Does God Exist? - Battle Royale VII - Bob Enyart vs. Zakath

[Knight]

Does God Exist? - Battle Royale VII - Bob Enyart vs. Zakath

In honor of Fathers Day 2003 we thought we would find out if we have a heavenly Father. :D

Therefore...
Battle Royale VII - "Does God Exist?"

This will be a 10 round battle (10 posts for each contestant) and will be refereed by me (Knight :knight: )

This battle will officially begin June 16th, 2003 (the day after Father's Day)

RULES ACKNOWLEDGMENTHave both combatants read, understand and agree to the battle Royale Rules (http://www.theologyonline.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2629)?

I need a post from each combatant stating "YES" regarding the rules.

After I receive a "yes, I understand the rules" affirming that each combatant understands the rules I will flip a coin (on Monday June 16th) to determine who posts first, then that chosen combatant will have 48 hours to make his/her opening statement. Each combatant will then have 48 hours to make subsequent posts after the other combatant makes their post. You need NOT wait for me to officially end a round before making your next response.

[Knight]

ANY AND ALL POSTS ON THIS THREAD WILL BE DELETED UNLESS THEY ARE POSTED BY: Me (Knight), other Administrators, Bob Enyart or Zakath. You may discuss Battle Royale VII here. (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7710)

Abusing this will result in banishment from TheologyOnLine.

[Knight]

The Tale of the Tape

While we wait for this Battle to begin (June 16th) lets find out a little bit about each one of the combatants:

Bob Enyart pastors Denver Bible Church. Bob began his professional life working for McDonnell Douglas Helicopter Company designing simulation software for the Army's Apache AH-64 attack helicopter, and then went to work for U S West, Microsoft Corporation, and PC Week. Bob eventually left his computing career to work fulltime in Christian ministry and to host a talk show. In 1991, Bob Enyart Live began airing on Denver's KLTT radio, and can still be heard there weeknights at 7 p.m. During the mid 90s, Bob's show moved to television and was available in eighty cities from Honolulu to Orlando. More than 50,000 copies of Bob's audio and video teaching tapes have been sold. And a few thousand people have read the overview of the Bible presented in The Plot manuscript which is Bob Enyart's life's work.

Bob launched www.KGOV.com in 1999 with the purchase of O.J. Simpson's Hall of Fame Award and football jerseys, burning those items at the largest single-event press conference in the history of the LA courthouse. And Bob has organized a mobile protest of President Bill Clinton following him from Martha's Vineyard to Auckland, New Zealand with over 1,000 protests in 147 US and foreign cities for Clinton's sexual abuse of women. Bob has worked with parents of slain Columbine students to close down memorials to murderers Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, and was glad to see the destruction of two crosses on Rebel Hill and two trees planted in West Bowles Community Church memorial garden. Bob has been appeared on over 100 TV and radio shows, including multiple episodes of ABC's Politically Incorrect with Bill Maher; Fox News Channel's O'Reilly Factor and Hannity and Colmes, CNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews, and various appearances on MS-NBC, the BBC, XTRA, Michael Reagan, E Network, etc. including on scores of radio stations from LA's KABC to NY's WABC.

VS.

Zakath, a two and a half year veteran poster on TOL, is an atheist with a past. The man behind the screen name was raised in a Christian home, seminary trained, earned a doctorate in counseling psychology, pastored two churches, founded a Christian school, and a Christian counseling practice with his wife of twenty-five years. Zakath left the Christian faith almost ten years ago, eventually ending up in his present belief system, atheism. Zakath is the father of four grown children; two in active duty military service, and two in the federal consulting field. When he's not posting on TOL, he runs his consulting business, enjoys reading, organic gardening (and ponding), martial arts, and home brewing.

[Knight]

Does God Exist? - Battle Royale VII - Bob Enyart vs. Zakath
Battle length: 10 rounds.
Referee: Knight

OK here is the coin toss. To make this official I had my oldest son Jordan will be doing the coin toss. I declared Bob to be "heads" and Zakath to be "tails".

Jordan will now flip the coin.

Flip.....

Tails it is!

Zakath will begin and is now on the clock. Zakath has 48 hours to make his first post and then Bob Enyart will have 48 hours to make his first post AFTER Zakath's first post has been posted. You do NOT need to take 48 hours to post your post and you do not NEED to wait for me to end a round. Simply post your posts when your ready as long as its your turn!

Remember to use the "preview this post" button to avoid editing your posts after they have been actually posted.

Let the battle begin!

ANY AND ALL POSTS ON THIS THREAD WILL BE DELETED UNLESS THEY ARE POSTED BY: Me (Knight), other Administrators, Bob Enyart or Zakath. You may discuss Battle Royale VII here. (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7710)

Abusing this will result in banishment from TheologyOnLine.

[Knight]

Both Zakath and Bob have given me their acknowledgment that they understand the rules so the battle is ON! :D

[Zakath]

First of all I would like to thank our Goode Sir Knight :knight: for hosting this debate here on Theology OnLine. I think that he is doing a great service for his web site and his readers by providing this sort of venue for these discussions. Next I would like to thank Rev. Bob Enyart for making the time available out of, as I recall from my time as a pastor, a busy schedule. My understanding is that we have ten posts for this debate so I will proceed with this, my first post.

Our debate is an attempt to answer the question "Does God Exist?" This is a very important question for humans because if any of the gods or goddesses that humans have claimed throughout the ages actually exist, it tells us something about what is happening in the world, as well as what may yet happen here in the future. On the other hand, if none of these supernatural entities exist, it tells us that we humans are left to our own resources, that we have to make decisions wisely, and that we cannot depend upon a "Big Brother" (or "Mother" for our Wiccan readers) in the sky to solve our problems for us.

That said, the first thing we must do is clarify just what the good Reverend means by the term "God". So my first question to Rev. Enyart is How do you define God? Since there is a significant amount of variation of meaning for this term, even within the thousands sects of Christianity, your answer will set the tone for the debate since I need to understand just what it is you are trying to prove the existence of. ;)

If you answer the first question, there is a second that deals with evidence. All religions claim the existence of evidence to support their particular view of what they claim about their god(s) or goddess(es). Understanding the evidence that a believer relies upon to support the assertion that "God exists" is critical to the success of our debate. Since many Christians of my acquaintance claim there is evidence to support their belief, it would appear that the Christian religion is much like any of the others in this case.

For the second question, I would ask you the following: Upon what evidence do you base your belief in what you defined as God?

Your answers to these two questions will provide us with a foundation and boundaries within which to continue the debate without potentially wandering off into the philosophical weeds. :thumb:

I await your reply.

[Knight]

ANY AND ALL POSTS ON THIS THREAD WILL BE DELETED UNLESS THEY ARE POSTED BY: Me (Knight), other Administrators, Bob Enyart or Zakath. You may discuss Battle Royale VII here. (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7710)

Abusing this will result in banishment from TheologyOnLine.

[Bob Enyart]

Thank you Knight, for hosting this Battle. And Zakath, thank you for agreeing to debate this most important of topics for human beings. For, billions of people have directed their lives by a belief in a god of some kind. And if no God exists, then there is an incalculable opportunity cost of wasted human effort. For all the time spent chasing that lie, humanity could have been more effectively pursuing truth. While I will directly address your questions in this post, I must first ask you something that takes precedence over your questions. Therefore, my first question for you is, does truth exist? If you say that nothing can be true, then you would have admitted your belief that nothing you write is true, and you would have thereby divulged your belief that you could not win the debate with any truthful arguments. Thus, if you claim that “truth does not exist,” that nothing can be true, then if you actually believe that claim to be true (which itself shows the inanity of holding that position), you should immediately forfeit the debate. If you deny the existence of truth, I would note yet another educated person whose atheism has undermined his very ability to accept truth. I hope that you acknowledge the existence of truth.

Zakath’s Questions

Here are my brief answers to your two questions, which I will develop further:
Q1: How do you define God?
A1: I define God as the supernatural Creator of the natural universe, existing eternally, powerful, wise and knowledgeable, personal, loving, and just.
Q2: Upon what evidence do you base your belief in this God?
A2: In this post, I present evidence only related to the creative, eternal, powerful, and knowledgeable aspects of God from the origins of both the universe and biological life. In future posts, I expect to use more evidence from physics and biology, add evidence from astronomy, and then, as evidence for God being personal, loving, and just, I will present observations from psychology and history.

(Zakath, thank you for clearly delineating your questions. I have summarized my four questions for you at the end. Perhaps we could agree to give clear and concise answers to each other’s questions at the top of our subsequent posts, as I have attempted here, and then develop the answers if desired.)

Potential Cost of Atheism Priced by the Nature of God

Yes, if atheism is true, there is great waste in theism; but on the other hand, if God exists, then atheists have expended an opportunity cost, the value of which depends upon God’s nature and actions, upon what that God is like. And this brings us to further develop your first question about the definition of God. If someone proposed a god created by some other God, then they proposed wrongly, and may have been referring to an angel or demon or some other created being, but not to God. So for the sake of understanding, let us agree that the God we are debating, the one I will argue for and you against, is the first Creator, the eternally existing, uncaused, first cause. Regarding the potential opportunity cost of not believing in Him:

* If God created matter and then left everything to itself, to develop by physical laws and chance, and has no interest in the behavior of life forms that may develop, then the atheistic opportunity cost could be relatively low, largely limited to the scientific drawbacks that may come from an incorrect view of the origin of matter.

* If God designed the universe, biological and sentient life, but has no righteous standard and no aspirations for his creatures, then the atheistic opportunity cost would be higher, retarding the progress of science through a misunderstanding of the origins of inanimate and biological systems. However,

* If God created the universe and life and instilled humans with a conscience which reflects His own righteous standard, then the atheistic cost becomes increasingly significant in scientific, moral and psychological terms. And,

* If the true God also is as the Bible presents, and put eternity into our hearts, and will judge us based upon our humble trusting in Him, then you calculate the atheistic cost in terms of eternal loss of the utmost consequence.

Thus, my second question to you is, does absolute moral right and wrong exist?

For example, is it absolutely wrong to drag a living black man behind a pickup truck to tear apart his body out of white supremacist motives? If you answer no, and that there is no such thing as absolute morality, then I will despise your character, and record more evidence that atheism undermines morality. But I will continue the debate realizing that you would not believe it wrong for you to lie in an effort to win this Battle Royale. On the other hand, what if you admit that there is an absolute right and wrong, for example that it is inherently right to stop an adult from forcibly raping a child for entertainment. If you admit to right and wrong, then you will have provided evidence for the definition of the real God, and you will also have helped us calculate the opportunity cost of atheism. For, if there is an absolute Originator, then logically, an absolute moral standard would have originated with Him.

Evidence for God from Physics

For now, let’s move from the potential consequences of atheism, on to develop my answer to your second question for evidence for God, evidence that I will draw from different spheres of study, beginning with physics and biology. If the flow of the debate facilitates, I will also add evidence from astronomy, psychology, and history. So, my first evidence from physics: A rock cannot make itself from nothing; and a fire cannot burn forever. You should recognize these as alternative ways of stating the first two laws of thermodynamics: the conservation of matter and energy; and the increase in entropy.

Thus my third question is multiple choice:
a) Do you believe the natural universe has existed forever exerting work and burning as a perpetual motion machine; or,
b) Has the universe created itself, so to speak, i.e., come into existence apart from a supernatural creator; or,
c) Was it created by an external source outside of the natural universe, i.e., a supernatural Creator; or,
d) Is there some other conceivable account for its origins?

