Battle Talk ~ Battle Royale VII
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
wholearmor
New member
Since Zakath used to be a pastor and seems to be very familiar with Bob Enyart, I'd be willing to go out on a limb and say Zakath knows very well the answers to his opening two questions for Bob. What a wasted post that was.
wholearmor
New member
Re: Zakath
Re: Zakath
Whenever that may be that he says something, who knows?
Re: Zakath
Whenever that may be that he says something, who knows?
wholearmor
New member
Originally posted by Zakath
Watch out for those stray chainsaw when you're putting yourself out on a limb...
Why?
Zakath does his best work here... in the Battle Talk zone.
But seriously....
I am not sure what to think of Zakath's first post. I would be lying if I didn't think it was a bit to brief. I was sort of expecting that he would at least state his own case just a little.
I will give my old friend Zakath the benefit of the doubt and assume Zakath knows what he is doing. Although BR II certainly would prove otherwise.
But seriously....
I am not sure what to think of Zakath's first post. I would be lying if I didn't think it was a bit to brief. I was sort of expecting that he would at least state his own case just a little.
I will give my old friend Zakath the benefit of the doubt and assume Zakath knows what he is doing. Although BR II certainly would prove otherwise.
Hey posters, I'm impressed. (But hey, I'm a country boy...it don't take much.)
Sadly heer en thuh sticks we'uns don't get ta yappin much deeper then ar boots kin wade thru.
Seriously, I am very excited by the intellects brought to this table for all of us to feast upon. We are sharing discussions of 'proofs' and 'evidences' that reside inside the realm of logic and reasoning and I must ask this question:
"Is logic and reason sufficient to explore the existence of God?"
I'll go ahead and make myself look narrow-minded according to the views of some by quoting from the NASB Bible:
I Cor. 1:18-31 For the word of the cross is to those who are perishing foolishness, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written, I WILL DESTROY THE WISDOM OF THE WISE, AND THE CLEAVERNESS OF THE CLEVER I WILL SET ASIDE. Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. For indeed Jews ask for signs, and Greeks search for wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block, and to Gentiles foolishness. but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. For consider your calling, brethren, that there were not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble; but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong, and the base things of the world and the despised, God has chosen, the things that are not, that He might nullify the things that are, that no man should boast before God. But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption, that just as it is written, "LET HIM WHO BOASTS, BOAST IN THE LORD."
So in light of the finite limitations of humanity let us go ahead and search for the answers to the presupposed God of infinite proportions and hope we can come away with even one molecule of His existence...it shorely ain't gonna hurt us mere mortals ne'ery one iota.
Sadly heer en thuh sticks we'uns don't get ta yappin much deeper then ar boots kin wade thru.
Seriously, I am very excited by the intellects brought to this table for all of us to feast upon. We are sharing discussions of 'proofs' and 'evidences' that reside inside the realm of logic and reasoning and I must ask this question:
"Is logic and reason sufficient to explore the existence of God?"
I'll go ahead and make myself look narrow-minded according to the views of some by quoting from the NASB Bible:
I Cor. 1:18-31 For the word of the cross is to those who are perishing foolishness, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written, I WILL DESTROY THE WISDOM OF THE WISE, AND THE CLEAVERNESS OF THE CLEVER I WILL SET ASIDE. Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. For indeed Jews ask for signs, and Greeks search for wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block, and to Gentiles foolishness. but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. For consider your calling, brethren, that there were not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble; but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong, and the base things of the world and the despised, God has chosen, the things that are not, that He might nullify the things that are, that no man should boast before God. But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption, that just as it is written, "LET HIM WHO BOASTS, BOAST IN THE LORD."
So in light of the finite limitations of humanity let us go ahead and search for the answers to the presupposed God of infinite proportions and hope we can come away with even one molecule of His existence...it shorely ain't gonna hurt us mere mortals ne'ery one iota.
wholearmor
New member
Originally posted by Zakath
You might be unwittingly cutting yourself off and be in for an uncomfortable landing.
I never said how high the branch was.
wholearmor
New member
I asked you about two books. You said you struggled through it. Did you read them both?
Eireann
New member
BR II: was that the one in which he solidly wholloped you in the eyes of any discerning readers, but lost only in the blinded eyes of your fundie following?Originally posted by Zakath
That's because I'm a street brawler, not a trained fighter.
