With only a few posts to go...

[Knight]

Who do you think is winning Battle Royale VII?

[Turbo]

God.

[claire]

Originally posted by Turbo
God.

Nice answer, Turbo :D And you are right ya know...regardless of the excellent job both have done in the debate....and of course there is no winner because it is a question without a provable answer, God wins because debates such as this cause people to dig deep within themselves and assess their beliefs and faith....and presents issues which expand all of our minds....

[Turbo]

Originally posted by claire
Nice answer, Turbo :D And you are right ya know...regardless of the excellent job both have done in the debate....and of course there is no winner because it is a question without a provable answer, God wins because debates such as this cause people to dig deep within themselves and assess their beliefs and faith....and presents issues which expand all of our minds.... Thanks Claire.

But I don't agree that the question has no provable answer. It's just that some people reject the proof and evidence that exists.

It's common for theists to say things like, "You can't prove God," but I think the logical argument based on the laws of thermodynamics used in Enyart's first post is adequate logical proof for a supernatural Creator.

I also recognize that Christ's resurrection is supported by overwhelming historical and archaeological evidence. Together, these pieces of evidence prove the resurrection actually took place, just like evidence is used to prove whether a crime suspect is guilty, and therefore prove that Jesus is the God he claimed to be.

[Z Man]

Unless an atheist is born-again, they'll never believe, no matter what evidence is brought before them...

[whisper]

Oops! I accidentally voted for Zakath!!! Add one to Bob Enyart and subtract one from Zakath.

[Curtsibling]

At the end of the day, both men will still have their beliefs.

Has anyone drawn any interesting ideas from the debate?
Has it changed you any? :)

[Z Man]

Originally posted by Tye Porter

One can Pray, Z-man, it is the best resource.

One can do nothing in reguards to their salvation. That's what the definition of grace is. That's why it's so amazing, and that's what makes Christianity different from all the other religions out there today.

Prayer doesn't lead to salvation; salvation leads to prayer.

[Knight]

Originally posted by Z Man
One can do nothing in reguards to their salvation. That's what the definition of grace is. That's why it's so amazing, and that's what makes Christianity different from all the other religions out there today.

Prayer doesn't lead to salvation; salvation leads to prayer. Z Man please read your Bible!

For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. - Romans 10:10

[Z Man]

Originally posted by Tye Porter

You're saying that I have no need, nor should I ever, pray for this man's salvation? My prayers are useless?
No, no, no... That's definitely not what I'm saying at all. Please pray that God saves him, by all means. And I'm not saying that a person must not pray to find favor in God's eyes and be saved, Knight. A person who is saved will pray to God. Like Paul was saying in the verse Knight quoted from, to believe in your heart and confess with you mouth is to be saved! But please, don't think that Paul was stating that in order to recieve salvation, one must pray...

Praying is not a requirement to recieve salvation. In fact, nothing is. That's what makes God's grace so amazing. There is nothing we can do to obtain or keep our salvation.

That's all I was saying... ;)

[.Ant]

Bob's still winning - he has brought up more evidence while Zakath hasn't tidied up any of Bob's old points since last time (IIRC).

[ZroKewl]

Originally posted by Z Man
Unless an atheist is born-again, they'll never believe, no matter what evidence is brought before them...
Unless a Christian thinks objectively, they'll never stop believing, no matter what evidence is brought before them...

--ZK

[BlueChild]

I think Bob Enyart is winning, but only by a nose. He's had more good posts, and Zakath has had a couple bad ones. I am glad when Zakath responds directly to Bob Enyart's points - seems like he evades too much.

[novice]

Originally posted by ZroKewl
Unless a Christian thinks objectively, they'll never stop believing, no matter what evidence is brought before them...

--ZK In your opinion... how does one think objectively?

[RogerB]

Originally posted by novice
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by ZroKewl
Unless a Christian thinks objectively, they'll never stop believing, no matter what evidence is brought before them...