If you choose “perpetual motion machine,” or “created itself,” I will press you on the laws of physics and on your evidence for your conclusion, and I will explore whether you believe this based upon a blind faith which runs contrary to hard science. And if you choose “other,” please explain what other possible way the universe could have come into existence, as I do not believe you can logically present a fourth option. For, the natural universe was either 1) always here, or 2) popped into existence from nothing on its own apart from any Creator, or 3) was brought into existence by a supernatural Creator, that is, one outside of the natural universe.

Evidence for God from Biology

My second and for now last piece of evidence for God is from the argument from design for biological life. Atheists believe that if just the right raw materials were assembled, then it is reasonable to believe that life could arise spontaneously; however, dead animal carcasses have trillions of compounds already assembled in just the right proportions for life, and yet scientists have never observed new life arising from the fortuitously arranged ingredients in every corpse. Co-discoverer of DNA Crick, and brilliant astronomer Hoyle, both conceded that the complexity of DNA led them to conclude the mathematical implausibility that DNA could have arisen by natural causes on Earth; and so they independently proposed to the world that biological life was planted on Earth, by aliens.

A cell makes man’s technology look primitive, with hundreds of millions of its simplest components, the proteins (albeit themselves sophisticated three-dimensional machines of thousands of different types) doing a multitude of critical chemical jobs, coordinated by hundreds of millions of digital instructions, with a human possessing dozens of different types totaling about 100 trillion cells. Living cells are the laboratories that make an organism’s chemical components, yet they themselves are made of these same components. Such circularly dependent requirements pervade biology and introduce a dilemma for atheists, for no plausible starting point has ever been described for this circular dependence, so this remains an inexplicable mystery to evolutionists, which they typically ignore and have never come close to answering. By natural law, you cannot get a tree without a seed, nor an egg without a chicken, nor the system to copy DNA without the DNA itself. Evolutionists cannot explain even theoretically in gross terms how the first DNA strands appeared, and then before they deteriorated, how an error-correcting duplication system arose by chance. To manage life’s nutritional and functional needs, a typical cell needs to separate itself from its outside environment, it needs sophisticated subsystems with high-bandwidth and robust communication between them, it must be able to produce hundreds of intricate compounds, it must repair damaged components, it must selectively admit raw materials from outside and expel waste, and paramount, it must reliably reproduce itself. Evolutionists admit great complexity in obtaining a first cell by nature, but do not appreciate how many “first cells” would have disappeared before perfecting the ability to reproduce themselves: millions, billions, trillions, supposedly blindly moving toward an unknowable goal of self-reproduction, without benefit of natural selection nor any law or force driving them forward to achieve that particular goal.

Thus, apart from any evidence, atheists desperately posit some simpler form of life that led up to the cell, but that is a logical impossibility, given the function of biological life. A toddler gets away with his ignorance explaining that bread comes from the store, but I will not accept an adult’s rationalization of complexity by his introducing even more complexity. To identify only the necessary systems of a single-celled creature virtually means to identify the entire cell. And so, its subsystems cannot be removed without certain death, unless a subsystem’s function was somehow replaced by a service provided from outside the cell, but of course this would increase the complexity. Any biological life must accomplish the basic fundamentals of life, and the cell accomplishes these efficiently. To propose pre-cell symbiotic life forms which fulfill each other’s requirements adds the complexity of external communication, coordination, shared eco-system dependency, and proximity in time and space. So, I declare that the atheist who posits a simpler life form which leads up to the cell cannot even conceptually describe that simplicity, thus he posits something that he has no evidence for, and something that he cannot even imagine: that is blind faith. Zakath, perhaps you can disprove my declaration, and explain what basic functions a cell’s simpler precursors would perform, and how they might perform them reliably and more simply.

Let me remind you of a cell’s basic functions that must somehow be addressed for survival. First, please explain what comes first, the functionality, or the instructions to build the functionality; then describe what force or law led to the development of an instruction set for that functionality, and how those instructions then began to encode themselves chemically with amino acids; then explain how those encoded instructions began to get implemented by describing some primitive ribosome-like agents, and how the theoretically necessary function of messenger RNA would have been accomplished, with the development of proteins and enzymes (or their simpler predecessors) to accomplish the needed work of maintenance and reproduction. Also, you might explain, and win a Nobel Prize while you’re at it, how the wildly complex and crucial cell wall with a million sophisticated openings could develop, the wall needed for the survival of the cell, yet utterly dependent upon the cell’s functions for its own existence. Instructions for all of this are encoded into the DNA in the nucleus, the nucleus itself housing these millions of instructions and being able to produce groups of them on demand as needed to build complex chemical machines, all dependent upon the availability of a necessary supply of various amino acids. Of course, I’m not asking you for a detailed account of how this all would happen in a simpler life form.

But Zakath, for my fourth question:
a) Can you please either explain conceptually how the first cell would have developed; or,
b) Give an explanation in broad terms of how a simpler system could perform the necessary functions of a biological life form, which I believe must include processing raw materials, containing itself, encoding instructions, implementing instructions, chemical processing, and reproduction, which whole system is itself irreducibly complex.

Question Summary:

1. Does truth exist?
a) Yes
b) No
c) I don’t know

2. Does absolute moral right and wrong exist?
a) Yes
b) No
c) I don’t know

3. Regarding the origin of the natural universe:
a) The universe is a perpetual motion machine
b) It came into existence from nothing
c) It was brought into existence by a supernatural creator
d) Other
e) I don’t know
If D, please explain: ________________________________________________

4. Zakath will attempt to conceptually explain, apart from a creator:
a) how the first cell developed, or;
b) the functional simplicity of pre-cell life forms, or;
c) nothing substantive about life’s origin
If A or B, please explain: ____________________________________________

Sincerely, Bob Enyart

[Knight]

DING, DING, DING.... that's it for round #1. What a start!!!

Zakath is now on the clock as round two has begun!

ANY AND ALL POSTS ON THIS THREAD WILL BE DELETED UNLESS THEY ARE POSTED BY: Me (Knight), other Administrators, Bob Enyart or Zakath. You may discuss Battle Royale VII here. (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7710)

[Knight]

ANY AND ALL POSTS ON THIS THREAD WILL BE DELETED UNLESS THEY ARE POSTED BY: Me (Knight), other Administrators, Bob Enyart or Zakath. You may discuss Battle Royale VII here. (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7710)

Abusing this will result in banishment from TheologyOnLine.

[Zakath]

In his last post, Pastor Enyart provided us with answers to two questions and the definitions were very helpful, as much for what they said as for what they left out. ;)

To my opponent, "God" is
"the supernatural creator of the natural universe, existing eternally, powerful, wise and knowledgeable, personal, loving, and just."
Perhaps at some future time we can discuss whether he believes that his God created what's outside the natural universe (traditionally including heaven and hell), and whether he considers his God to be omnipotent and omniscient, as do most orthodox Christians…

His statement on evidence is interesting and strangely limited:
"I present evidence only related to the creative, eternal, powerful, and knowledgeable aspects of God from the origins of both the universe and biological life…"

He then proceeds to open his debate launching into two philosophical questions totally unrelated to his promised origins questions… :rolleyes:

Upon reading the rest of Pastor Enyart's first post, I would have to agree with some of our readers that his arguments are basically variants on a single theme. It appears that Pastor Enyart is an adherent of the venerable "God did it" Guild, what I term GDI for short. This ancient school of philosophy is known for its efforts across the span of human history pointing at what man doesn't know at a specific instant and solemnly intoning their mantra, "If man can't explain it, then God did it."

Lack of information on the part of science or philosophy is not evidence for the existence of his deity nor is his assertion that his or any deity is responsible for creating the universe or life. Claiming GDI is mere baseless attribution, not hard evidence.

The question remains: Will Pastor Enyart provide proof that his God was there and responsible at the alleged Creation?


Enyart's Q1. Does Zakath believe in truth?

The problem I am faced with when asked about truth by a religionist is that truth, especially when dealing with gods and religions, is described and defined in many, often contradictory, ways. I need to know

"What is (your definition of) truth, Pastor Enyart?"
What is true for the Muslim, that there is no deity but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet, is untrue for the Jew and Christian.
What is true for the Christian, that Jesus is divine, is untrue for the Jew and the Muslim.
What is true for the Jew, that YHWH has chosen them alone to be his special possession and their covenant to be the sole way to heaven, is untrue for the Christian and Muslim.

Since Pastor Enyart cites the Bible in his previous post, I have done so here. Within the context of this debate on the existence of Pastor Enyart's deity, I think the question I asked is the most appropriate answer I can provide him. It is the one that the biblical record tells us was given to Jesus of Nazareth when he raised the question of truth claims at his trial. His judge asked Jesus the same question that I asked of Pastor Enyart:

According to the gospel record, the questioner never received an answer. I hope, after almost twenty centuries to reflect on it, that religionists, represented here by Pastor Enyart can finally provide a useful answer. Once I know just what Pastor Enyart means by "truth". I will explain whether I think it actually exists; or, like his deity, is merely an imaginative object of his religious belief.


Enyart's Q2. Does Zakath believe in absolute moral right and absolute wrong?

I do think that the two egregious examples of murder and rape cited by Pastor Enyart are both terrible evils and are wrong. But I also think the examples he provides are poorly chosen since both appear to be conditional, not absolute. Rape "for entertainment" is conditional, as is killing someone "for white supremacist motives."

In light of this bit of confusion, before I can fully resond to this question, I'll need to ask Pastor Enyart, "What do you mean by absolute right and absolute wrong?"

My further comments will have to wait for Pastor Enyart's response.


3. How does Zakath explain the origin of the cosmos?
Honestly, I would have to answer that I do not know, for certain, how the natural universe came into being.

Argument for Atheism from Cosmology
But I can say that there is evidence and a theory (Steven Hawking's Wave Function Universe theory) that would tend to indicate that the universe could very likely (greater than 95% probability) have come into being without external agency or cause. Hawking, a physicist who provided the mathematical proofs that began the search for and location of black holes, is the founder of a scientific discipline called quantum cosmology. Hawking, Andre Vilenkin, Alex Linde, and others now believe that the ultimate questions of cosmology can be answered only by quantum theory. Hawking takes quantum cosmology to its ultimate conclusion, allowing the existence of infinite numbers of parallel universes. In a nutshell, their theory is that there is a scientific law of nature called the Wave Function of the Universe that implies that it is highly probable that a universe with our characteristics will come into existence without a cause. Hawking's theory is based on assigning numbers to all possible universes. All of the numbers cancel out except for a universe with features our universe possesses. For example, contains intelligent organisms such as humans. This remaining universe has a certain probability very high -- near to a hundred percent -- of coming into existence uncaused. How does it work? … Hawking's theory … supposes that there is a timeless space, a four-dimensional hypersphere, near the beginning of the universe. It is smaller than the nucleus of an atom. It is smaller than 10^-33 centimeters in radius. Since it was timeless, it no more needs a cause than the timeless god of theism. This timeless hypersphere is connected to our expanding universe. Our universe begins smaller than an atom and explodes in a Big Bang and here we are today in a universe that is still expanding. Is it nonetheless possible that God could have caused this universe? No. For the wave function of the universe implies there is a 95% probability that the universe came into existence uncaused. If God created the universe, he would contradict this scientific law in two ways. First, the scientific law says that the universe would come into existence because of its natural, mathematical properties, not because of any supernatural forces. Second, the scientific law says the probability is only 95% that the universe would come into existence. But if God created the universe, the probability would be 100% that it would come into existence because God is all-powerful. If God wills the universe to come into existence, his will is guaranteed to be 100% effective. ("Two Ways to Prove Atheism" Quentin Smith 1996)

Like any theory, it must be tested over time and subjected to much rigorous mathematical evaluation. The supporting evidence includes the COBE satellite observations of the density fluctuations in the background radiation, by the observed large-scale homogeneity and isotropy of the universe, by the evidence for an early inflationary era, and by the evidence that the critical density is near to one. But if it turns out to be correct, it puts a rather significant hole in the religionsts' need for deity-created universe since it raises an interesting the question:
Why do we need to postulate a Creator when the physical laws of the universe do not require such a being's existence or intervention in the first place?

