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

[novice]

Whoa... erie... I made my post BEFORE Aussie made that MATRIX statement. :shocked:

 

[One Eyed Jack]

If I know Aussie, he's not going to miss a good sci-fi reference...

 

[Hilston]

Not so nice ...

Not so nice ...

Knight,

I didn't intend the remark to be mean, but to make a distinction. I suppose that is divisive. But my opinions are no secret. I think Bob Enyart's methods are not only unbiblical, but manageable and unchallenging to atheists. I think Bob Enyart does a disservice to Christians and atheists by arguing this way. My experience has shown that atheists have a preference as to the kinds of theists they debate. They prefer those who use the standard theistic teleological and ontological arguments, which are unbiblical in their normal usage.

As to being divisive, that's the nature of the beast, isn't it? To distinguish truth from error is divisive. To delineate false thinking from true thinking is divisive. Knight, you're a nice guy, and I really appreciate you. I'm not so nice, I suppose. Perhaps I can learn from your example.

Thanks for the exhortation.

Yours,
Jim

 

[Aussie Thinker]

Novice,

That is spooky.. you have me pegged already !

Jim,

Atheists prefer to argue with someone like Enyart because he makes them think. They don’t argue with people like YOU because they can’t.

You just say.. “You are wrong.. Bible says so.. end of argument”

How pointless. At least Enyart gives it a go !

 

[Hilston]

Cogito ergo sum ...

Cogito ergo sum ...

Hi Aussie,

Thanks for your reply.

You write:

Simply put you are unwilling to argue about anything that the Bible disagrees with.

It isn't true. But I won't pretend there is a level playing field. Anyone who claims to be an atheist is really unqualified to critique it.

Aussie Thinker writes:

And you refuse to accept that the Bible may be wrong because it “can’t” be !

Of course. That's part of believing the Bible, isn't it? It should come as no surprise to anyone that I accept the Bible in a priori fashion.

Aussie Thinker writes:

That is like me saying you don’t really exist you are just a computer program in the Matrix.. anything you say can be disregarded because you don’t really exist.

From a cartesian standpoint, it's really the other way around, isn't it?

Aussie Thinker writes:

For you to have any coherent acceptable argument in anything you must always accept that the other side may be right..

Really? Where do you get that maxim? Maybe provide an example.

Aussie Thinker writes:

In other words you have to accept that the Bible may be wrong and constantly strive to show it isn’t…

Why would I have to accept that?

Aussie Thinker writes:

2 completely logical fallacies that you employ

Just saying something is right doesn’t make it so.

Using a text as proof of itself is ridiculous.

First of all, I neither employ nor appeal to either of these. Second, I've never heard of these logical fallacies.

Aussie, what is your opinion of logic, its usefulness, its verity and stuff? Do you view logic as universal and invariant? Or is it subjective and ultimately ephemeral? Or some other description?

Thanks,
Jim

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Re: Not so nice ...

Re: Not so nice ...

Originally posted by Hilston
Knight,

I didn't intend the remark to be mean,

I really have a hard time believing that statement.

You continue..

but to make a distinction. I suppose that is divisive. But my opinions are no secret. I think Bob Enyart's methods are not only unbiblical, but manageable and unchallenging to atheists.

Not only have you failed to demonstrate that assertion... but I would counter assert that several people most notably Scrimshaw have given compelling evidence that your claims are unbiblical in and of themselves.

Furthermore... when you state... "and unchallenging to atheists." have you been reading BR VII??? Apparently not.

You continue...

I think Bob Enyart does a disservice to Christians and atheists by arguing this way. My experience has shown that atheists have a preference as to the kinds of theists they debate.

My experience shows just the opposite and therefore what?

you continue...

As to being divisive, that's the nature of the beast, isn't it? To distinguish truth from error is divisive.

No actually it isn't. You can disagree without being divisive within the Body, I do not think you have contemplated that have you? Maybe this is something you should work on? Reject a divisive man after the first and second admonition.

You continue..

I suppose. Perhaps I can learn from your example.

I hope so!

 

[Hilston]

Throwing manure bags ...

Throwing manure bags ...

