Battle Talk ~ Battle Royale VII

[Charismata]

one huge self contradictory position

one huge self contradictory position

Originally posted by Eireann
The "Rule of Logic" is nothing but a bunch of ideas that cannot, even of themselves, be validated.

Eireann if nothing can be validated what the heck are you doing arguing "only hypotheses which are 'falsifiable' are of value"?

By the way the scientific method doesn't work apart from the rule of logic. :dunce:

If there is nothing true then why does any of what you are saying matter and why should I feel compelled to listen to and or value anything you say?

Eireann don't you realize that your argument is falling in on itself and you are digging a bigger and bigger hole? :kookoo:

 

[Zakath]

Hypothesi??? :think:

Now that's a new one!

 

[Charismata]

Zakath thanks for catching my spelling error.:doh:

 

[Freak]

Originally posted by philosophizer
It is not absolute if your definition of "sequence" is based on the structure of the word and its letters.

Philosophizer, I have already told you what I meant by sequence for the word chair--the letter h follows c and so forth.

"chair" is definitely not "spider" because their sequence is obviously different.

Good one. I'm glad you see that. :doh:

But whether or not "chair" is equal to "chair" is indeterminite based on structure.

:kookoo: Philosophizer, chair is chair. In the reality of sequence it is absolute.

There are far too many random variables present in the structure to say with any certainty that they are absolutely equal.

Absolutely equal? chair is chair. This is reality and absolute reality. I'm speaking of the singular case of chair which is chair not spider.

It is possible that all the random variations contained within each statement of the word could for an instant align perfectly with each other. In that instant, the two statements of the word would be equal. But the chances of that are beyond astronomically slim.

Are you telling me, from the language perspective, that chair is not chair but something else?:nono:

 

[Zakath]

Sure Charismata, glad to help. :thumb:

I thought maybe you were starting to speak in tongues... :chuckle:

 

[Freak]

Originally posted by Eireann
Chair is chair. That much is inarguable. It will always follow the sequence c-h-a-i-r. Nevertheless, that is where it's absoluteness ends.

Finally someone. Thank you Eireann. Even Philosophizer was unable to get this.

chair is chair. This is in fact inarguable and this is absolute. This alone proves there is absolutes.

To parallel: cat is cat. Absolute. c precedes a precedes t.

Exactly...finally someone who understands foundational philosophical language logic.

Another parallel: murder is murder. Absolute. m > u > r > d > e > r

Exactly!
:thumb:

 

[Yorzhik]

So I'm browsing the posts where I left off on page 49. *Browsing*, as in reading quickly and skipping some posts (coughchaircough). I can see I need to read until page 58 to get to the end. AS I'M READING I see page 59 gets tacked on as the last page, and I don't actually get to the last page until page 60. And I read this thread every day!

Sheesh. How are we supposed to keep up?

 

[Brenda]

keeping up - NOT

keeping up - NOT

Originally posted by Yorzhik
Sheesh. How are we supposed to keep up?

Yorzhik,
It's all very interesting, but I gave up on keeping up days ago. *sigh!* This must be a very interesting topic for people.

 

[Charismata]

Zakath the greek/latin word charismata doesn't necessarily mean lighting your hair on fire and running up and down the aisles in church.
:bannana:

charismata (pl.), charisma (sg.): [Greek, = 'things given']. Or put another way, 'stuff from grace'. A charisma is given, not earned or bought. It is given by the Spirit, not by a leader or a church body. (It can sometimes come from the Spirit through a church body or a leader; it can also come against the wishes of church bodies, leaders, or even the body of believers as a whole.) There are many kinds of gifts the Spirit gives -- ultimately, life itself is a free gift from God. But when Christians speak of 'charismata', they are talking of a specific kind of gift : a gift that is given specifically to build up the community of believers, those within it, and those it serves. These gifts are given not to save, but to empower the saved.

 

[Flipper]

Freak:

I think we all dispensed with that point about twenty pages back when there was general acknowledgement of the existence of objective reality.

But humor me, why don't you post how you happen to define the term absolute. I can't wait to go around this mulberry bush once more with you.

Philosophizer:

You can admire Freak's tenacity, which is often the sole edifying characteristic of his arguments, "Philosophy of Language" courses notwithstanding.