Enyart's Q4. How does Zakath explain the origin of life on the earth?

Most of us who studied the biological sciences have observed wondrously complex organisms and marveled at their structure and function. One thing we have observed in the last fifty years or so is that subcellular life does exist and may, in some cases, represent survivors of earlier, less complex life forms. There is documented evidence for the existence of these types of organisms/protobionts; we now know all biological systems need not be cellular life. Viruses (organisms without cell membranes or cell walls) and the much simpler prions (these do not even have nucleic acids) are two examples that many of the readers would find fascinating. Prions were first described in 1980's and appear to be responsible for Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (CJD) and bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE or Mad Cow Disease). Neither exists in cellular form yet both exhibit many of the characteristics of living organisms. Additionally, since I have not studied this field in detail for more than thirty years, I am the wrong person to ask to give detailed explanations about the biochemistry behind protolife. I can only present the following broad summary of current views along with a few references for those interested in pursuing things further.

Abiogenesis, the development of life from non-life, has been postulated as proceeding along recognized biochemical pathways. I would suggest that the study of metasystems in biology and chemistry since the late 1970's has shed a considerable amount of light on how such a process might have occurred. A very simplistic representation would be that simple chemicals develop into polymers, some of which are self replicating or autocatalytic (Lee, Severin, & Ghadri, 1997). These autocatalytic systems interact with each other forming hypercycles (Eigen & Shuster 1979). Hypercycles interact with each other to form protobionts (precursors to primitive cells) (Lazcano & Miller 1996). Selective pressure from natural selection allows some protobionts to express more and more cellular characteristics over time, producing what we would eventually recognize as cellular organisms. Interested readers might want to read Carl Woese's presentation (http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/95/12/6854)for the National Academy of Sciences in 1995, pages 6854-6859.
References:
Eigen M, and Schuster P, The hypercycle. A principle of natural self-organization. Springer-Verlag, isbn 3-540-09293, 1979

Lazcano A, and Miller SL, The origin and early evolution of life: prebiotic chemistry, the pre- RNA world, and time. Cell, 85: 793-8, 1996

Lee DH, Severin K, and Ghadri MR. Autocatalytic networks: the transition from molecular self-replication to molecular ecosystems. Curr Opinion Chem Biol, 1, 491-496, 1997

Woese C, The universal ancestor. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 95: 6854-6859.
What happened when life began is still unknown and, since it is difficult to determine exact primordial conditions of the earth, science may be limited to "best guess" until we actually have the opportunity to observe other pre-biotic environments. Greater minds than many of ours have pondered these questions yet while hints and clues have been uncovered; the ultimate answers continue to elude science. Yet this does not trouble experienced scientists since they realize that it is the ultimate role of science to help mankind answer questions about the universe around him and discovering and refining such answers may take years or even generations.

Too many lay persons are quick to assume that if they cannot understand something in a few minutes that it must mean that "God did it." Others of us are willing to nod and admit that we don't have all the answers, nor do we need them.


This brings us to the questions I would like to propose for Pastor Enyart's consideration during the next round:
1. Will you provide proof that your God was in attendance at and responsible for the alleged Creation of the universe?
2. What is (your definition of) truth?
3. If your deity is so aloof, then how do we study God to understand and learn about him?
4. How can one distinguish between a God who doesn't want to get involved, and a God who doesn't exist?
5. How do we know the "God" we're studying is the correct deity?
6. Why has God chosen to play hide-and-seek with the universe? Why not make his existence irrefutably obvious?

I await your reply. :D

[Knight]

ANY AND ALL POSTS ON THIS THREAD WILL BE DELETED UNLESS THEY ARE POSTED BY: Me (Knight), other Administrators, Bob Enyart or Zakath. You may discuss Battle Royale VII here. (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7710)

Abusing this will result in banishment from TheologyOnLine.

[Knight]

NOTE: I cannot make the countdown clock be exact. Therefore please only use the countdown timer as a "rough" guide. As long as the combatants post near or around the time of the countdown timer that will be fine. Thank you.

[Bob Enyart]

Zakath, I will try to be completely responsive, and encourage you to do so also. So that you can know I’m not trying to obfuscate, I’m going to attempt to clearly summarize the status of our respective questions at the top of each post, and give brief answers to yours, then develop those that need it below. It would be great if you could provide answers upfront so no one needs to read an entire post searching for a straightforward answer to a direct question.

Bob’s Questions to Zakath

BQ1: Does truth exist?
ZA1: Zakath didn’t answer, and didn’t clarify, but asked me to clarify the question. I will: Truth is a statement of reality…

BQ2: Does absolute moral right and wrong exist?
ZA2: Zakath didn’t answer, but asked me to clarify. So I will: An absolute wrong is a harm that cannot be justified…

BQ3: Regarding the origin of the natural universe:
ZA3: Zakath answered (e): “I don’t know” and then (b) it “came into being without… cause” and then (a) a tiny sphere of it was always here…

BQ4: Zakath choose to explain 4(b) “the functional simplicity of pre-cell life forms”
ZA4: Gave examples of “subcellular life” but without describing any functional simplicity…

Zakath’s Questions to Bob

ZQ1 – ZQ2 answered in post 1. (The next are renumbered for ease of reference.)

ZQ3. Will you provide proof that your God was in attendance at and responsible for the alleged Creation of the universe?
BA3: Yes. Developed below, highlighted by (BA3).

ZQ4. What is (your definition of) truth?
BA4: A statement of reality.

ZQ5: What do you mean by absolute right and absolute wrong?
BA5: An absolute wrong is a harm that cannot be justified. Justified by what? See below.

ZQ6: If your deity is so aloof, then how do we study God to understand and learn about him?
BA6: My definition did not imply God is aloof, and you can learn about Him through the His creation.

ZQ7: How can one distinguish between a God who doesn’t want to get involved, and a God who doesn’t exist?
BA7: By science confirming a requirement of a supernatural creator for the origin of the natural universe, with mankind finding no evidence of God’s subsequent intervention.

ZQ8: How do we know the “God” we’re studying is the correct deity?
BA8: If we prove the existence of God, then we can look for evidence of His nature. Since we are already having some difficulty responding to each other on basics, I suggest we first keep focused on the existence of an eternal creator.

ZQ9. Why has God chosen to play hide-and-seek with the universe? Why not make his existence irrefutably obvious?
BA9: He has made His existence irrefutably obvious (if not, refute the Creator by winning the debate); He does not play hide-and-seek; and further demonstrations of His existence would be counterproductive. Daily miracles could easily produce a stubborn immunity to God in yet more people, and even if dead celebrities were resurrected, most people would not believe, because when the truth is shoved into someone’s face, the human tendency is to shove back.

Now let’s dig in…

Old Business

On Truth

BQ1: Does truth exist?
ZA1 / ZQ4: “What is (your definition of) truth, Pastor Enyart?”
BA4: Truth is, you just answered my question with a question.

Truth is a statement of reality.

Zakath wrote:
• What is true for the Muslim…
• What is true for the Christian…
• What is true for the Jew…

What is true in the above is that you listed three different belief systems. If you can’t admit that is true, then how about this, what is true is that you presented three bullets. If you can admit that, even taking just that baby step, then we have a starting point, and then you will have fulfilled my request to know if you believe in, or can accept, or even just admit to, truth.

In the future if you feel a basic clarification is needed, please offer one (as I will), to save the readers an iteration, and to get us closer to the heart of the debate. But Zakath, I had already clarified my definition of truth in my original post sufficiently enough to answer your bullets when I wrote: “If no God exists, then… all the time spent chasing that lie, humanity could have been more effectively pursuing truth.” That makes it clear that I am not presupposing the existence of truth means: “I win the debate.” In my experience, many atheists are hesitant to accept truth, any truth; and the way you handled this, as I expected you would, reinforces the theists’ suspicion that atheists react almost as though they fear truth. Or perhaps you just overlooked my comment indicating, at this point in the debate, that truth could conceivably indicate that God does not exist (“If no God exists…”). But then, in a debate on this topic, in my first paragraph, how could you miss that? So again, I hope you acknowledge truth. Besides, admitting truth wins you the bonus of trying to show that theism is truly false. It’s tempting, no?

So my first question is sadly a repeat of my previous first question: I ask you again, Zakath, does truth exist?

On Right and Wrong

I’ve noticed something peculiar in the Grandstands. Those who disbelieve in right and wrong jump all over anyone trying to define an absolute wrong while describing a condition in the process. Do you realize that nothing could be conceivably right or wrong in the slightest degree, apart from conditions? I believe they protesteth too much over “conditions,” intending to obfuscate. You criticized my examples of child rape for entertainment and racist murder because they “both appear to be conditional.” What isn’t? There are conditions attending to every event, every good and every crime, and every chemical process for that matter. The anti absolute-morality crowd is itself obsessed with conditions: when asked if child rape is wrong, you all do back-flips devising bizarre conditions in which raping a child saves the human race. You multiply conditions to justify the rape! You guys remind me of the “repeat” instruction for shampoo and conditioner. One condition isn’t enough. “Rub in conditioner…, repeat.” Such epistemological hypocrisy seems to be evidence of the extent to which right and wrong is burned into their conscience. Zakath: “But I also think the examples [rape and murder that Bob] provides are poorly chosen since both appear to be conditional.” Appear? Recall my point that “atheism undermines morality.” Why not just avoid the duplicity and answer my question saying, “we atheists have no standard by which any rape is absolutely wrong.”

The day I post this, June 22, 2003, the Associate Press reports that, “Cosmetics heir and former fugitive Andrew Luster left behind a notebook in Mexico in which he apparently seeks to justify the assaults that led to his rape conviction.” This “great-grandson of Hollywood makeup legend Max Factor took three women to his seaside home… and attacked them after giving them the so-called date-rape drug GHB. Some of the encounters were videotaped.” One passage read: “Yes they [his victims] were in an extreme state of inebriation… But this - as any actively sexual person (player) knows is not outside the grounds of ethical play…” Ideas have consequences.

Instead of a substantive response, you answered my second question with another question. Zakath, didn’t your mother teach you to avoid bad habits:

BQ2: Does absolute moral right and wrong exist?
ZA2 / ZQ5: “What do you mean by absolute right and absolute wrong?”
BA5: An absolute wrong is a harm that cannot be justified.

If a doctor tries to save a woman, but she does not survive the surgery, his incision into her neck may have finally killed her, but the condition of the action shows no guilt; if he made the incision in order to kill her to steal her gold teeth, the condition shows guilt. If a man gives someone truly in need money for a meal, he does a good; but if he gives money to an addict to buy drugs in hopes of him overdosing, he does harm. When you said child rape was wrong, you meant, for you, wrong in your opinion, or in some particular groups’ opinion, meaning that yours is just one opinion among others, among valid opinions one of which that can defend all child rape. I say that if someone rapes a child, they do wrong. Period. Go ahead, “apply conditioner and repeat,” I dare you.

