ARCHIVE: Bob Enyart has already lost the debate ...
- Thread starter Hilston
- Start date
- Status
Welcome back ...
Welcome back ...
Novice,
Welcome back. There are some questions that have been awaiting your return:
Novice wrote:
Novice wrote:
Jim
Welcome back ...
Novice,
Welcome back. There are some questions that have been awaiting your return:
Novice wrote:
Where? The context is not being ashamed of the gospel. Paul goes on to describe those who oppose the truth, giving us a clear understanding of what makes their professed atheism tick. Do you agree with the Bible that says Zakath has already had sufficient proof of God's existence?
Novice wrote:
Does "not being ashamed of the gospel" have anything to do with a Christian here on earth, Novice?
Jim
cheeezywheeezy
New member
THAT'S IT??? You condemn Bob for presenting a beginning of an argument for the existence of God and when you are asked to write how you would start out such a discussion ALL YOU HAVE TO SAY IS...
"Don't you already know that God exists? How is it possible that God does NOT exist? Do you view that as a real possibility?"
You simply change the debate topic of "Does God Exist" to "Does God NOT Exist". You take away the oportunity to show that God is real and loving and just etc...from yourself and put it on the other person to prove that your God does not exist.
If this is how you would start the discussion and you asked someone the question you asked me...
"Do you view that as a real possibility?"
and i then said "yes I view it as a real possibility that God does not exist and I would like you to show me that He does"...then where would you go?
"Don't you already know that God exists? How is it possible that God does NOT exist? Do you view that as a real possibility?"
You simply change the debate topic of "Does God Exist" to "Does God NOT Exist". You take away the oportunity to show that God is real and loving and just etc...from yourself and put it on the other person to prove that your God does not exist.
If this is how you would start the discussion and you asked someone the question you asked me...
"Do you view that as a real possibility?"
and i then said "yes I view it as a real possibility that God does not exist and I would like you to show me that He does"...then where would you go?
RC Sr, I think. On second thought, I do recommend the book to those with a firm grasp of biblical apologetics, mainly because it exposes the folly of straw man arguments and power of the evidentialist paradigm to trump rationality.
It seems to me that the worst part of evidentialism is the meta-level discussion is itself evidentialistic. Witness the kinds of claims used here to justify bad and unbiblical methodology: "It worked on me!" As if that justifies it. God uses the folly of men, even Madonna and the Mormons, to accomplish His purposes.
Jim
cheeezywheeezy
New member
You mock Knight with the statement...
"Witness the kinds of claims used here to justify bad and unbiblical methodology: "It worked on me!" As if that justifies it."
How is that unbiblical? When Jesus healed the blind man all he could say was...
"...I know, that, whereas I was blind, now I see." (John 9:25)
Isn't that biblical? The answer the guy gave was hey...look what he did for me? Isn't it great! That's what Knight is saying...and you mock him.
Pro 26:11 As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly.
"Witness the kinds of claims used here to justify bad and unbiblical methodology: "It worked on me!" As if that justifies it."
How is that unbiblical? When Jesus healed the blind man all he could say was...
"...I know, that, whereas I was blind, now I see." (John 9:25)
Isn't that biblical? The answer the guy gave was hey...look what he did for me? Isn't it great! That's what Knight is saying...and you mock him.
Pro 26:11 As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly.
Here is a scripture that might help you understand. This is what Jesus said in John 3-12. " If I told you earthly things and you do not believe, how shall you believe if I tell you heavenly things."
If Bob explains to Zakath, and those listening in, earthly things about God's existence and they don't believe, then how are they to understand the heavenly things.
Yes, faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God. Yet a prerequisite in the same book, the Bible, is that one "must " believe that God exists, and that He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him.
I did not know that apparently two admininstators, both Knight and Lion, were saved through the very same man and ministry which you attack for its methods. This should give you pause to think, and reconsider.