--ZK
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In your opinion... how does one think objectively?

I think it has something to do with ignoring that which you already know to be true. :kookoo:

[heusdens]

Originally posted by novice
In your opinion... how does one think objectively?

Thinking is subjective, never objective.

But this does not proof that there is no objective reality.

[novice]

Originally posted by heusdens
Thinking is subjective, never objective.

But this does not proof that there is no objective reality. Lets see what ZroKewl has to say.

[Vitamin J]

Hey... it didn't count my vote! I voted for Bob but it doesn't reflect my vote!

[ZroKewl]

Originally posted by novice
In your opinion... how does one think objectively?
Well, Heusden is right... I'm using the term "objective thinking" in it's usual connotation. That being to consider all of the evidence in as unbiased a way as you can. Objectivity is not an on or off sort of thing. You can be "mostly objective" or "only barely objective". We all tend to see only that which supports our beliefs. Our preconceptions will shade everything so as to make it seem to support our world view. If you can be aware of that, and try to see things from another point of view, then you are on your way to thinking objectively (although you can never do so 100%). Those on this board that have the mindset of not wanting to hear or seriously consider world views that don't include the Christian God -- but would rather just learn more about their God-centered world view are not being objective in this area.

An example would be Zakath. He honestly considered the Christian world view for years. Now, he is considering another world view. By "considering", I mean researching and learning about in depth. Zakath, therefore, has a "more objective" stance than Pastor Bob (presumably), since Bob hasn't honestly considered a non-God centered world view.

Hope that answers your question...

--ZK

[Vitamin J]

Originally posted by ZroKewl
An example would be Zakath. He honestly considered the Christian world view for years. Now, he is considering another world view. By "considering", I mean researching and learning about in depth. Zakath, therefore, has a "more objective" stance than Pastor Bob (presumably), since Bob hasn't honestly considered a non-God centered world view.

Hope that answers your question...

--ZK Why don't you admit that is total conjecture on your part?

You have no idea if Bob honestly considered the atheist worldview NOR do you have any idea if Zakath is HONESTLY (or has) considering the Christian worldview.

And even so, what would it matter? Can't someone honestly consider something, choose it but be in error? Of course they can!

[ZroKewl]

Originally posted by novice
In your opinion... how does one think objectively?
I should have noted that I probably should have used the term "critical thinking" instead of "thinking objectively". To me, remaining "objective" and "thinking critically" are very similar, but "critical thinking" involves more than just remaining objective.

I found a nice website that discusses critical thinking. This is what I mean. Everyone should strive to think this way (maybe):

What is Critical Thinking?

No one always acts purely objectively and rationally. We connive for selfish interests. We gossip, boast, exaggerate, and equivocate. It is "only human" to wish to validate our prior knowledge, to vindicate our prior decisions, or to sustain our earlier beliefs. In the process of satisfying our ego, however, we can often deny ourselves intellectual growth and opportunity. We may not always want to apply critical thinking skills, but we should have those skills available to be employed when needed.

Critical thinking includes a complex combination of skills. Among the main characteristics are the following:

Rationality

We are thinking critically when we

* rely on reason rather than emotion,
* require evidence, ignore no known evidence, and follow evidence where it leads, and
* are concerned more with finding the best explanation than being right analyzing apparent confusion and asking questions.

Self-awareness

We are thinking critically when we

* weigh the influences of motives and bias, and
* recognize our own assumptions, prejudices, biases, or point of view.

Honesty

We are thinking critically when we recognize emotional impulses, selfish motives, nefarious purposes, or other modes of self-deception.

Open-mindedness

We are thinking critically when we

* evaluate all reasonable inferences
* consider a variety of possible viewpoints or perspectives,
* remain open to alternative interpretations
* accept a new explanation, model, or paradigm because it explains the evidence better, is simpler, or has fewer inconsistencies or covers more data
* accept new priorities in response to a reevaluation of the evidence or reassessment of our real interests, and
* do not reject unpopular views out of hand.