If you're going to start talkiing about BR II, should we all start singing "Glory Days" now? :chuckle:
Eireann
New member
In a formal debate, a straw man is a killer. You NEVER assume you know your opponent's position without it having been stated! That's basic rule 101. No matter how much you may think you know the position of your opponent, you still force them to state it, because once stated, they cannot back away from it. Zak may very well know what Bob's definition of God is, but if Bob isn't forced to state what that definition is then he would be free to change his position (unbeknownst to his opponent) at a later stage in the debate if he finds himself being cornered. However, if he IS forced to state his position at the outset, he is deprived of that sneak tactic. If he is cornered after having stated his position and then tries to change his position, then Zakath will automatically win the debate by default. Zakath's opening post was extremely smart and wise. It simply sounds to me as if some of you Christian types are just a little sore that Zak got to strike first and that he did so in a way that automatically puts your man on the defensive, a position no debater likes to be in.
wholearmor
New member
I'll admit I don't know much about formal debates. How is
Bob forced to state his position as asked by Zakath?
Also, I wonder about this quote from Zakath:
"On the other hand, if none of these supernatural entities exist, it tells us that we humans are left to our own resources, that we have to make decisions wisely, and that we cannot depend upon a "Big Brother" (or "Mother" for our Wiccan readers) in the sky to solve our problems for us.":
What are our own resources? Since when don't we have to make decisions wisely whether there is a supernatural entity or not? Who says we have to depend on a "Big Brother" or "Mother" in the sky to solve our problems for us?
wholearmor
New member
Zakath, since you aren't fearfully and wonderfully made, what are you?
Eireann
New member
You're wrongly equating proof and evidence. I'm not talking about proof. I'm talking about acceptable standards of evidence. Proof may well lie outside the boundaries of empiricism, which is why so few things are actually proven (even Newton's Laws of Thermodynamics are not accepted as proven fact, they are merely accepted as undisputed). Evidence, however, does generally need to be empirical in order to be acceptable, even in cases of law. In cases of law, it almost always requires empirical evidence to overcome reasonable doubt. For instance, some states have even passed recent laws that bar a person from being able to be convicted on eyewitness testimony alone.
Maybe, but we're not talking about the reasonableness of rival theories. We're talking about the acceptability of evidence that be be used as evidence of either theory. If I remember correctly (I may not, because I didn't go back to look at Zak's original post), the question posited was something like, "What evidence would you accept as sufficient evidence of God (or, if asked by a theist, of no God)." Obviously, if both sides are using the same bit of evidence for their own side, then that evidence isn't going to stack up well against the evidence of their opponent; their points will basically cancel each other out, the evidence being of no help at all. If you want to gain an edge on your opponent, your evidence has to be something your opponent cannot use.
They aren't mythical, but they are theoretical. Black holes have not been proven to exist. They are a theory that has been proposed, and is widely believed in, to explain some otherwise heretofor inexplicable phenomena. Myths are the same thing, in their way. The only difference between "mythical" and "theoretical" is that the theoretical seeks naturalistic explanations, and the mythical seeks supernatural explanations. However, since the theoretical is more uniformly based on empericism and scientific methods, it is more generally accepted than the mythical, which requires much more of a leap of faith.
No, but we can theorize about causes when the only thing we can observe is the effect. Gravity is also a much more testable theory than deism. We can test gravity again and again and again by using objects in the real, observable world, and recreate those effects every time. We can't call up demons and angels and gods, though, and test those theories which have been attributed to them in nearly such a manner. We can witness effects which we may theorize are caused by some entity or other, but only rarely can we recreate those effects, even when all the observable factors are recreated. Even if the effects can be recreated, the only thing that can really soundly be postulated is the physical or physiological processes involved; theories of divine or intelligent design behind those things are leaps of faith.
You also fail to consider that very, very few of the miraculous events in the Bible were attested to by actual eyewitnesses, with the possible exception of the alleged miracles of Moses (which were written of by Moses -- tooting his own horn, anyone?). There are almost no 1st person eyewitness testimonies to the miracles of Jesus in the Bible. Scarcely a word of the New Testament was even written by anyone who had ever met Jesus, or had met him for any significant time. Paul met him on the road to Damascus, but I don't recall there being any miracles done at that time. Most of the entire New Testament was written quite a long time after the death of Christ, and some of its authors weren't even born at the time of the crucifixion. In other words, almost the entirety of testimony to biblical miracle-working is done through 3rd person "he said she said" accounts.
- Status