Originally posted by Hilston : I'll ask the question again. I want an example of how NOT to answer a fool according to his folly.

Scrimshaw writes:

Since the verse is saying not to respond to folly, WITH folly, the correct application of the verse would be not to respond to a fool's folly in a way that commits the same folly. For example, say a fool throws bag of cow manure at your front door. Proverbs 26:4,5 would say not to respond by throwing a bag of cow manure at the fool's door, because by doing so, you'd be responding to the fool according to his folly.

Good example! So we agree on the general gist of the verse. But you still haven't answered my question: How would you NOT answer the fool according to his folly so that he will not be wise in his own conceit?

Scrimshaw writes:

BINGO!!! I don't think that is correct application of 12:23 for the same reasons I do not think you have a correct application of 26:4,5.

But the application you explained above is exactly what I'm talking about. Zakath is throwing bags of cow manure at Bob's door. Bob is doing the same thing back at Zakath.

Scrimshaw writes:

All you have done is misapplied a few selective pretexts.

Please correct my misapplications.

Scrimshaw writes:

Since I am a Christian and assume you were one as well, I didn't think it was necessary to state the obvious ...

You've forced yourself into that situation, Scrimshaw. Try to see this: You quoted the verse in support of an "anything goes" type of argument. I asked you for your exclusions because obviously I think Bob's form of argument should be one of those exclusions. My point is that Bob's argument is not biblical and that it is as much an exclusion from Paul's prescription as those you concede above. We both agree that Paul was giving examples of how to win the lost. The difference is in what we each perceive as allowed vs. disallowed methods. So rather than quote the verse that we both agree on, which gets you nowhere, why not attack the point that we disagree on. Really, I should not have to explain this.

Scrimshaw writes:

... just like Paul didn't think it was necessary to state the obvious in 1 Corinthians 9:19 when he said that he will become "ALL" things to "ALL" men. Certainly it is assumed that Paul didn't literally mean "ALL things", otherwise he would be saying he becomes a homosexual to homsexuals, a prostitute to prostitutes, a cheater to cheaters, liar to liars, etc. etc.

Exactly. So obviously, quoting that verse simply gets agreement from me. Where has it gotten us? Attack the disagreement; don't waste your time on the obvious.

Scrimshaw writes:

So tell ya what......I'll revise my statement to include those exclusions as soon as Paul revises his statement to include those exclusions....... but until then, me and Paul see no need to state the obvious.

I've cited support from scripture that would make unbiblical argumentation an exclusion. Do you think Paul would endorse, "To the anti-theist I became like the anti-theist"? That is what Bob is doing by his method of argument. He is throwing a manure bag back at Zakath.

Scrimshaw writes:

What is an atheist's folly? Please define.

The anti-theist's folly is two-fold: (1) his claim of atheism, which is a lie; and (2) his thesis that there has been insufficient evidence to prove God's existence, even though the very tools he employs (logic, science) to rationalize his claim originates with God Himself.

Scrimshaw writes:

And then, explain exactly how Bob has committed the *same folly* in his responses.

Bob's manure-bag tossing aligns perfectly with Zakath's: (1) Bob tacitly affirms Zakath's claim to atheism, which is a lie, and (2) Bob concedes Zakath's claim that there has been insufficient evidence and attempts to take up the slack by further evidentiary argumentation in an attempt to convince Zakath of something he already knows, but denies a priori.

Scrimshaw writes:

Where has Bob "lied"?

It is implicit in his argumentation. Zakath claims to be an atheist. This is a lie, but rather than expose that, Bob enables it by trying to offer evidence to disprove atheism (which is a myth).

Scrimshaw writes:

Where has Bob endorsed or perpetuated a lie?

See above.

Scrimshaw writes:

His arguments actually expose atheism by showing WHY it is a lie.

No, that's what Paul did on Mars Hill. Bob is perpetuating the lie by failing to call it or to expose it. Again, the lie that needs to be attacked is not the claim that there is no God (that is merely a symptom of Zakath's underlying error), but rather that the lie that Zakath's atheism is valid and that there is not sufficient evidence to prove God's existence. Both are fundamental (root) lies that have not been exposed. Bob is shooting at the leaves.

