Battle Talk ~ Battle Royale VII

[Freak]

Originally posted by Zakath


The question one has to answer first is whether reality is objective or subjective, or both...

In the English language, Zakath, a "chair" is a "chair." Take a quick glance, one more time, at the structure of the word. Can "chair" be anything but "chair?"

 

[Freak]

Originally posted by Zakath
Yes, if it's a "spider chair"

Then it refuses to be a "chair"---a "spider chair" is just that, a "spider chair." Look at the structure of both. Hopefully, a man with a "doctorate" can see the difference. :chuckle:

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Freak
In the English language, Zakath, a "chair" is a "chair." Take a quick glance, one more time, at the structure of the word. Can "chair" be anything but "chair?"

The word is a symbol, Jay. It is not reality. It describes a real thing. A chair can be anything from a monarch's throne to a stool by the fireside of a peasant's cottage. All very different realities covered by the same symbolic representation.

 

[Flipper]

What if it's a chair shaped like a spider?

*ducks and covers*

 

[Freak]

Originally posted by Zakath
The word is a symbol, Jay. It is not reality.

Oh really? The words themselves are not real? Hmmm....strange....

Again....

Surely, someone with a "doctorate" can answer this. Can a "chair" (from the structure of the word) be anything but "chair?"

 

[Freak]

Originally posted by Flipper
What if it's a chair shaped like a spider?

In our English language, Flipper, can the word "chair" be anything but "chair?"

*ducks and covers*

Why run for cover? Are you afraid?:kookoo:

 

[Freak]

Can a chair be anything but chair? Just take a good look at the structure of the word....can it be anything but chair? There is absoluteness to the word "chair."

 

[Flipper]

And what about in the time before english existed as a language? What was it then?

Also, please notice the name of this rock formation:

http://www.rockclimbing.com/routes/listSection.php?SectionID=7113

It is called "the Devil's chair".

It's absolutely a chair, is it?

It's called a chair and, after all, "there's absoluteness to the word 'chair". Furthermore "can a chair be anything but a chair"?

If I acknowlege the chair in the meeting I have this afternoon, does that mean I can then sit on him?

Let me get you a dustpan and brush, so you can go pick up the shattered pieces of your argument. There's quite a big chunk of it under that stool over there.

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Freak
Oh really? The words themselves are not real? Hmmm....strange....

The words themselves have aribtrary meaning, not independent meaning as do real objects.

Can a "chair" (from the structure of the word) be anything but "chair?"

What has the structure of the word got to do with anything?

The characters that spell the word "chair" can mean...

as a noun:

• 
  1. a piece of furniture on which to sit
  
  2. the head of a committee (the Chair of the Ways and Means Committee)
  
  3. an office or position of authority (the Chair of the English department)
  
  4. a position of a player in an orchestra (first chair trumpet)

as a verb:

• 
  1. to oversee a committee
  
  2. to run a meeting
  
  3. to hold a position (as in #3 above)

 

[Flipper]

Freak:

Why run for cover? Are you afraid?

Not hardly. I was being mischievous. Perhaps I was even trying to be funny.

The post above reflects my retort.

I think what you are trying to say is that there are things called chairs that have an objective reality and a primary purpose (to sit on).

On this, I think we agree. However, trying to suggest that words have absolute meaning is a fool's errand. There are whole branches of logic dedicated to removing words from the discourse and replacing them instead with symbolic operations. One reason is that words are so open to interpretation and debate, they are not really very useful. Another reason is that to definitions and operations would take too long to establish using language.

The closest you can get to absolute meaning is when you make a transition from words to symbols. Sorry, but there we are.

 

[novice]

Zakath's last post seemed a bit better than the last two.

Although I still am frustrated by his "prove it to me" attitude.

The debate will never develop much unless Zakath starts to make his OWN case.

I mean, even a monkey could sit back and say....

"nope, you didn't prove it to me"
"nope that doesn't prove anything to me"
"nope, not convinced"
"nope sorry that doesn't prove anything to me"
etc etc etc

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The vast majority of chronological indicators show a young Earth.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The vast majority of chronological indicators show a young Earth.

Originally posted by Spartin
So what about Elephants?

What about them?

In fossil records, there were 160 different species of of these very large animals. I thought on the Ark they brought 2 of every species aboad.

No, Noah brought two of every kind -- not two of every species. The classification of 'species' didn't exist back in Noah's day.

Now if we look at current times, there is only 3 species left around.

I thought there were only two -- Asian and African elephants. What's the third?