Discipline

We are thinking critically when we

* are precise, meticulous, comprehensive, and exhaustive
* resist manipulation and irrational appeals, and
* avoid snap judgments.

Judgment

We are thinking critically when we

* recognize the relevance and/or merit of alternative assumptions and perspectives
* recognize the extent and weight of evidence

In sum,

* Critical thinkers are by nature skeptical. They approach texts with the same skepticism and suspicion as they approach spoken remarks.
* Critical thinkers are active, not passive. They ask questions and analyze. They consciously apply tactics and strategies to uncover meaning or assure their understanding.
* Critical thinkers do not take an egotistical view of the world. They are open to new ideas and perspectives. They are willing to challenge their beliefs and investigate competing evidence.

Critical thinking enables us to recognize a wide range of subjective analyses of otherwise objective data, and to evaluate how well each analysis might meet our needs. Facts may be facts, but how we interpret them may vary.

By contrast, passive, non-critical thinkers take a simplistic view of the world.

* They see things in black and white, as either-or, rather than recognizing a variety of possible understanding.
* They see questions as yes or no with no subtleties.
* They fail to see linkages and complexities.
* They fail to recognize related elements.

Non-critical thinkers take an egotistical view of the world

* They take their facts as the only relevant ones.
* They take their own perspective as the only sensible one.
* They take their goal as the only valid one.

[http://www.critical-reading.com/critical_thinking.htm]

[novice]

Uh.. yea... what VJ said! :D

[ZroKewl]

Originally posted by Vitamin J
Why don't you admit that is total conjecture on your part?
I admit that was conjecture on my part. I did not mean to portray that as a statement of fact. It is a purely subjective inference I have made based on what I know about these two people (which is not much in relation to how much I know about myself, for instance), and on my prior experiences with other people and myself.

--ZK

[Spartin]

Originally posted by Turbo
Thanks Claire.

But I don't agree that the question has no provable answer. It's just that some people reject the proof and evidence that exists.

It's common for theists to say things like, "You can't prove God," but I think the logical argument based on the laws of thermodynamics used in Enyart's first post is adequate logical proof for a supernatural Creator.

I also recognize that Christ's resurrection is supported by overwhelming historical and archaeological evidence. Together, these pieces of evidence prove the resurrection actually took place, just like evidence is used to prove whether a crime suspect is guilty, and therefore prove that Jesus is the God he claimed to be.


The word adequate isn't enough. Especially since the universe could have just always been here, possibly just in a different form. We haven't even reached close to the pinnicle of our knowledge in the universe and you are saying there is adequate knowledge to support your assertion. There isn't enough knowledge right now to even grasp the size of the universe let alone make a judgement like that. You are trusting in an explaination like Santa Claus to children. No real knowledge; therefore they have to trust in what is told as the explaination. Right now is the time to keep your assertions about God creating the universe against the laws of thermodynamics(Could be a 12th Law where there is an exception), because who is to say that in three hundred years we will unlock the knowledge to the creating of the universe. I believe this will be the case with the only thing being the timeframe may be off by hundreds to a thousand years. In relation to the resurrection of Christ, how is it I haven't been shown this evidence. If it was "Overwhelming" as you state, it would be publicized all over the world. I still think that it is a lack of knowledge and wanting to believe in Santa Claus. I could be all together wrong about this and I am fine with that, please provide some links with a more educated response than Bob the Scientist. I would be happy to look them over and give some thoughts on it.


Spartin

[Eli_Cash]

I think Zakath is still winning, though not by as much. This is because, the evidentialist argument, while flawed, can become more convincing when the information presented is overwhelming.

[Jefferson]

Originally posted by ZroKewl
. . . Bob hasn't honestly considered a non-God centered world view.Bob was a nonchristian up to the age of 15, so he has considered the non-God centered world view.

Have you ever been a Christian Zrokewl? If not, then if you have held the non-God centered world view for your entire life then you can obviously be criticized for being too closed-minded to ever consider the God-centered world view.