Jim previously wrote: That is what is happening when someone allows a person to claim to be an atheist and to claim that they haven't seen enough evidence for God's existence and attributes.

Scrimshaw writes:

What the heck does that mean? What does it mean to "allow" someone to "claim" to be an atheist?

Here's another obvious thing that I shouldn't have to explain. Someone claims Jesus was not God. Do you allow it? Or expose the folly of it? Someone claims that socialism is a superior economic theory. Do you allow it, or expose the folly of it. Someone claims there is not enough evidence to prove God's existence. Do you allow it, or expose the folly of it?

Scrimshaw writes:

... You can't prohibit people from claiming a position in a debate. In a debate format, each person is allowed to define the position they want to argue for, regardless of whether or not you think it is a legitimate position.

Of course. But do you allow it, or expose the folly of it?

Scrimshaw writes:

Bob is debating Zakath in order to show that Zakath's position is incorrect.

Now that you've put it that way, why is Zakath's position incorrect? Perhaps this will help you to grasp what I'm trying to convey.

Jim previously wrote: What I'm opposed to is the failure to confront the lie of atheism, which is their claim regarding the insufficiency of evidence.

Scrimshaw writes:

But demonstrating that the evidence *IS* sufficient is the same thing as confronting the lie.

I agree. How does one go about demonstrating that there has already been sufficient evidence? By providing more evidence? Isn't that undermining the claim that there has already been sufficient evidence? That's what Bob is doing.

Scrimshaw writes:

Nothing in Bob's arguments endorse the idea that Zakath has not had sufficient proof for God's existence. In fact, the purpose of Bob's arguments is to detail exactly what these "sufficient" proofs ARE that Zakath is ignoring and/or denying.

There's nothing wrong with pointing out (i.e. declaring) those things that sufficiently proves God's existence (See Ps 19:1). The complicity begins when Zakath denies the sufficiency (i.e. throws a bag of manure), and rather than attacking Zakath's underlying assumptions (the very existence of the manure bag and the ability to throw the manure bag), Bob instead employs anti-theistic reasoning (another bag of manure) to argue from the evidence.

Scrimshaw writes:

No, Bob is not providing MORE evidence that Zakath hasn't seen. There is no new evidence. The evidence that David described in Psalms 19:1 is the same evidence that Bob is describing now.

No, David wasn't making an argument or leaving the statement open to debate. He declared the truth. If someone were to question whether or not Ps. 19:1 was adequate to prove God's existence, I imagine David would have called him a fool and dismantled his worldview from the ground up, as opposed to further elaborating on the words of Ps. 19:1. There is no further elaboration needed. In fact, Ro. 10 says this very thing.

Scrimshaw writes:

Bob is simply *expounding* on the same evidence with a slightly higher degree of scientific/philosophical detail.

For what purpose? To convince Zakath that there is a God? He already knows that. Zakath's problem is not a lack of evidence, or being forgetful about evidence. Zakath's problem is rebellion, self-delusion, and I would add arguing with theists who arguing unbiblically. It doesn't help Zakath because in the end, his worldview was not sufficiently challenged and he is left wiser in his own conceit.

Scrimshaw writes:

No, by showing that the evidence for belief is sufficient, Bob IS refuting the atheist lie.

Bob isn't showing that the evidence is sufficient. He is asking if Zakath believes in truth. We know he does.

Scrimshaw writes:

If the atheist lie is that the evidence is insufficient for belief, but it is shown that there IS sufficient evidence for belief, then the atheist's claim of "disbelieving" is proven illegitimate!

I agree, but this isn't what Bob is doing. Bob is not challenging the so-called atheist's claim of disbelief, he is rather attacking the idea of disbelief in God, which is a myth. Scrimshaw, how would you go about proving that the evidence is sufficient?

Scrimshaw writes:

So basically, Bob is showing that the atheist's claim of disbelief is illegitimate!

That's not the same as showing that Zakath is lying when he says he doesn't know God exists.

Scrimshaw writes:

But atheism DOES exist!

Not in the sense that the so-called atheists define and claim it. The Bible disallows their definition. All men know God and His attributes because He has made it plain to them, within them and from creation. So sufficiently has He done this that all men are without excuse. That's not atheism as the so-called atheist's define it. That's denial. That's rebellion.

