ARCHIVE: Bob Enyart has already lost the debate ...

[Brother Vinny]

I was able to find Hilston's discussion on replicants and gave it a quick scan. The use of robots as metaphor is telling, and consistent with what I know of Hilston's world view, in which the Master Programmer only loves those robots that are programmed to love him back.

Robots are tools. Can anyone really envision loving a robot (or series of robots), even one of his own creation, so much that he would lay down his life for the thing? (Unless, of course, the love of God is just another anthropomorphism.)

Alas, I'm taking us off topic.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by Paul DeYonghe
Nowhere in the Bible do we see a drawn-out treatise citing evidence to prove God's existence. The Bible is written from points of view that takes the existence of God as a given.

Hmmmm thats odd, I didn't take you for a strict sola scriptura type of guy.

 

[Brother Vinny]

Originally posted by Knight
Hmmmm thats odd, I didn't take you for a strict sola scriptura type of guy.

There are two types of Christians: those who acknowledge the inclusion of some unwritten tradition in their theology, and those who have the tradition in there but don't acknowledge it. This tradition is unbiblical (in that, it's not explicitly written out in Scripture); but hopefully it's not antibiblical.

No, I'm not strictly sola Scriptura. My position is probably closer to prima Scriptura; that Scripture should be our primary source and final arbiter in determining which traditions are antibiblical.

 

[Brother Vinny]

<By the way, I have it on good word that Hilston equates the words "unbiblical" and "antibiblical," and has made the suggestion that I use "extrabiblical" in place of "unbiblical." I see the wisdom of this and will proceed to do so. >

 

[Hilston]

Hi Aussie,

Thanks for the taunt.

Actually, I've only posted once since your last installment. In case you didn't notice, it's rather long, so I'm making an effort toward boiling it down a bit, elimating certain repetitions. I'm going to take Knight's advice and start a new thread, if you don't mind. That way this one can stick to discussing Enyart's apologetic method. We can take our business "outside," so to speak.

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker

I assume as you have not replied to my previous arguments that we can accept that as tacit approval of them.

Big mistake.

Aussie writes:

I am only making this assumption as you have posted several times after my assertions so I am assuming you accept them.

Again, only once have I posted, and that was because Bob Enyart's show had just aired and I wanted to quickly post the transcript for the consideration of his defenders.

When I start the new thread, I'll post a link here.

Cheers,
Jim

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by Paul DeYonghe
No, I'm not strictly sola Scriptura. My position is probably closer to prima Scriptura; that Scripture should be our primary source and final arbiter in determining which traditions are antibiblical.

So then I guess the argument....

Nowhere in the Bible do we see a drawn-out treatise citing evidence to prove God's existence. The Bible is written from points of view that takes the existence of God as a given.

Wouldn't be one you could argue very strongly could it?

 

[Aussie Thinker]

Jim,

Nice to see you took the goad in the spirit it was intended.. I did post earlier that if I had no replies I would graciously assume victory and move on...

We all know it doesn't really work that way.. but.. it usually elicits a response !

 

[Brother Vinny]

Originally posted by Knight
So then I guess the argument....Wouldn't be one you could argue very strongly could it?

It wasn't an argument; merely an observation.

An argument would read like this: "Nowhere in the Bible do we see a drawn-out treatise citing evidence to prove God's existence. The Bible is written from points of view that takes the existence of God as a given. Therefore, we should never use evidentialism as an apologetic tactic."

This is the same sort of argument the Church of Christ uses in prohibiting musical instruments: the New Testament never says that the early church had instruments or played them in services, therefore we shouldn't play them either.

Seems silly, doesn't it?

 

[Hilston]

Re: Has Bob Enyart admitted that atheists do not exist?

Re: Has Bob Enyart admitted that atheists do not exist?

I'm taking the unusual measure of reposting the transcript from Bob Enyart Live. It may have gotten buried under a flurry of posts, which might account for why Bob Enyart's defenders have not posted their comments. I debated whether or not to start a new thread, thinking maybe the deck had gotten cold. But I'll try this and see.

Has Bob Enyart admitted that atheists do not exist?

Below is a partial transcript of Bob Enyart's dialogue with a caller named Tom from the Thursday, July 3rd, 2003 broadcast of Bob Enyart Live (Listen via MP3 here: Bob Enyart Live, Thu. 7-3-03 #131)

Tom: When I read [Zakath's] writings, what comes across to me is that his hatred for God is greater than his honesty, ...

Bob Enyart: Objectivity ...

Tom: Objectivity; His hatred for God overshadows everything.

Bob Enyart: I think you hit the nail on the head.

