Battle Talk ~ Battle Royale VII

[Knight]

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

Feel free to discuss the battle here!

[Shaun]

*pin drop*

[Knight]

Originally posted by Shaun
*pin drop* I imagine that this forum will get rockin' when the debate starts.

I just opened it now because I had some time!

Plus.. I want all the hype money can buy! ;)

Do we have any money? :(

[Shaun]

I have smilies. :D

[Knight]

So what did you think of the "Tale of the Tape" can we determine anything from that?

[1Way]

Shaun – Right, a brooding expectancy exists even prior to the massive onslaught.

Wow – I didn’t know all that about Zakath!!!

Went to cemetery :kookoo: , pastured two churches, founded a Christian school with his wife of 25 years, and has left the faith for atheism :doh: for the past 10 years! That is a mouth full! I wonder why his hosting a radio talk show wasn’t part of his repertoire. :think:

Knight - If you build it, they will come! - (LOL) This mega dome production is pretty cool stuff. Lots of room, plenty of seats, excellent viewing from all angles, and even high profile attractions! What a deal! This will be my first experience watching a battle royal. When does it all start? How long might it last? How long can the posts be? Can they use graphics? How about head and body protective gear? Will there be trained medical personnel on site in case of casualties?

This should be very “interesting”. :cool:

[Jefferson]

Enyart just gave Zakath a 5 day head-start by revealing his first question to Zakath on Tuesday's BEL show. But I think Zakath is going to need more time than that to answer it.

[Zakath]

Wow. I'm underwhelmed. :down:

To get to the question I have to listen to an hour of Enyart preaching? :sleep:

Somehow I think I have better things to do with my time, perhaps that root canal I've been putting off... ;)

[Goose]

Wow. This is getting exciting! When is this all going down, Knight?

[Knight]

As stated... the coin toss will be the day after Fathers Day June 16th. Then winner of the coin toss has 48 hours to make his first post.

[Jefferson]

Originally posted by Zakath
To get to the question I have to listen to an hour of Enyart preaching?Nope. The very first word of the show is the word "Zakath."

By the way, Bob pronounces your name Za KATH with the emphasis on the second syllable. Is that the correct pronunciation?

[Zakath]

Thanks Jefferson, the first one I listened to jumped right into a sermon. I must have pulled the wrong link the first time...

After listening to his piece, here are my comments:

So I'm an "experienced, aggressive, well-read, lifestyle atheist", eh? I think I'm flattered! :D

While that was quite an introduction, could someone explain what he means by a "lifestyle atheist"? :confused:

His first question is, as I understand it, "does truth exist?" It appears we will be proceeding on a variant on his "absolute truth" argument. I was hoping for something a little meatier, but we'll take what comes... :)

Several points...
I find it disingenuous that the good Reverend has already begun to attempt to manipulate the debate by categorically stating that he will refuse to debate, "unilaterally declaring him (me) in default" if I do not answer the question a certain way, trying to force the debate into his prepared line of argumentation.

I also find it interesting that Rev. Enyart plans to use the debate as sermon and discussion fodder, soliciting input from his church congregation to use in the debate. I'm sorry he feels threatened that he has to get his entire church involved so that I'm, in effect, debating Denver Bible Church, not just its pastor...

Third, and most important, to even address his question "Does truth exist?" is to abandon the primary question of the debate. The debate is "Does God exist?", not "does Bob Enyart's idea of truth exist". One might wonder whether this Open-view, theonomist can even support the existence of his distant deity except through diversion and philological gymnastics...

To keep with the spirit that St. Bob the Broadcaster appears to be cultivating for the debate, I will categorically state that I will debate the question posed for the debate, "Does God Exist?" and will not waste much time or effort on Enyart's pet philosophical maunderings...

This may be short and sweet after all... :think:

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Jefferson
Nope. The very first word of the show is the word "Zakath."

By the way, Bob pronounces your name Za KATH with the emphasis on the second syllable. Is that the correct pronunciation?

BTW, it's "Zay-kath". Long "a" and accent on the first syllable, short "a" in the second. It's a common error since Mallorean is quite a bit different than English... ;)

[Knight]

Originally posted by Zakath
BTW, it's "Zay-kath". Long "a" and accent on the first syllable, short "a" in the second. It's a common error since Mallorean is quite a bit different than English... ;) I will never be able to pronounce that right.

I have been saying Za-KAAAAAATH for years! :doh:

[Scrimshaw]

I'm not sure why asking the question "does truth exist" is being viewed so onimously. Obviously you believe truth exists else you would have nothing worth arguing for. For example, atheists believe it is "true" that there is not enough evidence to warrant god-belief. So instead of making mountains out of moehills and make-believing there are all sorts ulterior motives behind the simple question.......why not just supply the simply answer to the simple question?

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Knight
I will never be able to pronounce that right.

I have been saying Za-KAAAAAATH for years! :doh:

That's OK, we Malloreans are a tolerant folk... ;)

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Scrimshaw
I'm not sure why asking the question "does truth exist" is being viewed so onimously. Obviously you believe truth exists else you would have nothing worth arguing for. For example, atheists believe it is "true" that there is not enough evidence to warrant god-belief. So instead of making mountains out of moehills and make-believing there are all sorts ulterior motives behind the simple question.......why not just supply the simply answer to the simple question?

Because one of the favorite tactics of presuppositionalists like Enyart is to change the focus of the debate from something he cannot do (i.e. prove the existence of a deity, any deity) to get the debeate mired down in philosophical quagmire. He then walks away claiming victory when he never answered the question in the first place.

[Goose]

You have to have truth as a basement for any argument.

[Scrimshaw]

Originally posted by Zakath
Because one of the favorite tactics of presuppositionalists like Enyart is to change the focus of the debate from something he cannot do (i.e. prove the existence of a deity, any deity) to get the debeate mired down in philosophical quagmire. He then walks away claiming victory when he never answered the question in the first place.

I am not at all familiar with Enyart so I'll take your word for it. Hopefully he can give some decent enough arguments to make this a worthwhile debate. As an agnostic theist, I will be looking on with interest.

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Goose
You have to have truth as a basement for any argument.
I would agree with you in the sense that both parties must agree upon a common definition of truth before the discussion can proceed.

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Scrimshaw
I am not at all familiar with Enyart so I'll take your word for it. Hopefully he can give some decent enough arguments to make this a worthwhile debate. As an agnostic theist, I will be looking on with interest.

I'll try to keep things entertaining as well as rational. We'll see how it turns out... :D

[Goose]

Originally posted by Zakath
I'll try to keep things entertaining as well as rational. We'll see how it turns out... :D Good deal.

[Brother]

Does Truth exist? YES or NO. I think it's so cowardly to avoid closed ended questions. I'm going to do somthing I didn't think I would do in this debate. I'm going to pray for Zakath. Yeah, that's right, you heard what I said. Here is my prayer: Lord, would you give Zakath the courage to answer Bob's questions directly so that we could get to the heart of the matter on why he rejects You? Amen

[ebenz47037]

Originally posted by Brother
Does Truth exist? YES or NO. I think it's so cowardly to avoid closed ended questions. I'm going to do somthing I didn't think I would do in this debate. I'm going to pray for Zakath. Yeah, that's right, you heard what I said. Here is my prayer: Lord, would you give Zakath the courage to answer Bob's questions directly so that we could get to the heart of the matter on why he rejects You? Amen

Good deal, Brother. A few of us have been praying for Zakath for quite a while now. :D

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Brother
Does Truth exist? YES or NO. I think it's so cowardly to avoid closed ended questions. Not when they're distracting from the actual purpose of the debate.

How about answering the original question of the debate: Does God Exist? Yes or No. :D

Bob seems to want to avoid that one at all cost. I wonder why... :think:

[Gerlad]

Originally posted by Zakath
Because one of the favorite tactics of presuppositionalists like Enyart is to change the focus of the debate from something he cannot do (i.e. prove the existence of a deity, any deity) to get the debeate mired down in philosophical quagmire. He then walks away claiming victory when he never answered the question in the first place.

Hi Zakath,

I didn't realize that Enyart was a presuppositionalist. Are there bios available for you two that I've missed?

