Battle Talk ~ Battle Royale VII

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by shima
Also, the second law of thermodynamics doesn't preclude it IF the universe isn't a closed system.

But it is.

As anyone will know, the "winding down" of energy happens all the time, but if NEW energy is coming into the system this will NOT specify that the universe MUST have a beginning. The NEW energy is ofcourse still available for work.

What new energy are you talking about, and where does it come from? Or are you merely speaking hypothetically?

Now, I'm not suggesting that this universe is an OPEN system, but the arguement from 2nd LoT can only be used if it is CLOSED.

Well, as far as we can tell, the universe is a closed system.

 

[Freak]

Originally posted by PureX
Yes. At some point in our evolution, we humans realized that just as there are behaviors that are good (or not good) for individual self-preservation, there are also behaviors that are good or not good for our collective self-preservation.

So, according to you (I'm trying to understand your position), moral attributes were discovered by humans? Prior to their discovery of moral attributes (the implication was they were present for them to be discovered) where were the moral attributes?

There are lots of humans who have no "conscience".

Everyone has a conscience---they may have suppressed it but the awareness of good & evil was present. BTW, where did you get this information from? :kookoo:

 

[tenkeeper]

Romans 8:5-6-7

For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh: but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.
For to be carnally minded is death;
But to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the 'law of God', neither indeed can be.

 

[Flake]

Do you not eat, have sex, sleep when tired, try to stay healthy, feel physical pain, try to ease physical pain, sleep on a bed, wear clothes, wear more clothes when its cold, scratch an itch, laugh, cry, earn money to stay alive? Yes, that will be your carnal nature.

 

[bob b]

What makes you think there can't be some other dimensions or universes outside of our own?

Because I am pragmatic and rational?

Do you really think scientists could test your (their) fantasies of other dimensions and universes?

 

[bob b]

Shima,

You're not really going to bring up that stupid bit about open/closed systems are you?

 

[novice]

Bob, One Eyed Jack, Turbo and others...

You may find the tail end of this thread very interesting...

click here

 

[Hank]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The vast majority of chronological i

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The vast majority of chronological i

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
Not if the species formed is still the same kind of animal.

According to my definition it is.

First of all, we don't have all these comparisons yet, so you're appealing to the unknown here. Secondly, only animals that are of the same kind are related.

According to only you.

That's because you keep asking loaded questions in an effort to steer my answers. If you ask me what I think, I'll tell you. If you try to tell me what I think, I'll simply point out whether you're right or wrong.

I haven’t gotten an answer out of you yet, why start now?

Why couldn't they take care of themselves?

Bigger carnivores eat smaller carnivores.

And panda bears only eat plants. But then again, I never said Noah took polar bears on the ark -- just two of the bear kind.

Whatever that was.

I'm saying they could have. There were certainly more fish around at the time than there were aardvarks.

No one but you believes wolf-kind of animals fished for food.

Who said he had to keep them in line? All he had to do was fence in the livestock animals, or better yet -- keep them in the ark until they became numerous enough to let go into the wild.

More food to take on the ark and Noah wouldn’t have had time to take care of himself. You’re getting way out there.

Based on what?

There you go again. I’ve asked you several times to give me a time and you won’t. You just don’t like the number I use.

What if they didn't get here by the route you suggested?

There you go again. You just don’t like the route I use but you don’t have another explanation.

I seriously doubt that tree sloths wandered across the ice.

There you go again. I’d say it was impossible, but you don’t give an alternative.

There used to not be a gap there, but then I don't think that's the route the sloths used to get here.

No alternative again.

It's not like they did either.

So they didn’t know how to get there. No alternative again.

Uh... Noah didn't land in South America. We're talking about some time afterwards.

How much time?

I'm sure quite a few of them were eating plants too.

But the ones that weren’t were eating fish? LOL

So are you saying we don't observe micro-evolution?

No one believes the rate you are talking about is microevolution. We do not see the rate you are talking about regardless of what you call it.

I'm not talking about 'rapid evolution.' I'm talking about speciation. That's micro-evolution, and it happens all the time under the right conditions.

Give me an example.

Here you try to twist my words in what seems to be an attempt to hijack my point.

