M. K. Nawojski
New member
Clete said:
Which unsupported and illogical claim of mine are you referring to, Clete? MK
BATTLE TALK ~ BRX (rounds 4 thru 7)
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
Which unsupported and illogical claim of mine are you referring to, Clete? MK
M. K. Nawojski said:
Here's my previous post which explains....
This is a terrific example of the logical fallacy known as the Argumentum ad Consequentiam fallacy or an "appeal to consequences" fallacy in which the author points to the disagreeable consequences of holding a particular belief in order to show that this belief is false.M. K. Nawojski said:
It is a type of Red Herring and can take either of two forms.
1.(Belief in) p leads to good consequences.
(Where the good consequences are irrelevant to the truth of p.)
Therefore, p is true.
2. (Belief in) p leads to bad consequences.
(Where the bad consequences are irrelevant to the falsity of p.)
Therefore, p is false.
Of course Mawojski's argument has taken the latter form. It is a fallacy of logic because it confuses the consequences of a logical conclusion with evidence for the truth of that conclusion.
Wouldn't you agree with Bob and I that we would should do (and/or believe) right and risk the consequences! :thumb:
Resting in Him,
Clete
M. K. Nawojski
New member
CRASH said:
I am referring to all answers to my first post in this forum (the post which asked two questions but made no "claims" at all): i.e., "Has anybody noticed that Bob Enyart, in 'discarding' what he calls the 'Settled View' listing of God's attributes -- omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence, impassibility, and immutability -- has thus swept aside the 'defining' traits of deity, which identify the Almighty God of Scripture and distinguish Him from all false gods and/or created beings? And has anyone noticed further that the 'Open View' list which he substituted -- living, personal, relational, good, loving -- does not draw a distinction between the Creator and His creatures at all. The 'Open View' listing could be used to describe any number of created beings, including the holy angels."
By the way, I had no plan at all to follow that initial post with the suggestion that Almighty God is NOT living, personal, relational, good, and loving -- and, in fact, had never heard of (nor imagined) such a notion. I was merely drawing attention to the fact that -- out of the myriad of thrice-holy attributes, which could be used to reference the Eternal God of Scripture -- Mr. Enyart has chosen to attack and reject a very specific grouping, i.e., the ones which define God as "God."
MK
elected4ever
New member
Yes I noticed that too. That was done to change the direction of the debate. One thing i have noticed about Bob's debating style. He wonts to debate on his points of interest and ignore yours in an attempt to gain advantage and a win for him. It does not matter the validity of his opponents argument. It's all about controlling and winning the debate. He wonts to debate on his terms not the opponents.M. K. Nawojski said:
RightIdea
New member
E4E, every debater wants to win the debate on his own terms. Duh! That goes without saying! LOLelected4ever said:
However, Bob has directly and/or indirectly answered Sam's arguments, while Sam has misunderstood half of what Bob said, and ignored the other half! He's tap dancing almost as much as Z-Man does. What on earth do you think Bob has ignored???
RightIdea
New member
MK, what in the world are you talking about??? Bob hasn't thrown away the omnis! Where do you get that from? How can you so blatantly misrepresent what he said?M. K. Nawojski said:
He said that the Openness attributes he listed are the greater attributes which take precedence over the omnis which are the lesser attributes, and he proved it beautifully by going to the incarnation!
As he pointed out, God the Son, Himself, "threw away" temporarily the Omnis in His earthly ministry, while keeping the "Openness attributes" that Bob listed! So, it is no problem for God to divest Himself of the omnis, but if He gives up any of the NOAH attributes by the tiniest degree, God comes undone! If He commits even the tiniest sin, He's no longer God! So, if you cant' stand the idea of the omnis being removed (temporarily) from God.... tell it to God! Not us...
elected4ever
New member
Bob has lost the debate because he has change the subject and conceded the points of Dr. Lamerson in the first round. It does not matter if Dr lamerson is right or wrong from this point on. It is an exercise in futility. I fault the moderators for that. It does not matter what attributes are lesser or greater. The point is that Mr Enyart changed the subject that Dr. Lamerson was discussing and effectively conceded the points. Mr. Enyart, you lose.RightIdea said:
As for as I am concerned Dr. Lamerson need not answer any of Mr. Enyart's questions until Mr Enyart returns to the first post and addresses it effectively. He has not done so to this point.