Thanks, J

[Palto]

Greetings Zakath,
This is an interesting precursor discussion to the debate. While I can appreciate that one tactic of debate is a sort of "smoke screen" to keep the focus off the issue at hand, wouldn't attributes that are necessary to establish the question at hand be encouraged? In issues such as this it is not a matter of a simple yes or no. What may be perfectly acceptable with minimal information to one may not be as compelling to another. In this way a preponderance of attributes may be needed to support an idea so that it is reasonable to conclude through logic that one concept outweighs another. Another tactic used is the avoidance of uncomfortable questions for one reason or another. This type of discussion tends to drag out a debate by blurring the definitions. I think it would behoove both of you to keep the discussion on track by eliminating as much of the "dodging" as possible. If a question appears unreasonable, it must be clearly and logically dismantled. Otherwise it falls squarely on opinion not observation. In this particular question it must be ascertained why absolute truth is either false or irrelevant to the discussion. In the same way as it is important for Pastor Enyart to establish why it is important. In reference to Bob's church helping his cause, you are absolutely right. GOD does not need us, or our wisdom, to succeed. GOD's Power and Glory are made perfect through weakness.
Judges 7:1-7
1 Then Jerubbaal, who is Gideon, and all the people that were with him, rose up early, and pitched beside the well of Harod: so that the host of the Midianites were on the north side of them, by the hill of Moreh, in the valley.
2 And the LORD said unto Gideon, The people that are with thee are too many for me to give the Midianites into their hands, lest Israel vaunt themselves against me, saying, Mine own hand hath saved me.
3 Now therefore go to, proclaim in the ears of the people, saying, Whosoever is fearful and afraid, let him return and depart early from mount Gilead. And there returned of the people twenty and two thousand; and there remained ten thousand.
4 And the LORD said unto Gideon, The people are yet too many; bring them down unto the water, and I will try them for thee there: and it shall be, that of whom I say unto thee, This shall go with thee, the same shall go with thee; and of whomsoever I say unto thee, This shall not go with thee, the same shall not go.
5 So he brought down the people unto the water: and the LORD said unto Gideon, Every one that lappeth of the water with his tongue, as a dog lappeth, him shalt thou set by himself; likewise every one that boweth down upon his knees to drink.
6 And the number of them that lapped, putting their hand to their mouth, were three hundred men: but all the rest of the people bowed down upon their knees to drink water.
7 And the LORD said unto Gideon, By the three hundred men that lapped will I save you, and deliver the Midianites into thine hand: and let all the other people go every man unto his place.
You have impressive and perplexing credentials and appear well educated by your posts. I am looking forward to observing this debate.

Palto

[RogerB]

Not when they're distracting from the actual purpose of the debate.

This from The King of Distraction?!?! :chuckle:

How about answering the original question of the debate: Does God Exist? Yes or No.

Yes! :bannana:

Bob seems to want to avoid that one at all cost. I wonder why...

Has the debate started or are you just trying to distract us? :zakath:

[PureX]

Hmmm, does God exist?

Does an idea exist? What will be the criteria in this debate for "existence"? Will something have to be physical to claim existence? And if not, how will we qualify it? Ideas have a physical component, but we don't normally consider an idea "real".

This should be interesting if the debate can stick to the actual question.

[Knight]

Zakath won the coin toss. (http://www.theologyonline.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=247539#post247539)

[novice]

Originally posted by Knight
Zakath won the coin toss. (http://www.theologyonline.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=247539#post247539) Well at least he will have won something!

[Zakath]

Originally posted by novice
Well at least he will have won something!

Oh ye of little faith... :chuckle:

[1013]

Proof is subjective.

The only indisputable proof of God's existence is the working of the Holy spirit on the heart. And the only way to resist it is to blaspheme the spirit till the end.

Not that I am against philosophical attempts to prove God's existence but they are far from the most important tools that the evangelist/apologist has to work with (though those more important tools may not receive enough attention).

[novice]

So the first post is done eh?

Against my better judgment I had talked myself into the notion that Zakath would do better in BR VII than he did in BR II. I guess I shouldn't have been surprised but I was still hoping for better in round one than Zakath provided.

[Brother]

Does the word exist exist? Only kidding, just trying to see how rediculous we could get. Ok, so, the coin has been tossed. Break out the pop corn and soda pop!!! Woooaaaahhhh!!!!

[Knight]

Originally posted by Brother
Does the word exist exist? Only kidding, just trying to see how rediculous we could get. Ok, so, the coin has been tossed. Break out the pop corn and soda pop!!! Woooaaaahhhh!!!! Well... not only has the coin been tossed but the first post has been made!

[novice]

Originally posted by Knight
Well... not only has the coin been tossed but the first post has been made! You mean.. the first post has already been wasted. :shocked:

[Zakath]

Originally posted by novice
You mean.. the first post has already been wasted. :shocked: You never could see the value in defining your terms before arguing about them, could you? ;)

[novice]

Originally posted by Zakath
You never could see the value in defining your terms before arguing about them, could you? ;) Not in that manner.

[Zakath]

Originally posted by novice
Not in that manner. Ah, so you prefer to define your opponent's terms for him, rather than let him do so?

[novice]

Originally posted by Zakath
Ah, so you prefer to define your opponent's terms for him, rather than let him do so? I think its generally a good idea to make some sort of statement as to what your stance is going to be regarding the topic in your opening statement.

You didn't sufficiantly state your position - actually you didn't state your position at all!

But hey, I am not going to fight this battle for you, I am just telling you why I thought your first post sucked.

No offense. :D

[marc]

The truth will set us free but the truth is a process, not a cudgel.
Truth like hope and the immigrant are often unwelcome, calling to conversion, changed lifestyles and new paradigms.
In an essay "Full Power in the Gospel of John" (Novum Testamentum 2003), Rainer Metzer insists that full power is gift of the Father to the Son that all believers should share. I'll be translating this article from German for a world where Pilate and Bush, fear and preemptive wars refuse the authority of truth.

[spackle]

It seems like Zakath is trying to lure Bob into proving the existance of the Judeo/Christian God when all Bob really has to do is discuss whether any God being of any religion exists. Bob doesn't need to get to specific in this debate, but Zakath wants him to, because specifics are harder to defend. It's like the first few chapters of Mere Christianity, where Lewis doesn't even mention Jesus, or the God of the Jews.

This is a foundational debate. Complexity will make it difficult for Bob. Zakath won't be able to prove anything, but if he can make it complex he will make it impossible for Bob to prove anything either.

[DEVO]

Zakath.... yet more evidence of man's devolution. ;)


Oh.. this is gonna be good!

[Freak]

Originally posted by novice
I think its generally a good idea to make some sort of statement as to what your stance is going to be regarding the topic in your opening statement.

You didn't sufficiantly state your position - actually you didn't state your position at all!

But hey, I am not going to fight this battle for you, I am just telling you why I thought your first post sucked.

No offense. :D

:chuckle:

Zakath, you could easily embrace God now and all this could be for not. What do you say?

[ibowatjesusfeet]

Well, Zakath did what any good atheist would do: he put the burden of proof on the believer. However, that's all he did. I think he should have said something about his position, but it didn't seem like he did.

[Chris Chrusher]

I occasionally visit these boards although I rarely post. But every time I visit, I see that stupidity and atheism are two things that go hand-in-hand.

Atheists argue meaningless and petty details all while avoiding the big picture. Their shameless avoidance to answer simple, yet crucially important questions shows that they fear answering. Something they do because they know that they are fighting a lost cause and their own words will render their own points utterly ineffective.

The fact is... they have no foundation to stand any of their arguments on, because their own belief system renders all arguments useless... including their own. So their only method of arguing is NOT to prove THEIR point, but via discrediting their opponent (whether or not it's true, they don't care), all the while babbling on and on about absolutely nothing.

This debate will doubtlessly prove my point and I can't wait for it to get underway.

[Hilston]

I'm curious -- and relatively new to this part of the Theology Online forums: what kind of atheist does Zakath claim to be? One who denies the existence of God? Or one who just says that the evidence thus far does not prove God's existence?

Jim

[Mr. Coffee]

I'm new here, and I wonder what Zakath's worldview is, beyond his criticism of the Christian worldview.

[ibowatjesusfeet]

I'm pretty sure that he completely denies Gods existance. If he claimed that there wasn't enough info to prove God, he would be in a better position because then the burden of proof is on the believer. He seemed to take the latter position (though it could have just been because he went first) in his first post.

[Shane]

David Eddings is an amazing author. Zakath, you have great taste. I enjoyed your first post and am looking forward to hearing what you have to say.

[Emmaus Road]

I aammm not sure as some of you are...I think Zakath hit the right note.

Define God.
What evidence.

I do disagree with him however, on the area of philosohy....it will take some very heavy philosophy to prove God.

Kant, Descartes, Aristotle's Prime Mover, all stepped up the plate and did very well.

Historically, most heavy hitting philosophers did believe in God.

[Heathen]

Oh what enjoyment this topic should bring for both sides.:rolleyes:

An atheist (or is that... a theist...I get confused) by denying that God exists, proclaims the very same to be in existence by acknowledging his absence. ( How can one deny something that doesn't exist unless he first realize that it is present to be denied?):doh:

Since I am new to this forum, and admittedly somewhat inexperienced at philosophical debates, I hope to learn as well as observe. Having spent some time reading throughout this website, I must thank its creator for this opportunity to share.

I eagerly await the TKO. Happy sparring to both participants.

[Eireann]

Originally posted by Emmaus Road
it will take some very heavy philosophy to prove God.

Kant, Descartes, Aristotle's Prime Mover, all stepped up the plate and did very well.
Not really. I haven't really studied Descartes' or Aristotle's methods, but I did study Kant, and he set out to prove the existence of God by trying to disprove God, hoping that by failing to disprove God he would in fact prove God. The only thing he accomplished, though, was failing to prove the negative (as was his intent). Unfortunately, failing to disprove a negative does not prove a positive, which is something Kant didn't quite get. In the end, he only managed to prove that he couldn't prove God doesn't exist, but he was no closer to being able to prove he does.

[Eireann]

Originally posted by Hilston
I'm curious -- and relatively new to this part of the Theology Online forums: what kind of atheist does Zakath claim to be? One who denies the existence of God? Or one who just says that the evidence thus far does not prove God's existence?

