Very telling, no?
ARCHIVE: Bob Enyart has already lost the debate ...
- Thread starter Hilston
- Start date
- Status
cheeezywheeezy
New member
OK...OK...OK...here we go. The coin is up and it is heads. That means Jim get's to go first.
So...Jim Hilston,
Here is your chance to prove, using your method, that God exists. What would your posts say. Lay the whole thing out right now.
So...Jim Hilston,
Here is your chance to prove, using your method, that God exists. What would your posts say. Lay the whole thing out right now.
Re: Re: Combined replies ...
Re: Re: Combined replies ...
Re: Re: Combined replies ...
Great post! :up: :thumb:
Right on cheezy, that is just what I was thinking.
I agree with hilston for the most part.
Jim,
It's good to see somebody that knows Van Till's/Bahnsen's apologetics. I understand what you are getting at in your posts because I've spent a lot of time studying presuppositional apologetics. I see the need for epistemic consciousness everywhere. I don't think the points you are making are that clear to most of the people reading them though. I don't think Scrimshaw or Lion or the Cheezydude have any previous knowledge of the topic.
I think now would be a good time to bust out a quick presuppositional apologetics 101 class. Maybe that will clear up some of this "strife", and accusations of slander will be put to rest.
What do you say?
Scrimshaw and lion,
I don't think Jim has any problem with using science in a debate to point to God's existence, I just think that he wants it put in the right place. His main disagreement with Mr. Enyart isn't that he uses science to prove his points, but that he has conceded to the position of neutrality.
The Bible specifically says that man isn't neutral. It says that man is bent against God, and that his reason has become corrupt and twisted. Bob is playing on thin ice here. How can he expect to win a debate when he is founding his arguments on faulty parameters?
The ancient Greeks perceived themselves as approaching the tough philosophical questions with the neutral eyes of an infant (supposing infants are even neutral). That is where they went wrong.
All their philosophy was based on a faulty fundamental presupposition. Zakath is suffering from the same delusion.
That's why his reason leads him to the place of declaring that there is no God. Why is Bob Enyart succumbing to the same error?
I agree with hilston for the most part.
Jim,
It's good to see somebody that knows Van Till's/Bahnsen's apologetics. I understand what you are getting at in your posts because I've spent a lot of time studying presuppositional apologetics. I see the need for epistemic consciousness everywhere. I don't think the points you are making are that clear to most of the people reading them though. I don't think Scrimshaw or Lion or the Cheezydude have any previous knowledge of the topic.
I think now would be a good time to bust out a quick presuppositional apologetics 101 class. Maybe that will clear up some of this "strife", and accusations of slander will be put to rest.
What do you say?
Scrimshaw and lion,
I don't think Jim has any problem with using science in a debate to point to God's existence, I just think that he wants it put in the right place. His main disagreement with Mr. Enyart isn't that he uses science to prove his points, but that he has conceded to the position of neutrality.
The Bible specifically says that man isn't neutral. It says that man is bent against God, and that his reason has become corrupt and twisted. Bob is playing on thin ice here. How can he expect to win a debate when he is founding his arguments on faulty parameters?
The ancient Greeks perceived themselves as approaching the tough philosophical questions with the neutral eyes of an infant (supposing infants are even neutral). That is where they went wrong.
All their philosophy was based on a faulty fundamental presupposition. Zakath is suffering from the same delusion.
That's why his reason leads him to the place of declaring that there is no God. Why is Bob Enyart succumbing to the same error?
DEVO
Documenting mans devolution
NATE isn't it true you are biased against Bob because you do not like his stance on the openness of God?????
Would it be fair of me to withhold my monthly donations to "Survivors" because I knew you were a hard core "closed theist"?
I wouldn't do that. That would be counterproductive wouldn't it?
I sense this same type of counter productiveness emanating out of every post you make.
Would it be fair of me to withhold my monthly donations to "Survivors" because I knew you were a hard core "closed theist"?
I wouldn't do that. That would be counterproductive wouldn't it?
I sense this same type of counter productiveness emanating out of every post you make.
To Lion and Scrimshaw ...
To Lion and Scrimshaw ...
To Lion:
Lion writes:
Lion writes:
Lion writes:
To Scrimshaw:
Scrimshaw writes:
Jim previously wrote: Also consider the fact that we have numerous examples of confrontations with gainsayers in scripture. Not one of them describes or presents an example of someone arguing for the existence of some "creator thing" that might exist. The Bible doesn't allow this kind of argumentation.
Scrimshaw writes:
Scrimshaw writes:
Scrimshaw writes:
Scrimshaw writes:
Scrimshaw writes:
Scrimshaw writes:
Scrimshaw writes:
Jim previously wrote: Good thing there are people in the world like Mr. Enyart and Scrimshaw who come along and take up the slack where God's word has fallen short.