RightIdea
New member
Change the subject? How on earth do you figure that? Didn't respond to Lamerson's first post? He's responded strongly to everything in Lamerson's first post! Have you not read the last 2 rounds, E4E? Some new posts have been made available in the last week or so, you know. LOL
What question of Lamerson's do you think hasn't been answered?
What question of Lamerson's do you think hasn't been answered?
Poly
Blessed beyond measure
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
elected4ever said:
e4e, I'm beginning to question whether you're really putting any effort into keeping up with this debate. Some of the things you say and the accusations you assert cause me to wonder if you're really reading the posts or just jumping at the chance to say "Bob is wrong" simply because it's Bob who's saying it. I encourage you to carefully read what has been posted by both Bob and Sam in this debate and then to carefully weigh whatever accusations or claims you choose to make, being cautious by making sure they are accurate.
You're are either not paying attention or are willfully lying. It was Lamerson who brought up the need to figure out which set of proof texts are to be used to interpret the other, not Bob. And so it is Lamerson who laid that as a foundational issue. Bob simply proved that the open view texts must be used to interpret the other and explained clearly why. In so doing, he effectively responded not only to every point Lmaerson made in the first post but every point that Lamerson could ever make.elected4ever said:
It seems clear that you need to reread Bob's posts.
Resting in Him,
Clete
elected4ever
New member
I did not comment on weather Mr. Enyart was right of wrong only that he has conceded the points of Dr. Lamerson. It is the habit of Mr Enyart to change the subject in order to control the debate. It is a common practice of his that he exhibits regularly on his radio program. I see the same practice employed here and I think it is inappropriate for this debate. :bang:Clete said:
Bob assumes privileges not his due
Bob assumes privileges not his due
Bob’s declaration of early victory is not a presentation of evidence or an argument, but rather a statement of judgment. But the task of a debater is to present his case and to let the judges – in this case, we readers – make the decision as to how well each side carried their case. For Bob as a debater to declare victory in the middle is rather like a batter in a baseball game calling strikes and balls and outs as though the umpire were surplus baggage. Indeed, in both Bob’s mind and that of the batter the issue may be crystal clear, but it is not by fiat of the debater’s or Bob’s declaration that the call is made. The play must be made so that from our (hopefully) less biased umpire’s perspective we can make an impartial judgment.
Bob has the right to declare a preemptive victory, but that is just a debate tactic, not unlike other tactics designed to sway the judgment of the judges. Arguing excessively with the umpire over a call can backfire.
No one doubts that Bob thinks his arguments are irrefutable, and anyone who has heard Bob expound his theology knew that before the first post. Bob explains he made his victory declaration because if he allows the propitious moment to pass without such a victory declaration, then the remainder of the debate will lose focus in the “comparatively unimportant matters” that follow. I wonder how the debate can proceed for the agreed to remaining rounds without discussion of a number of supporting ideas, whether early victory is declared by one side or not. One objective of an effective debater is to end the debate with the victory, meaning no matter what baggage is thrown in the ring, when all is over, the debater has managed to successfully prosecute his case throughout the duration. An effective closing to a debate often involves focusing on those earlier crucial arguments and counterarguments that best support your side.
I feel a bit put down, since as one of the unofficial judges, Bob has indicated that he doubts my ability to recognize and retain the impact of decisive ideas if they are followed by less focused discussions. In fairness, and since Sam had the opening post, he should be informed that he can first declare preemptive victory over Bob, after which anything Bob says can be taken as sour grapes from the loser.
