Battle Talk ~ Battle Royale VII
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
Charismata
New member
How about some cheese to go with that whine?
How about some cheese to go with that whine?
Zakath seems to have no problem asking for boundaries but whines when Bob Enyart asks for the same.
His question for Bob to define truth sounds somewhat familiar...
""What is truth?" Pilate asked." - John 18:38a
I have found that trying to pidgeon hole atheists and have them play by the very same standard they ask theists to play by is like trying to put toothpaste back into the tube.
It's not easily done.
Bob Enyart keep up the good work. Zakath's whining definitely illustrates you are on the right path. :thumb:
I look forward to participating more on this board.
How about some cheese to go with that whine?
Zakath seems to have no problem asking for boundaries but whines when Bob Enyart asks for the same.
His question for Bob to define truth sounds somewhat familiar...
""What is truth?" Pilate asked." - John 18:38a
I have found that trying to pidgeon hole atheists and have them play by the very same standard they ask theists to play by is like trying to put toothpaste back into the tube.
It's not easily done.
Bob Enyart keep up the good work. Zakath's whining definitely illustrates you are on the right path. :thumb:
I look forward to participating more on this board.
Last edited:
Freak,
Yes, a chair is not a spider but know one here is agruing that.
You state a chair is absolute. So what exactly is the absolute chair? What does one mean when they claim the object cradling them about two feet from the floor is a "chair"; indeed what is "chairness"
We know from experience that to be functional, a chair must have (arguably) four legs, a foundation for the posterior and a back rest, yet mere functionality hardly describes a complete and absolute "chair".
There are a near infinite possibilities of what secondary attributes one single "chair" might have, such as material it's varying parts are made of, aesthetic design, even it's color ....etc.
Yet, if you still believe in an "absolute" chair -- please indulge me and post a picture of this "absolute" chair -- such a chair that all concievable chairs derive from.
Last edited:
Charismata
New member
quip
What the heck are you talking about????
"You state a chair is absolute. So what exactly is the absolute chair? What does one mean when they claim the object cradling them about three feet from the floor is a "chair"; indeed what is "chairness"
Huh? "Chairness"? :kookoo:
Trying to find some distinction in identity where there is none? A dog breed remains a dog regardless of it's distinction from another breed.
:dog:
He is making an argument of identity ie. A tautology.
Please don't begin some silly indulgence into the philosophy of meaning. It is seriously boring.
Trying to force some fallacy of reductio ad absurdum where there is none is pretty weird. :hammer:
What the heck are you talking about????
"You state a chair is absolute. So what exactly is the absolute chair? What does one mean when they claim the object cradling them about three feet from the floor is a "chair"; indeed what is "chairness"
Huh? "Chairness"? :kookoo:
Trying to find some distinction in identity where there is none? A dog breed remains a dog regardless of it's distinction from another breed.
:dog:
He is making an argument of identity ie. A tautology.
Please don't begin some silly indulgence into the philosophy of meaning. It is seriously boring.
Trying to force some fallacy of reductio ad absurdum where there is none is pretty weird. :hammer:
Last edited:
Nuff said ... Now that you indulged us with your ignorance, you can go finish your T.V. show.
For the rest:
tautology is a statement in logic that will be true in every circumstance, incidentally the fact of the "circumstances" described in my prior post demonstrates explicitly that "a chair is an absolute" is not a tautology!
Try again!
I particularly liked one of Bob Enyart's statements: ...."not based upon what we don't know, but upon what we do know."
If this is to be used as the guideline for the remaining posts in this debate, or by how reasonable people shall form opinions and make judgments, I think that Bob should ultimately win. In trying to anticipate an atheistic response to the dilemnas that Bob poses, I can not forsee believable and cogent replies to....
1. The fourth alternative? 2. Cell Complexity? 3 The origin of a Universal human morality?
If this is to be used as the guideline for the remaining posts in this debate, or by how reasonable people shall form opinions and make judgments, I think that Bob should ultimately win. In trying to anticipate an atheistic response to the dilemnas that Bob poses, I can not forsee believable and cogent replies to....