 

[PureX]

Originally posted by Eireann
Has anyone else noticed how the creationist argument falls apart at the ultimate point of origin? What I mean is that the Creationist criticizes the evolutionist because they say that the idea that something could come from nothing (such as Big Bang) defies the laws of physics (not to mention laws of reason). They also argue that a thing cannot create itself, that it must BE created by something. Well, that's all fine and good until you get down to the nitty gritty and ask a Creationist, "Well, then what created God?" The inevitable answer: God was not created, God is eternal and has always been. There has been no point at which God has not been. Does anyone besides me notice the conundrum therein: that the Creationist (who rails against evolution and non-biblical origins theories as totally defiant of the laws of physics) then is forced to cite his own theory of origins that even more ultimately defies every law of physics?

Yes, the very claims they make for God they deny for all the non-God assertions. God can be eternal, but the universe can't. God can exist yet exist beyond our perception and comprehension so that we don't know God's there, but no part of the natural universe can have ever existed or exists now that is unknown to us. God can have all sorts of powers that are completely unexplanable by any natural means, but the natural universe has no power yet hidden from us at all, and so can have had no effect outside of what we see. There is definately a double standard being applied.

 

[PureX]

Originally posted by novice Matter and energy ALWAYS (without exception) conform to natural laws.

That's the straw man, right there. First of all we don't know that "natural laws" don't change. Secondly, we don't know that matter and energy always conform to these natural laws, and third, we have very little actually knowledge of natural law, and we may NEVER have full knowledge of them. So basically, almost anything is still possible regarding "natural law".

 

[Charismata]

Now serving port cheeseballs to go with the whine

Now serving port cheeseballs to go with the whine

Originally posted by PureX
Yes, the very claims they make for God they deny for all the non-God assertions. God can be eternal, but the universe can't. God can exist yet exist beyond our perception and comprehension so that we don't know God's there, but no part of the natural universe can have ever existed or exists now that is unknown to us. God can have all sorts of powers that are completely unexplanable by any natural means, but the natural universe has no power yet hidden from us at all, and so can have had no effect outside of what we see. There is definately a double standard being applied.

You gotta love people who whine about their own rigged rules of debate. The materialist argues:

1) The natural world is all that there is
2) Natural laws govern everything that exists


The christian argues that the metaphysical exists and that it isn't governed by the laws that govern the natural world.

Since when was the supernatural required to be governed by the natural?

Perhaps if you guys were better at defending your own position you wouldn't feel compelled to complain.

 

[PureX]

Originally posted by Brenda
By the way, you guys are driving me nuts with the chair thing.

Well, apparently Freak is just now discovering the concept of reality, and is quite obsessed with his discovery. Maybe someday he will even recognize the relativeness of his reality. *wink*

 

[Hank]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
The second law of thermodynamics precludes it. If the universe had always been here, it would have run down by now, and there would be no energy available for work.

Not if it’s cyclic like everything else. If there is enough matter in the universe to stop the expansion, then everything is sucked back in to a big bang and starts over again.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The vast majority of chronological indicators show a you

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The vast majority of chronological indicators show a you

Originally posted by Hank
What would be your definition of macroevolution?

Here's the definition from dictionary.com...

Large-scale evolution occurring over geologic time that results in the formation of new taxonomic groups

Is that a satisfactory answer?

Man trying to get an answer out of you is like pulling teeth. I really thought you might have want to have an intelligent debate but I’m beginning to wonder. But I’ll try one more time. Do you think the comparison of genetics between animals is a satisfactory way of determining the relationship of animals?

Sure -- for those that are actually related.

If so, is there a number that you would accept for a “kind” such as 1% or 2%, etc. divergence?

I don't know. I imagine it would be pretty small.

I don’t believe in unicorns. But I could give you a definition of one so we could discuss it so we could agree what one was if we saw it.

We're not talking about unicorns.

Well eating the stock would account for a few weeks of food at the most. What happened after that?

I'm sure Noah was smart enough to make sure they didn't all get eaten at once. Plus most all carnivores will eat fish (which weren't wiped out in the flood), and it stands to reason that Noah would set up camp near a water-supply, such as a river or something.

