A draw?
How so?
A draw is when both combatants finish the fight and the judges cannot determine a clear victor. You obvioously dislike Bob and thats fine with me, but your bias is clouding your judgement.
A draw.... LOL
ARCHIVE: Bob Enyart has already lost the debate ...
- Thread starter Hilston
- Start date
- Status
How so?
A draw is when both combatants finish the fight and the judges cannot determine a clear victor. You obvioously dislike Bob and thats fine with me, but your bias is clouding your judgement.
A draw.... LOL
Originally posted by Knight
A draw?
How so?
A draw is when both combatants finish the fight and the judges cannot determine a clear victor. You obvioously dislike Bob and thats fine with me, but your bias is clouding your judgement.
A draw.... LOL
In terms of content Bob really made a very poor showing by bringing up all of those bogus scientific-sounding arguments.
We don't really know what has happened to Zakath.
At best, I would give them an incomplete.
LOL... you guys kill me!
Even if Zakath had stated to the world... "I lose, I now give my life to Jesus." you guys would still be claiming the debate was a draw.
Hey.... if you want to live your life as a knucklehead be my guest, but you better hurry because it looks like the spots are filling up fast.
Yeah, you're right. A knockout is when somebodies arguments get destroyed and they chicken out, change their minds, or are reduced to the point that all reason breaks down.
I don't dislike Bob at all. I disagree with some of his theology, and the way he handles some things. I respect Bob for making some pretty bold stands on some issues I think are important. I know his son. I do think Bob's a good guy.
A knockout...LOL
I think we were both wrong, I think it was a victory by default or forfeiture.
I classified this debate as a "TKO in the 8th round" Do you know what the acronym TKO means?
No I wouldn't... I may have said that technically and by the standards of formalized logic it was a draw, but I think it'd be apparent who won.
In my opinion, the debate was headed for a draw. Then Zakath mysteriously disappeared. TKO is the correct call, but I didn't see it as a crushing defeat.
:up:
attention
New member
An ontological "God proof" is not giving objective reality to the mindly concept of a creator.
It's a simple reasoning that can show that God must be denied objective existence, since neither an object outside of God can exist, nor can God itself be an object for an object outside of God, which therefore means: God can not have objective existence. The most perfect form of existence therefore as envisioned by man's consciousness, does not make it into objective reality.
Ontological God "proofs":
The Ontological Proof for God
The “Ontological Proof” for the Existence of God
Of the Impossibility of an Ontological Proof of the Existence of God
The Possibility of Ontological Proof
Last edited:
LightSon
New member
Hi Rob,
You have a great intellect. Much of your reasoning ability is well over my head. But before I jettison my faith, let's pause and make some observations.
Logic is a wonderful tool. I am a programmer by trade. The best program I can write, (assuming there is any level of depth) will probably have a bug in it. I recall having desk-checked certain snippits of code and sworn it was correct, only to have a bug pop-up later. Oops. Its a good thing that particular code, wasn't my logic to deny God His rightful place in my heart.
No, I will not risk my eternal destiny on my ability to reason God away. The risk of being wrong in my hubris is too great.
Okay. I'll let you explain your reasoning to Him when the time comes. I do not have the courage.
Thanks for the links. I'll review them as time permits. It'll be fun, but as you should agree, there can't be much of a rush for me to reject the only chance I have to live forever.
You have a great intellect. Much of your reasoning ability is well over my head. But before I jettison my faith, let's pause and make some observations.
Logic is a wonderful tool. I am a programmer by trade. The best program I can write, (assuming there is any level of depth) will probably have a bug in it. I recall having desk-checked certain snippits of code and sworn it was correct, only to have a bug pop-up later. Oops. Its a good thing that particular code, wasn't my logic to deny God His rightful place in my heart.
No, I will not risk my eternal destiny on my ability to reason God away. The risk of being wrong in my hubris is too great.
Right. As a subset of argument, my point is that proof won't make God exist any more than your "disproof" will make Him not exist.
Okay. I'll let you explain your reasoning to Him when the time comes. I do not have the courage.
Thanks for the links. I'll review them as time permits. It'll be fun, but as you should agree, there can't be much of a rush for me to reject the only chance I have to live forever.
Many people *assume* that the existence of some sort of God is an ontological reality. Yet, there is not a single argument for the existence of these many and varied "Gods" that holds water or provides any usefulness whatsoever. Otherwise, there would be no issue. No one would disbelieve. Indeed, faith would be as unnecessary as "faith" in the idea that the sky is blue.
The whole construct of religious belief dances around this lack of evidence by pretending that this is a good thing, making it a condition of "faith". Yet to the nonreligious this is an order to carry around a bunch of useless baggage.
The nonreligious are condemned by the religious for recognizing this baggage as such and disposing of it.
LightSon
New member
It is not my place to condemn you John. Condemnation is God's alone.
I maintain that there is great value in a showing honor to the person of God; He gave me life and has cleared the way for my eternal joy. That's gotta be worth something to me.
I also want to recognize the fact that while you dispose of the trappings of the useless religious mindset, you still come to this theology board and spend your time engaging with us. What might be the value to you in arguing with us?
Are there answers that you are looking for? Is there anything that you do not know? Do you have the innate ability to open your mind to the possibility that God loves you and has a better plan for you than the existence you now experience?
God has been gracious "John". Even your name presumes His Providence.
Hi Jim,
When you state that you were previously an atheist but not really an atheist because you were deluding yourself. Could it have been that you were never really an atheist?
I'm no scholar or anything but my common sense tells me that a real atheist could never become you.
So maybe you know nothing about atheist after all?
Regards
Corky
When you state that you were previously an atheist but not really an atheist because you were deluding yourself. Could it have been that you were never really an atheist?
I'm no scholar or anything but my common sense tells me that a real atheist could never become you.
So maybe you know nothing about atheist after all?
Regards
Corky
- Status