Jim
Of the two you presented, only one is an atheist position. The latter is an agnostic position, not atheist.

[Eireann]

Originally posted by Chris Chrusher
I occasionally visit these boards although I rarely post. But every time I visit, I see that stupidity and atheism are two things that go hand-in-hand.

Atheists argue meaningless and petty details all while avoiding the big picture. Their shameless avoidance to answer simple, yet crucially important questions shows that they fear answering. Something they do because they know that they are fighting a lost cause and their own words will render their own points utterly ineffective.

The fact is... they have no foundation to stand any of their arguments on, because their own belief system renders all arguments useless... including their own. So their only method of arguing is NOT to prove THEIR point, but via discrediting their opponent (whether or not it's true, they don't care), all the while babbling on and on about absolutely nothing.

This debate will doubtlessly prove my point and I can't wait for it to get underway.
Funny thing is, if you exchange the word "atheist" for the word "religionist" throughout this post, it will be equally applicable.

[RogerB]

Did anyone really expect aomething different from Zak's first post? Next he's going to ask for flesh and blood, gotta see it with my own two eyes proof. As if man can even begin to define God in terms we understand or limit His existence to what we will accept as logical.

[Zakath]

Originally posted by novice
I think its generally a good idea to make some sort of statement as to what your stance is going to be regarding the topic in your opening statement.

You didn't sufficiantly state your position - actually you didn't state your position at all!

But hey, I am not going to fight this battle for you, I am just telling you why I thought your first post sucked.

No offense. :D
It's been stated more than once that I'm an atheist. Bob knows this, most of the readers, perhaps excluding yourself, know this...

atheist - noun
One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or godsWhat more statement of my position do you need?

[Zakath]

Originally posted by RogerB
Did anyone really expect aomething different from Zak's first post? Next he's going to ask for flesh and blood, gotta see it with my own two eyes proof. As if man can even begin to define God in terms we understand or limit His existence to what we will accept as logical. Some people will see, perhaps not you or Novice, but some will... :D

[RogerB]

Some people will see, perhaps not you or Novice, but some will...

The only people who will "see" your point are those too blind to really see. :kookoo: :zakath:

[Freak]

Originally posted by ilyatur
I'm new here, and I wonder what Zakath's worldview is, beyond his criticism of the Christian worldview.

:crackup:

[Z Man]

Zakath believes in God; he's just too mad at Him to admit it.... ;)

[sawrie]

..

[philosophizer]

Why are there people posting in the battle thread itself? It's so annoying. How many times does Knight have to say don't post there?

Ooo, that last post was a long one too. :bang:

[Hilston]

Hi Erieann,

Do you know the answer to my question? Zakath writes:atheist - noun. One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods

Eireann writes:Of the two you presented, only one is an atheist position. The latter is an agnostic position, not atheist.OK, then does Zakath claim to be an atheist of the atheist position (One who ... denies the existence of God or gods) or an atheist of the agnostic position (One who disbelieves ... the existence of God or gods).

Zakath writes:What more statement of my position do you need?I need to know if you only disbelieve God's existence thus far because of insufficient evidence to support it, or if you go as far as denying God's existence regardless of future evidence.

Z Man writes:Zakath believes in God; he's just too mad at Him to admit it ...You may have been saying this to be funny or to rattle Zakath's cage, but the Bible says you're absolutely right. So-called atheists are really "theists in denial." Everyone knows the truth but suppresses in unrighteousness, according to Romans 1. The Greek term for "ignorance" is actually "willful ignorance," that is, knowing enough truth to push it away from oneself. Great comment, Z Man.

Jim

[Z Man]

Originally posted by Hilston
Z Man writes:
Zakath believes in God; he's just too mad at Him to admit it ...
You may have been saying this to be funny or to rattle Zakath's cage...
Actually, Zakath and I go back....way back. Like, a couple hundred posts back. :D

Anyways, Zakath has posted a few things that I believe is what warrants him a "fake atheist". Come to think of it, every atheist I've stumbled upon has some tragic tale of how God is mean or unjust... :think:
Great comment, Z Man.

Jim
Thanks, I guess... :o But I think that comment is what is sad about Zakath's personal life. Just like the famous atheist Madalyn Murray O'Hair said countless times in her diary, I believe Zakath is shouting in his heart:

Somebody, somewhere, love me.

:(

[Cleohair]

Hi All!

Well, I finally gave in & joined. I've been reading off & on, but I'm sure there'll be something I'll want to comment on in this debate. Can't wait! God Bless to all!

[Z Man]

Welcome to TOL! I'll be looking forward to reading some of your posts! :thumb:

[Brenda]

Forgive my ignorance, but what is "Mallorean"?

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by philosophizer
Why are there people posting in the battle thread itself? It's so annoying. How many times does Knight have to say don't post there?

Ooo, that last post was a long one too. :bang:

No doubt.

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Z Man
Zakath believes in God; he's just too mad at Him to admit it.... ;) :cool:

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Brenda
Forgive my ignorance, but what is "Mallorean"?
My screen name, Zakath, is a character found in a couple of books by David Eddings. Zakath happens to be the emperor of Mallorea (an empire on another world in Edding's novels) and an atheist who is married to an oracle (one who hears from deities). The situation reminded me a bit of my wife and me, hence the name...

Hope that helps. :D

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Hilston
Hi Erieann,

Do you know the answer to my question?
I do. :D

Atheism runs, more or less, on a spectrum from weak atheism, what most would term "agnostic" to strong atheism, what most would call an "athiest". I tend toward the strong end of the spectrum, meaning I actually disbelieve in the existence of any deities.

I am open to changing my mind if someone (human or otherwise) provided sufficient evidence.

Keep in mind you may see that term "sufficiency of evidence" again in the near future... ;)

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Freak
:chuckle:

Zakath, you could easily embrace God now and all this could be for not. What do you say? To you, Jay? All I have to say is :p

[Zakath]

Originally posted by ilyatur
I'm new here, and I wonder what Zakath's worldview is, beyond his criticism of the Christian worldview. PM me and I'll discuss it with you if you wish.

[Eireann]

Originally posted by RogerB
Did anyone really expect aomething different from Zak's first post? Next he's going to ask for flesh and blood, gotta see it with my own two eyes proof. As if man can even begin to define God in terms we understand or limit His existence to what we will accept as logical.
Actually, it was a very good way to start the debate. Establishing a working definition that is fully understood by both parties is an essential beginning to a debate. If there is not a concise and mutually agreed-upon definition for "God," then the debate is sunk from the first post. Otherwise, both parties can argue in favor or against the existence of God -- by their individual definitions -- and never gain ground on the other because the other is debating something completely different.

[Emmaus Road]

Originally posted by Eireann
The only thing he accomplished, though, was failing to prove the negative (as was his intent). Unfortunately, failing to disprove a negative does not prove a positive, which is something Kant didn't quite get. In the end, he only managed to prove that he couldn't prove God doesn't exist, but he was no closer to being able to prove he does.

Emmaus Road: On reading your post, I have to say I agree.

Kant attempted to show how philosophy could prove the existence of God. Unfortunately, for him his previous work showed that we could not know reality directly as thing-in-itself. What is real in itself is beyond our experience. Even if God exists, we can not know God as he is.

[Freak]

Originally posted by Zakath
PM me and I'll discuss it with you if you wish.

Zakath, the evangelist.:chuckle:

[Eireann]

Originally posted by Hilston
Hi Erieann,

Do you know the answer to my question?
Only Zak truly knows the answer to that question. I can assume, from his background and most of what he's posted in the past that he is a true atheist, assuming he is truthful about his lack of belief.

A true atheist can still be persuaded to believe in something if faced with incontrovertible evidence, as with an agnostic. The primary difference is that an atheist believes there is nothing out there, while an agnostic believes there is something out there that is higher than us (or at least, there probably is) but makes no commitment as to what that "something" is. The agnostic simply does not subscribe to any particular mythology or dogma regarding that "something." That would be my own position, as opposed to an atheist who doesn't believe at all in anything paranormal.

[LightSon]

Originally posted by Zakath
BTW, it's "Zay-kath". Long "a" and accent on the first syllable, short "a" in the second. It's a common error since Mallorean is quite a bit different than English... ;)

What does this name (Zakath) mean? Is it some evil mantra calling up the prince of darkness? Something akin to Beetleguice.

Just curious.

And what is Mallorean? Never heard of that either.

[sawrie]

...

[Knight]

Originally posted by sawrie
Enyart's home church is Derby Bible Church in Colorado. Its pastors teach that God changes his mind, and does not know the future (Moral Government Theology).

I pulled this off a gospel.net's Apologetics Index and am wondering (if this is true) how a man could support a pastor with such views? Your pretty much wrong on everything you stated.

We encourage more informed posts.

After all.... its "More informed posts month" at TOL. :D

[Zakath]

Lightson,

Zakath can actually a play on words...

First off, it is a character from David Eddings' novels. He is the atheistic emperor of a place called Mallorea.

Secondly, Zakath or Zakat, is arabic for the almsgiving required of all good Muslims, the sharing of one's substance with other truly needy people. I only found out this second meaning after a close acquaintance converted to Islam. ;)

But I am not a Muslim, a Christian, or a religionist of any stripe. :D

[Knight]

Originally posted by Zakath
But I am not a Muslim, a Christian, or a religionist of any stripe. :D Which isn't to be confused with having "faith".