I wasn’t twisting your words. They are right there in black and white for everyone to see

Where did I say it took 6,000 years to figure that out? See, that's your problem, Hank. You don't listen to what I say, and you keep trying to put words in my mouth. You also haven't answered any of the questions I've asked you.

I don’t have any problems. It’s difficult to listen to what you say when you seldom say anything. So you don’t believe mankind is 6000 years old or you do think mankind is 6000 years old? I thought you believed Bible was inerrant.

I believe that was my point -- you had yet to make one.

I said we did not observe the earth revolving around the sun. You said we did observed the earth revolving around the sun. Now you’re agreeing with me.

Sure it does.

What model? The carnivores eating fish is not a model. LOL

I can't help it if you're surrounded by illiterates. That's not the correct definition. Rotating means spinning, which requires an axis.

Oh really. Where is the earth’s axis? I’ve think we’ve been to the South Pole and they didn’t say anything about an axis. LOL

Hank, if you want to have an intelligent conversation, you're going to have to get your terms right.

I’ll try to do better for your mighty intellect.

 

[PureX]

Originally posted by Freak So, according to you (I'm trying to understand your position), moral attributes were discovered by humans? Prior to their discovery of moral attributes (the implication was they were present for them to be discovered) where were the moral attributes?

Morality is not an object, lying around, waiting for someone to "discover" it. It's an intellectual concept, that developed in human beings over time. I don't see why you should have any difficulty understanding this.

Originally posted by Freak Everyone has a conscience---they may have suppressed it but the awareness of good & evil was present.

This isn't going to go anywhere, so lets just say this: neither one of us are able to step into the mind/body/spirit of another human being, and so neither one of us can tell if they actually have a conscience or not. How's that? Now we'll just leave it alone.

 

[Freak]

Originally posted by PureX
It's an intellectual concept, that developed in human beings over time. I don't see why you should have any difficulty understanding this.

"Developed in human beings" Hmm....So humans developed/created moral attributes?

This isn't going to go anywhere, so lets just say this: neither one of us are able to step into the mind/body/spirit of another human being, and so neither one of us can tell if they actually have a conscience or not. How's that?

I got one better...

Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.)

Is there one without one?

 

[PureX]

Originally posted by ZroKewl
PureX - do a search for "Ontological Argument God" -- I believe that is what you are looking for.

Thanks! I looked it up and read it. Seems it's mostly a kind of philosophical "parlor trick". I can see why it doesn't show up around here much ... it's not an easy concept to explain or even to understand, and when you do, it's a bit of a let-down.

Originally posted by ZroKewl I would have asked what Bob means by "exist", because it sounds as if he thinks "truth" is some sort of entity in and of itself. But, I digress. Does "reality" exist? If reality is defined as that which exists, then yes, it does. But, I'd guess that most people think of "reality" as something different. If by "reality" Bob means mass and energy in our space-time continuum, and if by "exists" he means "an entity that has mass or energy in our space-time continuum", then yes, "reality" and "truth" (as defined by Bob) exists.

Gee! That Bob get's pretty upset when you ask him to clarify his definitions. It's as if there is only ONE definition for each word, and that's HIS definition! And we should ALL be using THAT one, automatically! *smile*

Originally posted by ZroKewl But, I don't think that's what Bob is getting at - or at least not what he's assuming. He is assuming an "Ultimate Reality". He then is asking if we can know this "Ultimate Reality" -- not something that is relative or subjective, but something that exists in and of itself, that is not dependent upon time, space, or anything in our universe. That is what I think is at the heart of his question.

Is there an "Ultimate Reality".... maybe. I'm not sure. There is "our reality"... our "space-time continuum made up of matter and energy". We can make statements about this reality. Therfore, by Bob's definition, truth exists. Are these statements "as real" as the reality they describe? No. And are these truths absolute? No.

From what I can see so far, this is no different than any other theological debate that I've seen... it comes down to people having different presuppositions, and different definitions.

This seems to be the human condition. I agree.

Originally posted by ZroKewl I will enjoy watching this debate... mostly just to see what sort of "tactics" are employed to try to win the argument. I enjoy Bob's underhanded ad-hominems... He obviously is not trying to "win Zak for the Lord"... more than likely he's just trying to boost his ego and show his congregation and others that he is a learned man.

Sort of the Rush Limbaugh of Christian fundimentalism?