1. The fourth alternative? 2. Cell Complexity? 3 The origin of a Universal human morality?
Last edited:
Run Forest Run
Run Forest Run
Eireann, I thought you made a good point in response to my post earlier in page 42. But, I was half way kidding. Boy, you guys should lighten up around here. Ever here of having a sense of humor? Anyway, I just wanted to give you credit for seeing the contriction in my post. But, I aslo want to slap you for taking it too serious......the point I was trying to get across was...(if I may borrow some words from the famous movie "Forest Gump") "I may not be a smart man, but I know what love is".
Run Forest Run
Eireann, I thought you made a good point in response to my post earlier in page 42. But, I was half way kidding. Boy, you guys should lighten up around here. Ever here of having a sense of humor? Anyway, I just wanted to give you credit for seeing the contriction in my post. But, I aslo want to slap you for taking it too serious......the point I was trying to get across was...(if I may borrow some words from the famous movie "Forest Gump") "I may not be a smart man, but I know what love is".
Wedge
New member
Re: Re: Re: The vast majority of chronological indicators show a young Earth.
Re: Re: Re: The vast majority of chronological indicators show a young Earth.
I love to watch fundamentalists do a tap dance whenever the massive problems of "Noah" and the "ark" are raised.
Re: Re: Re: The vast majority of chronological indicators show a young Earth.
I love to watch fundamentalists do a tap dance whenever the massive problems of "Noah" and the "ark" are raised.
Here we see the typical attempt to reduce the number of animals taken aboard the ark. But just ask a fundamentalist to define "kinds" and you will see that they have no idea of what a "kind" really means. However, they are stuck with that word "because it says so in the bible".
Typical confusion over the distinction between evolution and abiogenesis. On the one hand fundamentalists have to admit to evolution in order for the "kinds" to change into different species, yet on the other they need to have limits to the evolution. But just ask a fundamentalist to define these limits and you will see that they have no idea of what they are.
PureX
Well-known member
So it appears to us. However, this could simply be the result of the mechanical limitations of our own perception. Yet I agree we would have take what we've got.
The universe itself is a physical phenomena, as we perceive it, but it's origin is a mystery.
It follows that we would expect a cause. It does not follow that it necessarily has one.
We have no way of knowing how much of reality the universe as we grasp it can represent, physical or otherwise.
I don't think this is an accurate statement. The universe is a single even that is still happening. The delineations between "this" and "that" and the relationships (causes and effects) between them are imposed on the whole event by our own consciousness. They don't actually exist in the event itself.
You have led yourself to this conclusion. The separation you're basing this conclusion on exists only in your mind, as it does with all of us. But the human mind doesn't define reality, it merely perceives it, and then only in it's own limited way.
Since we can't know how much of reality the universe represents, and since the cause of the universe can't be ascertained from within the universe itself, no conclusion can be reasonably made about it. I agree that the flow of energy that is the universe as we so far understand it points to a source, but unfortunately, the mechanisms that govern the flow of energy, now, can't tell us anything about the events that preceeded them.
Speculation is fine. Faith is good. But that is what they are.
One Eyed Jack
New member
Re: Re: Re: Re: The vast majority of chronological indicators show a young Earth.
Re: Re: Re: Re: The vast majority of chronological indicators show a young Earth.
And what problems might those be?
I'm not attempting to reduce anything -- I'm simply saying what Genesis says in regards to which animals went on board the ark.
A kind can be a species, a genus, or even a family, depending on the kind of animal in question. For instance, brown bears, black bears, asiatic black bears, spectacled bears, sloth bears, sun bears, polar bears, and probably giant pandas would all fall under the heading of bear-kind. Similarly, lions, tigers, jaguars, cheetahs, lynxes, leopards, panthers, cougars, ocelots, bobcats, and even housecats would fall under the heading of cat-kind. Another example would be wolves, coyotes, dingoes, dogs, jackals, and perhaps foxes making up the dog-kind.
I know the difference between evolution and abiogenesis. That doesn't change the fact that the typical evolutionist believes that all life on Earth is descended from some theoretical 'first life-form,' which can basically be described as 'a batch of chemicals that somehow came to life.'