Scrimshaw writes:
Jim
To Lion and Scrimshaw ...
To Lion:
Lion writes:
Really? Has Bob preached the risen Christ to Zakath? Has Bob declared to Zakath that, despite Zakath's claims to the contrary, that he really does already know that God exists? If not, then he is feeding into Zakath's lie and self-delusion, not to mention the violation of scriptural principles regarding the anti-theist worldview.
Lion writes:
The difference is Paul showed the Athenians that they could not claim to be unaware of God's existence or claim they have insufficient proof of God's existence (Read Acts 17:18ff with this in mind). Zakath does both, and unlike Paul, Bob Enyart has failed to call him on it. What is worse, Bob Enyart perpetuates the myth of atheism and of insufficient evidence by enabling Zakath to continue with his lie and self-delusion.
Lion writes:
If that's how you really understand the Proverbs 26 passage, then aren't you doing the same thing? What is your defense, Lion?
To Scrimshaw:
Scrimshaw writes:
Of course not. Did you see that part where I said, "I really should not have to explain this to you"?
Jim previously wrote: Also consider the fact that we have numerous examples of confrontations with gainsayers in scripture. Not one of them describes or presents an example of someone arguing for the existence of some "creator thing" that might exist. The Bible doesn't allow this kind of argumentation.
Scrimshaw writes:
All forms? No exclusions? Does the Bible allow for even unbiblical forms of reasoning and argumentation? Perhaps you can give an example of this: The Bible says "Answer NOT a fool according to his folly." Applying your understanding of 1Co 9:19, give me an example of how NOT to answer a fool according to his folly. Don't skip this, Scrimshaw. Your integrity is at stake here.
Scrimshaw writes:
Really? Cool. A guy down the street says he wishes he could have a ministry sharing the gospel with Playboy centerfolds and exotic dancers. I'll tell him that Paul says it OK as long as the end result is the gospel of Christ is shared.
Scrimshaw writes:
I'm going to ask you a question, and please think carefully before you answer: Do you think, when Paul says, "all possible means" that there any any exclusions to that statement? If yes, then what exclusions? If no, then do you think Paul is saying it would be OK for someone to become a prostitute in order to save prostitutes?
Scrimshaw writes:
Why do you feed into the anti-theist lie? You don't have to prove what they already know and are lying about.
Scrimshaw writes:
I would not say so simplistically "The Bible says so" (although it's not a bad start) but rather, "Here is what the Bible says about that." Would you be averse to that kind of answer?
Scrimshaw writes:
I don't know a single person who became a believer because someone proved to them that the Bible is true. But more importantly, the Bible does not allow for this form of argument when it comes to confronting the anti-theist with truth.
Scrimshaw writes:
It wouldn't mean anything ultimately even if I DID believe the Q'uran were true. The Muslim argument is incoherent regardless of who believes the Q'uran is true. It says a lot that you see no superiority between the claims of the Bible and the claims of the Q'uran as long as both parties believe in the book in question.
Jim previously wrote: Good thing there are people in the world like Mr. Enyart and Scrimshaw who come along and take up the slack where God's word has fallen short.
Scrimshaw writes:
You comparing apples and oranges, Scrimshaw. I am critiquing Bob Enyart for using unbiblical argumentation. I don't fault God's word at all. It sufficiently condemns this form of reasoning, and I am pointing it out. Bob Enyart, however, is suggesting by his words that God was not truthful when He said that anti-theists already know and have been given sufficient evidence for God's existence. There is a difference between acting as if God's word is sufficient by adding to it (as Bob Enyart is doing) and simply pointing out the fact that someone is doing this (as I am doing).
Jim
Resistance and desperation ...
Resistance and desperation ...
Hi Natedog,
You write:
Natedog writes:
Natedog writes:
As to anyone desiring further background on the differences between presuppositional and evidential argumentation, here are some links:
http://www.tgfonline.org/TGF/tgfconf/1999/TGF991.htm
http://www.tgfonline.org/TGF/tgfconf/1999/TGF995.htm
http://www.tgfonline.org/TGF/topical/matrix.htm
http://www.tgfonline.org/TGF/bootcamp/pb13apol.htm
Resistance and desperation ...
Hi Natedog,
You write:
I realize that. Everytime I get into this kind of discussion, I find that only a few really get it. I've seen one post on this thread that shows promise. There's such a difference in attitude, and a clear openness to how compelling the scriptures are on this issue.
