zorq

That quote from Psycho Dave is probably just a side note to counter BE's assertion that the atheist (in general) can not concieve of any possible way for conciousness to come from molecules

Zakath did not address this question in the debate, and BE is still pressing him to do so.

conkermaniac

What the hell are you talking about?

Echo

Leviathan,

I think it's great!

Now open your mind and quit complaining.

Spenser

I wasn't complaining, I've been enjoying the debate...



So what? Even if science can't currently explain it, how exactly is that evidence for God? That's why Zakath keeps referring to the God of gaps; find something that is difficult or not currently possible to explain and label that as evidence for God. That's nothing more than smoke. If such a thing could be used as evidence for God then it could equally be used for evidence for other Gods, multiple Gods, the force, the Matrix or any other thing that might have created this universe. It makes no positive statement about God and this IS a debate on the existence of God. It's a bull shit tactic that is nothing more than a diversion...

zorq

I agree, Zakath doesn't even need to answer the question because it holds no relavance to the topic of debate. Zakath realizes this and that is why he (most likely) did not answer and refuses to answer any questions about science (that is until he makes his last post).

Bob Enyart is trying to form an argument from ignorance even though he denies it and/or simply simply can't see that it is one.

I posted that quotation for some context for Jobar into the Psycho Dave quote. I actually think that Psycho Dave's quote qualifies as a "conceptual" explanation as to "in the most broad terms, how consciousness could have arisen from atoms and molecules."

mark9950

that believes in God does not use the bible as his source so far,If he did he would find a flat earth with a solid sky dome that is hard as a molten mirror.

What he does believe in is his image of his god or what he sees what his god is.not the flat earthed bible god.

These christians in a debate rarely use the bible in a true real debate,they debate their image of their god.

Spenser

To attempt to use the bible (as literal truth) in a debate on the existence of God while clinging to the concept of omnibenevolence is dangerous ground that only the most extreme fundies and maybe Catholics (who claim no one else but them can truly interpret the bible) would dare do. It's like pulling and throwing the 'pin' of the grenade rather than throwing the grenade itself...

The only thing I have learned from this debate so far (on the theistic POV) is that Bob Enyart is a horrible debater who assumes that if you assert something enough times it becomes truth. I think any iota of the concept of him being a 'heavy weight' in the field he adequately countered himself...