Battle Talk ~ Battle Royale VII
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
Carl Smuda
New member
Jeepers, reading you all really got me in the mood to watch this one. I thought Zakath laid a great start. I'm looking forward to the response. this could be really interesting. I wait to take knowledge. God Bless us everyone.
Eireann
New member
Regarding a standard for evidence:
Evidence should be:
1) Directional and specific. It should point to what you are suggesting it points to, and you should be able to establish just why it points that direction.
2) It should be testable. Once it is established that it points a specific direction, it should be shown to be reasonable and sound under the scientific method (which doesn't just apply to science, but to all things where a question of "proof" exists).
3) It should soundly exclude rival theories. In other words, what Bob Enyart presents as evidence of the existence of God should not be able to be used by Zakath as evidence of the non-existence of God, nor should any alternative explanation be able to reasonably explain the evidence.
4) It should be empirical and observable, not merely mythical. When relying on accounts of things long past, they should be reliable 1st Person eyewitness accounts, not 3rd Person third-hand hearsay ("he said that she said that he said") like what we tend to see in the Bible.
5) It should be corroboratable by disinterested third parties, especially if it concerns accounts of the "miraculous" sort. I mean, if the only witnesses to alleged Christian miracles are Christians, then it really cuts the reliability way down if there is no one else to confirm that such-and-such really happened.
Evidence should be:
1) Directional and specific. It should point to what you are suggesting it points to, and you should be able to establish just why it points that direction.
2) It should be testable. Once it is established that it points a specific direction, it should be shown to be reasonable and sound under the scientific method (which doesn't just apply to science, but to all things where a question of "proof" exists).
3) It should soundly exclude rival theories. In other words, what Bob Enyart presents as evidence of the existence of God should not be able to be used by Zakath as evidence of the non-existence of God, nor should any alternative explanation be able to reasonably explain the evidence.
4) It should be empirical and observable, not merely mythical. When relying on accounts of things long past, they should be reliable 1st Person eyewitness accounts, not 3rd Person third-hand hearsay ("he said that she said that he said") like what we tend to see in the Bible.
5) It should be corroboratable by disinterested third parties, especially if it concerns accounts of the "miraculous" sort. I mean, if the only witnesses to alleged Christian miracles are Christians, then it really cuts the reliability way down if there is no one else to confirm that such-and-such really happened.
Scrimshaw
New member
Just a few thoughts below....
Agree.
Disagree. You are simply positing the self-refuting philosophy of Scientism here with point two. Proof can exist in non-empirical forms. For example, argumentation is a form of "proof" in itself. Also, you should consider legal evidence as well. Many times, legal evidence does not require empirical proof but simply enough indirect proof that is sufficient to overcome reasonable doubt regarding the cause of a past event.
Disagree. You can have two rival theories that are to greater or lesser degree, both reasonable. Usually the reasonable theory that has the higher probability of being correct is the one that should be adopted.
Disagree. For example, logic is not empirical or observable in a physical sense, but we'd hardly consider it "mythical". Black holes are not directly observable or been subject to any empirical testing yet we know they are not mythical. In many cases, we can determine what an entity is, or if it exists by the effect of it's presence. This is not only true of black holes, but of gravity as well. We know of it's existence by it's effect.
Disagree. You fail to consider the obvious fact that people who witness miracles are most likely going to become believers. For example, let's say I was an avid disbeliever in aliens. If an alien came and visited me and I directly observed the alien, by the time I reported the event to you I would have changed into a believer. In other words, the act of witnessing the miracle in many cases is the CAUSE of one's conversion from disbeliever into believer.....therefore, your stipulation on this point is very limited in scope and not realistic.
Agree.
Disagree. You are simply positing the self-refuting philosophy of Scientism here with point two. Proof can exist in non-empirical forms. For example, argumentation is a form of "proof" in itself. Also, you should consider legal evidence as well. Many times, legal evidence does not require empirical proof but simply enough indirect proof that is sufficient to overcome reasonable doubt regarding the cause of a past event.
Disagree. You can have two rival theories that are to greater or lesser degree, both reasonable. Usually the reasonable theory that has the higher probability of being correct is the one that should be adopted.
Disagree. For example, logic is not empirical or observable in a physical sense, but we'd hardly consider it "mythical". Black holes are not directly observable or been subject to any empirical testing yet we know they are not mythical. In many cases, we can determine what an entity is, or if it exists by the effect of it's presence. This is not only true of black holes, but of gravity as well. We know of it's existence by it's effect.
Disagree. You fail to consider the obvious fact that people who witness miracles are most likely going to become believers. For example, let's say I was an avid disbeliever in aliens. If an alien came and visited me and I directly observed the alien, by the time I reported the event to you I would have changed into a believer. In other words, the act of witnessing the miracle in many cases is the CAUSE of one's conversion from disbeliever into believer.....therefore, your stipulation on this point is very limited in scope and not realistic.
Last edited:
Eireann
New member
"God" doesn't mean the same thing to all people, and the dictionary only provides a general, popular definition. You ask a Hindu, a Jew, a Christian, and a Muslim to define "God" and you'll get four different answers. You ask 10 Christians to define "God" and you'll get 10 different answers. Some believe in a God that is inclusive of Jesus, and some don't. This is even true among Christians -- you have Trinitarians who believe Christ is a part of or a manifestation of the Godhead, and you have non-trinitarians who believe that while Christ is "of God," that Christ is not God himself. So no, a dictionary definition of "God" is hardly going to suffice, unless both parties agree to use such a limited definition.
On Pastor Enyarts question of truth.
A closed ended question such as, "Is there truth, YES OR NO" would seem almost entirely worthless unless he plans on using this question to springboard the discussion into a deeper look at the nature of the mind and metaphysics as a way to disprove a purely material universe.
I would say that truth is an attribute or property of our universe or existence. Nearly everyone would agree that there is some form of truth about our universe, however I'm quite sure that Mr. Enyart and Zakath do not agree on the constituents, the foundation, or the application of this truth. Who knows if this will even be an intelligible debate.
Guinness eh? I'll have a glass or two of that ambrosia if you have any to spare Zakath.
A closed ended question such as, "Is there truth, YES OR NO" would seem almost entirely worthless unless he plans on using this question to springboard the discussion into a deeper look at the nature of the mind and metaphysics as a way to disprove a purely material universe.
I would say that truth is an attribute or property of our universe or existence. Nearly everyone would agree that there is some form of truth about our universe, however I'm quite sure that Mr. Enyart and Zakath do not agree on the constituents, the foundation, or the application of this truth. Who knows if this will even be an intelligible debate.
Guinness eh? I'll have a glass or two of that ambrosia if you have any to spare Zakath.
Guinness.
But I have this thing against drinking alone. I just don't drink enough to keep myself company. Now with the job I have in the town I'm in and the crowd that comes with it, and the church I'm in... it all adds up to no Guinness.
Now if I go to the local German clubs, they have a great number of good beers and good company. But no Guinness.
- Status