Bob assumes privileges not his due
Bob’s declaration of early victory is not a presentation of evidence or an argument, but rather a statement of judgment. But the task of a debater is to present his case and to let the judges – in this case, we readers – make the decision as to how well each side carried their case. For Bob as a debater to declare victory in the middle is rather like a batter in a baseball game calling strikes and balls and outs as though the umpire were surplus baggage. Indeed, in both Bob’s mind and that of the batter the issue may be crystal clear, but it is not by fiat of the debater’s or Bob’s declaration that the call is made. The play must be made so that from our (hopefully) less biased umpire’s perspective we can make an impartial judgment.
Bob has the right to declare a preemptive victory, but that is just a debate tactic, not unlike other tactics designed to sway the judgment of the judges. Arguing excessively with the umpire over a call can backfire.
No one doubts that Bob thinks his arguments are irrefutable, and anyone who has heard Bob expound his theology knew that before the first post. Bob explains he made his victory declaration because if he allows the propitious moment to pass without such a victory declaration, then the remainder of the debate will lose focus in the “comparatively unimportant matters” that follow. I wonder how the debate can proceed for the agreed to remaining rounds without discussion of a number of supporting ideas, whether early victory is declared by one side or not. One objective of an effective debater is to end the debate with the victory, meaning no matter what baggage is thrown in the ring, when all is over, the debater has managed to successfully prosecute his case throughout the duration. An effective closing to a debate often involves focusing on those earlier crucial arguments and counterarguments that best support your side.
I feel a bit put down, since as one of the unofficial judges, Bob has indicated that he doubts my ability to recognize and retain the impact of decisive ideas if they are followed by less focused discussions. In fairness, and since Sam had the opening post, he should be informed that he can first declare preemptive victory over Bob, after which anything Bob says can be taken as sour grapes from the loser.
Last edited:
You are a liar e4e! I've watched and or listened to Bob Enyart's shows for over a decade and while many who don't want to face the force of his arguments or are too dim witted to follow his point often say that he is changing the subject but that fact is that he is very careful NOT to change the subject. Read his posts again. You cannot be so stupid as to not be able to see the logic of his argument. It's not only on topic and responsive, it is substantive and brilliant. If you don't see it, it'll be because you've intentionally shut your eyes to it.elected4ever said:
Resting in Him,
Clete
It's stupid. Bob Enyart does not say things he doesn't mean. It makes me wonder if Lamerson wants out. No one calls someone's bluff that they don't even know unless they are desparate.elohiym said:
I think it would be sweet if Bob took him up on the offer.
Resting in Him,
Clete
Honestly, I'm getting pretty tired of this BR. I went into this excited and looking foward to a good debate on an issue that recently I had been very back and forth on and it has really done nothing. Neither side, in my opinion, has thoroughly responded to the others arguments. Bob has avoided some arguments that Sam has offered and Sam has dodged some questions that Bob has asked.
There seems to be more sarcasm and fake "nice" conversation than actual debating. Bob goes and declares victory, which, even if he honestly believes he has won, was, in my opinion, arrogant and unnecessary. Now Sam comes back and, like Clete said, seems to be calling Bob's bluff and is either trying to bully Bob into more rounds or may be hoping that Bob does end it because he wants out.
If it keeps going I'll continue reading, but I've been far from impressed so far and I sincerely hope the debating gets better.
but maybe that's just me.....
There seems to be more sarcasm and fake "nice" conversation than actual debating. Bob goes and declares victory, which, even if he honestly believes he has won, was, in my opinion, arrogant and unnecessary. Now Sam comes back and, like Clete said, seems to be calling Bob's bluff and is either trying to bully Bob into more rounds or may be hoping that Bob does end it because he wants out.
If it keeps going I'll continue reading, but I've been far from impressed so far and I sincerely hope the debating gets better.
but maybe that's just me.....
elected4ever
New member
Apology
Apology
I posted this on another tread. I think it is appropriate to restate it here.
I went back and reread the post. I must have just skimmed over it. I made a mistake. Mr Enyart did address the issues of my concern. I apologize for my misstatements. I'll pay better attention next time.
Apology
I posted this on another tread. I think it is appropriate to restate it here.
I went back and reread the post. I must have just skimmed over it. I made a mistake. Mr Enyart did address the issues of my concern. I apologize for my misstatements. I'll pay better attention next time.
- Status