Tom: And my question is: Is it possible for a man to be a true atheist? Because I read in Paul when he says, you know "for the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness because that which is known about God is evident within them." And so, if puts the evidence in us, is it really possible for these people to be honest atheists or do they just have a hatred for God?

Bob Enyart: Well, Paul says in that same chapter, Romans 1, he says, although they knew God, they turned in their hearts and they basically began to despise God.

Tom: And Zakath knew God, because he was a minister.

Bob Enyart: Yeah, well, hey there are plenty of ministers who, you know, like the pharisees in the Bible, who hate God. But, Tom, when Paul said although they knew God, that tells us that we're made knowing there's a God. The human race, when we're born, the Bible says God put eternity in our hearts, and we know we're going to be around forever, we know that. But then we can start to deny it, and we could really try hard to deny it, but an atheist does not live by his claimed belief system. He doesn't believe as though there is no such thing as truth. He doesn't live as if there is no such thing as truth, or no such thing as right and wrong. He doesn't live that way. So his very life denies his supposed belief system. But this is the way I'll answer that directly: Is Zakath really an atheist? Is any "Zakath" in the world, any atheist, are they really atheists?

Tom: Is it possible for them to be truly an atheist?

Bob Enyart: This is my answer: When they die, and go to judgment day, not a one of them will be surprised when he sees God. Not a one is going to say, "You know, I really didn't think you were real." Not a one. So I, you know, although they give a very consistent intellectual argument that there's no God, but they don't live that way ...

Tom: You know I really never thought of that but, you're right, they're living a lie. ... It comes down to their hatred for God. They have a hatred for God.

Bob Enyart: Yeah.

[snipped discussion about atheist reality as illusion, etc.]

Bob Enyart: Anything else, Tom?

Tom: No, that's it, Bob. I just wanted to run that by you that I just didn't think it was possible that anybody could really be a true atheist.

Bob Enyart: So the question is not "Does God exist?", it's "Does Atheism exist?"

--------End of excerpt----------

My question is, if Bob recognizes this fact, and effectively acknowledges to another Christian that Zakath is lying about his atheism, why does Bob continue as an "enabler," allowing Zakath to assert his atheism without challenge? Bob is no slouch when it comes to exposing the lies of socialism, cultic religions, the pro-life agenda, homosexuality, and sexual immorality. From what I've read and heard of Mr. Enyart, he confronts these lies head-on and rarely misses a beat whenever a disputant asserts them. Why does he shift his tack with the so-called atheists, and affirm their false claim, rather than confronting the myth of atheism?

Tom, If you're following this thread, good job!

Jim

 

[Aussie Thinker]

Jim writes,

My question is, if Bob recognizes this fact, and effectively acknowledges to another Christian that Zakath is lying about his atheism, why does Bob continue as an "enabler," allowing Zakath to assert his atheism without challenge? Bob is no slouch when it comes to exposing the lies of socialism, cultic religions, the pro-life agenda, homosexuality, and sexual immorality. From what I've read and heard of Mr. Enyart, he confronts these lies head-on and rarely misses a beat whenever a disputant asserts them. Why does he shift his tack with the so-called atheists, and affirm their false claim, rather than confronting the myth of atheism?

Tom, If you're following this thread, good job!

I don’t think in this entire thread you have gotten the point.

If you merely declare the other side as liars.. there is NO point debating at all.

I can do exactly the same to you.. you are lying about God .. therefore anything you say after that is wrong.. hence I win the argument.

POINTLESS…

It is an incredibly frustrating line to argue against.. It is just as well our politicians don’t use it.. well sometimes they do I guess.. Like “Saddam… you are lying.. you have WMD.. but I don’t.. yes well we know you are lying so therefore you do” !

 

[novice]

Originally posted by Paul DeYonghe
I have to say I think Hilston is pretty much on-target when he says the evidentialist method is unbiblical.

I couldn't disagree more.

You state:

The question should be: Is Bob Enyart's apologetic approach antibiblical? Personally, I don't feel qualified to answer, but I offer an observation: Nowhere in the Bible do we see a drawn-out treatise citing evidence to prove God's existence. The Bible is written from points of view that takes the existence of God as a given.

Setting aside the Sola Scriptura point that Knight already brought up (which pretty much obliterates the debate - unless you are a strict Sola Scriptura advocate) I offer two points:

1. Nowhere in the Bible do we see drawn-out treatise citing evidence to prove the Trinity. Yet... observing God's nature and how God interacts with man we can make a very strong argument for God existing as ONE GOD yet in three distinct persons. Therefore, making the claim that since something isn't directly addressed in the Bible might insinuate its "antibiblical" is a bit of a stretch.