[Ash1]

i think when we vote we should say if we believe in god or not so the bias is out in the open. some honest atheist might actually see that bob is winning the debate, while some christians might think zakath is...but it would still be interesting to see what the voters believe.

[The Berean]

I've spent the last two days going through all the posts and taking notes but I stoped taking noted after five pages worth!! At this point I don't think anyone is winning. I am trying to be as objective as possible, however, as a former atheist turned Christian I have lived on both sides of the fence.

Here is my two cents


Pastor Bob:

His posts are verbose and long winded. He is trying to show that conclusion of God as creater is the only rational explanation for the universe. The problem with this is that one cannot DEDUCTIVELY prove that God exists based on natural evidence, only. However, a strong INDUCTIVE agruement can be made for the existence of God base on complexity of life and the ordered structure of the universe. Some of his information adds no value to his arguement, i.e. listing famous dead scientists. He tends to overwhelm Zakath with an overload of questions. I am not sure Pastor Bob really wants Zakath to answer ALL these questions.

Zakath:

Zakath is the dodge-ball master. He doesn't really respond and when he does, it usually an ad hominen attack or simply he reponds with "Pastor Bob is wrong." He does score points with his requests for Pastor Bob to show EVIDENCE that an absolute morality exists and EVIDENCE that points to God. Again I don't believe anyone can show natualistic evidence that proves that God exists. His arguement that since there is no agreement about who God really is, therefore God does not exist makes no sense. That's like answering that since we don't know what really causes cancer, cancer doesn't exist. Not well thought out.

I look forward to the rest of the debate...:thumb:

[The Berean]

Can a 3rd option, "Don't know who is winning" be added to the poll?

[Curtsibling]

The Berean has a valid point.

At the end of the day, no-one can really prove the nature of the universe for sure...We will find out if our species lasts that long...

The great minds of history have never came cloe to a final conclusion on this question,
and we certainly are not going to with a debate in a website...:)

But intellectual sparring carries it's own reward...:cool:

[Curtsibling]

Well, that is what you have the right to believe...I think otherwise.
When you finally leave the stage, I hope you will not be disappointed...

Actually, Tye.
Here is a conundrum!

If we are already in god's pocket, as you claim,
does it really matter what we do in this life anyway...?

Why would he care about something as insignificant as a single human?
Do you care about every blade of grass in your garden?

What do you think?

[ZroKewl]

Originally posted by Jefferson
Bob was a nonchristian up to the age of 15, so he has considered the non-God centered world view.

Have you ever been a Christian Zrokewl? If not, then if you have held the non-God centered world view for your entire life then you can obviously be criticized for being too closed-minded to ever consider the God-centered world view.

Nobody really *considered* religion up to a certain point. Most likely, Bob never really critically examined Christian doctrine and the atheist thoughts about that doctrine prior to him becoming a Christian.

I was a Christian-by-choice -- one of those "every time the doors are open" sort of Christian. I was very in to Christian apologetics, so I know the arguments on that side like the back of my hand. I stopped being a Christian a couple of years ago, so I'm still learning things on the atheist side (although I'd consider myself to be a "strong agnostic" really -- mostly for connotative reasons).

--ZK

[Jefferson]

Originally posted by ZroKewl
Most likely, Bob never really critically examined Christian doctrine and the atheist thoughts about that doctrine prior to him becoming a Christian.Why do you assume this?

[RogerB]

Originally posted by Curtsibling
Why would he care about something as insignificant as a single human?


Good question, but, the point is, he DOES care DEEPLY about every single human being.

[Curtsibling]

Has he told you so?

Or is that a human fancy?

[LawFeelsGood]

Originally posted by RogerB
Good question, but, the point is, he DOES care DEEPLY about every single human being.