BQ2 is far more loaded than BQ1, because at this point in the debate, truth might theoretically show that there is no God and no authority above mankind; but as you rightly agreed with Knight in TheologyOnline Battle Royale II, absolute right and wrong would require a standard that transcends every man and every society (this I openly admitted upfront when asking my question, for I don’t need to trick you or catch you off guard). So, while we can say much more about this topic, you’ll save us all time by just answering, “No,” to BQ2. Otherwise, you will be forced into a secondary hypothesis of some non-deity authority over all mankind, and that would become messy.

Again, an absolute wrong is a harm that cannot be justified. Justified by what? By the demands of justice. One of the demands of criminal justice is equity in punishment, for example, it would be wrong to punish a woman for petty theft by executing her. Any conditioner left in that bottle?

So, my second question for you is once again: does absolute moral right and wrong exist?

Origin of the Natural Universe

I warned against atheists rationalizing complexity by introducing more complexity, yet in proposing an origin for the universe, you offer atheist Stephen Hawking’s theory “allowing the existence of infinite numbers of parallel universes.” You struggle to explain the origin of our universe without contradicting basic laws of science, and so you take on the same task for, say, 42 billion universes.

Zakath, I think you have misunderstood some of my arguments, so I am going to clarify them for you. If you find error in the clarification, I will be grateful if you can identify it. But please don’t just ignore the clarification and continue to repeat the mischaracterizations of my evidence. You have accused me of using ignorance as evidence. I agree with you that ignorance is no evidence. I can’t explain how gravity works, or why interior designers use odd-numbered groupings, or why vanilla ice cream outsells chocolate, but none of this ignorance, no ignorance, can reasonably be used as evidence for God. And if you ever find me doing such a thing, I will appreciate getting flagged. My evidence to you was not based upon what we don’t know, but upon what we do know, with the claim that your naturalistic time and chance proposals cannot work because they contradict what we do know. That’s not ignorance for evidence, that’s applying knowledge. If you can identify how I am misapplying knowledge, please do so. But don’t say that I’m arguing from ignorance. Instead, show me how I’ve incorrectly applied knowledge.

For example, I said that there were only three options for the origins of the universe, and that you cannot logically identify a fourth. Either the natural universe was always here, or it popped into existence by itself from nothing, or a supernatural creator made it. Eschewing the third, you went with a combination of, I don’t know / but “there is evidence… that the universe could very likely (greater than 95% probability) have come into being without external agency or cause.” Appearing from nothing smacks into the well-tested physical law that states that matter cannot be created (First Law) nor destroyed (but it can be transformed from or into energy). Atheists choose to contradict this most fundamental law of science because they just cannot find a fourth alternative for the origination of the universe. And you can not find a fourth alternative, not because you just haven’t found it yet, but because there is no logical possibility of a fourth alternative. It has either always been here, has popped up, or has been made. So, while you cannot even find words to describe a fourth alternative, I can find a word for something popping into existence from nothing: magic. Magic is not real. And an atheist with a pre-suppositional bias against a supernatural origin of the natural universe must contradict at least one of the first two laws, and so, Stephen does. Hawkings is wrong.

A scientist can study the properties of a cure-all, and disprove a salesman’s claim that it will heal cancer: “It is only sugar water, don’t believe the claims.” (BA3) The theist applies the most well-tested and fundamental laws of science to eliminate the possibility that the universe has always been here, and that it has come from nothing, and then logic forces us to the only remaining alternative: creation. Contrariwise, the atheist hopes against the most confirmed science that something can come from nothing: blind faith. You wrote that Hawking’s theory: “implies that it is highly probable that a universe with our characteristics will come into existence without a cause.” Sure, why not. From nothing. 42 billion times. Typically, with humanoids. (After all, how could Captain Kirk encounter so many life forms unless they were likely?)

Excuse me for indulging myself, but I just have to quote the rest of your paragraph. I won’t comment. I’ll just revel in the words: “Hawking’s theory is based on assigning numbers to all possible universes. All of the numbers cancel out except for a universe with features our universe possesses. For example, contains intelligent organisms such as humans. This remaining universe has a certain probability very high -- near to a hundred percent -- of coming into existence uncaused.”

Your next paragraph contradicts your point that “the universe could… have come into being without external agency or cause.” For then you quote Quentin Smith explaining Hawking’s theory that a pre-existing hypersphere less than “10^-33 centimeters in radius… explodes in a Big Bang…” If the cosmos preexisted, even though “smaller than the nucleus of an atom,” it still pre-existed and did not “come into being.” Thus, you are trying to have it both ways, it popped into existence from nothing, and it was always here. Were you aware that both you and Quentin have adopted this doublespeak from Hawking himself? Let me quote his “Origin of the Universe:”

“This inflation was a good thing, in that it produced a universe… expanding at just the critical rate to avoid recollapse. The inflation was also a good thing in that it produced all the contents of the universe, quite literally out of nothing. When the universe was a single point, like the North Pole, it contained nothing. Yet there are now at least 10 to the 80 particles in the part of the universe that we can observe. Where did all these particles come from? The answer is, that Relativity and quantum mechanics, allow matter to be created out of energy, in the form of particle anti particle pairs. So, where did the energy come from, to create the matter? The answer is, that it was borrowed, from the gravitational energy of the universe.”

What universe? Hawking was speaking of the event that “produced a universe.” And he draws the energy for that event “from the gravitational energy of the universe.” Sorry. Hawkings is wrong.

Besides, without a mind to make a decision as to when to do something, natural forces mindlessly move forward. And the physical forces that would bring about Hawking’s Big Bang would have expressed themselves infinitely further into the past than he needs them to. So then he’s stuck in an embarrassing perpetual motion machine (Second Law).

So, my third question this post is a true or false question: There are only three theoretical alternatives to the origin of the universe. True or False?

Origin of Life

On complexity, my full warning was: “A toddler gets away with his ignorance explaining that bread comes from the store, but I will not accept an adult’s rationalization of complexity by his introducing even more complexity.” So what did you go and do? I asked you to explain how pre-cell life forms could be simpler than cells, and you gave us the example of viruses. Viruses are less complex than cells, but they require cells for viability, and thus, a viral system is significantly more complex than a cell. Quantify the increased complexity by adding the viruses’ complexity (V, where V > 0) to the cell’s complexity (C). Thus C+V > C. Oops.

Now, I’m not using Jedi mind tricks, putting out bait, nor laying traps, but if you keep doing things like this, our audience will think someone’s throwing the battle intentionally to cover the spread.

Zakath, since the sudden appearance of something as sophisticated as a cell is implausible even to the almost infinitely credulous evolutionist, you accepted the challenge, by choosing to answer 4(b), of describing the functional simplicity of pre-cell forms. Then you went the other way. And the added complexity problem you introduced with viruses applies also to prions, prions being misfolded proteins which, when present in a cell cause other similar proteins to break, producing disease. Theists do believe in disease, you know, and broken proteins don’t explain simplified pre-cell functionality. Then you said, “I am the wrong person to ask to give detailed explanations about the biochemistry behind protolife.” Is that the absolutely wrong, or just the relatively wrong person? I’d like to know because I’m somewhat stuck in that you are the only person I get to query in this very small Room 7709. So, perhaps you can search some of the best atheist and evolutionist sites over the next 48 hours (you still have 48 hours don’t you… you haven’t wasted much time getting to this problem I hope) and find out if anyone has ever conceived of a way to simplify the functionality of biological life forms. I specifically told you I didn’t want a “detailed explanation.” I asked you to explain just conceptually how multiple, symbiotic precursor life forms could reduce the complexity, i.e., simplify, the basic requirements of life.

So, let me refine BQ4 down to two choices (since you’ve already narrowed it by selecting (b) in ZA4. Zakath will either:
a) admit that he was unable to devise or find any explanation of the theoretical reduced complexity in pre-cell life forms; or,
b) he will explain that functional simplicity, not in detail, but only broadly, covering just the utmost basic descriptions of the needs of biological life, including its need:
* its need to separate itself from its outside environment
* its need for communication between its subsystems
* its need to produce hundreds of intricate compounds
* its need to repair damaged components
* its need to selectively admit raw materials from outside
* its need to expel waste, and paramount,
* its need to reliably reproduce itself.

That’s it. Just simplify that list for us. Perhaps the precursor life did not need to process raw materials, or perhaps it never expelled its waste (maybe it just always had that bloated feeling), or maybe it couldn’t reproduce (no, that wouldn’t work). Well, maybe… you get the idea. Simplify. Reduce the complexity. Just conceptually. But you can’t. It’s the same problem with the origin of the universe. Some problems have no solutions. Science should help us identify unsolvable problems. But this is a benefit of science the atheist flees from, because he holds out eternal hope for demonstrably unachievable goals. If this is not true, feel free to provide me with any conceivable scientific evidence that would cause you to conclude that life could not spontaneously originate. I will be happy to do the converse at your request. Remember, I’m not talking about evidence from ignorance. (BA3) I’m talking about applying knowledge to see the functional limitations in systems and laws. That’s a scientific proposition, no? My 19-year-old, sometimes difficult teenager, told me last month that he is learning that oftentimes, there are many ways of doing things wrong, but only one way of doing them right.

In your paragraph on Abiogenesis, you throw out ideas, authors, systems, and terms which the average reader will be unfamiliar with. It will be splendid if you have learned from all that enough to answer the above question, preferably in English. Your paragraph explains Abiogenesis “proceeding along recognized biochemical pathways” and you “suggest… the study of metasystems,” representing “that simple chemicals develop into polymers, some of which are self replicating or autocatalytic,” which interact with each other forming hypercycles,” which in turn “form protobionts,” with “natural selection allow[ing] some protobionts to express more and more cellular characteristics over time…” and so the audience “might want to read Carl Woese…” I’m sure they would. Meanwhile, could you take the knowledge you gained from all this, and please answer question four.

Atheists typically guess that life began with much simpler proteins than we have today; a few think DNA started everything; some mix these first two (they’re closer of course); RNA has garnered much attention; there have been votes for the cell barrier first and for life beginning in clay crystals; many think perhaps it began in the primordial sea, but some have suggested under ice in “cold soup,” or in warm water near volcanic vents, or in high heat deep in the Earth’s crust; and popular, with RNA being so complex, some suppose a pre-RNA world or PNA for peptide nucleic acid, for pre-precellular life; and finally, perhaps in outer space via aliens. Of course, none of this comes within a light-year of answering the above, simply put, conceptually basic, question which we are all waiting for you to answer.

When atheists realize they will not be able to simplify the complexity of the cell, they will either join Crick, Hoyle, and the aliens; or go for the Hopeful Cell Theory (also called Punctuated Cellebrity). Of course, Crick and Hoyle never explained how to reduce the complexity for life to begin on Alderon either. So, I guess like the number of parallel universes, credulity can expand infinitely.

New Business

Since three of my original four questions were left unanswered (BQ1, BQ2, BQ4), and I’ve narrowed a couple questions under Old Business, I have decided not to expand the debate to new topics yet. And Zakath, if you will directly answer my questions, then I hope we will be able to eventually get to the nature of God. But, we must walk before we can run, and I won’t let you avoid issues with diversions by racing ahead.

Question Summary

BQ1. Does truth exist? a) Yes b) No c) I don’t know

BQ2. Does absolute moral right and wrong exist? a) Yes b) No c) I don’t know

BQ5. There are only three theoretical alternatives to the origin of the universe. a) True b) False
If B, explain and please list: _________________________________________________

BQ6. Zakath either: a) admits he is unable to produce any explanation of the theoretical reduced complexity of pre-cell life; or b) address bold points above, broadly explains such functional simplicity,
If B, please explain: __________________________________________________ _____

Sincerely, Bob Enyart

[Knight]

DING DING DING that's it for round #2!!

Fantastic battle so far! Thanks to both contestants for their efforts. Only 8 more posts to go for each combatant!

[Knight]

Does God Exist?

Well does He??? :D :box:

There is ONLY ONE place on the internet you can view a battle of such epic porportions and thats here at TheologyOnLine.com! Bob Enyart defends the Creator while Zakath the atheist argues that there is no God.

Will good win over evil? Will Zakath see the error of his ways?

I don't know! But I do know you can buy a REALLY cool Battle Royale Collector T-Shirt from the TheologyOnLine store!

Get yours TODAY! (http://www.cafeshops.com/tolstore.6157372)

[Knight]

ANY AND ALL POSTS ON THIS THREAD WILL BE DELETED UNLESS THEY ARE POSTED BY: Me (Knight), other Administrators, Bob Enyart or Zakath. You may discuss Battle Royale VII here. (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7710)

Abusing this will result in banishment from TheologyOnLine.

[Zakath]

My opponent has posted the answers to my previous requests for clarification in his prior missive so I now have the information to answer some of his previous questions. During this round, I would also like to begin to move the debate from arguing about hypothetical science to discussing the alleged "truths" about the existence or non-existence of Pastor Enyart's God.

Truth and God
Pastor Enyart had asked whether I believe that truth exists. Over the years my experience with a number of religionists, including the good pastor, is that they have presented me with variety of conflicting assertions all of which they proclaim as being truth. That being the case, I asked him to define what he means by "truth". He responded that "truth is a statement of reality". Given that somewhat tautological definition, I will concede that I believe that truth (as defined here) exists. Experientially, I have found that truth appears frequently in human endeavors as science, engineering, mathematics, and medicine. However, in other areas, including those debated frequently here on TOL like politics and theology, what is "true" seems to get a bit murky.

I watch religionists discuss, year after year, all these "statements of reality", to use Pastor Enyart's definition. And for almost every alleged truth, there is a conflict and argument. If religious truth is simply a statement of reality, then why is there so much misunderstanding and argument? It would be difficult to find anyone to seriously argue about actual objective truth, like the freezing or boiling points of pure water, or the temperature at which paper burns, or even something as difficult for the layman to measure as the number of protons in a regular oxygen atom, or the circumference of the earth. Yet people continue to argue about the very existence of Pastor Enyart's God for twenty centuries. I can even point to major denominations where fellow Christians, including theologians and pastors, would argue against the very existence of Pastor Enyart's God.

Why is it so difficult for people to accept that the existence of a deity if it merely a statement of reality? As I mentioned in my previous post, the major world religions all make conflicting claims about the nature of deity, yet all of them claim that their view of deity is "the truth" and that the others have it wrong. Even within the Christian religion, it appears that much of the evidence for the deity's existence is either subjective or indirect. Any student of history has seen the almost twenty centuries of arguments, debates, executions of heretics, crusades, and witch burnings; all claiming to support the will of God. I've read and listened as people claim the same God justifies both human chattel slavery and abolition; both pro-life and pro-abortion; and both pro- and anti-capital punishment stands. All these antithetical positions claimed in God's name by his followers make God himself appear either schizophrenic or ineffective at communicating his existence and truth even to those who really desire to believe in him. Thus "religious truth" does not appear to be objectively demonstrable at all, but merely based on subjective impressions of human believers.

Let Pastor Enyart demonstrate the "truth" that allegedly supports the existence of his deity clearly and directly without philosophical word games and then we'll have a position to discuss…


Absolute Right and Wrong
In his second topic, the attempt to describe moral absolutes as the basis for the existence of his deity, Pastor Enyart has, thus far, failed miserably.

When asked to define absolute right and absolute wrong he replied "absolute wrong is a harm that cannot be justified." When questioned about this apparent discrepancy of having to justify the unjustifiable, he assures us in his second post that "there are conditions attending to every event, every good and every crime…". Well, according to the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4th Edition, the terms "absolute" and "conditional" appear to be mutually exclusive…
Absolute means: "Not limited by restrictions or exceptions; unconditional"

Conditional means: "Imposing, depending on, or containing a condition"

Pastor Enyart has not yet demonstrated a single absolute moral statement; since by his own definition an absolute statement "cannot be justified". By his definition, an "absolute good" or "absolute evil" is required to be unconditional. Applying conditions to the statement means that the act itself is not unconditional and is not either absolutely right or absolutely wrong. Since his initial post, Pastor Enyart has only used conditional (i.e. non-absolute) statements to attempt to illustrate his concept of "absolute wrong." The conditional moral values and ethics Pastor Enyart has demonstrated so far as illustrations are merely another form of relativistic (conditional) morality. If we follow his reasoning as presented, then he has merely strengthened the position that all human morality is relative and conditional.

There is another feature of this alleged absolute right and wrong which should be considered in this discussion. To avoid relativity, absolute morality requires a standard apart from or above the society in which the morality is being evaluated. For a relativist to say that an act is absolutely right or absolutely wrong for humankind means that in all human societies, at all times, a particular act is right or wrong regardless of circumstance or condition. An absolutist would say that such an act can only exist as "absolute" if it appeals to a standard that is beyond humankind. Since he claims that absolute right and absolute wrong both exist, it is incumbent on Pastor Enyart to demonstrate this super-human (dare I say "supernatural"?) standard to us for both right and wrong.

This difficulty in demonstrating absolute right and wrong raises questions about deity. If there is a deity, then why has he not demonstrated clearly, and unambiguously, his absolute standard on such important issues as abortion? The issue can be simply phrased this way: is killing the unborn "absolutely right" or "absolutely wrong"? In the area of abortion, experience shows us that religionists frequently make "absolute" moral pronouncements which are in direct disagreement with the "absolute" moral pronouncements of other followers of the same religion. Followers of Pastor Enyart's God base their stance on the "absolute" moral pronouncement that "God is pro-life" while other Christians point to his slaughter of the unborn during Noah's flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, and the deity-ordered genocide detailed in the books of Deuteronomy and Joshua as evidence that such an absolute position is not supportable. Why is there so much confusion? How can two well-intentioned groups of religious believers both claim that "God" supports two contradictory positions simultaneously? I propose that it is because there is no clear, unambiguous standard of absolute right and wrong presented by those who argue Pastor Enyart's position.

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.

Summing up the arguments against the two points presented so far, and based upon Pastor Enyart's failure to actually demonstrate a standard of "absolute right or wrong" or even an unconditional example, I submit the following argument…

The Moral Knowledge Argument for Atheism:
1. If Pastor Enyart's God exists, then he is a being who is powerful, loving, and just.

2. If Pastor Enyart's God exists, it would be in his interest (loving and just) and within his capacity (powerful) for all human beings to know his absolute standards perfectly.

3. All humans do not know God's ethics perfectly, as is demonstrated by his followers disagreeing about many moral values.

Therefore: Pastor Enyart's God does not exist.

Origin of the Natural Universe
Science differs from the form of narrow fundamentalist thinking Pastor Enyart is attempting to impose here. Science has few dogmas, but consists, in the main, of hypotheses and models that are proposed, evaluated in light of existing information and modified or even discarded as new information or data becomes available. There is no need for science to cling to any fundamental doctrines or dogmas of required belief, as do religionists. Pastor Enyart's disingenuous railing "against atheists rationalizing complexity by introducing more complexity" pales in light of his suggested solution, "God did it."

In his attempts to push for apparently infinite simplicity, he forces the discussion out of the realm of science and into metaphysics. Once out of the boundaries of science he introduces, as his solution to the Problem of Origins, an entity he calls "God". Pastor Enyart's God, by definition, is bound to be more complex than anything in the natural universe that the good pastor attributes to the entity's creative activities. In addition to introducing a vastly more complicated answer than any horde of atheists (probably even astrophysicists) could ever conceive, Pastor Enyart has not provided a single iota more evidence to explain the existence of this deity than has to been tendered to explain the existence of Santa Claus.

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 created matter and energy from nothing? Of course, perhaps he assumes "magic" as the means to answering that question…

Let's hear the explanation for the physics behind Pastor Enyart's God as creator and perhaps this atheist will reconsider his disbelieving position…


Origin of Life
Pastor Enyart's refusal to accept complex answers to complex questions is also evident in his acerbic comments on my response to his origin of life question. Since he seems unable or unwilling to actually read the supplemental material I went to some trouble to provide for him, I will have little further to say on this question.

If he wishes to continue to debate in a specific area, then he must accept the fact that I am not going to attempt to summarize, in the brevity of this forum, the activities of the work being done in abiotic to biotic evolutionary transitions. If he desires to read it he can do so here. (http://www.gla.ac.uk/projects/originoflife/html/2001/pdf_files/Martin_&_Russell.pdf). If he does not, then that is his choice. I have provided more than enough information to answer his question. If he does not understand the answer, that is another issue…

Again, I am waiting to see a single shred of evidence presented by Pastor Enyart to demonstrate that his deity was responsible for the Origin of Life.

Neither Pastor Enyart nor I are molecular biologists, physicists, or cosmologists. I would suggest that we move the debate from defending hypothetical scientific positions to discussing the existence or non-existence of Pastor Enyart's God. Perhaps his next post will provide something in that arena that we can discuss…

[Bob Enyart]

Let’s get right down to business summarizing the latest round of questions:

Bob’s Questions to Zakath

BQ1: Does truth exist?
ZA5: With caveats: “…I will concede that I believe that truth (as defined here) exists.”
Note: “as defined here” apparently refers to “Truth is a statement of reality” along with Zakath’s caveats…

BQ2: Does absolute moral right and wrong exist?
ZA6: “I am not inclined to believe in… ‘absolute right’ and ‘absolute wrong…’”

BQ5: There are only three theoretical alternatives to the origin of the universe. a) True b) False
ZA7: Zakath didn’t answer…

BQ6: Zakath either: a) admits he is unable to; or b) broadly explains pre-cell functional simplicity.
ZA8: Zakath didn’t answer…

Zakath’s Questions to Bob

ZQ1 – ZQ2 answered in post 1b.
ZQ3 – ZQ9 answered in post 2b.

ZQ2/ZQ3/ZQ10: Demonstrate the “truth” that allegedly supports the existence of your deity clearly and directly… and then we’ll have a position to discuss.
BA2/BA3/BA10: In this post I add new evidence marked by (BA10). In post 2b, as promised, I highlighted two sentences with (BA3), indicating my direct evidence for a supernatural creator, both of which Zakath failed to discuss directly.

ZQ11: Demonstrate that both "absolute right" and "absolute wrong" exist and the superhuman standard behind such absolutes.
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…

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.
BA11: 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…

Now let’s dig deeper.