Zakath has plenty of "faith". :D

[Zakath]

Originally posted by sawrie
To Zakath

Two things

1.) Whatever is eternal cannot change as change is a proof something is not perfect.

2.) God cannot be known through knowledge (although knowledge can prove His existance) God must be know through experiance and seeing our physical senses only deal with the physical world God must not be sought through them rather by our spirit....
I'm already debating one preacher this week, sawrie. If you'd like to get in line after St. Bob the Broadcaster, you can have the next turn. :D

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Knight
Which isn't to be confused with having "faith".

Zakath has plenty of "faith". :D As do many folks here. Where we differ is the object of our faith...

"Everyone's gotta believe in something. I believe I'll have another drink!" :cheers:

[Knight]

Originally posted by Zakath
As do many folks here. Where we differ is the object of our faith...

"Everyone's gotta believe in something. I believe I'll have another drink!" :cheers: I agree!

I was simply clarifying for some of our more banal members. ;)

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Freak
Zakath, the evangelist.:chuckle: Nah, I'n not a real evangelist. I don't take up a love offering... ;)

[LightSon]

Originally posted by Zakath
"Everyone's gotta believe in something. I believe I'll have another drink!" :cheers:

And what exactly is that you are drinking? You appear to be suckin' 'em down pretty fast. :cheers:

[Zakath]

Guinness, laddie, Guinness!

Nectar of the Irish... :D

[Mr. Coffee]

I wish our "Does God Exist?" debate could be framed the way Karl Rahner presented it. He begins with our experience of transcendence: whatever we say, we raise more questions. This is a "permanent existential," i.e., the way we are, and we did not and cannot choose to be this way. And in transcending whatever we think of as our outermost horizon, we have to deal with mystery, and encounter God.

But I suppose we'll just rehash the Thomistic proofs.

[Mr. Coffee]

Originally posted by Zakath
Guinness, laddie, Guinness!

Nectar of the Irish... :D

Heretic! Harp is the true king of beers.

[Zakath]

Atheists aren't heretics, they don't espouse any particular religious doctrine! ;)

Though technically, some people wouldn't classify stouts as "beer", more like a food group all by themselves. :D

[Yorzhik]

Guinness. Sigh. I miss those days... perhaps they will be again sometime.

[Zakath]

Sorry Yorzhik. :(

What type of beer do hedgehogs favor these days... ;)

[Scrimshaw]

One of the most important issue in these debates is defining "evidence". Evidence is an extremely subjective word because everybody has different standards of evidence that they will accept. Many times, the loftiness of those standards will correlate to the level of prejudice the individual already possesses against the idea he disbelieves. In other words, the higher the prejudice, the higher the standard of evidence they will require.

I once talked to an atheist that said the only form of evidence he would accept is - God appearing before him saying - "Hey, I'm God and I'm real", and then blinding him for 3 days so he would have physical evidence that he didn't hallucinate. That was the only standard of evidence that atheist would accept. Other atheists may have a more reasonable standard of evidence; but it's important for the theist to ascertain what that standard is, otherwise the theist ends up spending a lot of time spinning his wheels by providing all kinds of evidence that wouldn't be acceptable to the atheist in the first place.

I usually ask the atheist what he thinks acceptable/sufficient "evidence" for God would be in the first place. Since the atheist makes the positive affirmation that no such evidence exists, they obviously have an idea of what they think the evidence would be....or else they wouldn't be so certain they haven't already seen it.

Thus, its actually the atheist's responsibility to define what HE would personally accept as "sufficient" evidence for a god, and from there, the theist is required to analyze that standard of evidence to see if:

a) it is a reasonable and/or logically necessary standard
b) can be provided

I find that this approach saves A LOT of time because it cuts straight to the heart of the matter and eliminates all the rhetoric on both sides.

[Freak]

Originally posted by Zakath
Nah, I'n not a real evangelist. I don't take up a love offering... ;)

I forgot you just demand people to pay excessive amounts of money to hear your psycho-babble.:rolleyes:

[AROTO]

quote: why not just supply the simply answer to the simple question?

He can't simply answer the question, or Zakath's argument will totally unravel.

[Zakath]

The issue remains, will he answer the questions I've posed or will he duck them and try to avoid the main debate question altogether? :think:

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Freak
I forgot you just demand people to pay excessive amounts of money ...That's interesting, my clients never complained about my fees being excessive...

Do the people you work with complain frequently? :confused:

[RogerB]

Thus, its actually the atheist's responsibility to define what HE would personally accept as "sufficient" evidence for a god, and from there, the theist is required to analyze that standard of evidence to see if:

a) it is a reasonable and/or logically necessary standard
b) can be provided

I find that this approach saves A LOT of time because it cuts straight to the heart of the matter and eliminates all the rhetoric on both sides.

Yes, but getting an atheist or a :zakath: to actually respond to such a request is quite another matter.

[RogerB]

That's interesting, my clients never complained about my fees being excessive...

It's not so much the nickel as it is the resulting hot air....

[Prisca]

Hi Zak,

You said, "My screen name, Zakath, is a character found in a couple of books by David Eddings. Zakath happens to be the emperor of Mallorea (an empire on another world in Edding's novels) and an atheist who is married to an oracle (one who hears from deities). The situation reminded me a bit of my wife and me, hence the name...

So, does this mean your wife believes in some form of a god? I realize you keep your private life very private, so if you don't want to be specific I understand. Just curious. :)

Thanks,
Becky

[Zakath]

Originally posted by RogerB
Yes, but getting an atheist or a :zakath: to actually respond to such a request is quite another matter. Perhaps if you asked nicely...

... or perhaps not. :rolleyes:

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Becky
Hi Zak,
So, does this mean your wife believes in some form of a god?Nope. Merely an oracle, a mouthpiece for a deity.

Well, she is my little goddess... but that's different... :o

And she used to treat me like a deity when we were first married, you know, the burnt offerings for dinner and all that... ;)

[Zakath]

Hey, we're doing pretty well on this debate so far. Over 750 views and one side hasn't even shown up yet... :D

[Carl Smuda]

Jeepers, reading you all really got me in the mood to watch this one. I thought Zakath laid a great start. I'm looking forward to the response. this could be really interesting. I wait to take knowledge. God Bless us everyone.:coffee:

[Eireann]

Originally posted by AROTO
quote: why not just supply the simply answer to the simple question?

He can't simply answer the question, or Zakath's argument will totally unravel.
A little presumptuous, don't you think, since Zakath hasn't yet made his argument?

[Eireann]

Regarding a standard for evidence:

Evidence should be:

1) Directional and specific. It should point to what you are suggesting it points to, and you should be able to establish just why it points that direction.

2) It should be testable. Once it is established that it points a specific direction, it should be shown to be reasonable and sound under the scientific method (which doesn't just apply to science, but to all things where a question of "proof" exists).

3) It should soundly exclude rival theories. In other words, what Bob Enyart presents as evidence of the existence of God should not be able to be used by Zakath as evidence of the non-existence of God, nor should any alternative explanation be able to reasonably explain the evidence.

4) It should be empirical and observable, not merely mythical. When relying on accounts of things long past, they should be reliable 1st Person eyewitness accounts, not 3rd Person third-hand hearsay ("he said that she said that he said") like what we tend to see in the Bible.

5) It should be corroboratable by disinterested third parties, especially if it concerns accounts of the "miraculous" sort. I mean, if the only witnesses to alleged Christian miracles are Christians, then it really cuts the reliability way down if there is no one else to confirm that such-and-such really happened.

[Scrimshaw]

Originally posted by Zakath
And she used to treat me like a deity when we were first married, you know, the burnt offerings for dinner and all that... ;)

LMAO!!!! Gee, that means my wife has been treating me like a deity for our whole marriage!! :bannana:

[Eireann]

Originally posted by Scrimshaw
LMAO!!!! Gee, that means my wife has been treating me like a deity for our whole marriage!! :bannana:
Being treated like a deity always leaves a bad taste in my mouth. See this is why my girlfriend and I eat out a lot. :chuckle:

[Zakath]

My sympathies, gentlemen.

Actually my lady has turned into a very good cook (as my waistline advertises). She "got in touch with her roots" (Italian) and our table has been the lucky beneficiary! :D :chew: :D

[Turbo]

Originally posted by Zakath
atheist - noun
One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods

You should have looked up "God" while you were at and skipped the "playing dumb" routine in your first round post.

[Zakath]

Turbot,

You should have read the entire post to see why I asked the questions... :doh:

[Scrimshaw]

Just a few thoughts below....

Originally posted by Eireann
Regarding a standard for evidence:

Evidence should be:

1) Directional and specific. It should point to what you are suggesting it points to, and you should be able to establish just why it points that direction.

Agree.

2) It should be testable. Once it is established that it points a specific direction, it should be shown to be reasonable and sound under the scientific method (which doesn't just apply to science, but to all things where a question of "proof" exists).