I agree with you, Zakath is a biblical fool. but Bob is biblically wise as shown through Knight and Lion. Daniel 12: 3 " And they that be WISE shall shine as the brightness of the firmament,and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars forever and ever."
If Bob explains to Zakath, and those listening in, earthly things about God's existence and they don't believe, then how are they to understand the heavenly things.
Yes, faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God. Yet a prerequisite in the same book, the Bible, is that one "must " believe that God exists, and that He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him.
I did not know that apparently two admininstators, both Knight and Lion, were saved through the very same man and ministry which you attack for its methods. This should give you pause to think, and reconsider.
I agree with you, Zakath is a biblical fool. but Bob is biblically wise as shown through Knight and Lion. Daniel 12: 3 " And they that be WISE shall shine as the brightness of the firmament,and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars forever and ever."
I don't think that God can't use Bob's ministry or this debate to bear fruit. I don't exactly agree with Billy Graham's evangelistic methods, but I know of plenty of people that have come to Christ after they have heard his preaching.
It sounds that you've kind of gotten defensive, and have started viewing this as an attack on Mr. Enyart rather than a critique of the approach he has taken in this debate.
Presuppositional apologetics don't preclude the use of scientific points and argument. They can be helpful, maybe even compelling.
To however, make that the foundation of your apologetic seems to me to be a warping of priority.
How can you reason 'tit for tat' over details with an unbeliever who's (unless you can provide an alternate biblical explanation for the scriptures that would seem to say this) reason is twisted.
Atheism is an incoherent worldview. It can't provide the parameters for reason. Atheism can't account for reason. It can't account for induction, therefore neither of these things, reason and induction, can be accepted reasonably.
If they can't be accepted reasonably, and they are accepted, then they must have been accepted unreasonably.
Mr. Enyart seems to have granted Zakath neutrality. He is letting Zakath fight him with the sword of reason.
Reason can't exist in Zakath's worldview, so why should Bob let him defend that worldview with reason?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Good things may come from this debate. God may use Mr. Enyarts arguments to bring people to him, even if he doesn't use the most effective debate tactics. God will use it for good even if Enyart loses the debate. Don't consider this an attack on his motives.
Peace,
Nathan
A real possibilty?
A real possibilty?
cheeezywheeezy, here's a newflash for you: Bob Enyart is not the Messiah and Bob Enyart did not save Knight.
Also, you show a pattern here,cheeezywheeezy. Every critical thing is taken by you as a personal affront, even when it isn't directed at you. Grow some thicker skin. Also, look up the word "mock."
cheeezywheeezy writes:
cheeezywheeezy writes:
cheeezywheeezy writes:
cheeezywheeezy writes:
Jim
A real possibilty?
cheeezywheeezy, here's a newflash for you: Bob Enyart is not the Messiah and Bob Enyart did not save Knight.
Also, you show a pattern here,cheeezywheeezy. Every critical thing is taken by you as a personal affront, even when it isn't directed at you. Grow some thicker skin. Also, look up the word "mock."
cheeezywheeezy writes:
What's wrong with that, cheeezywheeezy? I haven't violated scripture by my questions as Bob Enyart has with his.
cheeezywheeezy writes:
What debate topic, cheeezywheeezy? You asked me to prove the existence of God. I am asking you how is it possible that He doesn't exist. There is no "topic of debate" here, except the purpose of the thread I started (to expose the unbiblical apologetic method being witnessed against Zakath).
cheeezywheeezy writes:
Who is the "other person", cheeezywheeezy? You? If so, I need to know more about your position, hence the questions. I don't debate in a vacuum. Don't you already know that God is real and loving and just?
cheeezywheeezy writes:
Is that your actual position, cheeezywheeezy? Do you consider it a actual possibility that He does not exist? You see, this little exercise that you're foisting upon this thread exposes the very thing I set it up to critique. You have a false notion of neutrality in the debate, as if you could actually stand in the position of the anti-theist and argue consistently in the so-called atheist's behalf. I've tried this myself in the past. The error of the exercise is this: Anti-theists are God-hating self-deluded liars and they espouse a worldview that cannot be justified on their own principles. This is what must be confronted and exposed, cheeezywheeezy. I doubt you would be able to adequately and consistently represent the real-life anti-theist viewpoint, as evidenced by the way you responded to my questions above.