Did they become extinct after the fact or was the "All animals" just a joke in Genesis?

It doesn't say "all animals" went on board the ark in Genesis.

Even without looking at the fossil record, lets look at the animal itself. It weighs roughly 12,000 pounds.

Sure, full grown.

Not only is it going to eat far more than Noah and his sons weigh, it will excrete the weight of one of the Sons no problem.

Not if it's a juvenile.

With that much waste and 160 different types of elephants, that is a load of food just for one animal. Where would it be kept on the ark?

I've never heard of 160 different types of elephants, and whether there were that many or not, only two of the elephant-kind went on board the ark.

Where would 320 elephants be kept?

Noah didn't have to take 320 elephants on the ark. I've already gone over this in a previous post.

You can say the ark is the Giant of all ships known to man and I could say that is possible. One thing remains though, why can't we find any evidence of such a huge and I mean Giagantic ARK.

Well, it was made of wood. How many wooden structures do you know that are still standing after 4,000 years?

An aircraft carrier maybe half the size, so don't you think we couldn't find it??

It's clear that you're not even remotely familiar with the Genesis account. The ark was smaller than an aircraft carrier -- not larger.

Especially since it is "well documented" where the Ark was put on land?

All it mentions is the mountain range that it landed on. But again, the ark was made of wood, and wood rots. They may have even dismantled it -- it wasn't like they were going to need to use it again.

I would be really happy if you could explain this to me.

I hope you enjoy.

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by novice
Zakath's last post seemed a bit better than the last two.

Although I still am frustrated by his "prove it to me" attitude.

Well, it is a debate and my opponent is supposed to provide some evidence to back up his assertions other than merely reciting "God did it."

The debate will never develop much unless Zakath starts to make his OWN case.

How about a Moral Argument for Atheism...

Or did you read that far...

 

[RogerB]

My opponent has claimed that he will prove his deity exists. If he does not do so, he fails. Period.

At the end of 10 rounds I will create a table of the evidence presented. All evidence presented by Bob will go in the "YES, GOD EXISTS" column and all evidence presented by you will go in the "NO, GOD DOES NOT EXIST" column. I will then weigh the evidence. If you don't present any evidence you can't possibly win?

 

[Zakath]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The vast majority of chronological indicators show a young Earth.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The vast majority of chronological indicators show a young Earth.

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
No, Noah brought two of every kind -- not two of every species. The classification of 'species' didn't exist back in Noah's day.

Excellent point. Are you able to provide some descripton of what the biblical authors meant when they used the word translated as "kind" in the KJV?

That little explanation would go a long way toward answering a lot of questions about the flood account... :thumb:

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by RogerB
At the end of 10 rounds I will create a table of the evidence presented. All evidence presented by Bob will go in the "YES, GOD EXISTS" column and all evidence presented by you will go in the "NO, GOD DOES NOT EXIST" column. I will then weigh the evidence. If you don't present any evidence you can't possibly win?

You don't really think I believe that I can "win" an online debate with the pastor of the owner of the web site? :chuckle:

Whatever you're smokin' over there, share it with the rest of us!

 

[RogerB]

Originally posted by Zakath
You don't really think I believe that I can "win" an online debate with the pastor of the owner of the web site? :chuckle:

Whatever you're smokin' over there, share it with the rest of us!

Sure you can....just not this particular debate.

Are you a :chicken: or a :zakath: ?

 

[Freak]

Originally posted by Flipper
And what about in the time before english existed as a language? What was it then?

I am speaking of the word "chair" c h a i r --this structured word is what it is. It cannot be spelled spider. Chair is chair. What is so difficult to understand?

It is called "the Devil's chair".

It's absolutely a chair, is it?

"the devil's chair" is the "the devil's chair." It cannot be spider.

It's called a chair and, after all, "there's absoluteness to the word 'chair". Furthermore "can a chair be anything but a chair"?

Huh? You refered to "the devil's chair."---which can only be the "the devil's chair." The word chair is chair. It is absolute.

 

[Freak]

Originally posted by Zakath
.
What has the structure of the word got to do with anything?

Everything. Zakath, can chair be anything but chair? The word itself (I'm not referring to the meaning but the structure of the word)?

The characters that spell the word "chair" can mean...

I'm not referring to meaning but the structure of the word itself. It is absolute, right?

Can chair be anything but chair?

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by RogerB
Sure you can....just not this particular debate.

Remind me never to listen to you for stock market advice... :chuckle: