One third the way through Battle Royale VII... who is winning?

[Knight]

Zakath or Bob? Who is making the better case so far?

[Crow]

Bob. Zakath does not seem to want to "go there" with some of the issues--I know he's not a scientist, but then neither is Bob. Neither one is doing a bad job--I know I couldn't do as well as either of them can, and I appreciate the time they are both taking to do this. I think Bob is doing his research better, and presenting his findings better.
It's interesting for me. I was an atheist until a little less than 5 years ago, so I understand where Zak is coming from. If if hadn't been for Bob's manuscript, The Plot, explaining some of the seemingly irreconcilable statements in the Bible, I would probably still be one. It's like watching my old self fight with the new one. I can't tell you how much I enjoy this Battle Royale.

[Z Man]

Awesome insight Crow! God bless!

Yeah, Bob is totally kicking Zakath's butt. He seems "hesitant", and tries to take the subject and ideas Bob brings up to another subject or off topic.... :think:

[Scrimshaw]

Still too early to tell yet. Both have a lot of work ahead of them if either one of them is going to win.

....but I think Zakath's next post will be very critical for him.

[.Ant]

Bob's step-by-step clarity helps to show how Zakath avoids some answers. Partly due to this, I think Bob is doing better.

[Elnora]

Originally posted by Crow
Bob. Zakath does not seem to want to "go there" with some of the issues--I know he's not a scientist, but then neither is Bob. Neither one is doing a bad job--I know I couldn't do as well as either of them can, and I appreciate the time they are both taking to do this. I think Bob is doing his research better, and presenting his findings better.
It's interesting for me. I was an atheist until a little less than 5 years ago, so I understand where Zak is coming from. If if hadn't been for Bob's manuscript, The Plot, explaining some of the seemingly irreconcilable statements in the Bible, I would probably still be one. It's like watching my old self fight with the new one. I can't tell you how much I enjoy this Battle Royale.

I agree with Crow. Zakath just posted his fourth post. Gotta go read it!

[heusdens]

It's of not much relevance of who is to "win" this battle, after all, how do we define the winner? Who is the arbiter here?

So far though I think that Bon Enyard makes better/stronger arguments then Zakarth. However, the vision of Bon Enyard are not mine, but he presents his case in a more stronger way.

Zakarth has stumbled on some issues. I think he misses a strong conviction into a non-theistic philosophical point of view. His point of view sometimes shifts between materialism and idealism.
The only way he could make his case a strong case is by argumenting from the point of view of materialism.
Materialism does not provide for the possibilitie of a universe popping out of nothing or a begining of time, instead the universe must be hold to have existence for eternity. That would settle the origin of the universe case.
I think Zakarth has adapted in his point of view some speculative modern cosmological ideas, which are not much more then contemporary ideas based on idealism, which is the point of view that ultimately reality drops down to some fundamental principle or absolute idea. If you open up for the possibilitie that the universe may have begun from nothing, you are in fact introducing idealism (and with that also theism) into your thinking, cause matter would then be not the fundamental substance, but reality would drop down to some fundamental principle or absolute idea.

Also Zakath is not sharp enough arguing against the fact that the ideas of Bob Enyart are that of a point of view of absolutism.
The way Bob Enyart reasons is that either God exists, or science would need to explain in an absolute way all there is to know about existence/the material reality.
The "God of the Gaps" attempt in his last reply, is catching up on that a bit, but Zakath could reason a bit stronger against the absolutism of Bob Enyart and showing that absolutism has no ground in human knowledge.

[heusdens]

Consciousness.

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


In a reply to such a question put forward, let Bob Enyard explain how simple air molecues, when we know all the laws of physics acting on molecules, could form a pattern that is able of ripping out complete houses from the ground and tilt them in the air.
For someone with normal intelligence, but completely new to this world, when presented such a case, and only able of knowing about laws of physics and molecules, such an event would be complete magic, cause how can one imagine that molecules of air moving in a specific way, could behave at such large scale in a combined effort to rip houses out of the ground? Are the molecules doind magic in their combined movement, do they have a goal, a consciousness in themselves, so that they know what they are doing?

This example just shows that even when the atmosphere is completely made up of simple air molecules and governed by the known laws of physics, the phenomena of the weather and the atmosphere are a different layer of reality, with unsuspected phenomena that could not be simply explained even when knowing all about the behaviour of molecules.
But the link between behaviour of air molecules individually, and the phenomena of the weather, are just an easy step, and many times simpler as the link between the behaviour of atoms and molecules and human behaviour.

So the approach taken by Bon Enyart, is that of absurd reasoning.
We can not tell, from biological components as DNA, RNA and enzymes, how human behaviour is governed.
Nevertheless, as in the case of weather phenomena, does that contribute to the point of view that we need deities to explain such phenomena?

In early manhood it was thought that rain, thunder and other natural phenomena could not be explained, and mankind invented deities to explain such phenomena.
Current day science show we do not need deities to explain the weather, and nevertheless, we are not able of completely determining weather phenomena.

For the weather phenomena, and that of the atmosphere and the climate, we have good grounds to claim that - even when we don't have and never will have complete insight in how the laws of physics cause these phenomena, but in a non-deterministic way (that is to say: even when we could in theory have all the measurements of the factors determining weather phenomena, we will never be able to make deterministic predictions about the weather) - we can reside all our explenations for weather phenomena on the laws that govern the behaviour of matter.
That is: there will be no instance in which we would have to reside on the acts of deities to explain these phenomena. It could only be the case that we have insufficient data to say anything meaningfull about certain phenomena.
For instance, it is not likely that we can tell how long the global heating of earth will continue, and if or when this process will stop or be reverted. We can make some assumptions, but basically the phenomena on hand is too huge and complex to make good predictions.

For human behaviour, and acknowledging the fact that the human system is a very complex system in itself, it can be argued that the position is the same. We can and never will be able to tell completely what our behaviour is determined by, even when we don't have to assume that our behaviour is governed by factors outside of the material world, neither deities who would be responsible for our behaviour.

Science up to now is able of explaining some phenomena of the human mind, using just the know laws of physics and based on the behaviour of matter. We still miss complete knowledge about all the material factors that determine our behaviour.

Nevertheless this already is much more then the position of theist, who claim that we can not in any way explain human behaviour in terms of material behaviour, and therefore need to base human behaviour on acts of deities.

That statement is something the theist have to proof, and show a direct connction between the act of a deity, and a specific human behaviour, and how all of that has been performed.

Where/when have they done that?

Can theist present to us any case in which we need to reside our explenations on spitirual or theistic grounds, and can't use a materialistic explenation?

Even the case they present as the origin of the universe, has no grounds, cause the materialistic explenation is that the universe is unfolding in time endlessly, that is without begin or end.
Hence, no theistic explenation is necessary.

[heusdens]

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


This quote shows a popular misconception about the material world.
Physics indicates indeed that the present universe in it's present material form, could not have been there for all of eternity.
This in itself is not a new point of view, and has always been part of the materialistic worldview.
All forms of matter known to us, show that these material forms exist on a finite spatio-temporal basis. But materialism also shows that all material forms are in constant motion and change, in which one (finite) material form changes into another (finite) material form.

Matter however is acknowledge to be infinite, in the sense that the transormation and shaping and transition of material forms (in a finit spatio-temporal extent) takes place in all of eternity, without begin or end.

The recognition of physics and cosmology that the present material form of the universe, was not there for all of eternity, therefore does not mean that matter itself had a beginning or popped out of nothing, but that a large scale material transformation took place around 14 Gyears ago, that shaped the current universe and current material forms.
Physics can not adapt the point of view that matter and the laws of physics popped out of nothing, physics can just acknowledge that the current universe and material form, have had some begin (which just defines or denotes a material transformation), and with a largely or almost completely unknown material history before that transformation took place.

From this point of view of dialectical materialism, theories evolved supporting the fact that such a large scale transformation took place in the begining of our present day universe, and which gave rise to the emergence of the theory of inflation.
Initiator for this theory was the Soviet physicist Starobinsky, who at the end of the 70-ies presented a model for such a material transformation, but this model was renewed by the Stanford scientist Alan Guth, and later developed by Andrei Linde (eternal / open inflation model).

I should not be a surprise that also the material form which existed during this period of inflation, also needed to have a finite spatio-temporal extend, and that for the large part of the material history, we can just make guesses, without any definite observational evidence.

Inflation theory itself, even when it contains speculative insights in how matter behaved at that time, is not entirely speculative in the sense that inflation theory makes some good assumptions about how the present day universe looks like, which can be observationally tested for.

One popular misconception about inflation theory should be mentioned. This theory does not say that the universe started out from nothing, but is a model in which the present day material forms emerged out of a pre-existing material formation in the form of scalar fields that can exist in a vacuum. Scalar fields have the basic properties of matter, that is that there is motion / change in time and space.

[Z Man]

Dude, take those thoughts to Battle Talk in the Grand Stands... :readthis:

[Shadowx]

Enyart.

Za should at the very least admit that the bulk of the evidence, the "truth" as Bob defines it(and Za agrees with that definition) is on Enyarts side, at least for now...(statement of reality)

Since Za's position is that science has no dogmas and may some day contradict Enyarts presentation of scientific "evidence", In doing so he somewhat admits the evidence for the "first" cause God Enyart is presenting is there, or at least possible.. and logically consistent with known science..(truth)(for now)

The known evidence, the known truth "A statement of "reality" is (even if only for now if you want to make that argument) on Enyarts side

I see Enyart answering more honestly, consistently, rationally and directly then Za..

Za is betting on the future to be consistent with the past patterns of false deities being debunked by new "evidence" I think he is risking allot..
Those false deities have in some part been debunked by the information in the Christian bible that Enyarts first cause God inspired Which I would not be suprised if He points that out soon as part of proof of divine inspiration and more "statements of reality" for his first cause creator... :)

I will be reading this one more then once.
It’s the best debate I've read so far on Theo online..second only to
Lion and DeeDee.

[JOHN_IGNATIUS]

It seems to me that bob to trying to lure Zak into certain killing zones where he can move in for a checkmate. Every time I read a post by Bob, I'm thinking, whew! He's got him now. But then, Zak doesn't take the bait. Zaks "god of the gaps" was an excellent reply. I think Zak can win by simple staying out of the way of Bills guns until Bill runs out of ammo. I don't think Bill can any more prove that his god is the god of the gaps than someone else could prove it to be allah. I just finished a class in New Testament Textual Criticism. I hope bob is not planning to use the Bible to support his belief that his god is the god of the gap.

I remember reading in a physics book where they were trying to determine if light was a particle or a wave. They had some sort of set-up where light would go through a slit, or something. The funny thing was, the light particles were supposed to hit the wall, but instead they would find their way into the slit, as if they "knew" they needed to go through there. Is anyone familiar with this experiment? It might cast light on this "Consciousness" thing.

[quip]

Have I missed it somewhere in this debate or is Bob still avoiding providing an argument toward one particular theistic perspective or is he still talking generalities about some hypothetical "creator".


This omission is important.
The Christians on this form may adopt Bob's argument to imply the Christian God yet this may not be the case-- Bob will not indicate to us otherwise.

To purport that our universe was created does not necessarily conclude this alleged 'creator' is the (singular) Christian God.

Bob's debate only indicates "creation" which could be applied to polytheism, pantheism and/or agnosticism and of course Bob's move toward a creator could be supporting views of Allah, Vishnu or some other religious deviation.

Zak needs to address and attack this deistic ambiguity.

[Eli_Cash]

Zakath is winning, but not by much. The following quote is why.

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

To the extent that this critique applies to Enyarts arguments, Zakath is winning. As others have pointed out, Enyart really can't win this unless he switches to a presuppositional form of argument. The seeds are there in some of his examples, and that may even be where he intends to go, but that isn't clear yet. But an evidential argument can almost always be criticized as being a god of the gaps argument.

[quip]

Since, the question of God's existence has been debated by hundred if not thousands of brilliant minds over the centuries, I doubt the question will become resolved here. Furthermore, it is doubtful here on this forum that any current believer or non-believer will be sufficiently swayed from their original position by the arguments at hand.
Therefore, the question of who will 'win' this debate will be decided by the art of persuasion.

By this fact, Bob has a tremendous advantage over Zak . Bob seems very adept as a sermonizer, which should be the case, since this is his stock and trade.

Unfortunately, Zak argues from a scientific perspective and when he tries to pin Bob's position into debatable equations for which he can debate their logical soundness, Bob artfully accuses Zak of obfuscation.

So it seems this debate boils down to dry scientific obfuscation against persuasive spiritual elocution.

Bob will win, if by nothing more than style-points.

[flash]

My money is on Zakath. Bob is making it easy by making alot of mistakes.

Zakath's "God of the Gaps" criticism laid waste to about half of what Bob has said so far.

[Z Man]

Originally posted by JOHN_IGNATIUS
I just finished a class in New Testament Textual Criticism.
They teach this junk in schools??? No wonder kids are shooting each other and themselves... :(

[Michael12]

Zakath has this in the bag...I was astonished to see Bob dismiss Hawking out of hand with "Hawking is wrong". That is the typical fall back of the theistic position. When there isn't a "Gap", create one by dismissing observable evidence. Bob is playing on the fact that few understand the science behind Cosmology and Abiogenesis.

[Shaun]

Again, we must all remind ourselves that truth is exclusive.

Shaun
God does not depend
on who wins this debate

[ApologeticJedi]

I don't think it is "by a landslide", but I think Enyart has to-date produced more evidence, and I think it would be disingenuous of anyone to actually say that Zakath is winning.

Enyart is just a little closer to proving God does exist, as Zakath has to showing God doesn't exist. In fact, I've yet to hear any arguement to deny that God could exist from Zakath, except perhaps saying "Hawkins believed that" (actually quoting from someone who misquoted Hawkins true position), and then not being prepared to defend reasoning he used as evidence. Zakath self-admitted that Hawkin's theory is unsubstantiated and purely speculative. Enyart was able to provide some reasonable challenge to it, highlighting Hawkin’s own admission (Brief History of Time) that the laws of physics do not support his own theory.

Zakath has tried to rebut some of Enyart's arguments, but I can't say any one point stands out. I think the strawman attack of the "God-did-it" sterotype is somewhat affective as it has some truth to it that many will recognize. That's why Zakath abstained from answering a few of Enayrt's questions. Had he tried to answer them, he would have conceded Enyart's attempt to eliminate all other possibilities that remain in the realm of natural laws of physics.

Clearly Zakaths best work has been on the defensive. I've yet to see a credible offensive position put forth ... I've yet to see Zakath provide evidence that God doesn't exist. It looks to be that Zakath is perhaps playing for the draw.

[ApologeticJedi]

Originally posted by quip
Have I missed it somewhere in this debate or is Bob still avoiding providing an argument toward one particular theistic perspective or is he still talking generalities about some hypothetical "creator".


This omission is important.
The Christians on this form may adopt Bob's argument to imply the Christian God yet this may not be the case-- Bob will not indicate to us otherwise.

To purport that our universe was created does not necessarily conclude this alleged 'creator' is the (singular) Christian God.

Bob's debate only indicates "creation" which could be applied to polytheism, pantheism and/or agnosticism and of course Bob's move toward a creator could be supporting views of Allah, Vishnu or some other religious deviation.

Zak needs to address and attack this deistic ambiguity.


I think if he addresses it, he will look foolish. The debate can exist solely on "any God" for now. A seperate debate might house which god.

I think if Zakath admits "a god" exists, he's lost the debate.Even holding out for "which god" is a foo'ls errand. The Christian God postion becomes incredibly strong once one admits that there is a god.

[Rav_Yeshai]

The debate is too vegue too tell who is winning. is it, "Does A god exist? or "Does the christian god exist?"

If it is the latter I think Zakath (if he did his homework on the pagan roots of christos catholicism christianity and thier pagan holy days) would leave a very large hole in mr. enyart's ideaology.

having that debate anytime soon?!?!

Im up for it ;)

[Bob Enyart]

I'd like to propose a test for who won the debate. Of course, it's possible to win a debate and still be wrong. But in determining the truth of a debated position, it helps to know which side more effectively produced, weighed, and presented evidence. And then, the observer can decide whether or not a sufficiently broad base of credible evidence was used to merit a final conclusion, or whether the losing side simply failed to produce available evidence, and missed opportunities to show the weakness in his opponents rationale.

It would be a worthwhile insight to know the true opinion of the two debating opponents as to who won the debate. However, human nature and pride what it is, a clear loser in a debate will often not admit to defeat. Why? He may simply be afraid of losing face, and letting his supporters down. On the other hand, he may be afraid that admitting defeat will cause an internal battle within himself, forcing him to admit that his own position is not as strong as he thought it was.

So here is a method for determining who wins a debate, which we at Bob Enyart Live have used for years: Whichever side publicizes the completed debate is the side that has won the debate. If both sides publicize the debate, then the audience can conclude both sides truly believe they have won. However, in our experience, only one side typically wants to publicize the debate.

So, if I promote the debate in a relatively high-profile way on my radio show and KGOV.com website, then the audience can know that I believe I won the debate. If Zakath promotes the completed debate in some relatively high-profile way for him, then the audience can believe that he really thinks that he won the debate. Since Zakath has kept his anonimity, it might be more difficult for him to publicize his performance. However, he could do somethings, for example, change his TOL signature to advertise the Battle Royale VII debate with a link to thread 7709. Also, he could establish Zakath.com with a prominent link to the debate. Or, he could go public with his true identity, and in his real-world context, inform his family, friends, co-workers, and any atheist colleagues he has contact with about the debate.

Sincerely, -Bob Enyart

[Knight]

Originally posted by Bob Enyart
So, if I promote the debate in a relatively high-profile way on my radio show and KGOV.com website, then the audience can know that I believe I won the debate. If Zakath promotes the completed debate in some relatively high-profile way for him, then the audience can believe that he really thinks that he won the debate. Since Zakath has kept his anonimity, it might be more difficult for him to publicize his performance. However, he could do somethings, for example, change his TOL signature to advertise the Battle Royale VII debate with a link to thread 7709. Also, he could establish Zakath.com with a prominent link to the debate. Or, he could go public with his true identity, and in his real-world context, inform his family, friends, co-workers, and any atheist colleagues he has contact with about the debate.