Disagree. You are simply positing the self-refuting philosophy of Scientism here with point two. Proof can exist in non-empirical forms. For example, argumentation is a form of "proof" in itself. Also, you should consider legal evidence as well. Many times, legal evidence does not require empirical proof but simply enough indirect proof that is sufficient to overcome reasonable doubt regarding the cause of a past event.

3) It should soundly exclude rival theories. In other words, what Bob Enyart presents as evidence of the existence of God should not be able to be used by Zakath as evidence of the non-existence of God, nor should any alternative explanation be able to reasonably explain the evidence.

Disagree. You can have two rival theories that are to greater or lesser degree, both reasonable. Usually the reasonable theory that has the higher probability of being correct is the one that should be adopted.

4) It should be empirical and observable, not merely mythical.

Disagree. For example, logic is not empirical or observable in a physical sense, but we'd hardly consider it "mythical". Black holes are not directly observable or been subject to any empirical testing yet we know they are not mythical. In many cases, we can determine what an entity is, or if it exists by the effect of it's presence. This is not only true of black holes, but of gravity as well. We know of it's existence by it's effect.

5) It should be corroboratable by disinterested third parties, especially if it concerns accounts of the "miraculous" sort. I mean, if the only witnesses to alleged Christian miracles are Christians, then it really cuts the reliability way down if there is no one else to confirm that such-and-such really happened.

Disagree. You fail to consider the obvious fact that people who witness miracles are most likely going to become believers. For example, let's say I was an avid disbeliever in aliens. If an alien came and visited me and I directly observed the alien, by the time I reported the event to you I would have changed into a believer. In other words, the act of witnessing the miracle in many cases is the CAUSE of one's conversion from disbeliever into believer.....therefore, your stipulation on this point is very limited in scope and not realistic.

[Eireann]

Originally posted by Turbo

You should have looked up "God" while you were at and skipped the "playing dumb" routine in your first round post.
"God" doesn't mean the same thing to all people, and the dictionary only provides a general, popular definition. You ask a Hindu, a Jew, a Christian, and a Muslim to define "God" and you'll get four different answers. You ask 10 Christians to define "God" and you'll get 10 different answers. Some believe in a God that is inclusive of Jesus, and some don't. This is even true among Christians -- you have Trinitarians who believe Christ is a part of or a manifestation of the Godhead, and you have non-trinitarians who believe that while Christ is "of God," that Christ is not God himself. So no, a dictionary definition of "God" is hardly going to suffice, unless both parties agree to use such a limited definition.

[NATEDOG]

On Pastor Enyarts question of truth.
A closed ended question such as, "Is there truth, YES OR NO" would seem almost entirely worthless unless he plans on using this question to springboard the discussion into a deeper look at the nature of the mind and metaphysics as a way to disprove a purely material universe.

I would say that truth is an attribute or property of our universe or existence. Nearly everyone would agree that there is some form of truth about our universe, however I'm quite sure that Mr. Enyart and Zakath do not agree on the constituents, the foundation, or the application of this truth. Who knows if this will even be an intelligible debate.


Guinness eh? I'll have a glass or two of that ambrosia if you have any to spare Zakath.

[AROTO]

quuote: Enyart's home church is Derby Bible Church in Colorado. Its pastors teach that God changes his mind, and does not know the future (Moral Government Theology).

True, Bob teaches "open theology".

[Turbo]

Originally posted by Zakath
And she used to treat me like a deity when we were first married, you know, the burnt offerings for dinner and all that... ;) Good one! :chuckle:

[Yorzhik]

What type of beer do hedgehogs favor these days...

Guinness.

But I have this thing against drinking alone. I just don't drink enough to keep myself company. Now with the job I have in the town I'm in and the crowd that comes with it, and the church I'm in... it all adds up to no Guinness.

Now if I go to the local German clubs, they have a great number of good beers and good company. But no Guinness.

[Turbo]

Originally posted by Zakath
Turbot,

You should have read the entire post to see why I asked the questions... :doh: I did, and I do.

[Freak]

Originally posted by Zakath
That's interesting, my clients never complained about my fees being excessive...

Sure, Zakath, sure, ;) Too bad you can't "help" people without charging them for your "psychological services."

:rolleyes: ;)

[sawrie]

..

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Turbo
I did, and I do. You see, grasshopper; but you do not understand. ;)

[Carl Smuda]

Originally posted by sawrie
Can one prove to me that the physical universe exists? only if you can prove to me that YOU exist. How do I know you're talking to me? are you a figment of my imagination? Or am I of yours? ;)

[spackle]

Originally posted by Eireann
"God" doesn't mean the same thing to all people, and the dictionary only provides a general, popular definition. You ask a Hindu, a Jew, a Christian, and a Muslim to define "God" and you'll get four different answers. You ask 10 Christians to define "God" and you'll get 10 different answers. Some believe in a God that is inclusive of Jesus, and some don't. This is even true among Christians -- you have Trinitarians who believe Christ is a part of or a manifestation of the Godhead, and you have non-trinitarians who believe that while Christ is "of God," that Christ is not God himself. So no, a dictionary definition of "God" is hardly going to suffice, unless both parties agree to use such a limited definition.

What's wrong with using a limited definition if it's sufficient to the argument. Zakath doesn't believe in the most basic definition of "god", Bob does. Why make the debate needlessly complex over the details of specific religions when the issue is very basic? And why did Zakath put the ball in Bob's court when he could have just as easily stated HIS definition of "god" and gotten the ball rolling. He could just say, "this is the most fundamental definition of what I think 'god' is, and I don't believe in it."

My point is, if Bob defines "God" as "a higher power", it might not be enough. Zakath could believe in aliens or something that are, technically, a higher power than humans. They both need to find the lowest common denominator, so to speak, and debate that. Zakath could have started that process, but he decided to let Bob define it.

It might have actually been a smart move, because it puts Bob on the defensive.

[Brenda]

I am not a regular on here, but I keep checking the site every 5 minutes waiting for Bob Enyart's first post!

[Zakath]

Originally posted by sawrie
Can one prove to me that the physical universe exists?... (snipped the remaining existential questioning) Is it utterly impossible for religionists like you to stick to the discussion at hand?

You might have missed it, but the question for the debate is "Does God Exist?" It is not your question about universal existence. That is another debate entirely.

Since there are many, many conflicting claims about what "God" means, we need to define that term early on to avoid misunderstandings...

Its amazing to me that one can say there is no God. Be amazed. :shocked:

There is no God. :think:

[Freak]

Originally posted by spackle
It might have actually been a smart move, because it puts Bob on the defensive.

Yep.

[Carl Smuda]

Don't forget our good friends the Mormons: As man is God was, as God is man will be....:juggle:

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Freak
...Too bad you can't "help" people without charging them for your "psychological services." Knight gave you your very own forum to play in, Jay. It's too bad you can't stick to the topic at hand when you're out in the rest of the world... :rolleyes:

[Freak]

Originally posted by Zakath
Knight gave you your very own forum



:confused:

[Lion]

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Becky
Hi Zak,
So, does this mean your wife believes in some form of a god?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Za-kath's responseNope. Merely an oracle, a mouthpiece for a deity.

Well, she is my little goddess... but that's different...

And she used to treat me like a deity when we were first married, you know, the burnt offerings for dinner and all that...Ha Ha ha ha ha ha…. He he he he he he… ho ho ho ho ho… ha ha ha ha ha ha….

Good one.

[Lion]

ZA-kath said:As do many folks here. Where we differ is the object of our faith...

"Everyone's gotta believe in something. I believe I'll have another drink!":cheers: Luke 12:19-20 ‘And I will say to my soul, “Soul, you have many goods laid up for many years; take your ease; eat, drink, and be merry.” "But God said to him, ‘Fool! This night your soul will be required of you...

[Lion]

1Cor 15:32 "...If the dead do not rise, “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die!”:devil:

[Lion]

Is. 22:12-14 And in that day the Lord GOD of hosts Called for weeping and for mourning, For baldness and for girding with sackcloth. But instead, joy and gladness, Slaying oxen and killing sheep, Eating meat and drinking wine: “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die!” Then it was revealed in my hearing by the LORD of hosts, “Surely for this iniquity there will be no atonement for you, Even to your death,” says the Lord GOD of hosts.:snake:

[Eireann]

Originally posted by spackle
What's wrong with using a limited definition if it's sufficient to the argument.
Nothing, as long as both parties agree. It is absolutely essential, though, that there be agreement on the definition before the debate proper begins, otherwise there's no point in debating if you're debating unrelated ideas.

It might have actually been a smart move, because it puts Bob on the defensive.
Precisely. Zakath has put the onus of establishing a working defition onto Bob, which has the end result of giving Zakath the first real target to shoot at.

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Lion
ZA-kath said:Luke 12:19-20 ‘And I will say to my soul, “Soul, you have many goods laid up for many years; take your ease; eat, drink, and be merry.” "But God said to him, ‘Fool! This night your soul will be required of you...

So when I get up tomorrow morning and log onto TOL, can I call you a false prophet? :confused:

[wholearmor]

Originally posted by Zakath
I do. :D

Atheism runs, more or less, on a spectrum from weak atheism, what most would term "agnostic" to strong atheism, what most would call an "athiest". I tend toward the strong end of the spectrum, meaning I actually disbelieve in the existence of any deities.

I am open to changing my mind if someone (human or otherwise) provided sufficient evidence.