Scrimshaw writes:

It exists in the form of a LIE!! Bob's arguments are refuting that lie.

No, he's not. He is affirming the lie by allowing the myth of atheism to be perpetuated.

Scrimshaw writes:

... I repeat, by showing that the evidence for theism is sufficient, Bob is showing that the atheist's claim of disbelief is illegitimate. It's that simple.

He's not doing that. He is affirming Zakath's position and enabling him to continue. It's like not telling an alcoholic that he's an alcoholic, and offering him beers to prove it.

Jim previously wrote: What Bob ought to be arguing against is the lie that Zakath doesn't believe in God, just as Paul argued with the Athenians. Paul rebuked them for having the "Unknown God" altar. Bob should rebuke Zakath for his "Unknown God" altar.

Scrimshaw writes:

That is a false comparison because the Athenians were theists. They believed in a god. Zakath does not.

Now there you go! Perpetuating the myth. Zakath cannot escape his belief in God, and everytime he uses logic or science, he affirms God's existence. Don't you realize that Zakath operates on blind faith? Don't you realize that he is religious? Why would you so baldly state "Zakath does not believe in a god?" He does believe. He believes in the "gods" of logic and science, whilst denying his knowledge of the true God whence comes logic and science.

Scrimshaw writes:

[Romans 1] simply says that what can be known about God has made plain to everyone, so no one is has an EXCUSE for their disbelief. The text does not say that no one has disbelief.

If there is no excuse for their disbelief, then it follows that God has sufficiently revealed Himself to them, right? In other words, nothing further needs to be done to demonstrate His existence to them. If there is further need, then they do have an excuse, and God has NOT sufficiently revealed Himself to them.

 

[Aussie Thinker]

Hilston,

You claim one cannot be an atheist because the Bible says you cannot be.

You are basing that on the infallibility of a Book that is flawed in so many ways.

In my OPINION the book is riddled with inconsistency and Myth.

It is only your OPINION that the book is infallible.. therefore you may as well cut out the middle man and say it is just your OPINION that atheists do not exist..

It’s a short step to just saying your OPINION is always right so therefore this is the ONLY argument you ever need to produce..

You are really saying your OPINION is infallible NOT the bible.

 

[Hilston]

Absolute opinion ...

Absolute opinion ...

Hi Aussie,

You write:

Hilston, ...

Please call me Jim.

Aussie Thinker writes:

You claim one cannot be an atheist because the Bible says you cannot be.

Right, isn't that what you would expect from me?

Aussie Thinker writes:

You are basing that on the infallibility of a Book that is flawed in so many ways. In my OPINION the book is riddled with inconsistency and Myth.

Upon what do you base that opinion?

Aussie Thinker writes:

It is only your OPINION that the book is infallible.. therefore you may as well cut out the middle man and say it is just your OPINION that atheists do not exist..

Of course, I expect you to have that view, since you reject the God who wrote the Book. As one who acknowledges and worships the God who wrote that Book, it's not my opinion at all. Surely you see this, right?

Aussie Thinker writes:

It’s a short step to just saying your OPINION is always right so therefore this is the ONLY argument you ever need to produce..

Except that my opinion is often proven wrong by the Word of God.

Aussie Thinker writes:

You are really saying your OPINION is infallible NOT the bible.

You mean, that is what you are really hearing because you foolishly reject God's existence. It's certainly not what I'm "really saying."

 

[Aussie Thinker]

Jim,

It is just as easy for me to say.. YOU are the one living the lie.

You know there is no God and you are self delusional about perpetuating this Myth.

Do you see the pointlessness of this line of argument.

The only evidence we have is that the Bible was written by man.. You have invented some MYTH that it was penned by God !

The infallibility of the Bible only exists in your vivid imagination.. it is a 2,000 year old text penned by bronze age man.

The only argument you are willing to have is…

I am right and you are wrong… that leads nowhere and is VERY childish.

For a normal argument lets assume neither of us are right and we have to actually ARGUE to see who has the better case..

This is what Enyart is doing.