Sincerely, -Bob Enyart Or Zakath could give an outside source... say some atheist website or atheist author the right to use Zakaths argument in Battle Royale VII the right to reprint or use for profit or publicity etc. We shall see if Zakath would want to do that or if the outside source would be interested.

[Bill Clinton]

I am with Zakath on the morality issue. :D

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Bob Enyart
...So here is a method for determining who wins a debate, which we at Bob Enyart Live have used for years: Whichever side publicizes the completed debate is the side that has won the debate. If both sides publicize the debate, then the audience can conclude both sides truly believe they have won. However, in our experience, only one side typically wants to publicize the debate.

So, if I promote the debate in a relatively high-profile way on my radio show and KGOV.com website, then the audience can know that I believe I won the debate. If Zakath promotes the completed debate in some relatively high-profile way for him, then the audience can believe that he really thinks that he won the debate. Since Zakath has kept his anonimity, it might be more difficult for him to publicize his performance. However, he could do somethings, for example, change his TOL signature to advertise the Battle Royale VII debate with a link to thread 7709. Also, he could establish Zakath.com with a prominent link to the debate. Or, he could go public with his true identity, and in his real-world context, inform his family, friends, co-workers, and any atheist colleagues he has contact with about the debate.

:ha: I'm so glad there's no bias towards the fellow with the established media organization in Pastor Enyart's test... :chuckle:

Pastor Enyart, maintaining my anonymity assures that I do not make money off of what I do here at TOL. I don't have a congregation.
I don't teach Sunday School.
I don't have a radio show.
I don't have a webcast.
I don't even have a web site. It doesn't really matter to me how you publicize or do not publicize the debate. Once we're done, it will stand as written here on TOL until it gets archived off...

All I'm doing is enjoying the chance to debate you on a topic of mutual interest to both of us...

[Spartin]

Originally posted by Bob Enyart
I'd like to propose a test for who won the debate. Of course, it's possible to win a debate and still be wrong. But in determining the truth of a debated position, it helps to know which side more effectively produced, weighed, and presented evidence. And then, the observer can decide whether or not a sufficiently broad base of credible evidence was used to merit a final conclusion, or whether the losing side simply failed to produce available evidence, and missed opportunities to show the weakness in his opponents rationale.

It would be a worthwhile insight to know the true opinion of the two debating opponents as to who won the debate. However, human nature and pride what it is, a clear loser in a debate will often not admit to defeat. Why? He may simply be afraid of losing face, and letting his supporters down. On the other hand, he may be afraid that admitting defeat will cause an internal battle within himself, forcing him to admit that his own position is not as strong as he thought it was.

So here is a method for determining who wins a debate, which we at Bob Enyart Live have used for years: Whichever side publicizes the completed debate is the side that has won the debate. If both sides publicize the debate, then the audience can conclude both sides truly believe they have won. However, in our experience, only one side typically wants to publicize the debate.

So, if I promote the debate in a relatively high-profile way on my radio show and KGOV.com website, then the audience can know that I believe I won the debate. If Zakath promotes the completed debate in some relatively high-profile way for him, then the audience can believe that he really thinks that he won the debate. Since Zakath has kept his anonimity, it might be more difficult for him to publicize his performance. However, he could do somethings, for example, change his TOL signature to advertise the Battle Royale VII debate with a link to thread 7709. Also, he could establish Zakath.com with a prominent link to the debate. Or, he could go public with his true identity, and in his real-world context, inform his family, friends, co-workers, and any atheist colleagues he has contact with about the debate.

Sincerely, -Bob Enyart


It could be that Zak is just here debating this for the benifit of the people that visit here. There is no need to publicize the "winner" of this debate unless you are looking for some sort of gain out of this. Broadcasting how you "beat" an athesist is just self-serving for your hold on your congregation. I think what is posted here, should stay here. Let it be one of the many focal points on this site. I use winner and beat in quotes because both sides will have a subjective view on the outcome so nobody really is going to "Win" or "Beat" the other one.


Spartin

[Flipper]

Spartin:

There is no need to publicize the "winner" of this debate unless you are looking for some sort of gain out of this. Broadcasting how you "beat" an athesist is just self-serving for your hold on your congregation. I

I guess you're not familiar with Bob E's radio show then? Basically, he's had to resort to pleading for his Christian listeners to get their atheist friends and family members to call in. Bob, you see, wants a confrontational radio show but for the last 6 months or so it's been as hard-hitting as "The Actor's Studio" but with less interesting and penetrating questions ("Ditto! Bob, you're so clever and funny when you call faggots `fags'. Where do you get all your ideas?"). Sometimes, even Bob sounds a little bit embarrassed by all the fanboy attention but it's hard to tell. I would be.

So the Battle Royale is Bob's bid to kick start some controversy-by-proxy. It's quite usefully filled up a few hours as he picks through the posts sentence by sentence. And who knows, maybe it will provoke someone to call in? Mind you, having seen what minimal traffic his plugging of this debate has driven to TOL, I'm thinking not.

So, basically, you're right. Zakath's interest with this debate begins and ends with getting Bob on here and thrashing it out. However, Bob also wants to boost his flaccid show and a debate like this helps him get publicity and material. Perhaps he also sees it as a witness opportunity and I expect he'll try to extract as much mileage of it as he can.

Normally, I would advise against giving Bob any oxygen of publicity, but his show is doing sufficiently badly that it probably doesn't matter.

[Eli_Cash]

That has to be one of the dumbest criteria of winning a debate I've ever heard of. I thought debates were supposed to be won or lost on the merits of the arguments. In that case, Enyart has lost so far, considering that all his evidence only points to gaps in human knowledge.


I apologize if this sounds like a personal insult. It was not intended to be, but I could not find a more applicable description of Enyart's criteria. I do not mean to suggest that Bob is himself dumb.

[Knight]

Originally posted by Flipper
Bob, you see, wants a confrontational radio show but for the last 6 months or so it's been as hard-hitting as "The Actor's Studio" but with less interesting and penetrating questions ("Ditto! Bob, you're so clever and funny when you call faggots `fags'. Where do you get all your ideas?"). Sometimes, even Bob sounds a little bit embarrassed by all the fanboy attention but it's hard to tell. I would be. Obviously Flipper never listens to Bob. For if he did he would know that Bob never calls homo's "fags". :D

[Flipper]

Well, Bob's show has been steadily losing its appeal since its taming down, so I'm a bit out of touch with his preferred epithets. Perhaps it was "homos", or something equally clever and edgy.