2. I reject the notion that evangelism in the Bible was done in this presuppositional approach that Hilston advocates. I don't seem to recall John the Bapist exclaiming to the people... "Repent for AS YOU ALREADY KNOW the Kingdom of heaven is at hand".

The apostle Paul says that the unbeliever has exchanged the truth of God for the lie (Romans 1:25). And therefore it is our duty to.... Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching. - 2Timothy 4:2

You state:

In proving the existence of the sun, it is far more effecient to point to the sun than to all of which it illuminates.

And if the person has exchanged the truth that the sun is in the sky for the lie that the sun is NOT in the sky shouldn't we point to the sky and say... "see!" ?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by Paul DeYonghe
It wasn't an argument; merely an observation.

Was it not an "observation" that was to make a point?

If not, then I will take note of your observation.

If so, then my rebuttal stands.

 

[Brother Vinny]

novice,

You said (my emphasis added),

The apostle Paul says that the unbeliever has exchanged the truth of God for the lie (Romans 1:25). And therefore it is our duty to.... Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching. - 2Timothy 4:2

But isn't this exactly what Bob is not doing by presenting an evidential argument? Instead of using Scripture as a sword to quickly chop apart and dismantle Zakath's delusion at it's root (i.e., his seeming ability to examine ideas using the light of reason, all the while claiming no Source of light exists), Bob is trying to use evidence as a cudgel to try to hammer truth into Zakath's sin-hardened head. This isn't to say that this doesn't sometimes work-- Knight and Lion are prime examples of spiritual heads that had to be broken for the cause of Christ.

Some heads are just too hard, though, and I think Zakath's will probably be one of them. And I have witnessed Zakath's unwillingness (perhaps inability) to respond to Hilston's presuppositional arguments. Maybe Zakath would be willing to have a rematch with Hilston?

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Paul DeYonghe
...Maybe Zakath would be willing to have a rematch with Hilston?

Nope. Don't murder babies, cheat on my taxes, or debate presuppositionalists.

 

[Brother Vinny]

Originally posted by Knight
Was it not an "observation" that was to make a point?

If not, then I will take note of your observation.

If so, then my rebuttal stands.

My point was this: I can see how Hilston might glean from Scripture that presuppositional apologetics is supported by the Bible and, since no other apologetic methods are even discussed or considered, how he might come to the conclusion that presuppositionalism is the only approved method of apologetics to the exclusion of all others.

This is much like the debate with Jefferson on the death penalty issue, if you remember. Jefferson posited that the only acceptable means of executing a capital criminal was stoning, since it was the only biblically-sanctioned form.

I can see how these views can crop up; I don't necessarily buy into them.

 

[Flipper]

Paul DeYonghe:

Blade Runner? You mean he was able to stay awake through it?

Oh you've gone too far this time.

 

[Aussie Thinker]

C’mon Zakath.. why can’t you debate Hilston..

Its shouldn’t take too long..

Hilston : “You claim you are an atheist therefore you are a liar therefore I win.”

Zakath : “I am not lying but as I don’t know what on Earth I can do to convince you it is pointless to continue..”

Easy .. short and sweet and Hilston wins again.

 

[Hilston]

Why not murder, cheat or debate presuppositionalists?

Why not murder, cheat or debate presuppositionalists?

Hey Zakath,

You called Bob a presuppositionalist (albeit erroneously) here.

To save you a trip over there, here is what you said:

Because one of the favorite tactics of presuppositionalists like Enyart is to change the focus of the debate from something he cannot do (i.e. prove the existence of a deity, any deity) to get the debeate mired down in philosophical quagmire.

That's not something presuppositionalists do at all. Rather, we bring philosophical clarity, which reminds one of turning on the lights in a kitchen full of cockroaches.

Now we're all wondering if you also surreptitiously murder babies and cheat on your taxes.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker
C’mon Zakath.. why can’t you debate Hilston..

Its shouldn’t take too long..

Hilston : “You claim you are an atheist therefore you are a liar therefore I win.”

Zakath : “I am not lying but as I don’t know what on Earth I can do to convince you it is pointless to continue..”

Easy .. short and sweet and Hilston wins again.

Which makes it sorta pointless to even start such conversations, ain't it?

What is the point of winning, anyways?

I could think of more vital tasks one can do instead.

 

[Hilston]

Presup', good. Evi', bad.

Presup', good. Evi', bad.

Paul,

I know there's a lot here, but you read carefully, you'll see that I don't make an argument from silence. The Bible condemns evidentialist reasoning. Presuppositional reasoning is not only biblically endorsed (and sourced), all other forms of reasoning are categorically condemned.

Also, Paul, do you recall my debate with Zakath (from 2000)? Was that a quick one as Aussie suggests?

Jim