One third the way through Battle Royale VII... who is winning?

[Shaun]

Originally posted by Zakath
Since you've apparenty abandoned logic and reason for religion, you certainly qualify for my meanderings...

I haven't abandoned anything, except for hopelessness. Stop acting so biased.

Perhaps you'd even try to answer my question, instead of dodging it?

I have faith in my beliefs, just as you have faith that science will finally someday answer the gazillion questions still lingering out there.

"Tasting Jesus"? Are you Roman Catholic, then?

Mercy, no. Mary as "co-redemptrix"? Are you kidding me? They're worse than Atheists, sometimes.

Shaun
read read read

 

[AROTO]

Originally posted by Zakath
Patience, grasshopper.

You were expecting what? Perhaps piles of concrete, physical evidence that a non-physical, imaginary entity does not exist? :

I find it funny how you point to no concrete evidence for creation when you yourself continue to say "I don't know" when asked about the supposed science behind evolution during your debate.

 

[JanowJ]

Another fact in the Bible.

Another fact in the Bible.

Originally posted by heusdens


In early manhood it was thought that rain, thunder and other natural phenomena could not be explained, and mankind invented deities to explain such phenomena.
Current day science show we do not need deities to explain the weather, and nevertheless, we are not able of completely determining weather phenomena.

Can theist present to us any case in which we need to reside our explenations on spitirual or theistic grounds, and can't use a materialistic explenation?

Excuse me? Maybe Greek, Roman or Egyptian mythology had problems with this, but the Bible was pretty clear. Consider this passage from Ecclesiastes 1: 6-7:
The wind goes toward the south,
And turns around to the north;
The wind whirls about continually,
And comes again on its circuit.
All the rivers run into the sea,
Yet the sea is not full;
To the place from which the rivers come,
There they return again.

Is there a better understanding of weather patterns than that? Rivers run into the seas. The seas water evaporates into rain, and the rain comes back down to earth and fills the rivers. If one is willing to look closely, the Bible has a lot of understanding into the scientific realm. Like the life of the body being in the blood.

And don't use the "the Bible says the sun rises and sets, therefore it isn't scientifically accurate" argument. If that was the case, then there isn't a weather report on TV that is scientific, since they all say that the sun will rise at ___ and set at ___. It's ok to use a figure of speech, which the Bible does sometimes use.

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Shaun
I haven't abandoned anything, except for hopelessness. Stop acting so biased.

Biased? Funny, I never claimed not to be biased...

I have faith in my beliefs, just as you have faith that science will finally someday answer the gazillion questions still lingering out there.

It gives us something to do instead of sitting around the campfire stariing at our navels intoning, "God did it. God did it...."

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by AROTO
I find it funny how you point to no concrete evidence for creation when you yourself continue to say "I don't know" when asked about the supposed science behind evolution during your debate.

My opponent didn't understand, or even bother to read, the information I provided.

At least I'm intellectually honest and can admit when I do not know something. I don't have to hide behind "God did it."

 

[AROTO]

Re: Another fact in the Bible.

Re: Another fact in the Bible.

Originally posted by JanowJ
Excuse me? Maybe Greek, Roman or Egyptian mythology had problems with this, but the Bible was pretty clear. Consider this passage from Ecclesiastes 1: 6-7:
The wind goes toward the south,
And turns around to the north;
The wind whirls about continually,
And comes again on its circuit.
All the rivers run into the sea,
Yet the sea is not full;
To the place from which the rivers come,
There they return again.

Is there a better understanding of weather patterns than that? Rivers run into the seas. The seas water evaporates into rain, and the rain comes back down to earth and fills the rivers. If one is willing to look closely, the Bible has a lot of understanding into the scientific realm. Like the life of the body being in the blood.

And don't use the "the Bible says the sun rises and sets, therefore it isn't scientifically accurate" argument. If that was the case, then there isn't a weather report on TV that is scientific, since they all say that the sun will rise at ___ and set at ___. It's ok to use a figure of speech, which the Bible does sometimes use.

Great point, I totally agree with you!
They "atheists" have yet to prove anything in the Bible wrong, and modern science is actually reaffirming lots of scripture as true. It is only their preception that needs :help:

 

[Zakath]

Re: Re: Another fact in the Bible.

Re: Re: Another fact in the Bible.

Originally posted by AROTO
Great point, I totally agree with you!
They "atheists" have yet to prove anything in the Bible wrong...

Oh really? Why do you think Enyart refuses to use the Bible in his debates...

 

[duel]

Meaning and Materialism

Meaning and Materialism

It seems that the God of the Gaps is a very strong argument for atheism and shows that faith in God is only a crutch. Zakath has really enriched his arguments with this position, or has he...

If this is really true then we must consider the Gaps science has.

Can science explain the thrill of winning a close race, or the sensation of well placed perfume or the sounds of joy?