Either way, he's not going to be receiving the Non-Phallic Award for Progressive Sensitivity at the Sociopolitical Equality Multi Racial Gender Non-specific Collective Recognition Conference (award ceremony is too exclusive).

I've been listening to the current crop as they're specific to this debate. And, I can't deny it, enjoying a little schadenfreude at his much reduced circumstances and appeals for cash. I toyed with the idea of calling in to request some books and tapes to hasten the bleed, but decided to let nature take its course instead.

[quip]

Originally posted by Bob Enyart

So here is a method for determining who wins a debate, which we at Bob Enyart Live have used for years: So, if I promote the debate in a relatively high-profile way on my radio show and KGOV.com website, then the audience can know that I believe I won the debate.

LOL :chuckle:

I suppose Bob also sees this same technique as explanatory in blaming our (multi-billion dollar) liberal media empire for our current moral decline :thumb:

[JOHN_IGNATIUS]

Well, Mr. Bob,
Since you decided to jump in and let us know how confident you are of a win, I'd like to jump in and ask you a few questions myself.

Is proving that there is a "creator" of the universe going to get an atheist saved? Do you care? If you can only convince people of a "creator", but not of the Christian Faith, then how can you call that a win?

I dare you to prove that Jesus is the only way. And if you don't, then you are a waste of time.

If you are afraid to try and prove that the Christian God is God, then you don't have a hair, one.

Brent

[quip]

Originally posted by ApologeticJedi
I think if he addresses it, he will look foolish. The debate can exist solely on "any God" for now. A seperate debate might house which god.

I think if Zakath admits "a god" exists, he's lost the debate.Even holding out for "which god" is a foo'ls errand. The Christian God postion becomes incredibly strong once one admits that there is a god.

Zak has already alluded to the "truth" of other religions in his argument to which Bob has stealthy circumvented.

Yet, Zak stopped short on the argument… Why?

Zak does not have to admit to "a god" to illustrate this religious incongruity.

It logically follows that Bob must have some faith-based foundation for his "creator" and if Bob's belief is indeed the Christian faith, his pseudo-scientific argument for a creator does not correspond to the word of his God according to the Christian Bible.

This contradiction is important!

[Prisca]

JOHN_IGNATIUS
You asked Bob,"Is proving that there is a 'creator' of the universe going to get an atheist saved?"
In 1995, I became a Christian by listening to very similar debates to the one that is going on in Battle Royale VII. I had never heard science used as evidence for the existance of God before. I had been an atheist for many years and I suddenly found my world view crumbling from beneath me. It was only then that I was willing to consider the existance of God as a reality rather than a myth.
You asked, "If you can only convince people of a "creator", but not of the Christian Faith, then how can you call that a win?"
Sometimes you need to teach people how to walk toward God before they will run to Christ.

Becky

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Becky
...In 1995, I became a Christian by listening to very similar debates to the one that is going on in Battle Royale IIV. I had never heard science used as evidence for the existance of God before.You still haven't if you're relying on Pastor Enyart's posts... :chuckle:

[Shaun]

Originally posted by Zakath
You still haven't if you're relying on Pastor Enyart's posts... :chuckle:
Too bad the other side of the table is quite empty.

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Shaun
Too bad the other side of the table is quite empty. Patience, grasshopper. :)

You were expecting what? Perhaps piles of concrete, physical evidence that a non-physical, imaginary entity does not exist? :chuckle:

How much evidence could you produce to demonstrate that the Invisible Pink Unicorn doesn't exist? :confused:

[Shaun]

Originally posted by Zakath
Patience, grasshopper. :)

You were expecting what? Perhaps piles of concrete, physical evidence that a non-physical, imaginary entity does not exist? :chuckle:

How much evidence could you produce to demonstrate that the Invisible Pink Unicorn doesn't exist? :confused:
Keep your philosophical meanderings for the weak-minded, Zakath. I was on your side once--I know the arguments. I also know the flaws that are rarely admitted.

You may have tasted what you think was religion--but you have not tasted my Jesus.

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Shaun
Keep your philosophical meanderings for the weak-minded, Zakath. I was on your side once--I know the arguments. I also know the flaws that are rarely admitted.Since you've apparenty abandoned logic and reason for religion, you certainly qualify for my meanderings... ;)

Perhaps you'd even try to answer my question, instead of dodging it?

You may have tasted what you think was religion--but you have not tasted my Jesus. "Tasting Jesus"? Are you Roman Catholic, then?

[Shaun]

Originally posted by Zakath
Since you've apparenty abandoned logic and reason for religion, you certainly qualify for my meanderings... ;)
I haven't abandoned anything, except for hopelessness. Stop acting so biased.

Perhaps you'd even try to answer my question, instead of dodging it?
I have faith in my beliefs, just as you have faith that science will finally someday answer the gazillion questions still lingering out there.

"Tasting Jesus"? Are you Roman Catholic, then?
Mercy, no. Mary as "co-redemptrix"? Are you kidding me? They're worse than Atheists, sometimes. ;)

Shaun
read read read

[AROTO]

Originally posted by Zakath
Patience, grasshopper. :)

You were expecting what? Perhaps piles of concrete, physical evidence that a non-physical, imaginary entity does not exist? :

I find it funny how you point to no concrete evidence for creation when you yourself continue to say "I don't know":confused: when asked about the supposed science behind evolution during your debate.

[JanowJ]

Originally posted by heusdens


In early manhood it was thought that rain, thunder and other natural phenomena could not be explained, and mankind invented deities to explain such phenomena.
Current day science show we do not need deities to explain the weather, and nevertheless, we are not able of completely determining weather phenomena.

Can theist present to us any case in which we need to reside our explenations on spitirual or theistic grounds, and can't use a materialistic explenation?


Excuse me? Maybe Greek, Roman or Egyptian mythology had problems with this, but the Bible was pretty clear. Consider this passage from Ecclesiastes 1: 6-7:
The wind goes toward the south,
And turns around to the north;
The wind whirls about continually,
And comes again on its circuit.
All the rivers run into the sea,
Yet the sea is not full;
To the place from which the rivers come,
There they return again.