Old Business

On Truth

Begrudgingly with caveats, Zakath said that he will “concede” that truth exists. And then, only “as defined here,” but then he criticized my definition “Truth is a statement of reality,” calling it “somewhat tautological.” The American Heritage Dictionary Third Edition defines tautology as “needless repetition” and “an empty or vacuous statement.” Thus before our eyes, Zakath may have actually admitted to believing in nothing more than somewhat needlessly repetitive, empty statements. That is not the same as saying that truth exists, and leaves Zakath too much wiggle room. While atheists rightly insist on clear definitions from others, it would be nice for them to reciprocate.

Zakath, if you disliked my definition, you should have provided a better one, for regarding that definition, I had invited you to offer a “clarification” if necessary so that the readers and I could get a straight answer from you. Yet even after I suggested to the audience that “atheists react almost as though they fear truth,” you still equivocated. So, in an effort to get a direct, unequivocal, answer out of you to understand your position:

BQ7: Present your own definition of truth, and then if you can, affirm that truth exists without equivocating.

If you need confidence in your ability to know truth, I’ll try to help you. This will get good, and it will lead to my next evidence for God…

Start with the man, worse off than you, I think, who denies that he can even know that the universe exists. Perhaps he thinks he may be dreaming, and every acquaintance is only a character in his dream. But even then at least he admits this would be his dream. The phantoms we fabricate in our dreams do not have their own dreams and he does not relegate himself to being just a character in another person’s dream. So actually, we have a starting place even with this poor soul, because at least such a person admits that he knows that he exists. I think, therefore I’m real. After all, if he didn’t exist, he couldn’t deny anything, not even his own existence. Your own consciousness is irrefragable.

OK, so consciousness is undeniable, and is therefore at least a part of reality. But how can we intellectually prove any reality outside of our own individual consciousness, beyond our own personal subjective view of the universe? Let me draw a parallel from physics.

Think of only two bodies, a moon and a spaceship neither of which can determine, according to Einstein, which one is stationary or which is approaching. However, a third frame of reference incorporating additional observed objects in its field of view may be able to make that determination. And by adding more observed objects and from varied frames of reference, perspective is added so that increasingly accurate information becomes available (e.g., Cruithne (http://www.astro.queensu.ca/~wiegert/3753/3753.html)). A spinning satellite may conclude that actually, the universe is spinning around it; however another frame of reference sees also a second spinning body, near the first but rotating counter to it, and confirms that the entire universe is not simultaneously spinning in opposite directions around these two supposed centers, but rather, it notes only that two French satellites are out of control.

Consider a similar intellectual dynamic. Either I am my only available frame of reference, or I can obtain others. Imagine that I am my only reference frame. Because everything available for my mind to consider could have originated within me, I reject the reality of the world. And then I find the following: I have filled my existence with more unfamiliar things than familiar, more uninteresting than interesting, and more mystifying than understood. Most of what I become aware of bears no interest to me, the stuff in life, like 300 cable channels I care nothing about, gift shops, Olympic curling, and junk mail. I can stack ten old books written in Chinese on my shelf being unable to read them, but then go out and get a degree in Mandarin, and then read them, perhaps even finding some information I was familiar with from English books. Thus since I am my only frame of reference, and I’ve concluded that nothing is real outside of myself, then I must have created this complex pictographic language and authored these books all without knowledge of having done so. Further, I have built or conceived all the machines I’ve ever used, written all the books I’ve ever read, composed all the music, and produced all the drama (even soap operas). In fact, the world revolves around me. I am the center of all human effort and achievement, having accomplished it all in my mind; and yet I experience these things as though they were new to me, as though I’ve never encountered them before. I didn’t even write Solzhenitsyn’s Gulag Archipelago page-by-page while I was reading it, but I wrote it in its entirety before I began reading it, having drawn it to conclusion before I even know how it starts or even perhaps what it’s about; I discern this by the two copies I own, comparing them before and after I begin reading, and finding them to be identical; and I’ve created countless apparent humans familiar with the Gulag, and a thousand references to it in a hundred languages. I have done these things all without knowing it, and without being able to discern such. I am apparently omnipotent in my universe, except that I don’t even know how I made the bed I sleep on, nor can I change my own universe in most of the ways that I would like to. That is one theoretical possibility.

The other possibility is that I am not the only frame of reference available to me and that I am capable of interfacing with these other reference frames, which include people, whose perspectives I can add to my own to gain increasingly accurate information if I have eyes to see and ears to hear and a desire to know. Thus, when I purchase foreign language books (which I have done), and proceed to study that language (which I have done), and when I find that I can now read those books (which I have done albeit very slowly), then I know that I am interfacing with other frames of reference apart from my own. For, I read in Greek some things I have never heard of before, and other ideas which I have read before in English. And thus I discern two things: one, that other intellects, apart from me and with capabilities other than mine, exist; and two, that I am able to interface with these other frames of reference. As I combine observations from these sources, I find out that I can also interface with inanimate sources and reference frames, like cameras, scales, tape recorders, microscopes and telescopes. And so, I’ve learned that I can gain perspective from a multitude of counselors. Yesterday, millions of people, but not all, rose as the sun appeared, went about their business, and retired in the evening, and if I randomly interact with them, I find each capable of telling me about their lives in great detail, more detail than what I really need to conclude that they are independent reference frames. And so I learn that the world does not revolve around me.

If I had only my own frame of reference, then admittedly I would have a problem. As Jesus said, speaking as a man, “If I bear witness of Myself, My witness is not true. There is another who bears witness of Me, and I know that the witness which He witnesses of Me is true” (John 5:31-32). And again, “if I do judge, My judgment is true; for I am not alone, but I am with the Father who sent Me” (John 18:16). For, in making weighty determinations, as in trying to establish a murderer’s guilt, “one witness is not sufficient” (Num. 35:30) for “by the mouth of two or three witnesses the matter shall be established” (Deut. 19:15; see also Deut. 17:6; 1 Tim. 5:19; Heb. 10:28). Yes, this idea of multiple frames of reference can arise while discussing the plurality of persons in the Trinity, but that belongs in a debate specifically on the Nature of the Christian God. Also, in this paragraph I am not here and now making any divine claims for Jesus Christ nor for biblical authorship, but rather, I am using these words as yet another way of explaining the importance of multiple frames of reference, both in physics and the consideration of knowledge itself.

No one needs to study philosophy to benefit from interfacing with these multiple frames of reference. We are wired from birth to take advantage of this. When a child is born, even if by then he still had access to only his own frame of reference, as he grows he becomes aware of others, and tests the veracity of these independent references, reinforcing their independence many times daily. Even though the toddler can’t read, he becomes persuaded of the existence of writing as his parents read VeggieTales books to him. He eventually becomes fully convinced of the independent perspectives of many frames of reference, and lives his life accordingly.

To this, Zakath will ask his question again: then how do you explain all the “conflicting claims” among theists? If increasing numbers of reference frames produce an increasingly accurate picture, why do so many argue about God? The Hubble telescope is blemished, but software corrects for the defect. Likewise, human frames of reference can be distorted; they may be ignored; and some objects in the field of view may be intentionally or unintentionally overlooked, or selectively exaggerated or diminished. Thus, if most of the Iraqi frames of reference want Saddam removed, but the French frames want him to stay, we can look for bias. And when we find that a non-trivial percent of the French economy is based upon contracts with Saddam, and when we find that Saddam’s regime systematically murdered and raped thousands of its own citizens, and was responsible for the deaths of over one million people, then we can get an increasingly accurate picture of reality even though we interface with apparently systematic, conflicting information from these millions of frames of reference. Conversely, if we intentionally reduce the number of reference frames we consider, and ignore objects in the field of view, we become willingly ignorant, and confound our own understanding of reality.

Zakath exaggerated the unanimity of opinion regarding objective truth (like basic science) saying, “It would be difficult to find anyone to seriously argue about actual objective truth, like the freezing or boiling points of pure water, [etc.]…” Huh? Ever talk to an atheist? How about a post-modernist, a nihilist, or Richard Rorty? Trying to nail down Bertrand Russell to consent to some specific, objective truth like even “2 and 2 are 4” must have been like trying to nail a fly to a gnat. ReligiousTolerance.org states that, “Many others say that absolute truth does not exist.” For centuries now the trend in academic and popular epistemology has been going toward a denial of any objective truth. While there is basic agreement among many scientists on things like atheism and evolution, there are huge disagreements too. And there is basic agreement even among the most diverse theists that some kind of divinity exists. But regarding truth, if everyone in the world rejected it, it would still be true: our solar system is heliocentric, and it was so in the Middle Ages even if everyone had believed Aristotle that the sun orbited the earth. But then if we are using all these frames of reference, why would we have more disagreement regarding God than regarding the earth’s approximate circumference? Why? Because more frames of reference have more at stake regarding the topic of God than they do about the 24,901-mile equator. If ever two competing national economies grew or shrunk by their ability to most accurately measure the earth’s circumference, watch the conflict flare.

My own frame of reference, interfacing with many others, has convinced me that our world is full of hurt and suffering, and much of it is inflicted by people upon others, and oftentimes, even upon our own friends and family members. And if a God of justice exists, then there are quite a few frames of reference that will be held accountable for hurting others, many guilty of hurting even their own wives and children. And so, as the field of view focuses on the judgment of men’s actions, of their characters, and even of themselves as human beings, we should expect to see an increasing refusal to incorporate other frames of reference, and even a denial of objects observed in our own fields of view (such as the aggregate hurt we have inflicted upon others). Thus, the closer the topic comes to God, the more hesitancy, resistance, dishonesty and even fear, you will expect to see when compiling the frames.

Zakath, you say “that truth appears frequently in human endeavors as science, engineering, mathematics, and medicine.” And then you discredit truth “in other areas, including those debated frequently here on TOL like politics and theology.” Yet your own TOL signature claims, “a truism that almost any… religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power.” For all the contradiction that people display, even regarding issues of great importance to them, one thing that remains certain is self-awareness.

Consciousness is an absolute. Here is my third proof for the existence of a supernatural creator: consciousness. Atheists cannot even conceive, theoretically, in the most basic of terms, how self-awareness could develop from atoms and molecules. I can sense another question coming on. So far, I’ve pointed out that atheists cannot even conceive of a fourth alternative for the origin of the universe (yet they are afraid to admit it). And they cannot even conceive of a way to reduce the functional requirements of biological life. And now:

BQ8: Zakath, don’t prove, don’t provide details, but please just explain conceptually, in the most broad terms, how consciousness could have arisen from atoms and molecules.

So, consciousness, self-awareness, arising from matter – that’s a tough one. Because the molecules have to become aware of themselves. Yikes. But wait, Zakath, before you ignore this question also, let me throw in a handicap for you. You can begin with biological life. Yup. Start not just with atoms and molecules, but with proteins, DNA, RNA, ribosomes… aw, go ahead and take the enzymes and the cell wall too, yea, I’ll grant you an entire organism of living cells, in fact, a world full of them. Now, from atoms and molecules, and biological life, can you give us some idea, any hint of an idea, just conceptually, even vaguely, of how consciousness arises by natural processes?

Not only do you believe in something you can’t prove, not only do you believe in something you can’t give details about, you believe in something you can’t even imagine. You can’t even conceive of how a molecule, or a protein for that matter, or a million of them together, begin to become self-aware. That’s a kicker for you, isn’t it? Not only because you can’t even dream of how it might happen, but because you know that I know that you can’t even make a wild guess.

Atheists are loathe to admit that there are only three viable alternatives for explaining the origin of the universe, but they can’t even imagine a fourth, except perhaps to say that it doesn’t exist. And they think of every possible environment for beginning the development of simple biological life, but they can’t even conceive of such simplicity. And they must have self-awareness arise by natural processes; but they can’t even dream of a conceivable way that could happen. They don’t even know how to think about it.