Keep in mind you may see that term "sufficiency of evidence" again in the near future... ;)

I suppose you've read The Case for Christ and The Case for Faith by Lee Strobel, right?

[Zakath]

I struggled through it and found it very shallow and unconvincing.

One characteristic of human nature is our ability to form correspondences, or patterns and links between discrete events and data where we want to regardless of whether such links and patterns are really justifiable, based on evidence.

Extreme cases of this can result in paranoia, where the individual sees patterns of persecution and danger to themselves in the innocently intended actions of others and the random actions of the world around them.

In like manner, when we believe something, we search for patterns (even unconsciously) and make connections that may not be apparent or even visible to others looking in from the outside. What was so blazingly apparent to Strobel, because he was actuallly searching for it, is relatively unconvincing to me.

[Scrimshaw]

Zakath said:
.....that we have to make decisions wisely, and that we cannot depend upon a "Big Brother" in the sky to solve our problems

A "sky" god, eh? I guess you must not be referring to the Judeo-Christian God:

1 King 8:27 - "But will God in very deed dwell on the earth? behold, heaven and the heaven of heavens can't contain you; how much less this house that I have built!"

[wholearmor]

Originally posted by Eireann
Actually, it was a very good way to start the debate. Establishing a working definition that is fully understood by both parties is an essential beginning to a debate. If there is not a concise and mutually agreed-upon definition for "God," then the debate is sunk from the first post. Otherwise, both parties can argue in favor or against the existence of God -- by their individual definitions -- and never gain ground on the other because the other is debating something completely different.

Since Zakath used to be a pastor and seems to be very familiar with Bob Enyart, I'd be willing to go out on a limb and say Zakath knows very well the answers to his opening two questions for Bob. What a wasted post that was.

[Zakath]

Originally posted by wholearmor
Since Zakath used to be a pastor and seems to be very familiar with Bob Enyart, I'd be willing to go out on a limb and say Zakath knows very well the answers to his opening two questions for Bob. What a wasted post that was.
Watch out for those stray chainsaw when you're putting yourself out on a limb... ;)

[wholearmor]

Originally posted by Shane
David Eddings is an amazing author. Zakath, you have great taste. I enjoyed your first post and am looking forward to hearing what you have to say.

Whenever that may be that he says something, who knows?

[wholearmor]

Originally posted by Zakath
Watch out for those stray chainsaw when you're putting yourself out on a limb... ;)

Why?

[Zakath]

You might be unwittingly cutting yourself off and be in for an uncomfortable landing. ;)

[Knight]

Zakath does his best work here... in the Battle Talk zone. :)

But seriously....

I am not sure what to think of Zakath's first post. I would be lying if I didn't think it was a bit to brief. I was sort of expecting that he would at least state his own case just a little.

I will give my old friend Zakath the benefit of the doubt and assume Zakath knows what he is doing. Although BR II certainly would prove otherwise. ;)

[Zakath]

That's because I'm a street brawler, not a trained fighter. ;)

If you're going to start talkiing about BR II, should we all start singing "Glory Days" now? :chuckle:

[Freak]

Originally posted by Zakath
I struggled through it and found it very shallow and unconvincing.



I agree.

[Heathen]

Hey posters, I'm impressed. (But hey, I'm a country boy...it don't take much.)

Sadly heer en thuh sticks we'uns don't get ta yappin much deeper then ar boots kin wade thru. :D :D

Seriously, I am very excited by the intellects brought to this table for all of us to feast upon. We are sharing discussions of 'proofs' and 'evidences' that reside inside the realm of logic and reasoning and I must ask this question:

"Is logic and reason sufficient to explore the existence of God?"

I'll go ahead and make myself look narrow-minded according to the views of some by quoting from the NASB Bible:

I Cor. 1:18-31 For the word of the cross is to those who are perishing foolishness, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written, I WILL DESTROY THE WISDOM OF THE WISE, AND THE CLEAVERNESS OF THE CLEVER I WILL SET ASIDE. Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. For indeed Jews ask for signs, and Greeks search for wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block, and to Gentiles foolishness. but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. For consider your calling, brethren, that there were not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble; but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong, and the base things of the world and the despised, God has chosen, the things that are not, that He might nullify the things that are, that no man should boast before God. But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption, that just as it is written, "LET HIM WHO BOASTS, BOAST IN THE LORD."

So in light of the finite limitations of humanity let us go ahead and search for the answers to the presupposed God of infinite proportions and hope we can come away with even one molecule of His existence...it shorely ain't gonna hurt us mere mortals ne'ery one iota.

[wholearmor]

Originally posted by Zakath
You might be unwittingly cutting yourself off and be in for an uncomfortable landing. ;)

I never said how high the branch was. :rolleyes:

[wholearmor]

Originally posted by Zakath
I struggled through it and found it very shallow and unconvincing.


I asked you about two books. You said you struggled through it. Did you read them both?

[Eireann]

Originally posted by Zakath
That's because I'm a street brawler, not a trained fighter. ;)

If you're going to start talkiing about BR II, should we all start singing "Glory Days" now? :chuckle:
BR II: was that the one in which he solidly wholloped you in the eyes of any discerning readers, but lost only in the blinded eyes of your fundie following?

[Eireann]

Originally posted by wholearmor
Since Zakath used to be a pastor and seems to be very familiar with Bob Enyart, I'd be willing to go out on a limb and say Zakath knows very well the answers to his opening two questions for Bob. What a wasted post that was.
In a formal debate, a straw man is a killer. You NEVER assume you know your opponent's position without it having been stated! That's basic rule 101. No matter how much you may think you know the position of your opponent, you still force them to state it, because once stated, they cannot back away from it. Zak may very well know what Bob's definition of God is, but if Bob isn't forced to state what that definition is then he would be free to change his position (unbeknownst to his opponent) at a later stage in the debate if he finds himself being cornered. However, if he IS forced to state his position at the outset, he is deprived of that sneak tactic. If he is cornered after having stated his position and then tries to change his position, then Zakath will automatically win the debate by default. Zakath's opening post was extremely smart and wise. It simply sounds to me as if some of you Christian types are just a little sore that Zak got to strike first and that he did so in a way that automatically puts your man on the defensive, a position no debater likes to be in.

[Z Man]

Originally posted by wholearmor
I asked you about two books. You said you struggled through it. Did you read them both?
I've read them; I like them. :D

[wholearmor]

Originally posted by Eireann
In a formal debate, a straw man is a killer. You NEVER assume you know your opponent's position without it having been stated! That's basic rule 101. No matter how much you may think you know the position of your opponent, you still force them to state it, because once stated, they cannot back away from it. Zak may very well know what Bob's definition of God is, but if Bob isn't forced to state what that definition is then he would be free to change his position (unbeknownst to his opponent) at a later stage in the debate if he finds himself being cornered. However, if he IS forced to state his position at the outset, he is deprived of that sneak tactic. If he is cornered after having stated his position and then tries to change his position, then Zakath will automatically win the debate by default. Zakath's opening post was extremely smart and wise. It simply sounds to me as if some of you Christian types are just a little sore that Zak got to strike first and that he did so in a way that automatically puts your man on the defensive, a position no debater likes to be in.

I'll admit I don't know much about formal debates. How is
Bob forced to state his position as asked by Zakath?

Also, I wonder about this quote from Zakath:

"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.":

What are our own resources? Since when don't we have to make decisions wisely whether there is a supernatural entity or not? Who says we have to depend on a "Big Brother" or "Mother" in the sky to solve our problems for us?

[wholearmor]

Zakath, since you aren't fearfully and wonderfully made, what are you?

[Eireann]

Originally posted by Scrimshaw
Just a few thoughts below....

Disagree. You are simply positing the self-refuting philosophy of Scientism here with point two. Proof can exist in non-empirical forms. For example, argumentation is a form of "proof" in itself. Also, you should consider legal evidence as well. Many times, legal evidence does not require empirical proof but simply enough indirect proof that is sufficient to overcome reasonable doubt regarding the cause of a past event.
You're wrongly equating proof and evidence. I'm not talking about proof. I'm talking about acceptable standards of evidence. Proof may well lie outside the boundaries of empiricism, which is why so few things are actually proven (even Newton's Laws of Thermodynamics are not accepted as proven fact, they are merely accepted as undisputed). Evidence, however, does generally need to be empirical in order to be acceptable, even in cases of law. In cases of law, it almost always requires empirical evidence to overcome reasonable doubt. For instance, some states have even passed recent laws that bar a person from being able to be convicted on eyewitness testimony alone.

Disagree. You can have two rival theories that are to greater or lesser degree, both reasonable. Usually the reasonable theory that has the higher probability of being correct is the one that should be adopted.
Maybe, but we're not talking about the reasonableness of rival theories. We're talking about the acceptability of evidence that be be used as evidence of either theory. If I remember correctly (I may not, because I didn't go back to look at Zak's original post), the question posited was something like, "What evidence would you accept as sufficient evidence of God (or, if asked by a theist, of no God)." Obviously, if both sides are using the same bit of evidence for their own side, then that evidence isn't going to stack up well against the evidence of their opponent; their points will basically cancel each other out, the evidence being of no help at all. If you want to gain an edge on your opponent, your evidence has to be something your opponent cannot use.