Micro-evolution, or adaptation. And they don't 'change' into anything else -- they're still the same kind of animal.
The limits of adaptation are genetic. Obviously you haven't talked to very many informed 'fundamentalists.'
Re: Re: Re: Re: The vast majority of chronological indicators show a young Earth.
And what problems might those be?
I'm not attempting to reduce anything -- I'm simply saying what Genesis says in regards to which animals went on board the ark.
A kind can be a species, a genus, or even a family, depending on the kind of animal in question. For instance, brown bears, black bears, asiatic black bears, spectacled bears, sloth bears, sun bears, polar bears, and probably giant pandas would all fall under the heading of bear-kind. Similarly, lions, tigers, jaguars, cheetahs, lynxes, leopards, panthers, cougars, ocelots, bobcats, and even housecats would fall under the heading of cat-kind. Another example would be wolves, coyotes, dingoes, dogs, jackals, and perhaps foxes making up the dog-kind.
I know the difference between evolution and abiogenesis. That doesn't change the fact that the typical evolutionist believes that all life on Earth is descended from some theoretical 'first life-form,' which can basically be described as 'a batch of chemicals that somehow came to life.'
Micro-evolution, or adaptation. And they don't 'change' into anything else -- they're still the same kind of animal.
The limits of adaptation are genetic. Obviously you haven't talked to very many informed 'fundamentalists.'
Last edited:
Charismata
New member
The Tao of the Ill-e(quip)ped
The Tao of the Ill-e(quip)ped
quip
Freak originally stated:
"No need for adjectives----a chair is a chair--absolute. It cannot be spider. Another absolute."
You responded with:
"You state a chair is absolute. So what exactly is the absolute chair? What does one mean when they claim the object cradling them about two feet from the floor is a "chair"; indeed what is "chairness" "
Perhaps english isn't your first language. Either that or you fail reading comprehension 101.
Perhaps you would just rather argue against a straw man and not the actual assertion Freak originally made.
"A chair is a chair" yes...that qualifies as a tautology last I checked.
Never did Freak argue there was an "absolute chair". That was your invention. Perhaps you should stop watching TV and pay more attention to what the actual post says? :zakath:
Yes philosophy of meaning debates are boring. So are people who insult others.
Perhaps if you were more e(quip)ped you wouldn't feel the need to resort to weak straw man arguments. :chuckle:
The Tao of the Ill-e(quip)ped
quip
Freak originally stated:
"No need for adjectives----a chair is a chair--absolute. It cannot be spider. Another absolute."
You responded with:
"You state a chair is absolute. So what exactly is the absolute chair? What does one mean when they claim the object cradling them about two feet from the floor is a "chair"; indeed what is "chairness" "
Perhaps english isn't your first language. Either that or you fail reading comprehension 101.
Perhaps you would just rather argue against a straw man and not the actual assertion Freak originally made.
"A chair is a chair" yes...that qualifies as a tautology last I checked.
Never did Freak argue there was an "absolute chair". That was your invention. Perhaps you should stop watching TV and pay more attention to what the actual post says? :zakath:
Yes philosophy of meaning debates are boring. So are people who insult others.
Perhaps if you were more e(quip)ped you wouldn't feel the need to resort to weak straw man arguments. :chuckle:
Last edited:
JosephofMessiah
New member
Anyone ever hear of an A-bomb?
Anyone ever hear of an A-bomb?
How can Enyart be arguing for an "absolute morality" after the A-Bomb exploded?
(Anyone not understanding relativity, please ignore this).
Such ignorance makes me :bang:
Anyone understanding relativity, please explain to me how these people know up from down if they don't accept relativity as truth?
Anyone ever hear of an A-bomb?
How can Enyart be arguing for an "absolute morality" after the A-Bomb exploded?
(Anyone not understanding relativity, please ignore this).
Such ignorance makes me :bang:
Anyone understanding relativity, please explain to me how these people know up from down if they don't accept relativity as truth?
- Status