 

[Hilston]

Compelling evidence ...

Compelling evidence ...

Hi Knight,

Knight writes:

Not only have you failed to demonstrate that assertion ...

On the contrary. It's been demonstrated quite a bit. It may have been misunderstood, it may have been kneejerked to death and back, but it has been demonstrated. I've offered several examples that have not been cogently answered. I've offered scripture that others have attempted to dismiss or reinterpret. I've answered other verses offered by others, showing that the verse was either misapplied or misunderstood.

Knight writes:

... but I would counter assert that several people most notably Scrimshaw have given compelling evidence that your claims are unbiblical in and of themselves.

Show me.

Knight writes:

Furthermore... when you state... "and unchallenging to atheists." have you been reading BR VII??? Apparently not.

Even if Zakath were lambasted, it might be because of either poor debating skills or a lack of knowledge -- but it would not be because Bob Enyart's arguments are so devastating. I have been reading the debate, by the way.

Knight writes:

My experience shows just the opposite and therefore what?

We're not looking for the same thing. Would you know unbiblical argumentation if you saw it? Could you give an example of answering not a fool according to his folly?

Jim previously wrote: As to being divisive, that's the nature of the beast, isn't it? To distinguish truth from error is divisive.

Knight writes:

No actually it isn't. You can disagree without being divisive within the Body, I do not think you have contemplated that have you?

Sure I have. I have to. How was my remark divisive within the Body? I was writing to someone who claims that God doesn't even exist.

Reject a divisive man? I thought it was "reject a heretic." (Tit. 3:10). Or are you referring to a different verse?

Jim

 

[Hilston]

Ka thunk.

Ka thunk.

Hi Aussie,

You write:

It is just as easy for me to say.. YOU are the one living the lie. You know there is no God and you are self delusional about perpetuating this Myth.

Shall we have a go at seeing whose opinion is correct?

Aussie writes:

Do you see the pointlessness of this line of argument.

How do you come to that conclusion?

Aussie writes:

The only evidence we have is that the Bible was written by man.. You have invented some MYTH that it was penned by God ! The infallibility of the Bible only exists in your vivid imagination.. it is a 2,000 year old text penned by bronze age man.

Have you evaluated the evidence yourself? Or are you basing this on the research of others?

Aussie writes:

The only argument you are willing to have is… I am right and you are wrong… that leads nowhere and is VERY childish.

For someone who claims to know so much about my argument, you're wrong a lot. I've asked you quite a few questions, each of which is intended to have an argument with you. You've managed to not answer every one.

Aussie writes:

For a normal argument lets assume neither of us are right and we have to actually ARGUE to see who has the better case..

Is that how it's done? Maybe among anti-theists, but any Christian who argues that way is surrendering the debate right out of the box.

Aussie writes:

This is what Enyart is doing.

Thanks for that affirmation.

Jim

 

[Yorzhik]

This is more like it. Hilston (I don't say 'Jim' because the debates on the evolution forum of old always used 'Hilston') is not doing well arguing against a Christian, Scrimshaw. He is not doing well arguing against another Christian, Knight. His arguments against Bob Enyart's manuscript "The Plot" are not compelling. And it saddens me to see Hilston doing so poorly in these discussions. I'm not saddened so much by the poor showing (the majority of the Christians on this forum show poorly at any particular time), but because I remember Hilston arguing with evolutionists and cleaning their clocks! Hilston was the one who proved the value of the epistemological approach to me. In fact, I'd say after studying his style, I've really tried hard to emulate it.

And now Aussie comes along so I can cheer for Hilston again. Just a warning to Aussie - don't bring up the Matrix. If you are an honest debater, you don't want to go there.

 

[Hilston]

Please help ...

Please help ...

Hi Yorzhik,

Thanks for your kind words. I really mean that.

But I wonder if you would do me a favor. Please show me where I need to improve in my discussions with Knight or Scrimshaw or in my critique of "The Plot." I would like to improve in each area, but just saying that I'm doing poorly doesn't really help me. I welcome the criticism because that gives me an opportunity to improve.

So please, fire away. I promise not to throw any bags of manure.

Hilston

PS: What was your screen name in those old discussion boards?