Your worldview has no foundation. Faith can get no stronger, nor blinder.

Theistic Worldview: I have a worldview, described in these TheologyOnline.com posts, consistent within itself regarding origins and with the observable facts and the laws of science. There is no fourth alternative to explain the origin of the universe, and the most well-established physical laws indicate the universe could not always have been here, and could not pop into existence on its own from nothing, and so that leaves a supernatural, powerful, pre-existing Creator as the only other option. The irreducible complexity of biological life indicates that it could not have originated from simpler pre-cell life forms, and so that leaves a knowledgeable Creator as the only option. And (BA10) the consciousness of human beings could not arise by natural processes from matter, and so that leaves us with a personal Creator.

BQ9: Zakath, I am asking you to indicate true or false: (and please don’t ignore this question… true or false) Bob’s “Theistic Worldview” paragraph above contains foundational issues which his position does explain directly, but for which my position struggles to even explain conceptually.

Read again the last sentence of my worldview paragraph: The consciousness of human beings could not arise by natural processes from matter, and so that leaves us with a personal Creator. We just crossed the threshold in the debate to a personal God. Until now, I’ve only presented two arguments for God, evidence for Him being creative, eternal, powerful, and knowledgeable. Now, I am going to move into His being a personal God also. The foundation is laid.

To Be Continued…

Because I really would like to know your direct answers to these basic questions, I am going to keep this post narrowed to the above topics. In my next post, I plan to expand my summary answers to your ZQ10 –ZQ12, and discuss your Moral Knowledge Argument for Atheism. Also, perhaps we'll take a short break from discussing whether or not God exists, to ponder, Does ZA7 and ZA8 exist?

Question Summary

BQ7: Zakath, please present your own definition of truth, and then if you can, affirm that truth exists without equivocating.

BQ8: Zakath, please a) explain conceptually, in the most broad terms, how consciousness could have arisen from atoms and molecules, and feel free to even start with biologic life, or b) admit that you cannot.

BQ9: Zakath, please indicate true or false: Bob’s “Theistic Worldview” paragraph above contains foundational issues which his position does explain consistently and directly, issues which my position struggles to explain even conceptually. a) True b) False c) Cannot be answered
If B or C, please explain: _________________________________________________

Sincerely, Bob Enyart

[Knight]

DING DING DING.... Round #3 is IN the books!

ANY AND ALL POSTS ON THIS THREAD WILL BE DELETED UNLESS THEY ARE POSTED BY: Me (Knight), other Administrators, Bob Enyart or Zakath. You may discuss Battle Royale VII here. (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7710)

Abusing this will result in banishment from TheologyOnLine.

[Knight]

So.... at this point in the battle who do you think is winning Battle Royale VII?

Cast your vote here. (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=8030)

[Zakath]

Does Truth Exist?
As I stated in my previous post, I concede that truth, as Pastor Enyart defined it, exists. As I agree with his definition, for the purposes of this discussion, I see little need to continue to belabor the point.

Absolute Right and Absolute Wrong
With his question about absolute right and absolute wrong, Pastor Enyart appeared to be working very hard at setting up the Argument from Values. Simply stated, this argument is an axiological argument claiming that certain human values have universal existence outside of the human mind. To successfully use this argument he must prove that what he defines as absolute values come outside the human race. As you might imagine, this is a very weak argument consisting primarily of yet another assertion that "God did it" without being able to provide mutually acceptable evidence for the extra-human presence of any moral value. To deal with this argument, I suggested that Pastor Enyart should provide examples of both absolute right and absolute wrong as well as describing the superhuman standard upon which these concepts are based.

Failing in his first purpose, Pastor Enyart now falls back to the more tested Moral Argument. This presents the universality of a human "moral conscience" as evidence of a moral deity. Unfortunately, Pastor Enyart only seems to know two examples of actions that he claims demonstrate absolute values: the "crimes of rape and murder". I would agree that, in the society in which we both live, both rape and murder are crimes; and are viewed that way by many societies. The weakness in his argument lies in issue that for moral statements to be absolute they must they appeal to a superhuman standard; something beyond the human race. What we are trying to get to here is why Pastor Enyart claims that any action is absolutely right or wrong.

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 would concur that human conscience, in some form or other, exists in the vast majority of the human race; the possible exception to that rule being sociopaths or psychotics. The problem with Pastor Enyart's argument is that human conscience is not absolute. Thus his alleged absolute moral standards are still based upon relativistic human standards. History has shown time and again that humans can and do justify murder, rape, and any number of horrible acts against their fellow creatures while following their conscience. Men and women followed their conscience when they enslaved black Africans in the United States for hundreds of years. Men and women follow their conscience when they make themselves into human bombs to kill their enemies today in the Middle East. Men and women following their conscience have throughout the centuries practiced genocide, and the rape and pillage of war.

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.

Pastor Enyart and the God of the Gaps
Pastor Enyart's last two arguments, deal with origins. He picks current areas of gaps in scientific knowledge and then asks anyone to whom he presents this argument to provide an explanation. He tasks me with explaining precellular organic life, the origin of consciousness, and the ultimate origin of the physical universe. To all these questios, I provide an honest answer of, "Well, science really doesn't know yet and neither do I." He then trots out his tried and true religious reply, "Well then, God did it." Limiting God to the gaps in human knowledge produces an entity that is, rather tongue in cheek, referred to as the God of the Gaps.

His method follows an argument that has been posed by religious leaders from the dawn of human time. The argument might go something like this…
Religious Leader: "Can you explain why the sun moves across the sky?"
Lay Person: "Well, no."
Religious Leader: "Then it must be God, riding his sun chariot."


Lay Person: "Why did my crops sicken and die?"
Religious Leader: "Do you have any rational explanation?"
Lay Person: "Well, there's this black fuzzy growths on the grain heads…"
Religious Leader: "Well how did that black fuzzy stuff get there?"
Lay Person: "I don't know. I just sort of showed up…"
Religious Leader: "God is responsible for many of the unexplained events in our lives. Perhaps you've angered God somehow. Maybe you should come down to the temple and offer a sacrifice to appease the deity…"

… And so it goes; century after century, human culture after culture. The same arguments were used by the priests of ancient Greece to explain their gods and goddesses. Because there was not yet a rational, scientific way to explain thunder and lightning, they became tools of Zeus. The volcano became the forge of Hephaestus. The frenzy and irrationality associated with war became the province of Ares; the fecundity and fertility of the land, the work of Demeter. For hundreds of years king, clergy, and commoner alike used these and other gods and goddesses to fill the gaps in human knowledge with an answer "God did it." Yet over the following centuries, every one of these gods and goddesses withered to irrelevancy as human knowledge removed the need for them to explain what turned out to be natural events.

Today some people, like my opponent, still seek to fill the gaps in human knowledge with their deities. To them, I have one reminder – human knowledge of the natural universe grows, seemingly inexorably. The gaps of yesteryear are shrinking. Those whose God is limited to the gaps will find him eventually shrinking to irrelevance as the need for a God to explain the gaps vanishes along with them.

[Knight]

ANY AND ALL POSTS ON THIS THREAD WILL BE DELETED UNLESS THEY ARE POSTED BY: Me (Knight), other Administrators, Bob Enyart or Zakath. You may discuss Battle Royale VII here. (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7710)

Abusing this will result in banishment from TheologyOnLine.

[Bob Enyart]

Zakath, thanks for hanging in there.

Bob’s Questions to Zakath

BQ1/BQ7: Zakath, please present your own definition of truth, and then if you can, affirm that truth exists without equivocating.
ZA5/ZA7: I concede that truth, as Pastor Enyart defined it, exists. As I agree with his definition, for the purposes of this discussion, I see little need to continue to belabor the point.
BE: Apology accepted.

BQ8: Zakath, please a) explain conceptually, in the most broad terms, how consciousness could have arisen, or b) admit that you cannot.
ZA8: Total direct reply: “the origin of consciousness… To all these questions, I provide an honest answer of, ‘Well, science really doesn’t know yet and neither do I.’”
Note: Zakath admitted he didn’t know, but avoided the thrust of my question by not even discussing the inability to even give a conceptual solution in the most broad terms, by which omission I take it that the atheistic community cannot even offer a wild guess in some vague direction for how intellectual consciousness can originate from matter.

BQ9: True or false: Bob’s “Theistic Worldview” paragraph (on origins of the universe, biological life, and consciousness) contains foundational issues which his position does explain consistently and directly, issues which atheism struggles to explain even conceptually.
ZA9: Zakath didn’t answer.
Note: Zakath explained that he “doesn’t know” how these originated and said that I asked him “to provide an explanation.” No I didn’t. That’s not what I asked. I want to find out if this defender of atheism could honestly assess the leaning of evidence. I want to know, regardless of ultimate truth, if this atheist can objectively indicate the general direction in which specific evidence points. He could have quoted the paragraph and answered: "false – the evidence in that paragraph points to atheism, and theism struggles to consistently account for it." There. See how easy! But that may have been awfully difficult to write with a straight face. Or, he could have answered: "true – but let me tell you about the quirk of science which causes fundamental discoveries to strengthen the theist position." Or, he could have shown that the question was unfair, because the facts, scientific laws, principles, and challenges listed really have nothing significant to do with origins.

Zakath’s Questions to Bob

ZQ1 – ZQ2 answered in post 1b.
ZQ3 – ZQ9 answered in post 2b.
ZQ10 – ZQ12 summary answers in post 3b and ZQ11 on right and wrong elaborated upon below, and I plan to further address ZQ10 and ZQ12 in future posts.

ZQ11: Demonstrate that both “absolute right” and “absolute wrong” exist and the superhuman standard behind such absolutes.
BA11: Below I expand upon my summary answer from Round Three, and correct Zakath’s misstatement of my position…

Old Business

Right and Wrong

Zakath, you misstated my position. If I ever do that to you, please immediately inform me, because I couldn’t refute your position if I fundamentally misunderstood it. I do not base moral absolutes on the human conscience, as though our conscience was the ultimate standard. Rather, I’ve stated that our conscience is damaged. Here’s the correction: I pointed out in post 1 the common theistic belief that “a conscience… reflects [God’s] own righteous standard.” In post 2, I wrote that “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.”

Somehow, out of all that you managed that Bob “bases his absolute moral systems… [on] the human conscience.” Oops. And again, “his alleged absolute moral standards are still based upon relativistic human standards.” And then you easily ripped apart this argument that you wrongly attributed to me stating: “The problem with Pastor Enyart’s argument is that human conscience is not absolute. Thus his alleged absolute moral standards are still based upon relativistic human standards. History has shown time and again that humans can and do justify murder, rape, and any number of horrible acts…”

Horrible acts? Horrible? Aren’t they really just: different? After all, one man’s horror is another man’s comedy. Atheism undermines morality.

Your severe misstatement of my position confused conscience with God’s righteous standard. I am now reluctantly going to comment directly on you misstating my position, for in this Battle Royale I want to avoid criticizing idiosyncratic errors you might make, and stick to the substantive issues applicable to any debate on theism. But perhaps this notice will help improve the future rounds. In my experience dealing with atheists, it is extremely difficult to have a constructive dialogue because of constant obfuscations, common misstatements, and a general unresponsiveness, all of which are being documented in this public debate. For example, you have been unresponsive to my scientific arguments also, and have misstated my positions there, and have ignored the main points of my questions. (And I’m not in the least complaining that you haven’t caved in to my arguments.) You had agreed theism “is a very important question,” so please treat it according to your own valuation.