Is there a better understanding of weather patterns than that? Rivers run into the seas. The seas water evaporates into rain, and the rain comes back down to earth and fills the rivers. If one is willing to look closely, the Bible has a lot of understanding into the scientific realm. Like the life of the body being in the blood.

And don't use the "the Bible says the sun rises and sets, therefore it isn't scientifically accurate" argument. If that was the case, then there isn't a weather report on TV that is scientific, since they all say that the sun will rise at ___ and set at ___. It's ok to use a figure of speech, which the Bible does sometimes use.

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Shaun
I haven't abandoned anything, except for hopelessness. Stop acting so biased.Biased? Funny, I never claimed not to be biased...

I have faith in my beliefs, just as you have faith that science will finally someday answer the gazillion questions still lingering out there.It gives us something to do instead of sitting around the campfire stariing at our navels intoning, "God did it. God did it...." ;)

[Zakath]

Originally posted by AROTO
I find it funny how you point to no concrete evidence for creation when you yourself continue to say "I don't know":confused: when asked about the supposed science behind evolution during your debate. My opponent didn't understand, or even bother to read, the information I provided.

At least I'm intellectually honest and can admit when I do not know something. I don't have to hide behind "God did it."

[AROTO]

Originally posted by JanowJ
Excuse me? Maybe Greek, Roman or Egyptian mythology had problems with this, but the Bible was pretty clear. Consider this passage from Ecclesiastes 1: 6-7:
The wind goes toward the south,
And turns around to the north;
The wind whirls about continually,
And comes again on its circuit.
All the rivers run into the sea,
Yet the sea is not full;
To the place from which the rivers come,
There they return again.

Is there a better understanding of weather patterns than that? Rivers run into the seas. The seas water evaporates into rain, and the rain comes back down to earth and fills the rivers. If one is willing to look closely, the Bible has a lot of understanding into the scientific realm. Like the life of the body being in the blood.

And don't use the "the Bible says the sun rises and sets, therefore it isn't scientifically accurate" argument. If that was the case, then there isn't a weather report on TV that is scientific, since they all say that the sun will rise at ___ and set at ___. It's ok to use a figure of speech, which the Bible does sometimes use.

Great point, I totally agree with you!
They "atheists" have yet to prove anything in the Bible wrong, and modern science is actually reaffirming lots of scripture as true. It is only their preception that needs :help:

[Zakath]

Originally posted by AROTO
Great point, I totally agree with you!
They "atheists" have yet to prove anything in the Bible wrong...Oh really? Why do you think Enyart refuses to use the Bible in his debates...

[duel]

It seems that the God of the Gaps is a very strong argument for atheism and shows that faith in God is only a crutch. Zakath has really enriched his arguments with this position, or has he...

If this is really true then we must consider the Gaps science has.

Can science explain the thrill of winning a close race, or the sensation of well placed perfume or the sounds of joy?

When theism answers or fills these gaps with metaphysical truth the atheist must reject science for its credulity and inability to answer or provide meaning to the things we really hold dear.

Daniel

[AROTO]

Originally posted by Zakath
At least I'm intellectually honest and can admit when I do not know something. I don't have to hide behind "God did it."



I forgot, you don't believe you can absolutely know something, so I guess you always have that response.

[Shaun]

Originally posted by Zakath
Oh really? Why do you think Enyart refuses to use the Bible in his debates...
Because then we'd have to spend years going over all of your misconceptions about it; thereby losing focus on the main point of the debate. :D

Shaun
what? It's true

[ApologeticJedi]

Zak said: My opponent didn't understand, or even bother to read, the information I provided.

Without a doubt, one of the funniest parts of the debate thus far was when you obviously got in over your head and couldn't provide evidence for your side so you said “here, I’m no good at debate, go debate this guy.” And when Enyart said that Hawkin was wrong, you were left stranded because you didn’t understand the position well enough to defend it.

“pssst … Zak … you are the one in the debate.”

You are the one everyone is looking to for providing the athiest’s position. Not someone misquoteing Stephen Hawkin. Not Stephen Hakins. Sorry, I just don’t think he’s going to show up and take your place for you.

If you feel you are inadequate to defend a position you take up, it would be less embarrassing for yourself if you just admitted that.

Quoting something you are unprepared to defend is just hillarious.


(Didn't you originally complain about debating Enyart's whole church? Wanting to debate Enyart only? I believe I read that.)


Zak said: At least I'm intellectually honest and can admit when I do not know something. I don't have to hide behind "God did it."

There is a difference in saying, “If we don’t know what did it, then God did it” and saying “the known facts point to some supernatural occurrence.”

The way you use your “God of the Gap” argument (to which you never give credit to the original author) is a very bad argument.

Imagine a crime where a thief steals $15,000. If one suspect is found with gambling debt totaling exactly $15,000, that’s evidence!! It is not proof. If that was all the police had, the defense would argue something similar to your borrowed “God of the Gaps” argument.

However, does a seeker of the truth (the police in this example) totally ignore motive as you suggest we should do? No! They follow it and perhaps find more circumstantial evidence. They find that the suspect had a key made of the place that was robbed. Undeniable proof in itself? No. But the circumstantial evidence begins to pile up. Convictions are made in court rooms on circumstantial evidence alone. We probably won’t get any convictions here, but the weight of the evidence seems to point to God so far.

Perhaps you’re saving your better arguments for later.

[Flipper]

ApologeticJedi:

Do you think it's possible to do justice to an alternative universe creation event hypothesis in a debate like this? You may as well just acknowledge that there are alternatives to fiat creation that are being considered by serious physicists, and move on. Of course, if you did that, then you'd be surrendering some serious territory. The difference between fiat creation and these hypotheses, tentative though they are, is that these hypotheses have a viable mathematical framework. They are conceivably allowable. Some may even be testable in the near future. What alternatives do the fiat creationist provide? Where, in short, is their theory?

Bob took issue with Hawking but failed to provide an adequate explanation, as I'm not buying that Stephen Hawking doesn't understand basic physics. Now that, my friend, is colossal and ill-considered arrogance.

[ApologeticJedi]

Flipper said Do you think it's possible to do justice to an alternative universe creation event hypothesis in a debate like this?