 

[Aussie Thinker]

Jim,

I was trying to make a simple point that you cannot use a subjective argument that you argue from infallibility.. otherwise anyone could do and argument is pointless.

But you want line by line answers here goes

Shall we have a go at seeing whose opinion is correct?

Sure I think mine is way more logical sensible and correct. Mine is based on evidence, fact and reasoning. How about yours ?

How do you come to that conclusion?

Because it is just completely circuitous to argue you are right with no firm basis except your book of mythology. The Koran was written by God too according to Muslims.. what is the difference between it and your Bible. If I write a book declaring God inspired it would you believe it too ?

Have you evaluated the evidence yourself? Or are you basing this on the research of others?

I grew up in a religious background .. like most hardened atheists did (funny that).. I have read the Bible through many times. It is almost indistinguishable in terms of mythology and distorted history from that of many cultures. Many of its myths are plagiarised from earlier Sumerian culture and much of its “history” is completely unsupported by archaeology. There is little or no corroborative evidence.

For someone who claims to know so much about my argument, you're wrong a lot. I've asked you quite a few questions, each of which is intended to have an argument with you. You've managed to not answer every one.

You argument is simply that atheists are lying( quite offensive too) based on your mythological book. And that God existence is obvious because we are here (our ability to use logic and reason).. a ridiculously childish point I might add

Is that how it's done? Maybe among anti-theists, but any Christian who argues that way is surrendering the debate right out of the box.

It must be fantastic to just “know” you are correct by some divine fiat. I would equate more to an Ostrich “knowing” he is safe from attack by having his head buried in the sand.

Thanks for that affirmation.[/quote

You’re welcome

 

[Aussie Thinker]

Yorzhik,

I would love you to point me to somewhere where Evolutionists “clock were cleaned” by anyone.

The only arguments against evolution I have ever heard are ridiculous unscientific junk. Surely you do not ascribe to the Young Earth Creationist view do you?? It is hard to equate that world view and reason…

I can happily ascribe to a theistic evolutionist viewpoint.. in fact the most knowledgeable evolutionist I knew was a strong Christian.. but don’t give me view that is laughable in over 10 sciences.

 

[Hilston]

Head in the sand ...

Head in the sand ...

Hi Aussie,

Aussie Thinker writes:

I was trying to make a simple point that you cannot use a subjective argument that you argue from infallibility.. otherwise anyone could do and argument is pointless.

I recognize that. Nor would I attempt to make that argument.

Aussie Thinker writes:

But you want line by line answers here goes ...

Well, not necessarily. But the questions I ask are not usually rhetorical.

Aussie Thinker writes:

Sure I think mine is way more logical sensible and correct.

Just to clarify, what are your criteria for "logical" and "sensible" and "correct"?

Aussie Thinker writes:

Mine is based on evidence, fact and reasoning. How about yours ?

Mine, too. But I also include special and general revelation. Here are a few questions:

• Regarding evidence: What kinds of evidence will you allow? Material only?
• Regarding facts: What do you use to ascertain whether or not something is factual?
• Regarding reasoning: How would go about assessing whether or not your reasoning faculties are actually reliable?

To cut to the chase, my claim is that on the anti-theistic worldview, you cannot cogently justify your criteria or methods in each case. If you think you can, I am eager to hear it.

Aussie Thinker writes:

Because it is just completely circuitous to argue you are right with no firm basis except your book of mythology.

All arguments are ultimately circuitous, but I have a firm basis for my argument in the utter impossibility that God does not exist. That is to say, the anti-theistic worldview cannot account for the necessary preconditions of logic, science, morality, the intelligibility of human experience or human dignity, whereas the Christian Theistic worldview does so exclusively.

Aussie Thinker writes:

Koran was written by God too according to Muslims.. what is the difference between it and your Bible. If I write a book declaring God inspired it would you believe it too ?

The difference is stated above (by replacing "anti-theistic" with "muslim"). The Koran is not only internally incoherent, but it cannot rationally account for the things I've listed above.

Jim previously asked: Have you evaluated the evidence yourself? Or are you basing this on the research of others?