No it wasn't a good point. It was a dumb question. Why would a parent care about a single, insignificant child?:kookoo:

[Curtsibling]

Originally posted by LawFeelsGood
No it wasn't a good point. It was a dumb question. Why would a parent care about a single, insignificant child?:kookoo:

It is only a dumb question if your mind is too small to comprehend the ramifications of it.

I'll assume you fall into that category.

[jeremiah]

I wonder if any non believers have voted for Bob Enyart in this poll. We know that Jim Hilston has crossed over and voted for Zakath. Anyone else?
It is now 72 for bob and 25 for Zakath. Any non Christians among the 72? Any other Christians among the 25?

[GodsProsecutor]

Originally posted by LawFeelsGood
No it wasn't a good point. It was a dumb question. Why would a parent care about a single, insignificant child?:kookoo:
Why would you insult your mother and father by equating our absentee god with a parent? :kookoo:

[BillyBob]

I haven't been following any of this but I figured Zakath could use a vote...he seems to be a bit behind in the polls.

[bmyers]

Having only recently joined this forum - and in fact my joining up here was prompted by my hearing about this debate - I wanted to put my $0.02 in....

First, I think it needs to be acknowledged that the basic question supposedly being discussed has yet to be addressed by both parties. The debate seems to have very quickly gone from "Does God exist?" to "Does Bob Enyart's notion of a God exist" - which is a considerably different question. (And one that I think has already been quite clearly answered in the negative.) It's too bad that the discussion has wound up with such a narrow focus, although I have to admit that most such efforts are doomed to the same fate.

Having said that, if we simply consider the question of who's "winning", I don't think there's any doubt that it's NOT Enyart. Contrary to some comments made here, he has yet to provide any real evidence or reasoning - just unsubstantiated assertions and distortions of his opponent's position. All in all, I have found Enyart's "arguments" - if they can be called that - to be disingenuous. Few, if any, are original, and instead consist merely of parroting some very old notions which have in general already been discredited, and are no longer considered by serious debators on either side of this issue.

An excellent example is his recent argument based on how much time would supposedly be required to form certain molecules necessary for life - in this particular case, proteins. Enyart first claims that he will "show" how it is impossible for such things to arise out of "random" processes within any conceivable time span that would be allowed within the age of the universe - but he does no such thing. He does not present either the assumptions or the reasoning/calculations that would lead to this conclusion. All he really does is make the assertion, and then hopes that no one will notice the lack of support for it.

Given that lack of evidence, one can only assume that he's presenting basically the same argument as has been advanced by the "creationist" side of the origins debate for decades - that given X number of different sorts of atoms, we then could assume Y possible combinations of those atoms, and given the complexity of a protein molecule, you perform some basic probability calculations and come up with a truly impressive number for the time required for that molecule to come about "at random". The argument, though, is flawed right from the start, and the flaw would be apparent to anyone who had managed to comprehend high-school-level chemistry. Atoms do NOT combine "at random" - they are constrained to combine only in certain limited ways, and combine preferentially with some types of atoms over others. The generation of something like a protein molecule turns out to be not nearly as unlikely as simplistic calculations such as this would make it seem. The flaw is actually even more obvious - by this sort of argument, such a thing as a diamond should be impossible, as it requires literally trillions of atoms to positions themselves in an extremely precise array (and surely such a thing could not have arisen "by chance"!). But the same forces that constrain carbon to form such crystals - essentially, giant single molecules - under certain conditions also constrain the formation of all other chemical compounds.

What's truly disturbing is that this flaw in the argument has been known for almost as long as the argument itself has been advanced, and one would think that anyone familiar with the field would know this - and if they still thought the argument correct, would also offer the reasoning that showed this. Enyart has not done this, and so we can only assume that he is either not particularly well-informed in this area, or else he is being deliberately deceptive in this presentation. If the former, then Enyart is not qualified to engage in this sort of discussion. If the latter, then I would have to seriously question the "truth" of any position which requires such practices of its defenders.

In either case, I find Enyart's arguments to be an embarrassment to the theistic position.