When theism answers or fills these gaps with metaphysical truth the atheist must reject science for its credulity and inability to answer or provide meaning to the things we really hold dear.

Daniel

 

[AROTO]

Originally posted by Zakath
At least I'm intellectually honest and can admit when I do not know something. I don't have to hide behind "God did it."

I forgot, you don't believe you can absolutely know something, so I guess you always have that response.

 

[Shaun]

Re: Re: Re: Another fact in the Bible.

Re: Re: Re: Another fact in the Bible.

Originally posted by Zakath
Oh really? Why do you think Enyart refuses to use the Bible in his debates...

Because then we'd have to spend years going over all of your misconceptions about it; thereby losing focus on the main point of the debate.

Shaun
what? It's true

 

[ApologeticJedi]

Zak said: My opponent didn't understand, or even bother to read, the information I provided.

Without a doubt, one of the funniest parts of the debate thus far was when you obviously got in over your head and couldn't provide evidence for your side so you said “here, I’m no good at debate, go debate this guy.” And when Enyart said that Hawkin was wrong, you were left stranded because you didn’t understand the position well enough to defend it.

“pssst … Zak … you are the one in the debate.”

You are the one everyone is looking to for providing the athiest’s position. Not someone misquoteing Stephen Hawkin. Not Stephen Hakins. Sorry, I just don’t think he’s going to show up and take your place for you.

If you feel you are inadequate to defend a position you take up, it would be less embarrassing for yourself if you just admitted that.

Quoting something you are unprepared to defend is just hillarious.


(Didn't you originally complain about debating Enyart's whole church? Wanting to debate Enyart only? I believe I read that.)

Zak said: At least I'm intellectually honest and can admit when I do not know something. I don't have to hide behind "God did it."

There is a difference in saying, “If we don’t know what did it, then God did it” and saying “the known facts point to some supernatural occurrence.”

The way you use your “God of the Gap” argument (to which you never give credit to the original author) is a very bad argument.

Imagine a crime where a thief steals $15,000. If one suspect is found with gambling debt totaling exactly $15,000, that’s evidence!! It is not proof. If that was all the police had, the defense would argue something similar to your borrowed “God of the Gaps” argument.

However, does a seeker of the truth (the police in this example) totally ignore motive as you suggest we should do? No! They follow it and perhaps find more circumstantial evidence. They find that the suspect had a key made of the place that was robbed. Undeniable proof in itself? No. But the circumstantial evidence begins to pile up. Convictions are made in court rooms on circumstantial evidence alone. We probably won’t get any convictions here, but the weight of the evidence seems to point to God so far.

Perhaps you’re saving your better arguments for later.

 

[Flipper]

ApologeticJedi:

Do you think it's possible to do justice to an alternative universe creation event hypothesis in a debate like this? You may as well just acknowledge that there are alternatives to fiat creation that are being considered by serious physicists, and move on. Of course, if you did that, then you'd be surrendering some serious territory. The difference between fiat creation and these hypotheses, tentative though they are, is that these hypotheses have a viable mathematical framework. They are conceivably allowable. Some may even be testable in the near future. What alternatives do the fiat creationist provide? Where, in short, is their theory?

Bob took issue with Hawking but failed to provide an adequate explanation, as I'm not buying that Stephen Hawking doesn't understand basic physics. Now that, my friend, is colossal and ill-considered arrogance.

 

[ApologeticJedi]

Flipper said Do you think it's possible to do justice to an alternative universe creation event hypothesis in a debate like this?

Since we have no evidence (whatsoever) that alternative universes exist (p-brane or any other mathematical proposal) I think it is in the arena of pink elephants in the sky. There still isn’t enough evidence for it to be taken seriously – though desperately some have taken as such.

Flipper said The difference between fiat creation and these hypotheses, tentative though they are, is that these hypotheses have a viable mathematical framework. They are conceivably allowable.

I suppose that depends on what you qualify as “viable mathematical framework”. If you mean that it is allowable to invent collolarys on truths that have yet to be established, then I suppose anything is viable. If “viable” means that we can make guesses on how things work and put together mathematical equations without any basis for showing that both sides of the equal sign are indeed equal … then math is basically useless, because everything becomes viable.

Flipper said Some may even be testable in the near future. What alternatives do the fiat creationist provide? Where, in short, is their theory?

Are you suggesting that creationists have not been putting forth a theory (often the same theory) for the past 2000 years? You’ve never heard them put forth the idea about the being outside of the realm of natural physics? That’s dishonest of you.

Flipper said Bob took issue with Hawking but failed to provide an adequate explanation, as I'm not buying that Stephen Hawking doesn't understand basic physics. Now that, my friend, is colossal and ill-considered arrogance.

So Bob arguments using the laws of physics showing how Hawkin’s argument fails is not adequate because you have faith in Hawkins? Who is using faith and who is using science?