Proceeding, you listed the horrible acts of mankind against the theistic offer of evidence from conscience. If theists argue that men have a conscience which compels them to do rightly, then your list of evils would be evidence against us. But we don’t. (Remember, we’re the ones who talk about sin.) We argue that human beings are wired with the inescapable urge to weigh moral actions on the scale of justice.

Let’s back up for a moment to your Round Three argument against examples of absolute morality by identifying embedded conditions. I promised I would respond. You gave these definitions:

Absolute means: “Not limited by restrictions or exceptions; unconditional”
Conditional means: “Imposing, depending on, or containing a condition”

With these you were responding to my Post 2 wherein I wrote: “There are conditions attending to every event, every good and every crime, and every chemical process for that matter.” You argue that if theists describe a wrong with any attendant conditions, then obviously, we’re not describing an absolute wrong. I have a hard time understanding why you continue to press that objection, and why you have tendered it seriously since long before this debate began. Please consider the following clarification, and in your next post, in Round Five, I would like you to retract the “conditions” argument against the possibility that absolute morality exists. Here we go:

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. Rape is a certain kind of behavior, distinguished from other behavior by conditions. The conditions that identify rape do not mean that the standard which condemns rape is conditional. Rape is wrong. Murder is a certain kind of killing, distinguished from other killing by conditions (for example, if you pull a weed, you don’t murder it). The conditions which define murder do not mean that the standard which condemns murder is conditional. Murder is wrong.

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. (Besides, left-wingers don’t like humans all that much anyway.)

Is your objection to “conditions” even falsifiable? Your approach would be incapable of handling the following scenario: Let’s say that God really does exist, and He transported all of us to heaven, to show us His absolute standard, and then shuttled off to hell anyone who denied this absolute standard. Then He expected each of us to make judgments based on this standard. Behaving intellectually as you have been, would you be able to judge some evil act as absolutely wrong? I think you will see that unless you abandoned your ‘conditions’ argument, your ‘logic’ would prevent you from implementing even a now agreed-upon absolute standard. For, you would point to that definition of ‘absolute,’ meaning ‘unconditional’ (which would still apply), and you would point to a condition in the crime (the murderer was angry), and so you rule the act as not absolutely wrong! Therefore… Therefore what? Therefore Zakath is on the next busload…

We can play games, or we can honestly debate different positions. Life is too short to waste such time. So in the future, when a theist describes a crime which he gives as an example of an absolute wrong, you might intellectually argue that it is not absolutely wrong, but to argue it is conditional is hiding from the issue.

So, my question to you is, Zakath, will you retract the “conditions” argument against the possibility that absolute morality exists?

Human conscience is not all the evidence we have for an absolute moral standard, but it provides strong evidence. Yet, theists commonly admit that the conscience is “damaged” by sin. But if it is damaged, then, how could it provide evidence? Proof must obliterate any doubt; evidence is used to establish proof. You only need one proof, but it may consist of two or three pieces of evidence. Like the needle in a damaged compass which still tries to point north although sometimes blocked by its crushed case, the collective damaged conscience of mankind still indicates the existence of absolutes. An unemployed meteorologist refuses to acknowledge that weather patterns cross North America from west to east, because after all, at times he has personally felt an easterly wind blowing. And we have about six billion frames of reference on conscience from which to derive trillions of data points. The atheistic bias of science hinders the use of all that raw data.

Zakath wrote, “I would concur that human conscience, in some form or other, exists in the vast majority of the human race; the possible exception to that rule being sociopaths or psychotics.” Consider the offered exception of sociopaths. Conscience speaks to justice, whether something is justifiable or not, and regards issues like murder, kidnapping, rape, stealing, cheating, injuring, lying, negligence, and hurting. Sometimes people follow their conscience and avoid hurting others, yet at other times, people even take pleasure in intentionally inflicting great pain. People who violate the demands of conscience, in an effort to appease it, attempt to justify their own actions. Whereas if they had no conscience, they would have no compelling need to justify themselves. For example, Dylan Klebold, Adolf Hitler, and Charles Manson are not satisfied just to inflict pain, they endeavor to justify their actions or deny guilt, trying to appease their conscience. Klebold murdered thirteen victims at Columbine High School. Time Magazine and a victim’s father, Brian Rohrbough, have both reported on his videos made with Eric Harris, that the pair justified their actions as a function of Darwinian natural selection, wherein the stronger organisms can destroy the weaker. (After an autopsy revealed that one of the murderers wore a shirt that said “Natural Selection,” the Denver Post declared that they had no idea what that phrase referred to.) Zakath has argued previously that it might be right to murder or rape one woman to save a city, whereas the Darwinian evolutionist Hitler’s regime argued that it was right to eliminate one race to save the world in the survival of the fittest. Of course, Zakath has admitted believing that, for example, the NAZI slaughter of millions of innocents was not absolutely wrong. I despise you for that, Zakath. But of course, your atheism leads your there. Sociopath Charles Manson tries to divert guilt by blaming Susan Atkins and his followers for taking his supposedly figurative words literally. Manson’s conscience is working all right, as was Klebold’s, and Hitler’s; each tried to appease his conscience by attempting to justify his actions. Theists do not claim that men are slaves to their conscience, or that they are compelled to honestly report its influence, but that their conscience raises the matter of justification, and then the culpable man honestly or dishonestly responds, admitting guilt or falsely justifying his actions. Even a vengeful gang member who disclaims any morality exhibits a strong functioning conscience.

Zakath, we don’t really need to talk about absolute right and absolute wrong. We can simply talk about right and wrong, because if there are no moral absolutes, than nothing is even right or wrong. For you, there is no true right or wrong, only preferences. When you describe an act as horrible, you only mean you have a strong preference against it, but someone else may have an equally strong preference for it, and there is no standard by which your dislike for rape is objectively correct, and the other’s preference for it objectively incorrect. In your second post you said that child rape and racist murder “are both terrible evils and are wrong,” but that’s just your morality-envy playing with words, trying to appease your own conscience, and trying to make yourself look good by sounding like a theist. You should be a bold atheist and say, “Rape and murder are just preferences; we might not understand the preferences of others, but they are their valid preferences none the less; I have a preference against these, and others have a preference for them. I prefer mine, and they prefer theirs. I prefer wine, and they prefer blood. They have no need to justify their support of murder and rape because there is no standard by which I can truly condemn such. Of course, I have a social and personal preference, but if they have a different preference, mine cannot be shown to be truly correct, only different.” Hey, your conscience won’t like it, but then you’ll be consistent. But after saying things like that a hundred times, your conscience will be further seared, and it will begin to feel less troublesome. Be real.

Atheism undermines morality. Saying that there are no absolutes logically becomes there is no right and wrong. I’ve had many debates with high school and college students, some taped, like on our Get Out of the Matrix video. Is there such a thing as absolute right and wrong? “No.” Is it absolutely wrong to rape a woman? “No.” To kill an unborn child? “No.” Is it wrong to steal? “No.” To kidnap? “No.” To have an affair? “No.” To drill for oil in Alaska? “Absolutely!” Huh? That’s wrong? Okay…

Atheism steals from the moral capital of theism, and for a time, may exhibit a copycat morality. But without the foundation, the bankruptcy of atheism undermines morality.

Let’s talk about your Moral Knowledge Argument for Atheism. You asked in your Post 3: “If there is a deity, then why has he not demonstrated clearly, and unambiguously, his absolute standard?” For you to find out if He already has, you will have to consider the evidence from the other side of the debate. Consider this for a moment, that your conscience did not arise by chance to weigh moral actions, but that God instilled it within you, and you can hear its voice. And it tells you that the NAZI holocaust is absolutely evil, yet, you refuse to accept that, and the most you can admit is that you did not prefer the holocaust, but that it was preferred by others. (Atheism undermines morality.)

So then imagine on Judgment Day you complain to God that you had no evidence of an absolute righteous standard, and He asks you, “Didn’t you know that the holocaust was wrong?”

What do you say? “No?” “I didn’t know.” And then He says, “Your conscience told you it was wrong.” And you say: “I thought it just wasn’t preferred.” Boy, that’s gonna go over well. Then you are reminded that your conscience is just one function among many in your consciousness. And you’re reminded that you knew that you could conceive of no possible way for self-awareness to arise from matter. And you’re reminded that you had been clearly told that self-aware creatures require a self-aware Creator, because chemical reactions can generate heat and compounds, but not emotion, not intellect, not will, and not conscience. And you are then reminded that your consciousness was associated with your biological life, which is so irreducibly complex, that you couldn’t even imagine a way of simplifying the basic functions required for life so that it could even possibly arise by chance. And then you are reminded that you live on a planet in a universe for which you never could imagine an alternative method for how it got here, being stuck with either that it was always here, or it popped into existence from nothing, both of which violate the most basic laws of science, the very discipline by which you claimed to live your life.

Now I add the conscience (BA10-4) as a fourth evidence for God, and specifically for the God of Justice. For your conscience generates an inescapable urge to weigh moral actions on the scale of justice. And it gnaws at you because it says, “You must justify your faith in a natural process doing that which science implies it cannot. You must justify yourself believing that complex life can arise. You must justify yourself believing that a cause and effect chain in matter gave rise to consciousness, self-awareness, intellect, conscience, morality, emotion, and personhood.”

To Be Continued…

As promised, I have addressed ZQ11 and the Moral Argument for Atheism. In future posts, I will also expand my summary answers to your ZQ10 and ZQ12. You know what would have been great? In this round, imagine if you would have directly addressed my previous rebuttals to your the God of the Gaps argument. Since you didn’t, I’ll add that to my to-do list for a future post.

Question Summary

BQ13: Zakath, will you retract the “conditions” argument against the possibility that absolute morality exists?
If No, please explain: _________________________________________________

Sincerely, Bob Enyart

[Knight]

DING DING DING thats it for round #4!

ANY AND ALL POSTS ON THIS THREAD WILL BE DELETED UNLESS THEY ARE POSTED BY: Me (Knight), other Administrators, Bob Enyart or Zakath. You may discuss Battle Royale VII here. (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7710)

Abusing this will result in banishment from TheologyOnLine.

[Knight]

ATTENTION: 4th of July Holiday break.

We at TheologyOnLine (namely me) have decided to take a small break in the Battle Royale VII due to the 4th of July Holiday.

With all the travel plans and typical Holiday madness we thought it would be best to take a short break to allow both combatants and staff to focus on the debate when there isn't so much chaos going on.

Both combatants have generously agreed to take this short break in the battle.

Zakath will have until Monday July 7th at 12:00 MDT.

[Zakath]

We're almost half-way through the debate and thus far the theistic side of the argument has presented:
The God of the Gaps – here Pastor Enyart pointed to gaps in human scientific knowledge of the natural universe and claims that his "God" is the answer to fill these gaps. I reminded him that history bears out that such arguments have been steadily losing propositions for the theist as the gaps in human knowledge of the natural universe shrink. As the ancient Greeks and Romans found out, closing the gaps of human knowledge makes the gods of the gaps irrelevant.

Argument from Morality – here Pastor Enyart asserts that the existence of absolute right and absolute wrong are evidence for the existence of his deity. As of yet, Pastor Enyart has failed to clearly provide the absolute standard of right and wrong he claims to follow.


The atheistic si