Jim
Last edited:
cheeezywheeezy
New member
NATE, you said...
"Mr. Enyart seems to have granted Zakath neutrality. He is letting Zakath fight him with the sword of reason.
Reason can't exist in Zakath's worldview, so why should Bob let him defend that worldview with reason?"
It's only the second round!!! You guys are acting as if Bob is a biblical moron and this is the first time he has ever been in this situation. Have you not seen and heard Bob debate an atheist before to know where he's going with his arguments?
You also say...
"It sounds that you've kind of gotten defensive, and have started viewing this as an attack on Mr. Enyart..."
Hilston started this as an attack on Bob when he wrote:
"I predict a loss for Mr. Enyart...because Mr. Enyart's arguments are horribly unbiblical"
and
"in the end, that Mr. Enyart cleaned Zakath's proverbial clock on a debate level, whether through superior rhetoric or a wider knowledge of science, the fact is, if Mr. Enyart continues to argue unbiblically, he will have lost the debate on a biblical level."
Hilston got his shorts all up in a bunch just after one post claiming Bob's entire argument was entirely unbiblical...AFTER ONE POST! If you guys have not seen Bob debate an atheist...just wait.
"Mr. Enyart seems to have granted Zakath neutrality. He is letting Zakath fight him with the sword of reason.
Reason can't exist in Zakath's worldview, so why should Bob let him defend that worldview with reason?"
It's only the second round!!! You guys are acting as if Bob is a biblical moron and this is the first time he has ever been in this situation. Have you not seen and heard Bob debate an atheist before to know where he's going with his arguments?
You also say...
"It sounds that you've kind of gotten defensive, and have started viewing this as an attack on Mr. Enyart..."
Hilston started this as an attack on Bob when he wrote:
"I predict a loss for Mr. Enyart...because Mr. Enyart's arguments are horribly unbiblical"
and
"in the end, that Mr. Enyart cleaned Zakath's proverbial clock on a debate level, whether through superior rhetoric or a wider knowledge of science, the fact is, if Mr. Enyart continues to argue unbiblically, he will have lost the debate on a biblical level."
Hilston got his shorts all up in a bunch just after one post claiming Bob's entire argument was entirely unbiblical...AFTER ONE POST! If you guys have not seen Bob debate an atheist...just wait.
cheeezywheeezy
New member
"You have a false notion of neutrality in the debate"
what debate?
you spent an entire post as is a debate didn't exist...and then claim I am making false notions in this so called debate that doesn't exist.
what debate?
you spent an entire post as is a debate didn't exist...and then claim I am making false notions in this so called debate that doesn't exist.
cheeezywheeezy
New member
"I haven't violated scripture by my questions"
Where in the bible does it list the questions you are supposed to ask when engaging in a debate?
Where in the bible does it list the questions you are supposed to ask when engaging in a debate?
cheeezywheeezy
New member
"Bob Enyart is not the Messiah and Bob Enyart did not save Knight."
I never said that he did.
But you state that Knights salvation "testimony" is unbiblical when you said...
"Witness the kinds of claims used here to justify bad and unbiblical methodology: "It worked on me!" As if that justifies it.
Describe the unbiblicalness of what Knight has said.
I never said that he did.
But you state that Knights salvation "testimony" is unbiblical when you said...
"Witness the kinds of claims used here to justify bad and unbiblical methodology: "It worked on me!" As if that justifies it.
Describe the unbiblicalness of what Knight has said.
Maybe you're right. Maybe he'll prove me wrong, that'd be cool.
I just don't see it heading in that direction.
Also, I've heard that Bob strictly subscribes to the evidential model, and the first few posts didn't do anything to make me doubt that it's true.