Disagree. For example, logic is not empirical or observable in a physical sense, but we'd hardly consider it "mythical". Black holes are not directly observable or been subject to any empirical testing yet we know they are not mythical.
They aren't mythical, but they are theoretical. Black holes have not been proven to exist. They are a theory that has been proposed, and is widely believed in, to explain some otherwise heretofor inexplicable phenomena. Myths are the same thing, in their way. The only difference between "mythical" and "theoretical" is that the theoretical seeks naturalistic explanations, and the mythical seeks supernatural explanations. However, since the theoretical is more uniformly based on empericism and scientific methods, it is more generally accepted than the mythical, which requires much more of a leap of faith.

In many cases, we can determine what an entity is, or if it exists by the effect of it's presence. This is not only true of black holes, but of gravity as well. We know of it's existence by it's effect.
No, but we can theorize about causes when the only thing we can observe is the effect. Gravity is also a much more testable theory than deism. We can test gravity again and again and again by using objects in the real, observable world, and recreate those effects every time. We can't call up demons and angels and gods, though, and test those theories which have been attributed to them in nearly such a manner. We can witness effects which we may theorize are caused by some entity or other, but only rarely can we recreate those effects, even when all the observable factors are recreated. Even if the effects can be recreated, the only thing that can really soundly be postulated is the physical or physiological processes involved; theories of divine or intelligent design behind those things are leaps of faith.

Disagree. You fail to consider the obvious fact that people who witness miracles are most likely going to become believers. For example, let's say I was an avid disbeliever in aliens. If an alien came and visited me and I directly observed the alien, by the time I reported the event to you I would have changed into a believer. In other words, the act of witnessing the miracle in many cases is the CAUSE of one's conversion from disbeliever into believer.....therefore, your stipulation on this point is very limited in scope and not realistic.
You also fail to consider that very, very few of the miraculous events in the Bible were attested to by actual eyewitnesses, with the possible exception of the alleged miracles of Moses (which were written of by Moses -- tooting his own horn, anyone?). There are almost no 1st person eyewitness testimonies to the miracles of Jesus in the Bible. Scarcely a word of the New Testament was even written by anyone who had ever met Jesus, or had met him for any significant time. Paul met him on the road to Damascus, but I don't recall there being any miracles done at that time. Most of the entire New Testament was written quite a long time after the death of Christ, and some of its authors weren't even born at the time of the crucifixion. In other words, almost the entirety of testimony to biblical miracle-working is done through 3rd person "he said she said" accounts.

[Z Man]

Originally posted by wholearmor
Zakath, since you aren't fearfully and wonderfully made, what are you?
Pond goo?

[Eireann]

Originally posted by Zakath
You never could see the value in defining your terms before arguing about them, could you? ;)
And now you see why his username is "Novice." He's practically a juvenile when it comes to serious, analytical discussion.

[wholearmor]

Originally posted by Z Man
Pond goo?

His brain, maybe. :rolleyes:

[Eireann]

Originally posted by Brother
Does Truth exist? YES or NO. I think it's so cowardly to avoid closed ended questions. I'm going to do somthing I didn't think I would do in this debate. I'm going to pray for Zakath. Yeah, that's right, you heard what I said. Here is my prayer: Lord, would you give Zakath the courage to answer Bob's questions directly so that we could get to the heart of the matter on why he rejects You? Amen
Several of you have lambasted Zakath for refusing to answer a question in the course of this debate that Bob Enyart asked on the air. Let me remind you all of three very simple facts:

1) The forum for this debate is TheologyOnline, not Bob's radio show.

2) So far in this debate, Bob Enyart has not yet posted anything, so there hasn't been any question asked to be answered. What he may have asked on his radio show is completely and totally irrelevent to the debate we are following, as Bob Enyart has yet to provide his first input, question or otherwise. In short, you all are lambasting Zakath for refusing to answer a question that has not been asked.

3) The topic is "Does God Exist?", not "Does Truth Exist?".

[Z Man]

Originally posted by wholearmor
His brain, maybe.
Well, I figured that if he doesn't believe that God created him, than he must believe in evolution. And evolution states that man started out as some kind of pond goo...

:vomit:

[wholearmor]

Originally posted by Eireann
Several of you have lambasted Zakath for refusing to answer a question in the course of this debate that Bob Enyart asked on the air. Let me remind you all of three very simple facts:

1) The forum for this debate is TheologyOnline, not Bob's radio show.

2) So far in this debate, Bob Enyart has not yet posted anything, so there hasn't been any question asked to be answered. What he may have asked on his radio show is completely and totally irrelevent to the debate we are following, as Bob Enyart has yet to provide his first input, question or otherwise. In short, you all are lambasting Zakath for refusing to answer a question that has not been asked.

3) The topic is "Does God Exist?", not "Does Truth Exist?".

Does Zakath exist anymore or just Eireann?

[Eireann]

Originally posted by wholearmor
Does Zakath exist anymore or just Eireann?
That's a topic for another debate. :D

[wholearmor]

Originally posted by Z Man
Well, I figured that if he doesn't believe that God created him, than he must believe in evolution. And evolution states that man started out as some kind of pond goo...

:vomit:

I'm with ya', Z Man. I'm wondering if Zakath will answer the question or not. I'm surprised Eireann hasn't answered it for him.

[wholearmor]

Eireann, have you answered this one for me yet? I haven't seen it.

I'll admit I don't know much about formal debates. How is
Bob forced to state his position as asked by Zakath?

Thanks for your answer in advance. :)

[ApologeticJedi]

:rolleyes:

This debate has already started off with poor promise. Each poster has only 10 posts and we are starting with :

1) Define God?

Are we serious? "Define god?" ??? Is that the intelligence here, to reduce an otherwise interesting topic for debate to an issue of semantics?

It's like starting a 30 minute debate on the economics of World War I Germany, by asking your opponent which war they view as "World War I". If I didn't know at least that part of my opponents position then, any unfortunate listener would be guaranteed for boredom.

{If Bob starts his reply with "That's a good question. I'm so glad you asked it." - as he usually does - I'm afraid I'll have to use this debate as late night reading material when insomnia sets in.}

[Eireann]

Originally posted by wholearmor
Eireann, have you answered this one for me yet? I haven't seen it.

I'll admit I don't know much about formal debates. How is
Bob forced to state his position as asked by Zakath?

Thanks for your answer in advance. :)
Debates generally follow a present/rebut format. One poster presents either an argument or a query, and the opponent is expected to respond directly to that argument or query, if the argument/query is relevent to the topic. Since Zak's question is relevent to the topic (is essential, in fact), it would not only be bad form but would even be deleterious to his own standing in the debate if Bob were to refuse to answer the question that was officially posed. If the debate were actually being scored in a formal manner, he would probably even be docked points for refusing to answer the question. Because Zakath asked Bob to define "God," Bob must then provide a definition that will serve as the working definition for "God" throughout the remainder of the debate. In a way, this also puts an extra onus on Zakath because by giving Bob the privilege of defining "God" for this debate, he is basically affirming that he accepts the responsibility of trying to debunk ANY definition of God that Bob chooses. It does pigeonhole Bob into establishing a definition from which he cannot thereafter deviate, but it also requires Zakath to debunk that definition no matter what it is.

Since they are debating something that is generally agreed is impossible to either prove or disprove, both men will certainly have their work cut out for them. I do notice, however, that Zakath laid out another very neat trap for Bob. I won't mention yet what that trap is, because I'm curious to see whether or not Bob steps into it.

[ApologeticJedi]

Eireen said: In a formal debate, a straw man is a killer. You NEVER assume you know your opponent's position without it having been stated! That's basic rule 101. No matter how much you may think you know the position of your opponent, you still force them to state it, because once stated, they cannot back away from it. Zak may very well know what Bob's definition of God is, but if Bob isn't forced to state what that definition is then he would be free to change his position (unbeknownst to his opponent) at a later stage in the debate if he finds himself being cornered. However, if he IS forced to state his position at the outset, he is deprived of that sneak tactic. If he is cornered after having stated his position and then tries to change his position, then Zakath will automatically win the debate by default. Zakath's opening post was extremely smart and wise. It simply sounds to me as if some of you Christian types are just a little sore that Zak got to strike first and that he did so in a way that automatically puts your man on the defensive, a position no debater likes to be in.


(chuckle) Oh yes, what a nodus! Or he could thwart it all by simply giving an obvious explanation like “The Christian God of the Bible (as opposed to the God of Koran or something else.) "

Congratulations, the paucity of intellect around here has managed to put “your man on the defensive” in such a way that even the curt of answer can frustrate and add nothing to the discussion.

I disagree. It isn't an example of putting anyone on the defensive, but is a poor beginning indicating slow progress going forward.

Zakath indicated the Wiccan god. Do you honestly think Bob could "change his position" to the Wiccan god at a later stage and hold credibilty? No. We all know what God Bob is indicating. Zakath's true tactic is to begin by changing the subject. Now Bob has two different subjects to try and establish, instead of one.