Since we have no evidence (whatsoever) that alternative universes exist (p-brane or any other mathematical proposal) I think it is in the arena of pink elephants in the sky. There still isn’t enough evidence for it to be taken seriously – though desperately some have taken as such.


Flipper said The difference between fiat creation and these hypotheses, tentative though they are, is that these hypotheses have a viable mathematical framework. They are conceivably allowable.

I suppose that depends on what you qualify as “viable mathematical framework”. If you mean that it is allowable to invent collolarys on truths that have yet to be established, then I suppose anything is viable. If “viable” means that we can make guesses on how things work and put together mathematical equations without any basis for showing that both sides of the equal sign are indeed equal … then math is basically useless, because everything becomes viable.



Flipper said Some may even be testable in the near future. What alternatives do the fiat creationist provide? Where, in short, is their theory?

Are you suggesting that creationists have not been putting forth a theory (often the same theory) for the past 2000 years? You’ve never heard them put forth the idea about the being outside of the realm of natural physics? That’s dishonest of you.


Flipper said Bob took issue with Hawking but failed to provide an adequate explanation, as I'm not buying that Stephen Hawking doesn't understand basic physics. Now that, my friend, is colossal and ill-considered arrogance.

So Bob arguments using the laws of physics showing how Hawkin’s argument fails is not adequate because you have faith in Hawkins? Who is using faith and who is using science?

Don't let anyone ever tell you that you should think through an issue. You are much funnier this way.

[Flipper]

Jedi:


Since we have no evidence (whatsoever) that alternative universes exist (p-brane or any other mathematical proposal) I think it is in the arena of pink elephants in the sky. There still isn’t enough evidence for it to be taken seriously – though desperately some have taken as such.


Think you may have described creationist cosmology there. At least these tentative hypotheses are potentially falsifiable. At least some of them can be tested in our particle accelerators and by our sensors.

Furthermore, theory is the respectable foundation of modern physics. The theorists build a consistent model that can account for conditions as we observe them and provide predictions of what we should find if the theory is to have substance. Then the experimentalists go out and test the predictions.

Now, where are the creation theorists? What predictions do you have, hmm?

Are you suggesting that creationists have not been putting forth a theory (often the same theory) for the past 2000 years? You’ve never heard them put forth the idea about the being outside of the realm of natural physics?

I think you may be scientifically illiterate. The book of genesis is not a theory. It's literature. See my previous paragraph for the role that theory plays in physics.

So Bob arguments using the laws of physics showing how Hawkin’s argument fails is not adequate because you have faith in Hawkins? Who is using faith and who is using science?

Don't let anyone ever tell you that you should think through an issue. You are much funnier this way.

Like Bob, you read a paragraph and suddenly you're an expert.

Sure. I expect Stephen Hawking didn't think through this issue either. Lucky a fringe evangelist was on hand to show him the error of his ways. Bob was not "using physics", Bob made a snap judgement based on a paragraph he read in a popular science book. That, my friend, is not using science.

It's not that I have faith in Hawking, although I am inclined to trust him more on the subject of physics than Bob Enyart, what with him being a successful theorist and everything. It's that I have faith in his peers and I am sufficiently confident based on what we know to trust that he knows what he is talking about, and has not made an elementary mistake.

If he has, then let Bob (or you) show him. Not through possibly ignorant assertion, but in the equations.


They have not been published in a peer-reviewed journal.
They have no mathematical apparatus.
They make no predictions.
They use unjustified criticism of current theory.


http://www.ilja-schmelzer.de/ether/crank.html#criticism
The Crank Physics Detection Guide

Go back and read my arguments on Bob's assertions if you're interested.

Again, more evidence of the inherent anti-intellectualism that is part and parcel of the modern creationist's attitude towards science. It is depressing.

[AROTO]

Originally posted by Flipper
Jedi:
It's not that I have faith in Hawking,

I
How could you? Bob discredited him much the same way he is pulling apart Zakath. I think its hard for you to trust in "faith" anyway.

[RogerB]

Furthermore, theory is the respectable foundation of modern physics. The theorists build a consistent model that can account for conditions as we observe them and provide predictions of what we should find if the theory is to have substance. Then the experimentalists go out and test the predictions.

Throughout history there have been many more theories abandoned than proven. That's how much your theories are worth. Frequent effusive chatter does not make them any more true.

Now, where are the creation theorists? What predictions do you have, hmm?


Creation theories? HELLO?!?! McFLY?!?!
:doh:

[RogerB]

Again, more evidence of the inherent anti-intellectualism that is part and parcel of the modern creationist's attitude towards science. It is depressing.

You can't be serious. You think there are no Christian scientists? I work at one of the largest drug companies in the country. I'm surrounded by scientists ( :help: ). Many of them are Christians.

By the way, there are lots of drugs to help you with your depression. :cry:

[Zakath]

Originally posted by RogerB
You can't be serious. You think there are no Christian scientists? Sure, Mary Baker Eddy founded a religion full of them... :chuckle:

I work at one of the largest drug companies in the country. I'm surrounded by scientists ( :help: ). Many of them are Christians.Good for you. That merely demonstrates that in certain fields, religious belief is not incompatible with scientific training...

[Zakath]

Originally posted by RogerB
Throughout history there have been many more theories abandoned than proven. That's how much your theories are worth.Actually that demonstrates how science works. Hypotheses are proposed and tested, those that survive may become theories. As new information and evidence becomes available existing theories may be discarded in favor of new hypotheses and theories that better fit the observable evidence.

Dogmatism in science is just as dangerous to new learning as it is in any other area of human endeavor.

Frequent effusive chatter does not make them any more true.Nor does repeating "God did it" make it any more true...

Creation theories? There are multiple creation theories, most notably the Young Earth creationists vs. Old Earth creationists. Each school of thought claims they have the truth of God and the others are wrong or heretical or both...

[Flipper]

Well that was a parade of fallacious conclusions and non-sequiturs. Not to mention an embarrassing ignorance of science.

Shall we go through them, or should it be left as an exercise to the reader (ages 12 and up).

Be ashamed for yourselves, gentlemen.

I should pretend you were trolling, if I were you.

[Zakath]

Who, me? :D

(hiding fishing tackle...)

[RogerB]

Originally posted by Flipper
Well that was a parade of fallacious conclusions and non-sequiturs. Not to mention an embarrassing ignorance of science.

