caddy Puritan Board Senior Jul 10, 2006 #1 How do I listen to Paul's Pod Cast debate? I'm just not seeing it.... Nevermind: Got it.... [Edited on 7-10-2006 by caddy]
How do I listen to Paul's Pod Cast debate? I'm just not seeing it.... Nevermind: Got it.... [Edited on 7-10-2006 by caddy]
Pilgrim Puritanboard Commissioner Jul 10, 2006 #2 Go to Unchained Radio, should see a big icon "On Air" and click on that
panta dokimazete Puritan Board Post-Graduate Jul 10, 2006 #3 http://www.unchainedradio.com:8000/listen.pls
panta dokimazete Puritan Board Post-Graduate Jul 10, 2006 #5 Yeah! use his opponents own words to define the debate!
panta dokimazete Puritan Board Post-Graduate Jul 10, 2006 #7 I am loving his definitions and setting the Reformed Doctrines as his worldview. And pointing out the pointlessness of Atheism.
I am loving his definitions and setting the Reformed Doctrines as his worldview. And pointing out the pointlessness of Atheism.
panta dokimazete Puritan Board Post-Graduate Jul 10, 2006 #8 ooo! killing Barker's presuppositional platform!
panta dokimazete Puritan Board Post-Graduate Jul 10, 2006 #9 uh-huh - damning Paul with "faint praise"... "If you write a book, I'll read it..." and begins with an EMOTIONAL APPEAL!!!
uh-huh - damning Paul with "faint praise"... "If you write a book, I'll read it..." and begins with an EMOTIONAL APPEAL!!!
fivepointcalvinist Puritan Board Sophomore Jul 10, 2006 #10 doesnt presupposing anything presuppose logic? this guy is off to a bad start...
panta dokimazete Puritan Board Post-Graduate Jul 10, 2006 #11 "The only way we have found to know if something is true is to 'check it out'"??? ...deeeeep.... [Edited on 7-10-2006 by jdlongmire]
"The only way we have found to know if something is true is to 'check it out'"??? ...deeeeep.... [Edited on 7-10-2006 by jdlongmire]
panta dokimazete Puritan Board Post-Graduate Jul 10, 2006 #12 ah - the ambiguity of Truth...no wait...little "t" truth...
panta dokimazete Puritan Board Post-Graduate Jul 10, 2006 #13 "In most cases, truth is NOT absolute..." ...and of course, that is absolutely true...
panta dokimazete Puritan Board Post-Graduate Jul 10, 2006 #14 ...again - the ambiguous definition of atheism - set the stage to cloud the issue...been there, done that...
...again - the ambiguous definition of atheism - set the stage to cloud the issue...been there, done that...
fivepointcalvinist Puritan Board Sophomore Jul 10, 2006 #15 dan relies on Gods immutability to maintain uniformity of anything he can "check out", but yet reproaches God for the same. what incoherency!!
dan relies on Gods immutability to maintain uniformity of anything he can "check out", but yet reproaches God for the same. what incoherency!!
panta dokimazete Puritan Board Post-Graduate Jul 10, 2006 #16 ...with the presupposition that an omniscient and omnipotent being is limited by the logic/law of space-time...
...with the presupposition that an omniscient and omnipotent being is limited by the logic/law of space-time...
panta dokimazete Puritan Board Post-Graduate Jul 10, 2006 #17 Barker's argument is weak, weak, weak...what a weak opening statement.
panta dokimazete Puritan Board Post-Graduate Jul 10, 2006 #20 YEAH! Confront him with his own weak definitions...with his own words! [Edited on 7-10-2006 by jdlongmire] [Edited on 7-10-2006 by jdlongmire]
YEAH! Confront him with his own weak definitions...with his own words! [Edited on 7-10-2006 by jdlongmire] [Edited on 7-10-2006 by jdlongmire]
panta dokimazete Puritan Board Post-Graduate Jul 10, 2006 #22 Which brain is working logically and which one is not? Beautiful. [Edited on 7-11-2006 by jdlongmire]
Which brain is working logically and which one is not? Beautiful. [Edited on 7-11-2006 by jdlongmire]
panta dokimazete Puritan Board Post-Graduate Jul 10, 2006 #24 Ah, the talking snake...I have seen a talking snake...ever watched the Jungle Book? This presupposes what is has always been. Presupposes that the serpent's physicality could not have been manipulated.
Ah, the talking snake...I have seen a talking snake...ever watched the Jungle Book? This presupposes what is has always been. Presupposes that the serpent's physicality could not have been manipulated.
fivepointcalvinist Puritan Board Sophomore Jul 10, 2006 #26 but Paul can account for his epistemology! how does this guy account for induction? answer the question!
but Paul can account for his epistemology! how does this guy account for induction? answer the question!
panta dokimazete Puritan Board Post-Graduate Jul 10, 2006 #27 I would use an example of virtual reality.
panta dokimazete Puritan Board Post-Graduate Jul 10, 2006 #28 I would site the source of Dan's statement. The source is not God. The source is capable of lying. [Edited on 7-11-2006 by jdlongmire]
I would site the source of Dan's statement. The source is not God. The source is capable of lying. [Edited on 7-11-2006 by jdlongmire]