Battle Royale VII Specific discussion thread [Archive] - Theology Forum

heusdens

June 28th, 2003, 09:01 AM

Originally posted by novice
For Zakath to be successful in this debate he will have to give compelling evidence that everything that exists from the universe, to our solar system to the first cell to the human being could come into existence without help from a supernatural force.

Or at very least Zakath will have to give us a conceptual idea of how this might have happened.

So far, he has failed miserably.

This is indeed the weakest side of the position of Zakath, which is due to the fact that he is not a consequential materialist, and therefore can not claim to be a true atheist.

Here is what materialism has to say about this issue:

Matter denotes the category of that what exists outside and independend of the mind.
Matter and motion / change are inseperateble, cause nowhere we can detect matter without motion or motion without matter.
Space and time just denote the "modes of existence" of matter.

Materialism acknowledges the fact that matter is infinite.
This acknowledgement does not direct to any specific age or spatial extent of matter, but it denotes that material transformations are endlessly evolving in time, without begin or end.
Infinity of matter means that any material form residing within a finite spatio-temporal extent, transforms into a new material form, also within a fine spatio-temporal extend.
And this can be said to be the case for all scales of material formations, and throughout all of time, without begin or end.

As such, no "begin of matter" can be conceived of.
Outside of matter, nothing exists, at least not in an objective and independend way (outside and independend of our mind).

As such the concept of a deity has no existence outside and independend of our mind.

And as a comment on this discussion, it also makes clear that this whole discussion is in fact senseless, since the discussion is not about wether or not the existence of that supposed deity, has some objective existence, outside and independend of the mind.

I see no reason to reject the idea that God exists as a concept of language and of mind, meaningfull to many people. Why should one reject that?

The real issue is however wether or not such a deity has objective existence, that is : apart from and outside of our mind.

heusdens

June 28th, 2003, 09:25 AM

Originally posted by shima
Hmmm

So far, the arguements from Bob are all easily refuted because he didn't really bring any new or original arguements other than the consciousness aproach.

However, Zakath has not yet built a case for himself, ie he didn't bring any arguments that argue against the existence of God.

The real question is : why should one argue against the existence of God? I am not a theist, but I have no problem in acknowledging the fact that in the minds of many people, a deity exists. Also, even when I know biology well enough, I have no objection against the idea of the existence of ducks that can talk. If you are not familiar with that, probably you never read donald duck.

The real issue here is if and wether to proponents of the existence of a deity, can make their case clear and provide evidence that a deity exists as an objective entity, that is outside and independend of our mind.

The true case is of course that a deity as a true entity, which has objective existence apart from and outside of the mind, can never be detected.

The objective world, outside and independend of our minds, exists in the form of moving matter. Matter is in motion / change for all eternity, and can neither be destroyed or created.
Outside of matter there is no objective existence.
hence no deity as an objective entity, apart from and outside of our mind can be assumed.

For matter, as an objective entity, which exists apart from and outisde of our minds, we have plenty of evidence. We know the sun and the earth existed even before there were humans or any life forms at all.
For a deity, no such proof, or even an indication has ever been given.

This is why I reject the idea that there is a deity in an objective way and outside and apart from the mind.

This in itself does not contradict the fact that the concept which people have in their heads, must be thought of to have subjective significance and existence, and as such we should not doubt or reject the fact that this is the case.

And another point is that even when we can claim that there is an objective reality, most if not all of our knowledge will be arived at only in a subjective way (even if science and measurements by instruments broaden our own sensory perceptions and means of knowing about the world), which even if the fact that the objective reality undoubtly and irrefutable exists, makes this a hard case.

novice

June 28th, 2003, 12:22 PM

Ahhhh... Zakath's 4th post was a "content-less" disaster!

I would ask that the towel be thrown in for Zakath if I weren't having so much fun reading Bob's posts.

shima

June 28th, 2003, 02:20 PM

>>Ahhhh... Zakath's 4th post was a "content-less" disaster!<<

Perhaps you should read it again. It had a load of content. You may not agree with it, but that is something else.

novice

June 28th, 2003, 08:37 PM

Originally posted by shima
>>Ahhhh... Zakath's 4th post was a "content-less" disaster!<<

Perhaps you should read it again. It had a load of content. You may not agree with it, but that is something else. Ya think???

I was under the impression that Zakath would at least make a case for reality & existence without a creator.

Isn't that reasonable to assume that?

jeremiah

June 28th, 2003, 10:38 PM

I think I said somewhere in that other 80 page:eek: thread, that I thought Zakath's worst post was his third, because of his changing topics and mischaracterizing the God of the Bible, and mocking of Christians. I think his 4th post is now his best. He does pose some challenging and logical arguments as to why a person might not believe that there is a God. The idea that many people explained phenomenon that was inexplicable, to God, that can now be attributed to NATURE or SCIENCE, and that the gap is closing is compelling. Of course that is one of the reasons that I am a Christian, and why I believe that the Bible has already predicted that this would happen. In Genesis 3-22 and 11-6. Man is now fast approaching the ability to reverse engineer many of the things that God does. The tower of Babel slowed man down by several millenium. Now man is beginning to observe how the cell works and God says, Nothing which they purpose to do will be impossible for them.

AROTO

June 28th, 2003, 10:55 PM

jeremiah quote:
I think his 4th post is now his best.

I too think that Zakaths 4th post was his best. It was his most simplistic answer so far in the discussion and I think it was his most effective. It is apparent that he is unable to battle Bob on the existing science, but he did make a moving point in his last thread. Man has had some strange belief systems in the past and I am looking forward to Bob's response. So far I think the battle is a landslide towards Bob, now lets see if Zakath can get off the ropes and come back a little:up:

jeremiah

June 28th, 2003, 11:09 PM

..... his second compelling argument, is the challenge to prove, at least somewhat specifically, a universal type conscience. Again, this is another reason why I am a Christian, and why I believe in the Bible. It provides the answers to these types of dilemnas. There is such a thing as a God given conscience, which is universal, at times. However the Bible is replete with examples of people who have denied, and or killed their conscience. Therefore there is a problem when trying to differentiate between the existence of this in every man and culture, and then trying to explain wether it was [A]once alive and now dead, or [B]if it ever existed. Gen 6-5 Judges 21-25, Romans 1 and 2, 1 Timothy 4-2 and Titus 1 -15 come to mind as just a few of the many scriptures that would support Zakath assertion, but, to me, and only to a fellow believer, at the same time, the scriptures, explain the reality of the human conscience.
I, at this point in arguing with a friend, or a seeker, would use the Bible to argue these two points. I wouldn't do it with Zakath because it would lead him directly into his sins. I hope Bob has extra biblical answers in his next post to answer Zakath's dilemnas.

jeremiah

June 28th, 2003, 11:31 PM

To Aroto:
I agree with you, because it was the most simplistic, it was his best. When they both give reasons in the scientific areas, even though they are involved, and somewhat difficult to understand, at least I can conceptualize the concepts that Bob proposes. The idea of the parallell universes from Hawkins and thus the certainty of ours was beyond my ability to understand.

heusdens

June 29th, 2003, 08:40 AM

Originally posted by novice
Ya think???

I was under the impression that Zakath would at least make a case for reality & existence without a creator.

Isn't that reasonable to assume that?

Which just shows that this "battle" is without a real challenging and opposing viewpoints, cause I suspect that Zakath is not a consequential atheist, which is to say: he is not arguing from the point of view of materialism. Materialism is the point of view that the only objective reality, the one which exists outside and independend of our mind, is that of matter in eternal motion.
Consciousness and the mind, are all secondary features of matter.

Besides, what is the point in arguing about the existence of God, if one does not distinguishes and defines what one means with existence. Objective existence? Subjective existence?

We could as wel discuss in length about wether or not a talking duck exists. The argument being that for biological reasons, no duck ever has been found that can talk and as such misses objective existence, and for artistic reasons, the comic figure Donald Duck exists, and for that reason is a real entity in the world.

Such a battle is purposeless in my mind, without such plain and obvious definitions.

heusdens

June 29th, 2003, 09:22 AM

Consciousness:

In the last post of Bob Enyard he was referring to the issue of consciousness, and he states that his opponent can't provide evidenc for the fact that all forms of consciousness are based on material processes, and that Zakath can't demonstrate, even in outline, how material processes are responsible for the phenomena of consciousness.

In fact Bob Enyart here bases himself here on an idealist approach towards consciousness, which is the position that acc. to Idealism, that consciousness can not be scientifically explained and researched.
Consciousness thus must be based then on some supernatural phenomena or mindfull principle, which is incomprhensible for science.
Consciousness thus acc. to Idealism must be based on some non-material principle.

If such a non-material principle would indeed exist on it's own (that is: would not be based on material processes) this means that this could not interact with any material form. Becasue a mere "nothing", acc. to the laws of Thermodynamics, can not interact on something material. For this dillemma, Idealism has no way out, even not when assuming that besides matter and consciousness, there is something called Information. Information is however always confined to material processes. All forms of data and information require some or other forms of enery in whatever form and need material processes.

The materialis approach is that consciousness is a development product and property of matter, and is based on the general property of matter of projection (Wiederspiegelung) on all stages of material development. Consciousness occurs as a conscequence of an active relationship of the organism towards outside/environemental influences, in order to survival, re-production and growth.

Consciousness, which developed on a higher stage of material development, is always constrained to material processes.

(excerpts from : "Einfuhrung in den Dialektischen und Historischen Materialismus" / Introduction to dialectical and historical materialism, chapter VI Matter and Consciousness)

flash

June 29th, 2003, 01:47 PM

Originally posted by novice
I was under the impression that Zakath would at least make a case for reality & existence without a creator.

He doesn't need to. We all believe in reality and existence. The case needs to be made for the creator.

Bob Enyart

June 29th, 2003, 04:06 PM

heusdens wrote: "Besides, what is the point in arguing about the existence of God, if one does not distinguishes and defines what one means with existence. Objective existence? Subjective existence?"

and "the comic figure Donald Duck exists"

hey huey: don't sweat it. In America we have an agreement that we tell each other when we're talking about cartoons if there's any doubt. In this way, we greatly increase the productivity of American pest exterminators. When a potential customer calls and says, "I have a mouse in my garage," then believe it or not, they don't have to clarify whether or not they are talking about mickey or microsoft. They just get right down to business. That's one reason that we have such great productivity in America. -Sincerely, Bob Enyart

Michael12

June 29th, 2003, 05:08 PM

I am a firm believer that the onus of proof is on the one making the assertion. Science can not disprove the existence of a deity. It simply isn't possible due to the flexiblity of the theistic position. It's an extension of "God of the Gaps". Even if mankind were to learn everything there is to know about the universe and it's creation, all the theist needs to do is step outside the universe and point to a diety. Theism is a position that can recede to infinity when countered with observable facts. Therefore, all that science can do, is show that God is not a necessary component of the universe. The rest is a judgement call. You either believe in your religious text of choice, or you don't. Personally, I will side with data that can be observed. While it isn't within the context of this debate, I would wonder how Bob "proves" that his God, is the "correct" God.

heusdens

June 29th, 2003, 06:29 PM

Originally posted by Bob Enyart
hey huey: don't sweat it. In America we have an agreement that we tell each other when we're talking about cartoons if there's any doubt. In this way, we greatly increase the productivity of American pest exterminators. When a potential customer calls and says, "I have a mouse in my garage," then believe it or not, they don't have to clarify whether or not they are talking about mickey or microsoft. They just get right down to business. That's one reason that we have such great productivity in America. -Sincerely, Bob Enyart

And getting right down to business then (which is an agreement we have in the Netherlands, don't talk around the subject at hand), what then is your choice for the existence category to which God belongs, that of Micky Mouse, or that of the real mice?
I do not deny the existence of God as a concept of the mind, neither as I don't deny that mice can talk in the context of the comic figure of Mickey Mouse.
It seems however that to the figure of God, there are attributed powers that seem to indicate that God would exists apart from and independend of our minds. One of these powers being that "He" created the universe. The universe being something material, having objective existence independend of our minds (the cosmos existed long before mankind came into being), then is said to be created by a "mindfull" principle in the form of a Deity, but then tell me how a mere principle, which misses objective existence, can interact in any way with the material world.

Nobody, except exceptionally foolish people (solipsist or hard-line idealist) would deny the ordinary material world having objective existence.

So my question to you would then be: does God have objective existence or not? (God having subjective existence is not denied by me, or any other atheist).

My position is very clear: outside and apart of our minds, God can not be hold to have objective existence. God simply fails to have any objective existence. It would be healthy for the debate also, to make such a distinction.

Flipper

June 29th, 2003, 06:47 PM

Aroto:

It is apparent that he is unable to battle Bob on the existing science, but he did make a moving point in his last thread

I think that's because most of Bob's scientific posts were refuted on the Battle Royale chat thread. And it's no kind of an argument to go: "well you if you can't show me specific evidence, then there can't possibly be any evidence".

For me, Bob blew any scientific credibility he might have had when he called Stephen Hawking on not taking basic physics into consideration. I'm sure that the noted physicist and Cambridge Lucasian Professor of Mathematics Stephen Hawking is wrong because he chooses to disregard the immutable laws of physics on a whim, whereas right wing radio talk show host Bob Enyart is right. The only other option is that Bob does not know of what he speaks, and that can't be, can it?

Muscular christianity encourages this sort of anti-intellectualism.

Bob Enyart

June 29th, 2003, 07:21 PM

heusdens wrote: "And getting right down to business then (which is an agreement we have in the Netherlands, don't talk around the subject at hand), what then is your choice for the existence category to which God belongs, that of Micky Mouse, or that of the real mice?"

hey huey: never mind.

Sincerely, -Bob Enyart

heusdens

June 29th, 2003, 07:33 PM

Originally posted by Flipper
Aroto:

I think that's because most of Bob's scientific posts were refuted on the Battle Royale chat thread. And it's no kind of an argument to go: "well you if you can't show me specific evidence, then there can't possibly be any evidence".

For me, Bob blew any scientific credibility he might have had when he called Stephen Hawking on not taking basic physics into consideration. I'm sure that the noted physicist and Cambridge Lucasian Professor of Mathematics Stephen Hawking is wrong because he chooses to disregard the immutable laws of physics on a whim, whereas right wing radio talk show host Bob Enyart is right. The only other option is that Bob does not know of what he speaks, and that can't be, can it?

Muscular christianity encourages this sort of anti-intellectualism.

The work of Stephen Hawking, and esp. his popular works like "Brief History of Time", do reflect some incorrect visions, with huge philosophical implications.
The issue on hand here is the idea of the possibility of the "beginning of time" which Stephen Hawking has popularized.
Stpehen Hawking himself does not have an entirely fixed point of view on this. While at one point promoting the very idea or possibility of a "beginning of time" (formalized into the hypothese known as the Hawking-Turok thesis) on the other side he clearly defends the negation of that position, when he claims for instance that "physicists don't know how to make physics from nothing" and statements like "the universe should just be", which reflect on the idea that no beginning of time concept should be considered.
It has been said that, while Stephen Hawking most definately is an atheist, both his wife and his publisher have drawn him into publishing some ideas that are in fact theistic viewpoints.
After all, Stephen Hawking is just human, and can not entirely escape from influences from outside.

heusdens

June 29th, 2003, 07:39 PM

Originally posted by Bob Enyart
heusdens wrote: "And getting right down to business then (which is an agreement we have in the Netherlands, don't talk around the subject at hand), what then is your choice for the existence category to which God belongs, that of Micky Mouse, or that of the real mice?"

hey huey: never mind.

Sincerely, -Bob Enyart

So is that your FINAL WORD on this debate?

Defending lengthy the position of the existence of God, and when someone asks the very basic question, what existence category one has in mind for this Deity, responds with: never mind?

It's a very weak escape, Mr Enyart!

Why don't you just admit, that when talking about the existence of God, this deity or any other deity, resides into the same category of existence as talking mice?

heusdens

June 30th, 2003, 06:13 AM

Bob Enyan playing the morality card

Bob Enyard is playing a hard game in his last post, and claims that his theistic viewpoints provide for absolute moral standards.
His historic knowledge however is very poor as to the issue of the holocaust. Some insights in the historic conditions that provided the context for the holocaust (the biggest crime against humanity for all of known history) and the second world war, would have cleared out that the centuries of catholic morality (the jews which had to blame the crucification of Jesus) were a major context for the nazi genocide policy against both the jews and the bolshewists (atheists), costing the lives of about 6 million jews and 20 million russians and that of many others.
And what about the theistic morality then of the catholic church. Did these theist ever protest agains the committing of those large scale crimes against humanity? No, instead the church institutions collaborated on a large scale with the nazi's.

At least this indicates there is a large gap between theistic morality in theory and in practice. Those who offered their lives in the struggle against the nazi's and the protection of jews and others from the nazi crimes, they were the real bearers of high morality standards.
Amongst them there were many atheists, communist, who fought against the nazi's. Let us keep that in mind!

jeremiah

June 30th, 2003, 07:17 AM

I thought that Bob's fourth post was excellent! I am glad that he was able to explain his position, even more clearly, and refute most of Zakaths, without referring to the Bible. I think that it is time for Zakath to make his own compelling case for atheism. Thus far he has only made an intellectual case for agnosticism. His atheism is simply what he chooses to " believe", it seems to me. I don't think that one should believe in something just because they do not "want" to believe in the alternative.
For instance, every baseball season I start out thinking, anyone but the Yankees, yet they are usually the best team with the most talent, but that does not ever keep me from always rooting against them. I think that atheists can be the same way in regards to God. The answers to life's dilemnas will eventually be found, "but it just can't be God!"

heusdens

June 30th, 2003, 07:22 AM

On morality

Bob's argument is that there exist absolute moral standards about right and wrong. Even assuming that such is the case, how can we as humans know such absolute moral standards, from where would they come then?
From God, supposedly would be the answer from Bob.
And how do we know that a specific absolute moral standard comes from God, cause all we can bear upon are the words written or spoken by humans. Even when these humans claim they tell the word of God, we can never be sure that is the truth. So, we still need to make a personal judgement as to wether or not such is the word of God or not.
This therefore means that we can never distinguish between the true word of God, and a human claim about the word of God, which is altogether not different from the situation in which neither God, not absolute standards would exist.

Therefore, no absolute moral standards can be assume.

The important part is however, what to conclude from that. Does the absence of any absolute moral standard means that it is completely arbitrary as to what moral standard should be hold up. Everything would be as arbitrary as anything else. It's the "all or nothing" point of view: either an absolute moral standard exist, or there is absolutely no moral standard at all.

The slightest insights in the development of moral values throughout the history of mankind could show however that such is not the case.
The absence of an absolute moral standard gives no indication that moral standards are completely arbitrary, as if any moral standard would be as good as any other moral standard. Any historic formation of a society contains within itself a range of moral values and codes. For instance in the ancient Greek antique slave-holder society, holding slaves was not considered something wrong.
Current society however has abandoned slavery. The point is that the change in this morality viewpoint has not so much to do with moral viewpoints as such, but in societal changes. Current technology enables us to use machines and energy in large quantities, which makes the use of slaves no longer ncessary.

heusdens

June 30th, 2003, 07:36 AM

Originally posted by jeremiah
I thought that Bob's fourth post was excellent! I am glad that he was able to explain his position, even more clearly, and refute most of Zakaths, without referring to the Bible. I think that it is time for Zakath to make his own compelling case for atheism. Thus far he has only made an intellectual case for agnosticism. His atheism is simply what he chooses to " believe", it seems to me. I don't think that one should believe in something just because they do not "want" to believe in the alternative.
For instance, every baseball season I start out thinking, anyone but the Yankees, yet they are usually the best team with the most talent, but that does not ever keep me from always rooting against them. I think that atheists can be the same way in regards to God. The answers to life's dilemnas will eventually be found, "but it just can't be God!"

The case for atheism is quite simple. The viewpoint on the world in total is that that what exists in primary instance is matter in eternal motion / change. Matter was neither created nor can it be destroyed, so everything what happens are transformations and changes that take place in the material world.
This assumption about the world, that the world in first instance is matter in eternal motion set humankind into a deep research into the material world, and so far our knowledge has greatly improved, based on this assumption.

I do not know of any instance in which the alternative explenation (God did it, or a fundamental principle, or absolute idea) for any known phenomena brought us any factual knowledge about anything.