Shall we go through them, or should it be left as an exercise to the reader (ages 12 and up).

Be ashamed for yourselves, gentlemen.

I should pretend you were trolling, if I were you.

More of that frequent effusive chatter I was talking about. :sleep:

You still don't get it. :confused:

Your last sentence makes no sense. :kookoo:

[RogerB]

Originally posted by Zakath
That merely demonstrates that in certain fields, religious belief is not incompatible with scientific training...

Thank you for agreeing that Flipper is wrong.

[RogerB]

Sore losers.

[RogerB]

Pitiful.

[Zakath]

Originally posted by RogerB
More of that frequent effusive chatter I was talking about. You're complaining about effusive chatter! :chuckle:

Well, you are one of the resident experts on the subject... :D

[RogerB]

Originally posted by Zakath
You're complaining about effusive chatter! :chuckle:


Not complaining. Just pointing out that frequent effusive chatter does not prove a theory.


Well, you are one of the resident experts on the subject... :D

Thank you! I do have a top-notch BS detector. I had to recalibrate just for you and Flipper. :think:

[Zakath]

Originally posted by RogerB
Not complaining. Just pointing out that frequent effusive chatter does not prove a theory.Ahh, the old "argumentum ad nauseum". :chuckle:

Thank you! I do have a top-notch BS detector. I had to recalibrate just for you and Flipper. :think: Yes, I can imagine. My favorite atheist cetacean does have such a low level of BS that you would have to recalibrate to detect anything. Be careful that you're not picking up background noise though... ;)

[RogerB]

Originally posted by Zakath
Ahh, the old "argumentum ad nauseum". :chuckle:

Yes, I can imagine. My favorite atheist cetacean does have such a low level of BS that you would have to recalibrate to detect anything. Be careful that you're not picking up background noise though... ;)

Au contraire....my hip boots had to be tailored into neck boots because of you guys.

[Zakath]

Jealousy will get you nowhere, Roger. :D

[RogerB]

:thumb:

[frostmanj]

I firmly believe that religion and science are not mutually exclusive.

A religious person can be as good a scientist as an athiest. It is dangerous for either to allow preconceived notions to color their use of the scientific method.

What it boils down to is both religious and athiest can be equally interested in the HOW. The religious though, never lose sight of the WHO.

[Shaun]

Originally posted by frostmanj
What it boils down to is both religious and athiest can be equally interested in the HOW. The religious though, never lose sight of the WHO.
:thumb:

[Dana Scully]

Frostmanj: What it boils down to is both religious and athiest can be equally interested in the HOW. The religious though, never lose sight of the WHO.

I like that!

[Zakath]

Originally posted by frostmanj
What it boils down to is both religious and athiest can be equally interested in the HOW. The religious though, never lose sight of the WHO. While atheists don't believe in the "who" in the first place... ;)

[Z Man]

Dana Scully?!?!?!?! Are you the real Dana Scully????

[Zakath]

Maybe if you asked him (http://www.theologyonline.com/vbulletin/member.php?s=&action=getinfo&userid=284), he could tell you for certain... :D

[Flipper]

Zakath:

Who, me?

(hiding fishing tackle...)


No not you.

I'd credit you with a bit more mastery of the Contemplative Man's Recreation and sporting spirit than to bother with such a worthless brace of underweight little minnows.

[Curtsibling]

Hmmm?
On this site, aren't the poll results going to be a tiny bit baised?

[Knight]

Originally posted by Curtsibling
Hmmm?
On this site, aren't the poll results going to be a tiny bit baised? Does that bother you?

[Curtsibling]

Noble Knight,
It was just an observation.

I have no issue with anything I have seen on TOL, I enjoy the site.

:D

[Curtsibling]

I disagree.
Contradictions?
Please elaborate?

I merely ask awkward questions. And it is unwise to make snap judgements of your fellows.

And for your information, I'm not a boy, but a grown man.
It is you who types like a 15 year-old Swedish newbie. :D

And yes the site is fun. A good change of scene.
I am not looking for anything, just posting oppurtunities.
Be happy that I have found them! :)

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Curtsibling
Hmmm?
On this site, aren't the poll results going to be a tiny bit baised? Sure. Actually I'm surprised that I'm doing as well in this poll as I am. :chuckle:

[Curtsibling]

Well, I salute your effort.

[Zakath]

Thank you Curt. :D

[Relativismsuks]

Bob,

You are the man. Your wisdom seems to shed light on the darkness and leads clearly towards the only logical answer = God. I plan on reading as much as you can write.


Peace be with you.

[Jefferson]

Originally posted by Relativismsuks
Bob,

You are the man. Your wisdom seems to shed light on the darkness and leads clearly towards the only logical answer = God. I plan on reading as much as you can write.Relativismsuks: Welcome to TOL. You'll love Bob's other writings here: http://www.enyart.com Check out the "Features" button.

[Dread Helm]

Haha, Bob whooooped up on that debate. Zakath went AWOL on him LOL :zakath:

[Knight]

Originally posted by Dread Helm

Haha, Bob whooooped up on that debate. Zakath went AWOL on him LOL :zakath: Yes... BR VII was a MAJOR thumping.

It took Zakath a couple months just to show his face around TOL.

[BillyBob]

That doesn't sound like the kind of thing 'Barney' would say.....:nono:

[Zimfan]

He must be an imposter!

[Lucky]

"Its still to early to tell." ;)

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Knight

Yes... BR VII was a MAJOR thumping.

It took Zakath a couple months just to show his face around TOL. Yes, trips to the hospital and serious illness does cut down on one's desire and ability to spend time on frivolous pursuits...

[cur_deus_homo]

I started reading that BR (or should I say BS) and then skimmed ahead and saw Bob's real intentions (creating a book). That was my first impression of Bob, not a very good one.

[Zakath]

It became apparent to me about 1/3rd of the way throug when he kept pressing on with what appeared to be a predetermined outline, generally giving short shrift to any points I raised that weren't in his plan...

He's had a long history as a media figure. They live and die on their listenership/readership and ratings...

[cur_deus_homo]

I'd rather buy a book about your life story. It would probably be ten-times more edifying than anything Bob can write or has written.

[PureX]

Bob is bad.