You’re saying sloths walked across Russia, Alaska, Canada, US, Mexico, Central America, and South America in 2000 years or less and all the while produced and raised offspring. And the freezing cold didn’t bother them a bit?

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm not sure how they got here. How do you think they got here?

If you don’t have any idea, why do you disagree with 2000 years? What number would you be comfortable with?

Because that's way longer than it would have taken most animals to get here. Seven miles a year? Give me a break.

Okay I won’t argue with you about Dingoes being introduced into Australia after marsupials were established. But why are there so few placenta animals in Australia and so many marsupials? That didn’t happen anywhere else.

You're wrong, Hank. There used to be all kinds of marsupials in the Americas, but most of them are gone now. Check the fossil record if you don't believe me.

Then again, how did they get there?

Some way besides swimming.

Are you saying there were no wolves or foxes right after the flood since they came from a common ancestor?

Possibly, but it depends on what you mean by 'right after.' Are you talking about the next day, or a few hundred years later?

So why didn’t it change before the flood and change so rapidly after the flood?

I just told you there was probably some variation before the flood, and then you turn around and ask me why there wasn't any. Why don't you pay attention to what I say?

Okay so why do you believe that?

It fits what we observe. Why do you believe it? Or do you not believe that the Earth revolves around the sun?

 

[Freak]

Originally posted by PureX
Well, apparently I'm just now discovering the concept of reality, and am quite obsessed with my discovery. Maybe someday I'll even recognize the relativeness of my own reality. *wink*

:kookoo: :think:

 

[pab123]

Go Bob!

Go Bob!

Zakath is the one who has failed miserably. He doesn't seem to understand the basics of English grammar. When Bob says "Child rape for entertainment purposes is absolutely wrong", the word absolutely applies to the word wrong, *not* to the phrase "child rape for entertainment purposes". That's why the word absolutely appears right before the word wrong & *not* before "child rape". Bob didn't say "absolute child rape" then apply the condition "for entertainment purposes", which might be a problem. He said that the *conditional* event "child rape for entertainment purposes" is "absolutely wrong" (or, in other words, wrong *without exception*). If someone says that the *conditional* event of sucking the brains out of a live newborn baby is wrong without exception (or, in other words, absolutely wrong), that means that no matter what excuse you provide, you cannot justify sucking the brains out of a live newborn baby. Bob's definition of "absolute wrong" is absolutely proper & correct. Zakath needs to go back to elementary school so he can understand the basics of English grammar and stop making such stupid statements by twisting the proper use of words.

Also, has anyone noticed how Zakath completely showed his ignorance by suggesting that Bob read the authors he suggested instead of replying to Bob's questions about the origin of life & the universe? Knowing what I do about Bob, he probably *has* read the books by those authors & he knows they don't have the answer--that's why he asked Zakath the question & that's why Zakath was too afraid to answer.

Zakath also doesn't seem to understand that God is supernatural & He created nature & the laws contained within. That's how he can create energy & matter from nothing. Zakath has to explain how nature broke it's own laws--which, so far in his explanation, he not only has contradicted himself by saying the universe created itself, yet was always here, but *both* of those solutions break the laws of science.

Bob is winning this debate by a long shot. Not only does he directly & completely answer *all* of Zakath's questions (unlike Zakath, who just seems to be stalling for time & has refused to answer the majority of Bob's questions), but he utterly exposes the stupidity of Zakath's ideas.

GO BOB!!!!

 

[Freak]

Originally posted by Flipper
Freak:

I think we all dispensed with that point about twenty pages back when there was general acknowledgement of the existence of objective reality.

Good. Now does objective reality include good & evil?

But humor me, why don't you post how you happen to define the term absolute.

I define absolute as the dictionary defines it. You're flaky, Flip. :kookoo:

You can admire Freak's tenacity

I'm sorry but I don't admire your foolishness.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by Hank
Not if it’s cyclic like everything else. If there is enough matter in the universe to stop the expansion, then everything is sucked back in to a big bang and starts over again.

Scientists are pretty satisfied that there isn't enough matter in the universe to stop the expansion, and even if there were, it's still a closed system. There's no escaping entropy.