Don't let anyone ever tell you that you should think through an issue. You are much funnier this way.

 

[Flipper]

Jedi:

Since we have no evidence (whatsoever) that alternative universes exist (p-brane or any other mathematical proposal) I think it is in the arena of pink elephants in the sky. There still isn’t enough evidence for it to be taken seriously – though desperately some have taken as such.

Think you may have described creationist cosmology there. At least these tentative hypotheses are potentially falsifiable. At least some of them can be tested in our particle accelerators and by our sensors.

Furthermore, theory is the respectable foundation of modern physics. The theorists build a consistent model that can account for conditions as we observe them and provide predictions of what we should find if the theory is to have substance. Then the experimentalists go out and test the predictions.

Now, where are the creation theorists? What predictions do you have, hmm?

Are you suggesting that creationists have not been putting forth a theory (often the same theory) for the past 2000 years? You’ve never heard them put forth the idea about the being outside of the realm of natural physics?

I think you may be scientifically illiterate. The book of genesis is not a theory. It's literature. See my previous paragraph for the role that theory plays in physics.

So Bob arguments using the laws of physics showing how Hawkin’s argument fails is not adequate because you have faith in Hawkins? Who is using faith and who is using science?

Don't let anyone ever tell you that you should think through an issue. You are much funnier this way.

Like Bob, you read a paragraph and suddenly you're an expert.

Sure. I expect Stephen Hawking didn't think through this issue either. Lucky a fringe evangelist was on hand to show him the error of his ways. Bob was not "using physics", Bob made a snap judgement based on a paragraph he read in a popular science book. That, my friend, is not using science.

It's not that I have faith in Hawking, although I am inclined to trust him more on the subject of physics than Bob Enyart, what with him being a successful theorist and everything. It's that I have faith in his peers and I am sufficiently confident based on what we know to trust that he knows what he is talking about, and has not made an elementary mistake.

If he has, then let Bob (or you) show him. Not through possibly ignorant assertion, but in the equations.

They have not been published in a peer-reviewed journal.
They have no mathematical apparatus.
They make no predictions.
They use unjustified criticism of current theory.

http://www.ilja-schmelzer.de/ether/crank.html#criticism
The Crank Physics Detection Guide

Go back and read my arguments on Bob's assertions if you're interested.

Again, more evidence of the inherent anti-intellectualism that is part and parcel of the modern creationist's attitude towards science. It is depressing.

 

[AROTO]

Originally posted by Flipper
Jedi:
It's not that I have faith in Hawking,

I

How could you? Bob discredited him much the same way he is pulling apart Zakath. I think its hard for you to trust in "faith" anyway.

 

[RogerB]

Furthermore, theory is the respectable foundation of modern physics. The theorists build a consistent model that can account for conditions as we observe them and provide predictions of what we should find if the theory is to have substance. Then the experimentalists go out and test the predictions.

Throughout history there have been many more theories abandoned than proven. That's how much your theories are worth. Frequent effusive chatter does not make them any more true.

Now, where are the creation theorists? What predictions do you have, hmm?

Creation theories? HELLO?!?! McFLY?!?!
:doh:

 

[RogerB]

Again, more evidence of the inherent anti-intellectualism that is part and parcel of the modern creationist's attitude towards science. It is depressing.

You can't be serious. You think there are no Christian scientists? I work at one of the largest drug companies in the country. I'm surrounded by scientists ( :help: ). Many of them are Christians.

By the way, there are lots of drugs to help you with your depression.

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by RogerB
You can't be serious. You think there are no Christian scientists?

Sure, Mary Baker Eddy founded a religion full of them... :chuckle:

I work at one of the largest drug companies in the country. I'm surrounded by scientists ( :help: ). Many of them are Christians.

Good for you. That merely demonstrates that in certain fields, religious belief is not incompatible with scientific training...

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by RogerB
Throughout history there have been many more theories abandoned than proven. That's how much your theories are worth.

Actually that demonstrates how science works. Hypotheses are proposed and tested, those that survive may become theories. As new information and evidence becomes available existing theories may be discarded in favor of new hypotheses and theories that better fit the observable evidence.

Dogmatism in science is just as dangerous to new learning as it is in any other area of human endeavor.

Frequent effusive chatter does not make them any more true.

Nor does repeating "God did it" make it any more true...

Creation theories?

There are multiple creation theories, most notably the Young Earth creationists vs. Old Earth creationists. Each school of thought claims they have the truth of God and the others are wrong or heretical or both...

 

[Flipper]

Well that was a parade of fallacious conclusions and non-sequiturs. Not to mention an embarrassing ignorance of science.

Shall we go through them, or should it be left as an exercise to the reader (ages 12 and up).

Be ashamed for yourselves, gentlemen.

I should pretend you were trolling, if I were you.