Before he might only have tried to show a God existed. That might have been sufficient for a debate entittled "Does God exist?" After all, if the Wiccan god exists, but not the Christian God, the answer would still be affirmative. Now Zakath is pulling a measure of obfuscation by setting a stage to which he can later state that Bob must also show which god exists. That is the true tactic being used, not nailing down a hard to understand position. By increasing the scope, and mudding the waters, he hopes to "outlast" any early knockouts.

[novice]

Originally posted by Eireann
And now you see why his username is "Novice." He's practically a juvenile when it comes to serious, analytical discussion. This coming from a homo loving male witch? :rolleyes:

[Eireann]

Originally posted by ApologeticJedi
(chuckle) Oh yes, what a nodus! Or he could thwart it all by simply giving an obvious explanation like “The Christian God of the Bible (as opposed to the God of Koran or something else.) "
Nope, that wouldn't work. Have you seen how many different and contradictory attributes have been assigned by different Christian sects to the "God of the Bible?" God is love, God is hate, God is anger, God is vengeful, God is forgiveness ... Jesus is God, Jesus isn't God but is "of God," ... and the list of different views goes on.

Congratulations, the paucity of intellect around here has managed to put “your man on the defensive” in such a way that even the curt of answer can frustrate and add nothing to the discussion.
So far the only "curt of answer" has been offered by the followers of the debate, not by any of the debaters themselves, since your man has yet to show his face!

I disagree. It isn't an example of putting anyone on the defensive, but is a poor beginning indicating slow progress going forward.
I said before that certainly appears that some of the Christians are just sore that Zakath got the first swing and did so in such a way to put your man on the defensive. ^ case in point.

Zakath indicated the Wiccan god. Do you honestly think Bob could "change his position" to the Wiccan god at a later stage and hold credibilty? No. We all know what God Bob is indicating. Zakath's true tactic is to begin by changing the subject. Now Bob has two different subjects to try and establish, instead of one.
[dripping sarcasm] Oh yeah, Bob is such a victim here, isn't he? Heaven forbid a Christian should ever be asked to play by the rules and actually work to establish his position! What utter pomposity! [/dripping sarcasm]

Before he might only have tried to show a God existed. Now Zakath is pulling a measure of obfuscation by setting a stage to which he can later state that Bob must also show which god exists.
Rubbish. It is hardly unreasonable to ask Bob Enyart to establish what he individually means by "God" in this debate. After all, Zakath isn't debating TOL, he isn't debating me, and he isn't debating ApologeticJedi. He is debating Bob Enyart and no one else. Like I said before, if you were to ask 10 Christians to define "God, " you would get 10 different answers. If you were to narrow the focus and ask all 10 to define the "God of the Bible," you would still get 10 different answers! Since Zak is debating Bob Enyart and not some other random believer, it is incumbent that he debate the existence of Bob Enyart's notion of God, not yours or mine. Just for the sake of illustration, let's assume that Bob Enyart's notion of God is ... hmmmm ... let's say Odin. Now, let's assume that Zakath's assumed notion of God is ... oh ... let's say Apollo. Now, if we were to take your advice, the debate would go on and on something like this:

Bob: Odin exists!
Zakath: No, Apollo does not exist!
Bob: Odin must certainly does exist!
Zakath: I'm sorry, but you have no evidence of the existence of Apollo.

and on and on ...

Does that look like a debate that's ever going to get anywhere?

That is the true tactic being used, not nailing down a hard to understand position. By increasing the scope, and mudding the waters, he hopes to "outlast" any early knockouts.
It's got little to do with "nailing down hard to understand positions." It's got a lot to do with pigeonholing the opponent into a position from which he cannot thereafter deviate. It's a very smart play on Zakath's part.

[Jefferson]

Wow! Bob just gave Zakath a 1 hour response to his post here. (http://www.theologyonline.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=7872) So Zakath will actually have about 3 days to respond to Bob instead of only 2.

[Eireann]

Originally posted by novice
This coming from a homo loving male witch? :rolleyes:
Now there's a mature and intelligent response! Honestly, is that the best you can do?

:vomit:

[novice]

Originally posted by Eireann
Now there's a mature and intelligent response!

:vomit: Truth hurts.... :eek: :bannana:

[Eireann]

Originally posted by novice
Truth hurts.... :eek: :bannana:
What's to hurt? I'm male, I'm a witch, and I don't judge homosexuals (I love them as human beings, as anyone should). Did you think you were insulting me? You'll have to do much better than that.

[novice]

:ha:

[ibowatjesusfeet]

It's got little to do with "nailing down hard to understand positions." It's got a lot to do with pigeonholing the opponent into a position from which he cannot thereafter deviate. It's a very smart play on Zakath's part.

While this is partly true, it depends on how Bob defines God. If Bob were to take the Deist approach (he certianly won't, but this is hypothetical) then he would say "God created the universe, created what is needed for us to survive, then went on to other business and stayed out of ours" then he really doesn't have much to work with. However, if he goes the "God is the creator of everything and has limitless love and power" route, then he has quite a bit more room to work with.

[Knight]

Originally posted by Eireann
I'm male, I'm a witch, and I don't judge homosexualsThat might be the most asinine sentence ever posted on TOL.

[Eireann]

Originally posted by novice
:ha:
Ah, yet another intelligent response! Will wonders never cease! :D

Yeah, your little insult was kind of like stammering, "You - you - you - you ... uh ... white person!"

[Eireann]

Originally posted by Knight
That might be the most asinine sentence ever posted on TOL.
And it's asinine ... because? You'll forgive me, of course, if I don't want to join Knight's Exclusive Haters Club. Somehow, hanging out with company like that just doesn't sound like a good time, or a very edifying environment. Surrounded by all that hate, it must be lonely.

[tauboy22]

Sorry I'm jumping in so late.

Zak,

Great first post. Like Eireann said, defining terms is essential to a good debate - St. Thomas Aquinas'll tell you that.

Speaking of good ol' Aquinas - he spent a good part of his Summa Theologica trying to prove the existence of God. What were his conclusions, in a nutshell? One can't give full evidence for his existence and that in the end it is just a matter of faith. I agree with him there. Zak has simply made a choice. I don't agree with him demanding empirical evidence for the existence of God, but he has still made a choice.

Speaking of evidence - this demand for it is assuming that empirical evidence should be taken seriously in the first place. There is a growing line of thought in some branches of the scientific community that John Locke and his tabla rasa theory (which scientific method is based off of) may be incorrect. It may go much deeper than simply making observations and recording them - empirical evidence. Zak are you and Bob going to be arguing strictly off empirical evidence?

Keep it up - although I'm a devout Christian I have the feeling I will be agreeing with Zak much more than ultra-conservative Bob - but I'll still know God exists : D.

Let the good times role! :ahso:

-- tauboy

[Eireann]

Originally posted by tauboy22

There is a growing line of thought in some branches of the scientific community that John Locke and his tabla rasa theory (which scientific method is based off of) may be incorrect. It may go much deeper than simply making observations and recording them - empirical evidence.
It's not really the empiricism aspect of tabula rasa that's being challenged. It's the intellectual aspect. Locke's theory was based on conceptions of innate knowledge (at birth) which goes beyond our personal experience with the world, especially as applicable to morality and so on. TR was a direct contradiction to the idea of preknowledge, collective unconscious, and things like that. Empiricism is sort of an adaptation of that idea, or perhaps a translation of that idea onto physical concepts, but I don't think it is so much that adaptation/translation as the original premise that is being challenged. It is particularly opponents of moral relativism who are challenging it, because if tablua rasa IS true, then moral absolutism is not.

[Zakath]

Originally posted by wholearmor
I suppose you've read The Case for Christ and The Case for Faith by Lee Strobel, right? I missed your reference to the second book, sorry. :)

I've only seen the first book, that was the one I "struggled through".

After his showing in the first one I certainly wasn't interested in another of the same ilk.

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Lion
1Cor 15:32 "...If the dead do not rise, “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die!”:devil:

Is Lion a FALSE PROPHET?. I'm still here. :D

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Tye Porter
I am Mainly here for you, Mr. Zakath. Of course I have heard about your "Battle Royale VII", and have come to see if you are able to maintain any dignity, and a semblence of intelligence, while debating "PASTOR" Bob Enyart. I've yet to see any coming out of the gates, but you have time to make up for this. 9 more posts, I hear. Good luck to you, Sir. I am sure this will be very interesting, and I am sure you will do your best to represent not only your own views, but that of the minority populace and those of your S.I.G.
Happy Debating. Thanks, I'll do my best to be entertaining and keep things on target...

\P.S.
Thanks for the "Signature", for the moment, it is entertaining, and makes a good point. I've only borrowed it, I will not keep it. You're welcome, I think RAH would have approved the context for the use of the quote...

[Zakath]

Originally posted by wholearmor
Does Zakath exist anymore or just Eireann? He seems to be having fun. Go for it Eireann! :bannana:

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Z Man
Well, I figured that if he doesn't believe that God created him, than he must believe in evolution. And evolution states that man started out as some kind of pond goo... :jump: Jumping to conclusions, however valid they might be, can get you into excessive quantities of excrement in a debate, Z Man.

You might just ask what my position is, rather than assume it...

:vomit: Didn't your momma tell you not to play with pond goo? It'll make you sick

[Zakath]

Originally posted by ApologeticJedi
(chuckle) Oh yes, what a nodus! Or he could thwart it all by simply