I've never seen Bob debate an atheist. I have seen many evidentialists debate atheists though, so if he is taking that approach I probably know what to expect. Who knows, maybe he'll bring something to the debate I've never seen before.
You can always tell ...
You can always tell ...
Natedog,
I've never seen an evidentialist save himself from his own methodology. It cannot be done.
Cheeezywheeezy writes:
cheeezywheeezy writes:
cheeezywheeezy writes:
You can always tell ...
Natedog,
I've never seen an evidentialist save himself from his own methodology. It cannot be done.
Cheeezywheeezy writes:
Are you attacking my fashion sense, cheeezywheeezy? [Now that's mocking, cheeezywheeezy].
cheeezywheeezy writes:
The fact that you even state that sentence sufficiently demonstrates that you just don't get it, cheeezywheeezy. I listen to, attend and read as many "Does God Exist" debates as I have opportunity. I can always tell from the opening arguments whether the person is going to lose the debate on a rational biblical level or not.
cheeezywheeezy writes:
I have, cheeezywheeezy. I followed his debates with Douglas Krueger and Michael Shermer. It's always awful overall. I will grant that he occasionally makes excellent points, but unfortunately, he introduces them in unbiblical and irrational ways. Bob Enyart has fine debating skills; much better than mine. Depending on the particular point he is making, he is very good at staying on topic and holding the opponents feet to the fire. Also, he thinks on his feet, which is something I really admire and wish I could do better. In fact, the things that I like about Bob Enyart are the very reason that I lament the unbiblical argumentation he uses. If he were to use the biblical apologetic method, he would be devastating.
cheeezywheeezy
New member
what would you consider to be the best Presuppositional position debate to watch, read, or listen to in order to compare the two?
Last edited:
I always like the Greg Bahnsen vs. Gordon Stein debate.
http://www.u-turn.net/3-2/exist.html
I don't know where you could get the debate on audio, I'll look for it.
http://www.u-turn.net/3-2/exist.html
I don't know where you could get the debate on audio, I'll look for it.
http://www.grandstrandredeemer.org/misc.html
if you go here, about 3/4 of the way down the page there is the bahnsen vs stein debate on real player. it's advertised in really small letters, so you may have to look hard for it.
if you go here, about 3/4 of the way down the page there is the bahnsen vs stein debate on real player. it's advertised in really small letters, so you may have to look hard for it.
Books:
Bahnsen, Greg L. Always Ready: Directions for Defending the Faith. American Vision and Covenant Media Foundation, 1996.
______. Van Til's Apologetic: Readings & Analysis. P&R Publishing, 1998.
Frame, John M. Apologetics to the Glory of God: An Introduction. P&R Publishing, 1994.
______ Cornelius Van Til: An Analysis of His Thought. P&R Publishing, 1995.
Pratt, Richard L., Jr. Every Thought Captive: A Study Manual for the Defense of Christian Truth. Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1979.
Van Til, Cornelius. The Defense of the Faith. Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1955.
Audio debates:
The Great Debate: Does God Exist?
Writeup from CMF website: "This is the famous formal debate between Dr. Bahnsen and atheist promoter Dr. Gordon Stein held at the university of California (Irvine) in 1985. Hear how hard it is to deny God's existence and how intellectually rigorous the Christian position actually is."
http://www.cmfnow.com/product.asp?0=241&1=316&3=9530
Does God Exist?: A Debate Between Greg Bahnsen and Edward Tabash
Writeup from CMF website: "This formal debate between Dr. Bahnsen and atheist lawyer (former ACLU) Edward Tabash at the University of California (Davis), is a great follow-up to the Bahnsen/Stein debate. Witness again how an atheist fails to wrestle with fundamental philosophical issues."
http://www.cmfnow.com/product.asp?0=241&1=316&3=9532
Jim
One Eyed Jack
New member
I've heard that one. He cleans that guy's clock, if you ask me.
- Status