 

[Spartin]

Ok One eyed Jack, your arguement "could" be possible about the elephants. There is the post after that one asking about the Egyptians though. Could you elighten me about that one. How is it that they were in the height of their civilization when the flood occured (which covered all the world) and still build pyramids at the time? The Egyptians were notorious for writing things down. If something of that magnitude happened, don't you think there would be some record of it by them?


To Freak, I misspelled fallacy, so what. You understood what I meant so there is no need to be petty with spelling errors. That is a forum troll maneuver.


Spartin

 

[ZroKewl]

Originally posted by Charismata
Just a few quick questions.

OK. A game. I get it.

1) Does your bank see your account balance in terms of "black and white" or in shades of grey? "Hey as long as I have checks I have money! Woohoo!":ha:

My bank doesn't "see" in the normal understood definition of the term. But, for fun, let's make a black and white statement: Either you have $50 in the bank, or you don't. Well, I have deposited exactly $50 into my account, but they haven't updated it in the computers yet. And actually, the $50 check I gave them is really not going to go in a box anywhere, it is just some representation stored in a computer system - merely some electrons. The check actually will get destroyed. Of course, that check really wasn't worth $50, it wasn't worth very much at all. If only it "clears" the bank where someone else has an "account" - some electrons stored in a computer system. Then, I'll have "$50 in the bank". But, what is $50? Money is merely a tool that we invented to help us with transactions. Money is relative. It's value changes all the time. So, $50 itself is relative.

2) Does your mortgage company care if you pay your bill on time or do they see things in shades of grey?:nono:

Again, the company doesn't "see"... but we digress (don't we?). What is "on time"? The company usually will not fine me as long as I'm not "too late". It's due on a certain date, but there is a grace period. I'm "on time" if I get it there before the due date. I'm "on time" if I get it there on the exact due date. And I'm "on time" if I get it there during the grace period. Then actually all I'm doing is giving them a $0.01 check. It's worth squat. I haven't really paid them, but they don't care. It's not until a few days later that the check clears my bank. Disregarding all of this, time itself is relative - Einstein proved that. So "on time" is necessarily relative.

3) Do architects fudge on the math when designing a building understanding the laws of physics really don't apply to them on that particular job because they "feel" like it shouldn't?:kookoo:

We're talking about things being "gray" and not "black" and "white", right? OK. Architects use measurements. Are measurements exact? Black and white? Are the boards exactly 2" by 4" or is there some variation - some "gray" area that is "close enough" so that it'll work? In fact, there is no such thing as "exactly 2 inches". We can get really close, but there is still variation. In fact, when we need to be really precise with distance we base it on the speed light travels in a certain period of time. So guess what, distance is relative too.

Postmodernism is the disease. Logic is the cure.:up:

Ignorance is bliss, that's why you're so happy. :up:

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by Spartin
Ok One eyed Jack, your arguement "could" be possible about the elephants. There is the post after that one asking about the Egyptians though. Could you elighten me about that one. How is it that they were in the height of their civilization when the flood occured (which covered all the world) and still build pyramids at the time?

Because they weren't at the height of their civilization when the flood occured. They were at the height of their civilization around 1,500 BC, which is well after the flood.

The Egyptians were notorious for writing things down. If something of that magnitude happened, don't you think there would be some record of it by them?

The Egyptians do have a flood legend. Virtually every culture in the world does.

 

[ZroKewl]

Originally posted by bob b
Because I am pragmatic and rational?

Do you really think scientists could test your (their) fantasies of other dimensions and universes?

Oh. I see. You're one of those people that thinks there needs to be testable and verifyable evidence before you will believe that something outside of our 4D universe exists. Damn you!!

Yes, I think scientists could and have and will test their theories. If it's not testable, then it doesn't last long at all. Those damn scientists are fickle that way. It's one of their "rules" or something.

--Kip

 

[Flipper]

BobB:

Once again a dodge because it was only with regard to singularities in black holes where he has changed his mind.

People should stop their worship of other human beings by recognizing that all human beings make mistakes from time to time. Hawking seems to relish the fact that he is not like many other scientists who refuse to back down on any of their ideas, for he does this frequently, leaving in the lurch his horde of worshipers who defend him and his ideas to the death.

I think it's silly to worship anything, although humbleness seems okay. I suppose I should try it on here, some time. Or not.