For sure one can adapt the "God did it" explenation for any instance or event we do not have factual knowledge about, problem is however that it does not increase your factual knowledge. The "God did it" answer may be satisfactory for dissatified minds that want their answers "here and right now", but for an actual inquiry and investigation on the problem at hand, long and tedious reserach work is necessary. For some people this waiting for these answers, is more as they can endure.

Science therefore keeps a healthy distance towards theism, as the historic development has proven that the materialist assumption opened up the way for factual knowledge about the world.

If one is a small child, wanting to know everything instantaniously, I can admit, the "God did it" answer is in fact sometimes a solution, namely to keep the kid happy.

For grown up people, we have to admit, childish answers do not suffice, we need the real answers!

BlueChild

June 30th, 2003, 01:31 PM

Can anyone help me identify ZQ9 through ZQlast please? I'm trying to read through it all, but am getting a bit confused.:o

Zakath

June 30th, 2003, 01:36 PM

Good luck! :thumb:

I gave up on the good pastor's arcane numbering system a couple of posts ago.

And I'm his opponent! :chuckle:

TreMor

June 30th, 2003, 02:39 PM

Originally posted by heusdens
I do not know of any instance in which the alternative explenation (God did it, or a fundamental principle, or absolute idea) for any known phenomena brought us any factual knowledge about anything.

For sure one can adapt the "God did it" explenation for any instance or event we do not have factual knowledge about, problem is however that it does not increase your factual knowledge. The "God did it" answer may be satisfactory for dissatified minds that want their answers "here and right now", but for an actual inquiry and investigation on the problem at hand, long and tedious reserach work is necessary. For some people this waiting for these answers, is more as they can endure.

For grown up people, we have to admit, childish answers do not suffice, we need the real answers! 100% agreement here, heusdens. The theistic worldviews is actually pretty nihilistic, even assuming they are right. Unless a theist wants to engage in heresy, they have to admit that humans (physical and "souls"-- to use their asserted term) can never become god. By their own criteria, to understand god's ways and methods is wholly beyond us, would be so even if god were to try to enlighten us thus-- at some level, we still would not be able to understand god's inner mechanisms.

This means there are questions we can never hope to attain true knowledge about, and that means our place in the universe is hopelessly obscured. This is a sweepingly nihilistic point of view, and theists don't connect the dots to this inescapable conclusion. The cul de sac remains forever in place-- "God did it, and that's that."

How this suffices as an answer to anything is beyond any reasoning I can come up with. I understand that those three words, "God did it" are enough for a lot of people, but people of careful thought should be deeply dissatisfied with it. that they are not smacks more of a desire to keep a comforting myth as opposed to facing a cold-- but understandable-- reality.

TreMor

June 30th, 2003, 02:51 PM

Originally posted by heusdens
On morality

Bob's argument is that there exist absolute moral standards about right and wrong. Even assuming that such is the case, how can we as humans know such absolute moral standards, from where would they come then?
From God, supposedly would be the answer from Bob.
And how do we know that a specific absolute moral standard comes from God, cause all we can bear upon are the words written or spoken by humans. Even when these humans claim they tell the word of God, we can never be sure that is the truth. So, we still need to make a personal judgement as to wether or not such is the word of God or not.The problem goes deeper still than that. For instance, assume the god of the bible is real and someone here, let's choose my friend Hilston, actually is "in the spirit" and has direct connection from god. What then are we to make of moral absolutes?

It would seem one would need to look to the author of such morality-- and what are we to make of this morality? Well, assuming the OT guildelines are in effect (and some are, while others have been discarded, which is a pick-and-choose topic that belongs perhaps to another thread), we have clearly gone in the wrong direction by ending slavery, not sentencing homosexuals and adulterers to death, allowing our fashion to move away from the more pious to the more exploitive. Even the eating of certain foods carries with it certain restrictions that no longer hold sway. And all of these by theistic definition, are part of the "absolute moral code" of theism's god(s).

But one cannot even hope to use god as a yardstick for moral behavior, because god's moral behavior is quite questionable. Even Satan didn't decide to drown the entire world, but god did and theists must term everything god does as "good". So god --even though he's the author of the moral code, is wholly and completely without morals -- despite having created Satan and allowing him to perpetrate evil. If you define everything a being does as "good", you've abdicated any right to a "morality" because there is nothing to compare the good against-- it's all good, even the evil, and that's that.

Actually, in the context of the debate, if I were Zakarth I would turn the "is there an absolute moral code" right back at Bob: If there is, then how can it be authored by an amoral (not immoral) being, and even supposing it could have been so, why -- if it is "absolute" -- did things change?

Michael12

June 30th, 2003, 09:41 PM

Originally posted by TreMor
But one cannot even hope to use god as a yardstick for moral behavior, because god's moral behavior is quite questionable. Even Satan didn't decide to drown the entire world, but god did and theists must term everything god does as "good". So god --even though he's the author of the moral code, is wholly and completely without morals -- despite having created Satan and allowing him to perpetrate evil. If you define everything a being does as "good", you've abdicated any right to a "morality" because there is nothing to compare the good against-- it's all good, even the evil, and that's that.

Excellent point Tre...Another story that has always bothered me was Sodom and Gomorrah. Here, God decimates two entire cities full of the "children he loves", and to boot, he turns Lot's wife into a pillar of salt just for taking a peek.

If predestination does not exist in the christian worldview, then where was the "choice" these people may have otherwise had to turn their lives around? God gave no warning to anyone other than Lot.

Are there moral absolutes in the real world, no, there are not. Morality is relative. Are there moral absolutes in the theistic worldview? According to this and other biblical teachings, yes there is one absolute....
It's God's way or the highway.

Talk about "do as I say, not as I do". God certainly never lead by example. If one is going to assert a supreme being, then fine, I suppose this would be within his right. But call a spade a spade. A set of moral standards laid down by a being that, by definition, has no inherent morality itself (God can not be "bad", only "good"), must be purely arbitrary, and therefore, relative.

Getting back to topic...Bob's examples of absolute morality (rape and murder) are easily shown as relative.

Rape - Of course it is a terrible thing, to us. But, what if humanity was faced with an epidemic that killed almost all the women on the planet. The few women that were left decided not to breed. Would rape be immoral in this instance? What is more immoral? Raping the women, or allowing the species to die out?
Murder - Would it have been immoral to murder Hitler? How about a terrorist carrying a backpack nuke 3 minutes from detonation. Is it more immoral to murder the terrorist in order to stop him? Or is it more immoral to allow 500,000 lives to be extinguished in a nanosecond? What if you were able to travel back in time and shoot John Wilkes Booth before he was able to fire his pistol. Would that also be immoral? In other words, is murder immoral if it prevents another murder?

Admittedly these are far fetched examples, but by no means is either scenario impossible. Morals are relative to the inherent danger of the action in question to the best interests of the species. Unless you are a theist. In which case, they are absolute because....you guessed it...God said so.

Ash1

July 1st, 2003, 10:30 AM

As expected, Bob has presented much stronger, detailed, organized, and abundant arguments for his position than Zakath has. Zakath's only mildly good argument is the 'God of the Gaps' one. He seems to be desperately clinging to it so I think Bob should take a post to address it thoroughly.

It annoys me when atheists say they're 'unbelievers' and 'have no faith', because they certainly do have a faith. Zakath has, honestly, made it very clear that he has no answers for how complex biological systems, human conscience, and so many other things could have come about by accident through strictly natural process. This shows that he has a hope, a faith that somehow someday fundamental laws of the physical sciences will be found to have been radically misinterpreted and that complexity and matter CAN spring up on its own from nothing.

It would be more rational to believe that a Spiderman comic or tricycle with the words 'Junior's Trike' written on it sitting in the desert
would someday be proven to be the result of random natural process. Sure, some say they were created, but science will eventually fill in the gaps!

-- TEXT REMOVED BY MODERATOR -- OFF TOPIC

EA
Japan

bob b

July 1st, 2003, 02:01 PM

I would remind all here that this thread is to be used to discuss the specific points raised in the debate and not to pontificate on one's own view of the "Does God Exist?" question.

There is a separate thread available for this latter purpose.

Bob B. - moderator of this particular thread

heusdens

July 1st, 2003, 04:03 PM

Originally posted by Ash1
It annoys me when atheists say they're 'unbelievers' and 'have no faith', because they certainly do have a faith.

I think one should not call it 'faith' in the case of atheist, but conviction. That is a conviction based on knowledge.

Zakath has, honestly, made it very clear that he has no answers for how complex biological systems, human conscience, and so many other things could have come about by accident through strictly natural process. This shows that he has a hope, a faith that somehow someday fundamental laws of the physical sciences will be found to have been radically misinterpreted and that complexity and matter CAN spring up on its own from nothing.

Not from nothing, but from something less complex.
Well the fact is indeed Zakath does not proceed in even in outline or concept to explain how in general development in the material world takes place, both in anorganic matter, in organic matter and life forms, and in the human mind and society as well.
But this then would necessitate that his position would be established not only based on materialism, but also on dialectical and historic materialism, which show how in general development takes place.

It would be more rational to believe that a Spiderman comic or tricycle with the words 'Junior's Trike' written on it sitting in the desert
would someday be proven to be the result of random natural process. Sure, some say they were created, but science will eventually fill in the gaps!

As you perhaps know, the randomness of evoultion is only a very small fraction of how evolution works, the most important and non-random feauture is that the chances for sustainence of mutations are established by the environemental factors, which make this process not exactly a random process at all.
Look at for example the phenomena of weather, the patterns the weather form are ordereded, but show as well signs of randomeness and unpredictability. it would be good if you would take in mind both sides of these phenomena, and not just look at the random part.

I have read many theist interpretations of evolution, and they all try to focus on just one aspect of evolution, take that out of context, thereby creating their own version of evolution, and then work on that some more and conclude: look, that can not possible work!

But all they do is simply show that they do not have a profound idea of how evolution in fact works, and how all the different factors at work there come together to produce the result of a slow and gradual change and transformation of life forms.

I don't consider myself a specialist on chemistry, biology or evolution, in fact my knowledge about these fields of knowledge are not much more as average, but even with my minimal knowledge and use of good sources, I would not misinterpret evolution theory so much as they do.

