective is an indication of fear and uncertainty.
The alternative that I referred to was the fact that it didn't happen at all. It's just an illusion, as apparently millions actually believe. That alternative does not assume that God exists.
The rest of the statemennt was only intended to point out the fact that, if it does exist, it doesn't necessarily follow that God made it.

< For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either.
And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins.
Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. If only for this life we
have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men.>

You seem to argue that I said that the resurrection did not occur, which is not true. I am confident that it did. The point is that it is a flimsy basis for religion to hang it all on one event that can be duplicated by others - even non-Christians. If that's all there is to Christianity, I wouldn't blame others for being disinterested in it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top