Aussie Thinker writes:

I grew up in a religious background .. like most hardened atheists did (funny that).. I have read the Bible through many times. It is almost indistinguishable in terms of mythology and distorted history from that of many cultures. Many of its myths are plagiarised from earlier Sumerian culture and much of its “history” is completely unsupported by archaeology. There is little or no corroborative evidence.

I like that: "Hardened atheist." Each of your objections here is not unique or original and each has been cogently answered elsewhere. What I'm interested in is knowing if you have ever required of yourself a rigorous explanation for the very things you use to evaluate evidence, namely logic and science. On what do you base your confidence in these?

Aussie Thinker writes:

You argument is simply that atheists are lying( quite offensive too) ...

Well, I was explaining my position to other theists. When I directly engage anti-theists, I try to use less "wall-erecting" language. I do not back down from the claim, but I do not say it to be mean. I am simply restating what the Bible says (which you should expect me to do). The Bible also says you are a fool. So if I ever say that to you, it's not name-calling or an attempt to be mean. It's a description.

Aussie Thinker writes:

... based on your mythological book. And that God existence is obvious because we are here (our ability to use logic and reason).. a ridiculously childish point I might add.

That is rather simplistic, and it's not my argument. God existence is obvious in two ways: because nothing else coherently accounts for the things of your daily experience, and because God has indeed made Himself known within you. These combined inputs suffice to inform you of God's existence, which you will aggressively reject and push away from you, even to the point of deluding yourself. I know this must be irritating to read, but it's what the scripture says, and if true, it certainly seems to align with what I'm getting from you.

Aussie Thinker writes:

It must be fantastic to just “know” you are correct by some divine fiat.

It is actually. Quite fabulous. That's the great thing about regeneration: Unwavering faith; full assurance; unshakeable confidence in Christ and His Word. And this is imparted to the believer from God Himself.

Aussie Thinker writes:

I would equate more to an Ostrich “knowing” he is safe from attack by having his head buried in the sand.

Prove to me that you haven't done this very thing regarding your reliance upon the laws of logic, the precepts of science, and the verity of your rational faculties.

 

[NATEDOG]

Posted by KNIGHT:

Jim you are an extremely divisive Christian.

I am saddened by your bizarre behavior.

Am I wrong in understanding that you are very close to Bob Enyart?
It's because of this that I can understand defensive statements such as this. He's a major point of authority in your life and it's easy to perceive 'attacks' on him.
I don't really see how Jim is behaving any differently than you, or Bob behave in your debates. Bob is a very straightforward and honest man from all I've seen, and I don't think he'd be overtly offended by Jim's style. You live by the sword, you die by the sword.

If I get the time, I'd like to post a more precise description of the Transcendental Argument for God's existence. This isn't a promise, but I'd like to see the debate head in that direction. I think it'd help clear up some of the strawman issues that Scrimshaw and Novice
are fighting against.

 

[Aussie Thinker]

Jim

I recognize that. Nor would I attempt to make that argument.

But you are making a subjective argument. You BELIEVE the Bible is right. That doesn’t make it so.

Well, not necessarily. But the questions I ask are not usually rhetorical.

I didn’t think you were getting my .. I still don’t think you are.. until you did I thought it pointless to go of on a tangent .. but as you wanted your questions answered I will comply.

Just to clarify, what are your criteria for "logical" and "sensible" and "correct"?

Well it would be a little bit long winded to go down that path. But supplying supernatural answers for natural occurrences never makes much sense. I am yet to see any proof of anything supernatural so LOGIC dictates that supernatural occurrences are mistaken natural occurrences or they do not exist.

Mine, too. But I also include special and general revelation. Here are a few questions:

Lucky you.. God gave you special revelation.. I just got logic and sense.

Regarding evidence: What kinds of evidence will you allow? Material only?

In terms of history generally material evidence suffices but eyewitness accounts and supposition are allowed as long as they do not stray into the impossible. For example if I say to you I saw a man walk on water.. my eyewitness account is immediately dismissible as either mistaken or a lie.

Regarding facts: What do you use to ascertain whether or not something is factual?

Usually a combination of material evidence and logical human accounts are sufficient. If is something particularly difficult to understand or fathom. Expert scientific opinion is also acceptable.