AROTO

July 1st, 2003, 04:24 PM

Originally posted by Michael12

Rape - Of course it is a terrible thing, to us. But, what if humanity was faced with an epidemic that killed almost all the women on the planet. The few women that were left decided not to breed. Would rape be immoral in this instance? What is more immoral? Raping the women, or allowing the species to die out?
Murder - Would it have been immoral to murder Hitler? How about a terrorist carrying a backpack nuke 3 minutes from detonation. Is it more immoral to murder the terrorist in order to stop him? Or is it more immoral to allow 500,000 lives to be extinguished in a nanosecond?

I don't think either one of your questions even hold water :doh: Not only is you rape example so far fetched its nuts, but it is totally wrong to even think about raping the women. Your murder thing about Hitler, it would be wrong right up to the point where he either killed or ordered the killing of a single person. After that point it is not murder its an execution and that is perfectly fine! I think that might be where Bob is coming from. Zakath wants to put conditions on everything which is fine, but the conditions either do or don't justify the actions.

Michael12

July 1st, 2003, 09:15 PM

Originally posted by AROTO
I don't think either one of your questions even hold water :doh: Not only is you rape example so far fetched its nuts, but it is totally wrong to even think about raping the women. Your murder thing about Hitler, it would be wrong right up to the point where he either killed or ordered the killing of a single person. After that point it is not murder its an execution and that is perfectly fine! I think that might be where Bob is coming from. Zakath wants to put conditions on everything which is fine, but the conditions either do or don't justify the actions.
This is exactly where Bob is showing his short-sightedness. If it's an absolute, it's an absolute. It applies to any circumstance, no matter how far fetched that circumstance may be. If a circumstance can arise in our universe, then Bob's absolutes must, by definition, apply to it. Clearly they do not. Here is one for you and Bob...What if God told you to rape some woman? Let's set aside the likelihood that you are crazy, and say that it really is God talking to you. Is it now immoral? Or did God just command you to do something immoral? The quick response is "God would not command such an act". That is irrelevant, not only has he done worse himself, but the fact is, he can do it. So the possibility must be considered when contemplatling absolutes.

The mistake Bob is making, that I think Zakath is trying to demonstrate, is that you can't just consider the things we understand and accept when defining absolutes. One is forced to consider every conceivable circumstance.

The onus is clearly on Bob to demonstrate an absolute moral. One that is clearly wrong given any conceivable situation. In fact, I would like to see Bob demonstrate an absolute "right", or "good". An example that can not be turned around by situation imaginable. Good luck Bob.

AROTO

July 1st, 2003, 10:35 PM

Originally posted by Michael12

The mistake Bob is making, that I think Zakath is trying to demonstrate, is that you can't just consider the things we understand and accept when defining absolutes. One is forced to consider every conceivable circumstance.

I think this is where we disagree, God who is all loving and above all Just would not just decide to have me rape a woman. Where you do not see an absolute I do, in reading scripture it is clear that God is just. Yes often harsh, but always just. You find it hard to put an absolute on human behavior because it challenges your way of thinking and maybe your way of life :help: Bob is proving a valuble point, atheists can not allow themselves to believe in absolutes for the simple fact of where the absolute comes from, and they will do flips trying to get out of the argument with some sort of half baked scheme by trying to put every condition on an action. Is it absolutely wrong to shoot a homeless person in the head while he is sleeping on the sidewalk?:confused:

shima

July 2nd, 2003, 03:27 AM

Aroto: Is it absolutely wrong to shoot a homeless person in the head while he is sleeping on the sidewalk?

No.

I would considder it wrong, and I think most people would considder it wrong to shoot him. However, I think there are some people who do not considder it wrong to shoot a homeless man.

Now, since there are conflicting opinions about this, how are you going to objectively determine who has the correct opinion?

Lets take another example: the lynching of a black man in Mississippi? I think its wrong, but obviously the people who do it do not considder it wrong. Again, how are you going to objectively determine who is correct and who is not?

AROTO

July 2nd, 2003, 06:40 AM

Originally posted by shima
No.

I would considder it wrong, and I think most people would considder it wrong to shoot him. However, I think there are some people who do not considder it wrong to shoot a homeless man.

Now, since there are conflicting opinions about this, how are you going to objectively determine who has the correct opinion?

Lets take another example: the lynching of a black man in Mississippi? I think its wrong, but obviously the people who do it do not considder it wrong. Again, how are you going to objectively determine who is correct and who is not?
:doh: Again I think you are just proving Bob's point, Athesists and :kookoo: will all jump thru hoops :jump: trying to avoid an absolute issue, this way you can justify anything, ANYTHING. :bang:

Michael12

July 2nd, 2003, 10:12 AM

Originally posted by AROTO
Bob is proving a valuble point, atheists can not allow themselves to believe in absolutes for the simple fact of where the absolute comes from, and they will do flips trying to get out of the argument with some sort of half baked scheme by trying to put every condition on an action.[/b]
Bob isn't proving anything, and hopefully Zakath will call him on this in the next round. To begin with, the arguement he is making is non sequitur. Even if it were theoretically possible to come up with an absolute moral (it isn't), there is no reason to believe it came from God in the first place. Therefore it certainly would not constitute evidence that God exists. The leap of logic Bob is making is incredible, despite the fact that he has yet to give an example of an absolute moral, good or bad.

This is the underlying problem with Bob's position. He assumes God's exists, and tries to work the proof's backward. Atheists look at the evidence before them and allow that to lead them to the conclusion. Despite what you may think of atheists, most would love to know that God really does exist. Who wouldn't. An eternity in "heaven" sure sounds nice. Beats an eternal dirt nap any day of the week. But we can't base conclusions on things that are "nice to hear". We can't make something true just because we "like" it. Facts are facts, and if you are going to examine them, you must do so with an open mind, not by starting with an assumtion then trying to make the facts fit.

Originally posted by AROTO
Is it absolutely wrong to shoot a homeless person in the head while he is sleeping on the sidewalk?
No it isn't. You don't understand the arguement I made above. It doesn't matter if you think God would or wouldn't tell someone to do this. The fact is (according to the theists), he is omnipotent, so he can tell someone to do it. Therefore it must be considered when looking for absolute morality. You can't just rule out possibilites that you don't like. You have to prove they could never happen. So far Bob has done nothing of the sort. Hopefully Zakath doesn't let him get away with this short-sighted assertion.

There is a reason the bible requires you to rely on faith as a cornerstone of your worldview. Because nothing in it is provable. God, if he exists, knows this, hence the requirement of "faith". By asserting he can "prove" God exists, Bob is undermining the entire basis of his belief system. In the end, that will be the downfall of Bob in this debate.

Aussie Thinker

July 2nd, 2003, 11:54 PM

Aroto,

Your supposed absolutes are just inventions of man anyway. As we created God we must also (by default) have created any absolutes that go along with him.

I wonder why you guys can fail to grasp that any of our concepts (like absolutes) are just that… OUR concepts. Man made idea, inventions, concepts to explain what we know and don’t know.

We invented God yet you don’t give us the kudos fro inventing the concept of absolute morals.

spackle

July 3rd, 2003, 09:39 AM

Originally posted by Michael12
But we can't base conclusions on things that are "nice to hear". We can't make something true just because we "like" it. Facts are facts, and if you are going to examine them, you must do so with an open mind, not by starting with an assumtion then trying to make the facts fit.

Um.... there are no absolutes, remember? We don't HAVE to do anything. There are no real facts. We don't have to have an open mind. :rolleyes:

Even the atheist in his attempt to disprove absolutes can't avoid using words and phrases like "must", "can't", "facts are facts".

It's almost like you have a "moral" compulsion for us to see the abolute truth that there are no absolutes. :think:

ZroKewl

July 3rd, 2003, 09:55 AM

[Knight: I apologize if this is not appropriate for this thread, but I sincerely have these questions about Pastor Bob's premise that "Absolute Morality" is evidence for the existence of God.]

I further hope that if Pastor Bob does not address these questions outside of the debate, that Zakath will ask him to clarify the position within the debate by asking him the same (or similar) questions.

I posted (http://www.theologyonline.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?postid=261453#post261453) the following response to Pastor Bob in this other thread (http://www.theologyonline.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=8083):

For the record, I posted (http://www.theologyonline.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?postid=261131#post261131) the following on this thread (http://www.theologyonline.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=7710):

Originally posted by Bob Enyart
Looking forward to reading your posts, -Bob Enyart
Pastor Bob - did you get a chance to read my post (http://www.theologyonline.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=8083)? If you have the time, I would really like if you could answer those questions (or let me know if and why you can't right now). I hope you can tell that these are honest and legitimate questions, as I truly do not understand the concept of "Absolute Right & Wrong". You have used this to prove that God exists. Perhaps you could help me and others understand this idea so we might better understand this point you made in the current debate.

Thank you.

--ZK

Pastor Bob responded (http://www.theologyonline.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?postid=261148#post261148) with this:

Originally posted by Bob Enyart
ZK: You guessed it, I don't have the time, but I do invite you to call your questions into the radio show any weeknight (but not on July 4th, we're re-airing our interview with Norma Rogers, the nurse who found Juanita Broaddrick sobbing shortly after she says she was raped.) -Bob E.

Perhaps Zakath can ask Pastor Bob to respond to these questions in the current debate. These are the types of questions that NEED TO BE ANSWERED to get any benefit out of Pastor Bob's position that Absolute Right & Wrong are evidence of the existence of God.

It may not be the case, but I think Pastor Bob's "not having time" really just means he doesn't know, or that his answers will only serve to strike this major premise from his argument.

--ZK

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

For ease of reference, here are the questions that I asked regarding Absolute Morality:

Can a theist that is well-versed in the idea of "Absolute Right & Wrong" (and believes it is true) please answer some honest questions I have? If Pastor Bob could answer these too (If you have time), that would help me (and others) understand (some of) your positions in the current debate more. The more detail the better. Thank you.

1) In reference to the ideas of "Absolute Right" and "Absolute Wrong", can you please define the following terms: "Absolute", "Right", "Wrong", "Absolute Right", "Absolute Wrong". In addition, if you use any other terms that are likely to be misinterpreted, please define them too. (ie: "Subjective"; "Relative"; "Conditional"; "Action" (just the act itself, or inclusive of motives and any/all conditions?))