Natedog writes:
I don't think it should matter. The scriptures should suffice to make the case. I don't think the resistance is due to a lack of understanding. It smacks more of desperation that they do not want to let go of their pet methods of autonomy and neutrality and brute fact argumentation. I mean, why else do people bring up the kinds of things we've seen so far in this exchange, except out of desperation?
Natedog writes:
I think part of the problem with apologetics is that it is too often treated as an "anything goes" free for all. I wish that a quick intro course would clear this up, but as I said above, I don't think the resistance comes from a misunderstanding. When I first read Bahnsen on apologetics, I knew it was true and heartily embraced it. Why don't others have the same reaction? I don't know, but I have my suspicions.
As to anyone desiring further background on the differences between presuppositional and evidential argumentation, here are some links:
http://www.tgfonline.org/TGF/tgfconf/1999/TGF991.htm
http://www.tgfonline.org/TGF/tgfconf/1999/TGF995.htm
http://www.tgfonline.org/TGF/topical/matrix.htm
http://www.tgfonline.org/TGF/bootcamp/pb13apol.htm
Last edited:
It's true I disagree with Bob Enyarts openness of God stance, I say that loudly. I'm not biased against Bob.
Survivors is a ministry designed to provide young people the opportunity to share with their peers the truth about abortion.
I don't see why you would withhold a monthly donation based on an individual in the groups theological beliefs. However, I wouldn't expect you to donate to the Closed Theist Seminar.
I guess maybe a little counterproductive, but more pointless than anything.
I don't get what you're saying here. I don't think that what Bob Enyart is doing is an unworthy endeavor. I think he's trying very hard to reach an admirable goal, but I do think that he's engaging in sword play using a pocketknife (and holding up quiet well because his opponent is fighting with a pocketknife as well) when he's carrying a broadsword at his side. If Mr. Enyart continues to follow the same line of reasoning that he has so far I expect to see a tie.
Are you trying to say that me withholding my kudo's for his method of debate= you withholding money from a pro-life ministry based on the theological beliefs of one member?
Must-reads and must-avoids ...
Must-reads and must-avoids ...
Natedog: You are correct. "Always Ready" is a must-read, especially for those who disagree. On the other hand, "Classical Apologetics" by Lindsley, Sproul and Gerstner is to be avoided even by those who agree with them. Are you familiar with that title?
Jim
Must-reads and must-avoids ...
Natedog: You are correct. "Always Ready" is a must-read, especially for those who disagree. On the other hand, "Classical Apologetics" by Lindsley, Sproul and Gerstner is to be avoided even by those who agree with them. Are you familiar with that title?
Jim
I'm not siding with Zakath on this. Many atheists have suffered crushing defeats at the hands of Christian apologists, because of their faulty logic and blind faith. Many Christians have lost debates to atheists by immersing themselves in the muddy water that is unregenerate reason.
Saying that Zakath is winning this debate does not validate atheism. Saying Bob Enyart is winning the debate does not validate Christianity. It merely says that so and so presented a stronger case for their position.
If Enyart presents a compelling case for the existence of God based on how ludicrous it would have to be for him not to exist, then I would say he wins.
If Zakath succeeds in reducing this debate to a bunch of "ifs", "ands", "buts", then I would say it supports his chaotic worldview more so than Bob's worldview.
Like I said, I think what Mr. Enyart is doing is a worthy endeavor.
I just don't know why he would choose to combat a giant deadly robot in hand to hand combat when he could simply unplug his cord from it's power socket.
A step further ...
A step further ...
Natedog writes:
Excellent comments, Natedog. I especially like how you state the transcendental argument "... how ludicrous it would have to be for God not to exist." Kudos to you.
Jim
A step further ...
Natedog writes:
To go a step further, it is unbiblical to use anti-theistic methods and condemned by Scripture. Biblically, we ought to be pulling the plug by critiquing the anti-theistic methodology at a fundamental level, just as Paul did in Athens.
Excellent comments, Natedog. I especially like how you state the transcendental argument "... how ludicrous it would have to be for God not to exist." Kudos to you.
Jim
Praise the Lord Bob evangelizes his way and not NATEDOG's and Jim's!
I was an atheist just like Zakath! The first step in me becomming a Christian was watching Bob destroy an atheistic evolutionist on his TV show one night using the exact same arguments he is using in the BR VII.
Now me, my wife and all of our 5 children, my sister her husband all of their children (some are grown up) and even my father will be with the Lord in heaven! Thank you Bob!
I was an atheist just like Zakath! The first step in me becomming a Christian was watching Bob destroy an atheistic evolutionist on his TV show one night using the exact same arguments he is using in the BR VII.
Now me, my wife and all of our 5 children, my sister her husband all of their children (some are grown up) and even my father will be with the Lord in heaven! Thank you Bob!
- Status