Anyway, if Hawking has changed his mind on singularities at the heart of a black hole, then great. I'm interested to find out what he is proposing instead though - the only modification to the singularity theorem that I am aware of is this one involving quantum gravity/foam which is an attempt to get out from under infinity.

Google isn't turning anything up and there's nothing on Hawking's web page, although only the news section seems to get regularly updated.

In fact, the most recent reference i could find was from a PhysicsWeb review by Oxford Uni's Joseph Silk, who reviewed Hawking's recent book The Universe in a Nutshell in November 2001:

The classical view of a black hole is marred by one ugly feature: at the core of the black hole lies a singularity. This is a forbidding concept, since literally all hell may break loose should one get too near to the singularity. Hawking is convinced that such a singularity is never accessible, or "naked": it is always shrouded by the black-hole horizon. In other words, we can live our lives without undue fear of the horrors of confronting a singularity, with the inevitable breakdown of the physical laws that govern our existence and even our sanity.

I don't know about "literally all hell may break loose" - sounds a bit Event Horizon to me - but last I heard, Hawkins was still a supporter of his theorems with Penrose. It's naked singularities he has a problem with.

Again, I'm happy to be corrected on this.

By the way, I think some attributed a brane world theory or theories to Stephen Hawking. He's not a string theorist.

 

[Flipper]

ZoKrewl:

Charismata, like Freak, is correct in a limited sense. If you look down the dotted line, the sum total of your fiscal worth is there in black and white (or red).

However, if you look more deeply at the problem, then you see that the symbols themselves are wild abstractions of a more complex mechanism that is utterly relative, because it has a value attached to it that is set by the worth people choose to invest in a shared abstraction. Actually, money is so relative, it does make rathera nice counter example.

So you're both right, depending on your frame of reference.

*chortle*

 

[quip]

Re: Mike check...is this thing on?

Re: Mike check...is this thing on?

Originally posted by Charismata

God is eternal. He has no beginning and no end.

You are making a truth-claim here. This simply begs the question how can you with absolute certainty, prove that such a truth-claim has any correlation to the truth --- You can't --- You can't because it is a supernatural claimand your logical construct simply assumes this un-provable, supernatural assumption of which it purports to prove.

There is no logical contradiction.

Now to the contradiction:

The contradiction lies in the artifice of the argument not within the structure of the argument itself.

You are illogically using an unprovable implied premise (the supernatural) to advance the "proof" of a logical argument.

In other words you are -- ingenuously employing an incorporeal premise to provide sole evidence toward a tangible conclusion.

 

[ZroKewl]

Re: Re: Mike check...is this thing on?

Re: Re: Mike check...is this thing on?

Originally posted by quip You are illogically using an unprovable implied premise (the supernatural) to advance the "proof" of a logical argument.

Don't we all use unprovable premises? Logic itself has premises that we cannot prove. We just have to assume they are true. I think logic has some pretty "self evident" presuppositions... but "self evidence" is subjective and relative.
--K

 

[quip]

Re: Insane in the M-brane

Re: Insane in the M-brane

Originally posted by Charismata

But now let us imagine a hotel with an infinite number of rooms and suppose once more that all the rooms are full. There is not a single vacant room throughout the entire infinite hotel. Now suppose a new guest shows up, asking for a room. "But of course!" says the proprietor, and he immediately shifts the person in room #1 into room #2, the person in room #2 into room #3, the person in room #3 into room #4 and so on, out to infinity. As a result of these room changes, room #1 now becomes vacant and the new guest gratefully checks in. But remember, before he arrived, all the rooms were full! Equally curious, according to the mathematicians, there are now no more persons in the hotel than there were before: the number is just infinite. But how can this be?

Amphiboly --- full implies finite-ness -- numerlcal static-ness. Even if you extend the concept to accomodate the concept of infinity using a "hotel with infinite number of rooms", does not mean that the rooms had a static yet infinite number of rooms. "Infinite rooms" it implies an endless numerical ascendancy of rooms such that an infinite number of rooms can forever accomodate an infinite number of guests.

But Hilbert's Hotel is even stranger than the German mathematician gave it out to be. For suppose some of the guests start to check out.

Your assuming infinity not only has a capacity but also a initial orgin.

Yet, your point is well taken -- infinity is a difficult concept to accept. Equally so does an eternal God