2) If I believe there is only one Absolute Right & Wrong, and that every other action is relative, does that mean I believe in "Absolute Right & Wrongs"? What if I believe there is only one action that is Relative, and all others are Absolute? In other words, would I have to believe ALL actions are absolutely right or wrong to believe in "Absolute Right & Wrong"? Would I have to belive that ALL actions are relative in order to believe in "Relative Right & Wrong"? What language would you use to differentiate whether someone believed most (but not all) actions are Absolute (Right & Wrong implied from now on), as opposed to someone that believed most (but not all) actions were Relative (again, Right & Wrong implied from now on)?

3) Can something that is Absolutely Right or Wrong be MORE or LESS Absolutely Right or Wrong than something else? If so, is the scale of Absolutes also Absolute? If so, can someone please provide me with that scale (for at least the top 10 or so actions that usually come up in debates regarding this issue: Murder, Rape, Lying, Stealing, etc...)? If there is a scale, then is there some sort of weight that can be applied to the actions - is that relative or absolute? In other words, if "Murder" is worse than "Lying", is it 5 times worse? 10 times worse? Or is the weighting more relative? What is the scale for Absolute Rights also?

4) Are thoughts also Absolutely Right or Wrong? Are motives or intentions a part in deciding if something is Right or Wrong? How is this Absolute (or Relative) and how does that affect the answer(s) in #3? Jesus compared "hate" and "lust" (just the thoughts) to "murder" and "adultery". Was he saying those thoughts were *just as bad* as the actions? Would thoughts about those actions be at the same level in the scale discussed in #3? Actions seem to be more "black and white" than thoughts. Either you murdered the person or you didnt (for example)? But it seems thoughts are a bit more gray. What if the thought crosses my mind that "I wish this person was dead" (for example), but is immediately replaced with "No, that would be wrong, I should love this person"; Is that already as bad as if I were to have killed them? If not, at what point do those thoughts become bad? Or is it the more I think about them, the worse they become? Is this "worse" relative or absolute? Where do they fit on the scale on #3? Intentions and Motives never seem to be pure, and seem to be rather "gray". If they play a part in something being Right or Wrong, how can the actions still be "Absolutely Right or Wrong"?

5) How does the ability to prevent something Wrong from happening fit in with all of this? If you can prevent a Wrong, but don't, is that *just as bad* as if you had done the Wrong? Is it bad/wrong at all? Where on the scale (#3) would it be? What if you try to prevent a Wrong, but it still happens? Where is that on the scale? What if you didn't try your hardest? What if you could have prevented someone from being murdered by jumping in front of the bullet (for example), but you didn't? Is that just as bad as having murdered them yourself?

6) (Depending on the answers above, the answer to this question may be apparant.) Does the end ever justify the means? Is it ever right to do something wrong in order to make something right happen? Example: Would it ever be right to Lie in order to prevent someone from being Murdered? Why or why not?

I truly hope that someone can answer these questions truthfully without obfuscating their answers.

Thank you,
--ZK

Michael12

July 3rd, 2003, 10:31 AM

Originally posted by spackle
Um.... there are no absolutes, remember? We don't HAVE to do anything. There are no real facts. We don't have to have an open mind. :rolleyes:

Even the atheist in his attempt to disprove absolutes can't avoid using words and phrases like "must", "can't", "facts are facts".

It's almost like you have a "moral" compulsion for us to see the abolute truth that there are no absolutes. :think:
Nice try, but the topic is absolute morality, as it's being discussed in the debate. I never claimed there were NO absolutes in general. Just no absolute morals.

spackle

July 3rd, 2003, 10:10 PM

Michael, you said this:

"But we can't base conclusions on things that are "nice to hear". We can't make something true just because we "like" it. Facts are facts, and if you are going to examine them, you must do so with an open mind, not by starting with an assumtion then trying to make the facts fit."

Yeah, but who cares? Without absolute right and wrong, what's the difference how we approach the facts? Correct is no more right than incorrect. If we approach the facts without assumptions (or as near as we can manage) we might get closer to "truth", but what does that gain us?

You say that morals are subjective and each person decides for himself what is right and wrong, so what's the problem with persuing that for the individual? You say that it all comes down to what the individual likes and then tell that individual that what they like isn't important.

You're trying to make a case for the value of absolute truth when outside of an absolute moral system, absolute truth has no value. You have no reason to argue.

Say I suddenly agree with you and state "there is no moral absolute." What has that gained me even if it's true? Truth? So what? Why is it better to be true than to be false?

Michael12

July 3rd, 2003, 10:47 PM

Originally posted by spackle
Michael, you said this:

"But we can't base conclusions on things that are "nice to hear". We can't make something true just because we "like" it. Facts are facts, and if you are going to examine them, you must do so with an open mind, not by starting with an assumtion then trying to make the facts fit."

Yeah, but who cares? Without absolute right and wrong, what's the difference how we approach the facts? Correct is no more right than incorrect. If we approach the facts without assumptions (or as near as we can manage) we might get closer to "truth", but what does that gain us?

You say that morals are subjective and each person decides for himself what is right and wrong, so what's the problem with persuing that for the individual? You say that it all comes down to what the individual likes and then tell that individual that what they like isn't important.

You're trying to make a case for the value of absolute truth when outside of an absolute moral system, absolute truth has no value. You have no reason to argue.

Say I suddenly agree with you and state "there is no moral absolute." What has that gained me even if it's true? Truth? So what? Why is it better to be true than to be false?

You are confusing absolute truth, with absolute right/wrong.

Here is an example...

2+2=4 That is an absolute truth. There is no "good" or "bad" about it. But it is absolute.

The earth is one astronomical unit (AU) from the sun. Again, not "good" or "bad" but absolute. No matter the circumstances under which you are considering these two assertions, they are still "absolutely correct"

Michael12

July 3rd, 2003, 10:56 PM

Zakath's only real mistake thus far was in his opening. He allowed Bob to gain the advantage by asking Bob definitions in his first post. This put him on the defensive when he should have taken the bull by the horns and assumed offense from the very first paragraph. Here is how I would have started....

"How can you presume to PROVE the existence of God when he has made it quite clear, by way of his requirement of faith, that he chooses to remain unproven. Are you saying you can defy God's will, Bob? Or are you saying the bible is wrong, and that faith is not a requirement?"

spackle

July 3rd, 2003, 10:57 PM

Originally posted by Michael12
You are confusing absolute truth, with absolute right/wrong.

Here is an example...

2+2=4 That is an absolute truth. There is no "good" or "bad" about it. But it is absolute.

The earth is one astronomical unit (AU) from the sun. Again, not "good" or "bad" but absolute. No matter the circumstances under which you are considering these two assertions, they are still "absolutely correct"

Fantastic.
My question was, "what's the value in being right?"

Michael12

July 3rd, 2003, 11:08 PM

Originally posted by spackle
Fantastic.
My question was, "what's the value in being right?"
That is a context sensitive question.

If you are "right" about 2+2, then you can base an entire mathematical model on that assertion and be sure that any further calculations within that model will be correct. So there is an intrinsic value in being correct in asserting 2+2=4

If you are "right" about "it's bad to kill people", you can not assume you will always be correct because your motive behind the assertion is circumstance, which can, and does, change. So there is NO intrinsic value in asserting "its bad to kill people" because you cant base further assertions on it.

spackle

July 3rd, 2003, 11:40 PM

Michael,

Sorry, I don't mean to be frustrating.

My question is bigger than that.
Outside of an absolute value system where it's good to be right and it's bad to be wrong, what is the ultimate value of being right?

Don't you see that the only place where being correct means anything is where your reference point is beyond your own system?

Here's what I'm getting at...
You are arguing for a position that you hold that we, in the interest of seeking truth, must do so and so and can't do so and so. I agree with you, because I believe in the value of being right. I believe in the value of truth beyond the question of the accuracy of facts.

It's tied to morality, although morality is a much more slippery issue. I believe that humans where created good, but are fallen. How can such a being be expected to perform an absolutely good OR evil act? You look at human acts and try to find an absolute when humans are not supposed to be an absolute. We reflect an absolute, though, even with relative terms like "right" and "wrong". The specifics don't matter because the sense of right and wrong is there.

In order to get a feel for the moral absolute, I think you have to get personal. Don't ask, "is rape always wrong?" Instead ask "Is there anyone on the earth who, if they were raped, would not think that it was wrong?"

Sorry for rambling. I'm in a stream of conciousness mood. :)

heusdens

July 4th, 2003, 05:52 AM

Originally posted by Michael12
There is a reason the bible requires you to rely on faith as a cornerstone of your worldview. Because nothing in it is provable. God, if he exists, knows this, hence the requirement of "faith". By asserting he can "prove" God exists, Bob is undermining the entire basis of his belief system. In the end, that will be the downfall of Bob in this debate.

Well in an direct way, Bob's answer to the question if God exists as an independend and objective entity outside of the mind, is: "never mind".
A truthfull answer, which means he is not giving an answer to such a question, since the only answer he can give would conflict with the position he holds in the debate.
Not that he could, or should have given any other answer or that I would have expected him to give a truthfull answer, cause the reason for faith and belief is the lack of evidence, and it is not to be argued that there exists faith and belief in the existence of that omnipotent super being, but this stands fully apart from the fact if and wether such a deity at all exist.
On the contrary, all forms of faith and belief in God would not have been there, in the case that the existence of such an omnipotent deity as existing outside and independend of the mind would have been proven beyond all reasonable doubt.

Likewise, nobody has faith and belief in the existence of gravity, cause gravity exists independend of faith and belief in it. And nobody would, in an attempt to save oneself from drowning, conjecture against the laws of gravity. Instead, one could better learn to swim!

heusdens

July 4th, 2003, 06:20 AM

And the other thing is, how do we know - at all - that anything (anything at all) exists apart from independend from and outside of the mind?

I know about the world, solely because sensory data is reflected in my brain, forming a picture of the world around me. Apart from my own awarenesses, how do I know in fact that there is an objective world, which exists independend, apart from and outside of my mind?
The position taken in by various philosophical viewpoints on this fundamental issue, is clearly contradicting. One viewpoint taken in, which is the viewpoint of Idealism, is that no such objective world apart from independend from and outside of the mind exists. Taken this point of view to the extreme means that apart from my mind, nothing would be existent, which is the viewpoint of solipsism. Another moreobjective version of this vision is that, yes, there is an objective world, but it exists in primary instance in the form of a fundamental principle, absolute idea or in the form of a Supreme Being, and secondary in a material form.

