Whispers

I see that the debate between Bob Enyart and Zakath has ended with Zakath withdrawing. Did ayone else see this debate? Thoughts?

http://www.theologyonline.com/vbulle...&threadid=7709

Vicar Philip

Looks to me like Pastor Enyart resorted to the "Irreducible Complexity of Life" argument, when the debate was supposed to be centered on the Existence of god. Zakath says quite clearly he will not answer question posed which purport to question the validity of science and the scientific process, yet that is exactly what we read (in great length, I might add).

What I see is the classic apologist tactic of not addressing actual proof of the existence of god, but instead to focus on the beginning of life, for which science certainly doesn't claim to have all the answers. I don't blame Zakath for quitting, unfortunately it gives the Exuberant Christians reason to celebrate.

Now if they'd just explain that darn Problem of Evil. Oh well.

Whispers

It seems as if you have over simplified what actually happened. zakath refused or ignored a number of key questions.

Vicar Philip

That was my take from spending 10 minutes perusing the thread. I was quickly bored by the good pastor's frequent appeals to probability and, quite frankly, most of the pastor's arguments boil down to: "God exists because he said so." Yawn.

Spenser

I'm going to have to agree with Vicar on this one. The pastor put forth really nothing of value and didn't seem to understand Zakath's references to the God of Gaps. Mr. Enyart proved nothing, offered no real evidence though he claims about 30 pieces of which, and never truly dealt with Zakath's rather standard atheist arguments.

Further note that the pastor completely ignored many counters to his arguments in the discussion threads from those atheists who did take the time to argue the gaps in scientific options...

Bill

Calling Enyart a "pastor" is somewhat less true than calling Jerry Fallwell and Pat Robertson "ministers of God." Enyart did start his own church, but the church is an outgrowth of his radio show at KGOV.com and that radio show is a popular forum for Enyart to air his truly nut-case views (like how "pro choice" folks ought to be killed for advocating murder).

== Bill

Hedshaker

I personally think this guy did a good job of debunking Enyart's ludrcous argument.

Enyart's argument was nothing more than the old, science can't explain such & such so goddit, failing miserably to show one iota of meaningful evidence for is own case.

To say that Zakath failed to answer Enyart's questions is lame. Enyart's numerous stupid questions and thousands upon thousands of empty words were nothing but worthless and insincere diatribe.

Hedshaker

Further more, Enyart was severely attacked by some of his own brethren for putting forward, what they call, an "unbiblical" argument.

Go figure

Wiploc

Enyart seemed articulate and willing to engage. Zakath was very frustrating; he kept bobbing and weaving, refusing to throw a punch. I wanted anybody but Zakath to climb into the ring and show that we have arguments on our side too.

Example: Enyart asked the simple question, "Do you believe in truth," and explained how he would respond to a yes answer, and how he would respond to a no answer. Zakath's response was, "What do you mean by truth?"

I quit reading after a couple of rounds.
crc

Hedshaker

Seemed to me that all Enyart tried to do was lead Zakath down a ret hole of stupid questions:

:banghead: blah blah blah


And it's perfectly legit for Zak to ask, "What do you mean by truth?" since truth for one isn't always truth for another.

Actually I think the question pertained to "absolute" truth, I'm not sure and can't bothered to check now.