Regarding reasoning: How would go about assessing whether or not your reasoning faculties are actually reliable?

Well I guess that can be said for both of us .. but having a high IQ, working in a skilled job , managing to have a wife and 3 children and several friends etc.. would imply I have most of my faculties in place.

To cut to the chase, my claim is that on the anti-theistic worldview, you cannot cogently justify your criteria or methods in each case. If you think you can, I am eager to hear it.

Well I think I did.

All arguments are ultimately circuitous,

Not really, certainly not as circuitous as the Bible is correct because it says it is correct.

but I have a firm basis for my argument in the utter impossibility that God does not exist. That is to say, the anti-theistic worldview cannot account for the necessary preconditions of logic, science, morality, the intelligibility of human experience or human dignity, whereas the Christian Theistic worldview does so exclusively.

Our logic is born of our intelligence which was formed from the natural evolutionary process. Our science was also born of this intelligence. Our moral are born of the inherent knowledge that if it bad for me it must be bad for another. Our intelligence also made this clear to us. Dignity is a subjective thing depending on your culture and again born of our leap up the evolutionary curve. My atheistic wordview easily accounts for all these things with NO requirement of a God.

The difference is stated above (by replacing "anti-theistic" with "muslim"). The Koran is not only internally incoherent, but it cannot rationally account for the things I've listed above.

And millions of Muslims would say the same about your Holy Book.

I like that: "Hardened atheist." Each of your objections here is not unique or original and each has been cogently answered elsewhere. What I'm interested in is knowing if you have ever required of yourself a rigorous explanation for the very things you use to evaluate evidence, namely logic and science. On what do you base your confidence in these?

Hardened atheist.. lol.. I am not really .. I don’t usually care.. almost everyone I know and love is a Christian and I don’t care of they are theists.. sometimes though I just can’t help wondering what leads normal intelligent humans to concoct a mystical unlikely illogical deity.

Well, I was explaining my position to other theists. When I directly engage anti-theists, I try to use less "wall-erecting" language. I do not back down from the claim, but I do not say it to be mean. I am simply restating what the Bible says (which you should expect me to do). The Bible also says you are a fool. So if I ever say that to you, it's not name-calling or an attempt to be mean. It's a description.

Hitlers Mein Kampf said the Arians were a Master Race.. does that mean we can take it true ? Your Bible says I am a fool.. showing how foolish it is.

That is rather simplistic, and it's not my argument. God existence is obvious in two ways: because nothing else coherently accounts for the things of your daily experience, and because God has indeed made Himself known within you. These combined inputs suffice to inform you of God's existence, which you will aggressively reject and push away from you, even to the point of deluding yourself. I know this must be irritating to read, but it's what the scripture says, and if true, it certainly seems to align with what I'm getting from you.

Everything in my daily life is EASILY accounted for with natural explanations

Its not irritating at all.. it is exactly what I know you think. The irony is you are the one who is deluded while I am able to think freely about life the universe and everything. God has not made himself known to me and he has not made himself know to you.. you are lying if you say he has because he does not exist (see it isn’t pleasant is it)..

Provide for me when, where and how God made himself know to you.

It is actually. Quite fabulous. That's the great thing about regeneration: Unwavering faith; full assurance; unshakeable confidence in Christ and His Word. And this is imparted to the believer from God Himself.

Asylums are full of people who have unwavering faith and KNOW the answers to everything. People in the real world realise many things still need answers and keep searching for them.

Prove to me that you haven't done this very thing regarding your reliance upon the laws of logic, the precepts of science, and the verity of your rational faculties.

Unlike you I am perfectly willing to allow for a God in the universe. He would not be any of the ridiculous concoctions made up by man. And it seems to add another layer of complexity into the Universe but.. I am broadminded enough to accept the possibility.

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by NATEDOG
...If I get the time, I'd like to post a more precise description of the Transcendental Argument for God's existence. This isn't a promise, but I'd like to see the debate head in that direction. I think it'd help clear up some of the strawman issues that Scrimshaw and Novice are fighting against.

Great idea! :thumb:

Would you do it in a new thread so it doesn't get lost in this particular discussion?