The opposite viewpoint of Idealism is that of Materialism, which is the vision that in primary instance the world exists in the form of matter in eternal motion, and consciousness and mind are secondary forms of highly developed material forms. Matter exists independend, apart from and outside of the mind. Apart from matter, nothing exists. Consciousness has no objective existence outside and independend of matter, and the fact that we can acknowledge the existence of consciousness, means it is ultimately based on material processes and properties of matter.

The fundamental issue in philosophy, which also is the contrasting viewpoint between religion and material sciences is, the acknowledgement of what the world in primary instance is.

Materialism answers that the world in primary instance is matter in eternal motion, which is independend, apart from and outside of mind, and does not require us to assume 'Supreme Beings' for it's existence. Consciousness arises out of matter, and is a secondary feature of the world and which does not exists apart from, outside and independend of matter.

Idealism answers that we have to assume that in primary instance there is a fundemental principle or absolute idea. Matter exists only secondary, and is dependend of such a principle or idea.
The theistic interpretation is that such a fundamental principle or absolute idea denotes God. Matter would not exist apart from, outside and independend of such a Deity (hence 'He' created heavens and earth and men). Solipsisms at last, assumes neither of both, but just states that apart from one's own mind, nothing exists.

It is arguable that for denoting that what exists in primary instance as independend, outside and apart from the mind , we do not need two concepts. That is we have to choose between God and matter, since they are mutually exclusive.
And the situation is that apart from the idea of God, the faith in God and the belief in God, about God itself we know nothing, because this being, which is stated of being all-powerfull, did not in last instance make it's existence in the world clear beyond all reasonable doubt in an objective way, and in fact lacks objective existence.

About matter, we already have a deep and thorough understanding about the material world, and even when in our mind and despite the fact we can conjecture against matter and/or materialism (that is: form within our mind a mental representation of the world, in which the world would in primary instance not exist in the form of matter in eternal motion, but instead would exist as a 'creation' of a 'Superbeing') and might even 'win' an intelectual debate about this issue, this stands far from the fact that matter nevertheless has objective existence apart from and independend of the mind.

Let us assume that we would continue this intelectual debate about wether or not the world exists in the form of matter in a primary instance, just when we cross a busy traffic road, and a big bus is nearing us when we cross the street. Right at that moment we will avoid being over run by this bus and make a quick move in order to avoid us being overrun, and continue our discussion at a safer place.

Even when we can make a consciouss leap in our vision about the world, in which we could conjecture against and deny the material world to have objective existence, in reality we have to deal nevertheless with the fact that the material reality has independend existence, apart from and outside of our mind (as also inside our subconsciousness as well, which causes us to automatically and instinctmatically to react to any outside life threats).

ZroKewl

July 4th, 2003, 09:07 AM

Originally posted by heusdens
Not that he could, or should have given any other answer or that I would have expected him to give a truthfull answer, cause the reason for faith and belief is the lack of evidence, and it is not to be argued that there exists faith and belief in the existence of that omnipotent super being, but this stands fully apart from the fact if and wether such a deity at all exist.
heusden - we have a problem. ;) I've wanted to say that for a while now. :chuckle:

I really enjoy reading your posts... but I was hoping maybe I could ask a favor from you? See, I'm stupid and am not able to comprehend very much at one time. For instance, in the books that include phrases such as "See Spot." "See Spot run." "Run, Spot, run." -- I can get those. But, if they put too many words in one sentence, then I get confused.

So, I guess I'm just asking if you could help my brain out a bit by shortening your sentences? Just add some periods here and there where appropriate. That will help me out a whole lot!! I'm sorry I'm so stupid. Please forgive me.

Thanks & Sincerely,
--ZK

heusdens

July 4th, 2003, 07:32 PM

Zorkewl:

So sorry to forget about interpunction. I will keep my sentences shorter.

ZroKewl

July 5th, 2003, 12:07 AM

Originally posted by heusdens
Zorkewl:

So sorry to forget about interpunction. I will keep my sentences shorter.
Much obliged. :D

BlueChild

July 7th, 2003, 03:07 PM

Hey, now it will let me post! Sometimes it doesn't.

Just call me the cheerleader...

WOWWWW! Zakath's 5th post was by far by far his best post yet, imvho. I see a couple comebacks available, but I don't see a LOT of others. I can NOT WAIT to see Bob Enyart's response! These 48 hour waits can be real killers!

novice

July 8th, 2003, 12:27 AM

Doesn't Zakath claim he is a former pastor?

Why would Zakath lob Bob such a softball in his "Argument from Nonbelief"???

And furthermore... if Zakath really were a pastor (and I certainly do not doubt he was) wouldn't he know the answer Bob is going to give???

It was a good post by Zakath in that I think he put more effort into this one... but I think Bob is going to nail that softball out of the park!

One Eyed Jack

July 8th, 2003, 01:52 AM

Originally posted by novice
Doesn't Zakath claim he is a former pastor?

Why would Zakath lob Bob such a softball in his "Argument from Nonbelief"???

I was wondering about that myself. It almost sounds like a joke. I can't help but wonder if he kept a straight face while he was typing it.

shima

July 8th, 2003, 05:59 AM

OYJ: I was wondering about that myself. It almost sounds like a joke. I can't help but wonder if he kept a straight face while he was typing it.

Well, considdering Zakath was a pastor, he has probably given this arguement some thought. Since he knows the "standard" answer that Bob might give him (I think Zakath is counting on it) he probably has a pretty nasty response waiting for Bob should he give Zakath the answer Zakath is expecting.

Now, the arguement from Non-Belief doesn't seem that plausible to me at the moment, but Zakath didn't post it simply to have Bob refute it. Zakath has a clear answer in his head which he'll give once Bob posted his reply.

The last few posts have all gone Zakath's way, and I can hardly wait what Bob's counterpoint is going to be. Bob's refusal to state his "Absolute Moral Values/Laws/Rules" is a weakness on his part. He knows that, whatever he presents as absolute, Zakath will not have a hard time trying to counter them with circumstances in which Bob's supposedly "Absolute values" will fail. This will disprove Bob's arguement rather nicely, and Bob knows this will happen, hence his refusal to state them.

ZroKewl

July 8th, 2003, 07:21 AM

Originally posted by shima
Bob's refusal to state his "Absolute Moral Values/Laws/Rules" is a weakness on his part. He knows that, whatever he presents as absolute, Zakath will not have a hard time trying to counter them with circumstances in which Bob's supposedly "Absolute values" will fail. This will disprove Bob's arguement rather nicely, and Bob knows this will happen, hence his refusal to state them.
I think Bob did do this. He basically said that rape is always wrong. He said that it is better for the entire human race to become extinct than for a person to be raped. This seems pretty clear to me.

--ZK

shima

July 8th, 2003, 07:49 AM

He said that it is better for the entire human race to become extinct than for a person to be raped.

Good. Now, can he prove that it is always wrong? If he cannot, then it is just Bob's opinion against mine, because I think its not wrong to rape a woman to save the human race.

One Eyed Jack

July 8th, 2003, 08:19 AM

Originally posted by shima
Good. Now, can he prove that it is always wrong? If he cannot, then it is just Bob's opinion against mine, because I think its not wrong to rape a woman to save the human race.

You've never been very popular with the ladies, have you? You might as well get used to it, because no woman in her right mind would want anything to do with you after hearing that. Rape is always wrong.

heusdens

July 8th, 2003, 08:43 AM

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
Rape is always wrong.

Unless of course it happens in a country (Saudi Arabia) that is allied with the United Stated, and was willing to support the war against Iraq.

Then it is another question...

One Eyed Jack

July 8th, 2003, 08:50 AM

Rape is wrong regardless of what country it happens in, or who does it.

heusdens

July 8th, 2003, 09:07 AM

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
Rape is wrong regardless of what country it happens in, or who does it.

I meant it ironically

Since United States advocates human rights, and base even military and economic actions on that, against other nations, they sometimes look in another direction, as their prime interests are at state.

That is what I meant to say.

You don't think that I could mean that any rape committed by anyone under any circumstance in any country is justifyable.

Even raping animals....!

And the "hypothetical rape to save the human race" argument, is not something of consideration, since a lot of actual rapes occur, which ARE worth considering, so why would we bother hypothetical crimes that are not even committed then?

One Eyed Jack

July 8th, 2003, 09:11 AM

heusdens

July 8th, 2003, 09:17 AM

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
Maybe you should ask shima and Zakath that, since they're the ones using that argument.

You are right. The argument is in fact ridiculous, as used by Zakath and shima.

(well at least we do agree on "something"!)

Ash1

July 8th, 2003, 09:52 AM

I'm glad Zakath is milking the "God of the Gaps" argument. Hopefully Bob will address it thoroughly in the next post.

Once that argument is amply refuted, Zakath has next to nothing in this debate.

HANG IN THERE ZAKATH. :eek: <--- Better put some ice on that shiner.

Hope you last all ten rounds. You better double up on that blackberry juice. :freak: <--- Zakath's swollen eye from four rounds of pummeling.

Michael12

July 8th, 2003, 09:53 AM

Originally posted by heusdens
And the "hypothetical rape to save the human race" argument, is not something of consideration, since a lot of actual rapes occur, which ARE worth considering, so why would we bother hypothetical crimes that are not even committed then?
Because if one is going to propose a set of moral absolutes, then they must be absolute in every conceiveble circumstance. The "save the world" scenario demonstrates a circumstance where the morality of rape becomes relative, because you must weigh it against the extinction of the species. Many, including me, would say it is acceptable to rape in this one, extreme circumstance. Therefore it's not a moral absolute, despite the fact that Bob has asserted that it is. It demonstrates Bob's short-sightedness. It may be absolute for him, but not for everyone.

ZroKewl

July 8th, 2003, 10:06 AM

Regarding the rape thing:

What's funny is that I'm assuming that Bob, Knight, & others would say that murder is worse than rape. Correct me if I'm wrong here. However, they would also say that self-defense makes killing someone not murder. So, if someone is about to kill you -- even if they aren't currently able to stop themselves and are not directly responsible for their actions that are about to lead to your death (be creative) -- then if you kill that person it is ok.

But, if you rape someone (even if they were somehow guilty of about to directly cause the termination of all humanity), then that can't ever be self defense?

--ZK

LightSon

July 8th, 2003, 10:17 AM

Originally posted by ZroKewl
Regarding the rape thing:

What's funny is that I'm assuming that Bob, Knight, & others would say that murder is worse than rape. Correct me if I'm wrong here. However, they would also say that self-defense makes killing someone not murder. So, if someone is about to kill you -- even if they aren't currently able to stop themselves and are not directly responsible for their actions that are about to lead to your death (be creative) -- then if you kill that person it is ok.

But, if you rape someone (even if they were somehow guilty of about to directly cause the termination of all humanity), then that can't ever be self defense?

--ZK
This is a rather tortured hypothetic.

Let me see if I understand this. If I argue that killing someone in self defense is justified, then you are asserting a similar rationale that raping someone in self defense is justified. :doh:

That does not follow. Sorry. It is one thing to defend yourself; it is another thing to use such defense as a pretext to have your perverted jollies.

claire

July 8th, 2003, 10:52 AM

We are getting off the track here....Michael's posited a hypothetical situation in which the world would end if man couldn't repopulate it.....making the "moral absolutes" proffered by Bob not absolute in the sense that he was arguing....

It has turned from that into a "which crime is better" scenario, and that isn't what it was intended to do....

I personally don't think raping a woman to repopulate the world, even in a "save the world" scenario would be justified...if God wasn't ready for the world to end, then he would intervene without asking man to "sin" to accomplish it....which, of course, makes Michael's point that "moral absolutes" are relative, because as he said an absolute MUST be an absolute in any given scenario...which means that differing with that opinion raises a question, which removes the absolute from the hypothesis....

ZroKewl

July 8th, 2003, 10:53 AM

Originally posted by LightSon
This is a rather tortured hypothetic.

Let me see if I understand this. If I argue that killing someone in self defense is justified, then you are asserting a similar rationale that raping someone in self defense is justified. :doh:

That does not follow. Sorry. It is one thing to defend yourself; it is another thing to use such defense as a pretext to have your perverted jollies.

Bob said that if the only way to save all of humanity was to rape someone, then you should not do it. From that hypothetical, it should also not be allowed to kill someone that was about to harm you and/or your family.

--ZK

heusdens

July 8th, 2003, 10:53 AM

Originally posted by ZroKewl
Regarding the rape thing:

What's funny is that I'm assuming that Bob, Knight, & others would say that murder is worse than rape. Correct me if I'm wrong here. However, they would also say that self-defense makes killing someone not murder. So, if someone is about to kill you -- even if they aren't currently able to stop themselves and are not directly responsible for their actions that are about to lead to your death (be creative) -- then if you kill that person it is ok.

But, if you rape someone (even if they were somehow guilty of about to directly cause the termination of all humanity), then that can't ever be self defense?

I don't think it's worth arguing about a HYPOTETICAL CRIME UNDER HYPOTETICAL CIRCUMSTANCES which has not even be committed!

What is worth arguing about is about the ca. hundreds of thousands of women that get raped each day!

Focus your morals on the REAL CRIMES, not the hypothetical ones.

ZroKewl

July 8th, 2003, 10:57 AM

Originally posted by heusdens
I don't think it's worth arguing about a HYPOTETICAL CRIME UNDER HYPOTETICAL CIRCUMSTANCES which has not even be committed is worth arguing about!

I (and others apparantly) do.

--ZK

ZroKewl

July 8th, 2003, 11:00 AM

Originally posted by claire
I personally don't think raping a woman to repopulate the world, even in a "save the world" scenario would be justified...if God wasn't ready for the world to end, then he would intervene without asking man to "sin" to accomplish it....
What about raping a man? I assume you mean raping anyone, right? Either way, if you hold this view, then how can you justify killing someone in self defense? Couldn't you also say that if God wasn't ready for you to die then he would intervene? Or for that matter, why do anything at all... because if God wanted it any differently he could intervene and make it thus.

--ZK

claire

July 8th, 2003, 11:11 AM

Originally posted by ZroKewl
What about raping a man? I assume you mean raping anyone, right? Either way, if you hold this view, then how can you justify killing someone in self defense? Couldn't you also say that if God wasn't ready for you to die then he would intervene? Or for that matter, why do anything at all... because if God wanted it any differently he could intervene and make it thus.

--ZK

Because I agree with Michael that there are no moral absolutes. If I was forced to defend a loved one from a heinous crime I would do it without hesitation, and I would not consider myself a "sinner" to do so. And if the person lived and then was sentenced to death I would have no problem with it.

I give to God what is God's....as as I am required to do by my faith...and I give to Caesar what is Caesar's, as Jesus taught me....

Absolutely, if God is not ready for me to die, then I won't...I will die when I have accomplished my purpose and not one second before....but God is not a micromanager....he doesn't intervene "arbiitrarily" in our day to day lives for insignificant purposes or results...his view is grander, and bigger....than any one of us...although we each make up an integral part of it....

ZroKewl

July 8th, 2003, 11:34 AM

Originally posted by claire
If I was forced to defend a loved one from a heinous crime I would do it without hesitation, and I would not consider myself a "sinner" to do so. And if the person lived and then was sentenced to death I would have no problem with it.

So, if a loved one was about to be killed and the only way to stop it was to rape the guy about to kill them, would you do it? If not, then you think raping someone is worse than killing them? Why?

--ZK

Michael12

July 8th, 2003, 05:35 PM

Originally posted by heusdens
I don't think it's worth arguing about a HYPOTETICAL CRIME UNDER HYPOTETICAL CIRCUMSTANCES which has not even be committed!

What is worth arguing about is about the ca. hundreds of thousands of women that get raped each day!

Focus your morals on the REAL CRIMES, not the hypothetical ones.
Thinking such as this is one (of several) reasons there are always loopholes in laws. I submit that the EXACT opposite is true. That it is imperative that we attempt to hypothesize every conceiveble way in which a law (or judgement) may be used.

Back to topic...Unless you can prove that the "save the world" scenario can never happen, then it must be considered when defining absolutes. An absolute moral would be one that can never, under any possible circumstance, be interpreted otherwise.

Now, I'll head off the coming arguement that I think ZK is already trying to defend against. Frankly, I am disappointed in the theists reading this thread that failed to realize what I am about to say.

Were I a theist, my response to the scenario would be something like this....

Despite the fact that raping a woman under these dire circumstances might be a reasonable thing to do in order to assure continuation of the species, it doen't necessarily follow that it isn't still a "bad" thing to do. One would simply be willfully carrying out a "bad" act. In other words, that fact that some may consider it necessary, doesn't change the fact that it is still "bad".

Never let it be said that I don't occasionally put on the hat of a theist :D

claire

July 8th, 2003, 05:59 PM

Originally posted by Michael12

Now, I'll head off the coming arguement that I think ZK is already trying to defend against. Frankly, I am disappointed in the theists reading this thread that failed to realize what I am about to say.

Were I a theist, my response to the scenario would be something like this....

Despite the fact that raping a woman under these dire circumstances might be a reasonable thing to do in order to assure continuation of the species, it doen't necessarily follow that it isn't still a "bad" thing to do. One would simply be willfully carrying out a "bad" act. In other words, that fact that some may consider it necessary, doesn't change the fact that it is still "bad".

Never let it be said that I don't occasionally put on the hat of a theist :D

:D Raping a person under even a "save the world" scenario would not be a reasonable thing to do (whatcha do is reason with them and get them to AGREE to procreate..LOL)....however, I essentially made your argument when I said I would willfully shoot an intruder in my home and kill them, with every convinction that while it was a bad act it was necessary...so I guess we just differ on the definition of "reasonable and necessary" :)

ZroKewl

July 8th, 2003, 06:16 PM

Originally posted by claire
I essentially made your argument when I said I would willfully shoot an intruder in my home and kill them, with every convinction that while it was a bad act it was necessary...so I guess we just differ on the definition of "reasonable and necessary" :)
I think this sums up a lot. I think the act would be both reasonable and necessary. And in my world, something that is reasonable and necessary is good (maybe not always, but at least almost always). :D

--ZK

jeremiah

July 8th, 2003, 09:34 PM

It seems to me that the atheists place "conditions" on the absolute wrong, "rape". Then claim that rape is not absolutely wrong, because it depends upon the "conditions". This seems to me to be the very definition of circular reasoning. There comes a time when one must admit that they are guilty of one, and innocent of the other. Either you raped and that was wrong: or you murdered the entire human race and that was wrong. Either way that you go there has to be an absolute standard in there somewhere.

JOHN_IGNATIUS

July 8th, 2003, 09:37 PM

Mmmmmm... claire ..... Nice pic.

Michael12

July 8th, 2003, 10:24 PM

Originally posted by jeremiah
It seems to me that the atheists place "conditions" on the absolute wrong, "rape". Then claim that rape is not absolutely wrong, because it depends upon the "conditions". This seems to me to be the very definition of circular reasoning. There comes a time when one must admit that they are guilty of one, and innocent of the other. Either you raped and that was wrong: or you murdered the entire human race and that was wrong. Either way that you go there has to be an absolute standard in there somewhere.
I don't "place conditions" on anything. The fact is, these circumstances can happen, regardless of my feelings towards them. If you are so sure that there are absolute moral standards, then you shouldn't be concerned with any "conditions" no matter where they may arise from, as long as they are possible.
It seems to me that the atheists place "conditions" on the absolute wrong, "rape". Then claim that rape is not absolutely wrong, because it depends upon the "conditions". This seems to me to be the very definition of circular reasoning.
It is NOT the "very definition of circular reasoning". It is the defintion of "relativity".

One Eyed Jack

July 8th, 2003, 10:41 PM

Originally posted by jeremiah
Either you raped and that was wrong: or you murdered the entire human race and that was wrong.

Failing to procreate can't be equated to murdering the entire human race, even if you are one of the last two people on Earth. Unless, of course, you're the one that killed everybody else.

Michael12

July 8th, 2003, 10:47 PM

Originally posted by claire
:D Raping a person under even a "save the world" scenario would not be a reasonable thing to do (whatcha do is reason with them and get them to AGREE to procreate..LOL)....however, I essentially made your argument when I said I would willfully shoot an intruder in my home and kill them, with every convinction that while it was a bad act it was necessary...so I guess we just differ on the definition of "reasonable and necessary" :)
And you just demonstrated my point even further. Of course we differ on things like "reasonable" and "necessary". Without specific circumstances attached, ideas like moral right and wrong, reasonable, and necessary, are ALL relative. From your post:
Raping a person under even a "save the world" scenario would not be a reasonable thing to do
It would, in fact, be reasonable if one's highest priority were the continuation of the species. I'm not addressing your tongue in cheek "get them to agree to procreate" because the point of the scenario is that they refuse to do so, dispite reasoning and my good looks :D
Further, you have demonstrated the difference between "right" and "good". Two concepts that most people refuse to seperate. Of course it would be "right" to shoot an intruder bent on harming you. But that doesn't make it "good".

The point I am making here is that there are two conceiveble sides to the dilema. That aspect alone makes the terms relative. If it were not relative, then everyone would see things the same way, which is falsifiable by observation. The theist can claim that the atheist views these issues differently due to a mental shortcoming of one sort or another, but the atheist can argue, with equal veracity, that it is the theist that suffers from the mental shortcomming. So who decides who is right? The knee-jerk answer among theists is "God". But the theists can no more prove the existence of their God then atheists can prove His non-existence. So we are back to square one, which means relativity.

jeremiah

July 8th, 2003, 11:59 PM

To One Eyed Jack:
I would not consider it murder to not procreate either. I am trying to follow the reasoning of the original hypothetical argument. Some atheists propose that it would not be wrong to rape a woman if that was the only possible way to prevent the death of the human race. The clear implication of this ridiculous argument is that you must rape her, or you would be guilty of something worse. What is worse than rape? Murder, I presume. The deliberate murder of the human race by failure to take the necessary action, Rape. What I am trying to point out is they have applied some absolute standard in this case. The human race must continue and equally as important their is no guilt. They are innocent. The very example they created sets up the issues of standards, rape, death, murder, guilt and innocence. The very things that they are trying to deny and avoid.
The atheist has to say, I raped a woman, there was nothing wrong with that. I am innocent. If I did not rape the woman, then I would be guilty. That conclusion I think is inescapable. Or he must say, I did not rape the woman, because Raping is wrong. However I am guilty of ending or Murdering the human race. This is also inescapable. The very premise of the hypothetical is that either rape is not wrong or The one who does not rape is guilty osf SOMETHING? They have created their own conundrum and paradox.:think: :juggle: :ha:

BlueChild

July 9th, 2003, 12:28 AM

Originally posted by BlueChild Just call me the cheerleader...

WOWWWW! Zakath's 5th post was by far by far his best post yet, imvho. I see a couple comebacks available, but I don't see a LOT of others. I can NOT WAIT to see Bob Enyart's response! These 48 hour waits can be real killers!

I haven't even finished reading Bob Enyart's post and I had to comment in the grandstands. I think it's kind of neat how Bob Enyart reads the grandstands but rarely posts. He seems to have referred to my pp above, which upon second reading really does make me look like an atheist. Bob, if you're reading this, I'm not an atheist. I am YOUR cheerleader. I just find this debate very exciting. I called myself a cheerleader because all I can do is say whoa and wow, and can't seem to offer much in the way of ideas.

Maybe I don't know my stuff very well, but I am definitely being sharpened and educated by this debate. I'm having a tough time following Bob Enyart's last post. Maybe I'll pull a Bob Enyart, stop whooping in the grandstands and just read and think for a while.

Elnora

July 9th, 2003, 12:36 AM

Originally posted by BlueChild
I haven't even finished reading Bob Enyart's post and I had to comment in the grandstands. I think it's kind of neat how Bob Enyart reads the grandstands but rarely posts. He seems to have referred to my pp above, which upon second reading really does make me look like an atheist. Bob, if you're reading this, I'm not an atheist. I am YOUR cheerleader. I just find this debate very exciting. I called myself a cheerleader because all I can do is say whoa and wow, and can't seem to offer much in the way of ideas.

Maybe I don't know my stuff very well, but I am definitely being sharpened and educated by this debate. I'm having a tough time following Bob Enyart's last post. Maybe I'll pull a Bob Enyart, stop whooping in the grandstands and just read and think for a while.

Wait til you read Bob's latest post!

:thumb:

DEVO

July 9th, 2003, 12:44 AM

Pastor Enyarts 5th post was allot to digest.

I think it was a fitting 5th post (the halfway mark).

Its halfway through the battle and Bob is reminding Zakath of all the answers he has already given him which I think is fitting.

Tragically I doubt Zakath will REALLY read what Bob is writing... I mean... Zakath will read it..... but will he READ it? Know what I mean?

But in the end I don't really care if Zakath reads it or not, its great stuff! The audience is the real winner!

One Eyed Jack

July 9th, 2003, 01:07 AM

I think Zakath relies way too much on rhetoric. It's as if he forgets he actually has an opponent in this debate. Or an audience.

novice

July 9th, 2003, 01:21 AM

Lets place some bets, how many time will Bob need to type the sentence....My evidence to you was not based upon what we don’t know, but upon what we do knowbefore Zakath acknowledges what he is saying?

Great fifth round post from Bob, I have no doubt that Zakath was not expecting Bob to take this debate so seriously.

.Ant

July 9th, 2003, 01:27 AM

Originally posted by DEVO
The audience is the real winner!
Too right :D

My question to Zakath is: What's with all the obfuscation? What's with repeatedly ignoring Bob's points, and/or misrepresenting them?

jeremiah

July 9th, 2003, 01:44 AM

To .Ant
I think that Zakath's methods are turning into the old pastor's sermon "notes", { Point is weak here, POUND pulpit !!!!} If you can't explain your points better, then you simply repeat them over and over, and louder and louder. At this point, I think this is all Zakath is doing. In his 4th post he clarified and summed up his reasoning for disbelieving in God. I understood what he was saying, since I had once been there. In his fifth post he added nothing that was really new. I really liked Bob's response, and in simple debating points, Bob is now way ahead, through his constant and accurate reminder and exposition of Zakath's inadequate and unresponsive answering to important and legitimate questions,
A couple of dodges are allowable to retain focus and control of the debate, so many dodges are a weak debating technique.

Ash1

July 9th, 2003, 02:35 AM

Zakath! Are you okay??? :shocked: <-- toothless wonder

Bob's not pulling his punches...maybe this is gonna be a TKO

Let's see if Zakath has anything left in him...'cause his "God of the Gaps" argument was just devastated in Round 5.

claire

July 9th, 2003, 08:37 AM

Originally posted by Michael12
And you just demonstrated my point even further. Of course we differ on things like "reasonable" and "necessary". Without specific circumstances attached, ideas like moral right and wrong, reasonable, and necessary, are ALL relative.

Of course I supported your point in that respect, since we agree on that particular issue..one must attach particular circumstances to make ANY judgment on right, wrong, reasonable, necessary, good or evil.....The example of killing the intruder and your rape under the "save the world" scenario), clearly demonstrates that. I could list a dozen examples that were "seemingly" contrary to the ten commandments, which would generate differing opinions on all sides of the issue of good and right, or evil and wrong.....that is why I don't believe Bob can demonstrate moral absolutes across the board :)

by Michael
It would, in fact, be reasonable if one's highest priority were the continuation of the species. I'm not addressing your tongue in cheek "get them to agree to procreate" because the point of the scenario is that they refuse to do so, despite reasoning and my good looks :D

Well, the continuation of the species is a judgment (in my opinion) of the architect of it...it raises the age old question...for which there is no definitive answer, why are we here? If we are here to "continue the species" then you would be correct....if we are here to learn everything we can with the primary object of aligning our souls as nearly as humanly possible with god so that we can spend eternity at one with him, then the answer would be different....again, proving your point...that it is subjective and relative...and to head off your argument, yes, God uses man to do his work, so the "survival of the species" might, and probably is placed in the hands of man. (p.s., and any "last woman" of the species who could not be persuaded by your logic and undisputed good looks doesn't deserve to survive :D)

by Michael
So who decides who is right? The knee-jerk answer among theists is "God". But the theists can no more prove the existence of their God then atheists can prove His non-existence. So we are back to square one, which means relativity.

Well, the knee jerk reaction of THIS theist is Man decides what is right and good, based on his knowledge of God and what God has taught us (which is why we have brains and choices), WITH this proviso...God created (by whatever means one subscribes) asociety of humans...since the nature of man is also the product of God then God knew that we would be faced with moral dilemmas which would overlap with societal needs.....hopefully, man will use his knowledge of God when exercising his societal boundaries which will enhance the survival of the species as well as not destroy his own soul....and chance for eternity.

ZroKewl

July 9th, 2003, 09:07 AM

RE Bob's 5th posting:

1) Bob has a funny understanding of science.

2) Bob is making points that would disprove the existence of the Christian God (as described in the Bible) -- specifically the points on morality.

3) Bob is also obfuscating and dodging questions.

I'll let Zakath expound on my observations in his next posting. :shut:

--ZK

flash

July 9th, 2003, 09:44 AM

Interesting tactic. Bob just responded to Zakath's charges of God-of-the-Gaps arguments by making a God-of-the-Gaps argument. :confused:

heusdens

July 9th, 2003, 11:49 AM

Why is the position of God declared truths in no way adequate to understand the world and to find truth?

A theist position is a doctrine in that it starts with the doctrine that there is a God. The world in the way in which is exists is then attributed as being caused or created by God. Formerly a lot of things which were known to exist but not understood, where therefore attributed to the existence of God. It is obviously clear that this never has presented any real explenation, and real understanding and any real knowledge about the world, and of what that the world in first instance and in essence is. Within the system of thought that starts out with the doctrine of there being a God, there can be of course no real proof nor disproof about the existence of God. For that, one needs to look outside of this doctrine, and find truth itself. If God speaks to man and declares a truth, then we are confronted with the question weather that particular declared truth is true or not. If one adapts to the vision of theism, the truth of this particular statement, is decided upon solely on Gods word. So, for example, if God declares it to be the case that the moon is made of butter, then this truth is being regarded as being true solely because that is being declared as such by god, and being independend of the fact wether or not the moon in fact is composed of and made of butter.
As it is stated (we have God's word on that) that the world is made by God, then in the theist vision, the fact that the world in fact exist, is a "proof" of God. This in disregard of the question of what in fact the world in first instance is, how it is f