User Tag List

Page 2 of 52 FirstFirst 1234512 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 770

Thread: Battle Royale VII Specific discussion thread

  1. #16
    Rookie AROTO's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    44
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    198
    jeremiah quote:
    I think his 4th post is now his best.

    I too think that Zakaths 4th post was his best. It was his most simplistic answer so far in the discussion and I think it was his most effective. It is apparent that he is unable to battle Bob on the existing science, but he did make a moving point in his last thread. Man has had some strange belief systems in the past and I am looking forward to Bob's response. So far I think the battle is a landslide towards Bob, now lets see if Zakath can get off the ropes and come back a little

  2. #17
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    389
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    ..... his second compelling argument, is the challenge to prove, at least somewhat specifically, a universal type conscience. Again, this is another reason why I am a Christian, and why I believe in the Bible. It provides the answers to these types of dilemnas. There is such a thing as a God given conscience, which is universal, at times. However the Bible is replete with examples of people who have denied, and or killed their conscience. Therefore there is a problem when trying to differentiate between the existence of this in every man and culture, and then trying to explain wether it was [A]once alive and now dead, or [B]if it ever existed. Gen 6-5 Judges 21-25, Romans 1 and 2, 1 Timothy 4-2 and Titus 1 -15 come to mind as just a few of the many scriptures that would support Zakath assertion, but, to me, and only to a fellow believer, at the same time, the scriptures, explain the reality of the human conscience.
    I, at this point in arguing with a friend, or a seeker, would use the Bible to argue these two points. I wouldn't do it with Zakath because it would lead him directly into his sins. I hope Bob has extra biblical answers in his next post to answer Zakath's dilemnas.
    Last edited by jeremiah; June 28th, 2003 at 10:19 PM.

  3. #18
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    389
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    To Aroto:
    I agree with you, because it was the most simplistic, it was his best. When they both give reasons in the scientific areas, even though they are involved, and somewhat difficult to understand, at least I can conceptualize the concepts that Bob proposes. The idea of the parallell universes from Hawkins and thus the certainty of ours was beyond my ability to understand.

  4. #19
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    274
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    199
    Originally posted by novice
    Ya think???

    I was under the impression that Zakath would at least make a case for reality & existence without a creator.

    Isn't that reasonable to assume that?
    Which just shows that this "battle" is without a real challenging and opposing viewpoints, cause I suspect that Zakath is not a consequential atheist, which is to say: he is not arguing from the point of view of materialism. Materialism is the point of view that the only objective reality, the one which exists outside and independend of our mind, is that of matter in eternal motion.
    Consciousness and the mind, are all secondary features of matter.

    Besides, what is the point in arguing about the existence of God, if one does not distinguishes and defines what one means with existence. Objective existence? Subjective existence?

    We could as wel discuss in length about wether or not a talking duck exists. The argument being that for biological reasons, no duck ever has been found that can talk and as such misses objective existence, and for artistic reasons, the comic figure Donald Duck exists, and for that reason is a real entity in the world.

    Such a battle is purposeless in my mind, without such plain and obvious definitions.

  5. #20
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    274
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    199
    Consciousness:

    In the last post of Bob Enyard he was referring to the issue of consciousness, and he states that his opponent can't provide evidenc for the fact that all forms of consciousness are based on material processes, and that Zakath can't demonstrate, even in outline, how material processes are responsible for the phenomena of consciousness.

    In fact Bob Enyart here bases himself here on an idealist approach towards consciousness, which is the position that acc. to Idealism, that consciousness can not be scientifically explained and researched.
    Consciousness thus must be based then on some supernatural phenomena or mindfull principle, which is incomprhensible for science.
    Consciousness thus acc. to Idealism must be based on some non-material principle.

    If such a non-material principle would indeed exist on it's own (that is: would not be based on material processes) this means that this could not interact with any material form. Becasue a mere "nothing", acc. to the laws of Thermodynamics, can not interact on something material. For this dillemma, Idealism has no way out, even not when assuming that besides matter and consciousness, there is something called Information. Information is however always confined to material processes. All forms of data and information require some or other forms of enery in whatever form and need material processes.

    The materialis approach is that consciousness is a development product and property of matter, and is based on the general property of matter of projection (Wiederspiegelung) on all stages of material development. Consciousness occurs as a conscequence of an active relationship of the organism towards outside/environemental influences, in order to survival, re-production and growth.

    Consciousness, which developed on a higher stage of material development, is always constrained to material processes.

    (excerpts from : "Einfuhrung in den Dialektischen und Historischen Materialismus" / Introduction to dialectical and historical materialism, chapter VI Matter and Consciousness)
    Last edited by heusdens; June 29th, 2003 at 06:15 PM.

  6. #21
    BANNED flash's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    34
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Originally posted by novice
    I was under the impression that Zakath would at least make a case for reality & existence without a creator.
    He doesn't need to. We all believe in reality and existence. The case needs to be made for the creator.

  7. #22
    Gold level Subscriber Bob Enyart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Rocky Mountains
    Posts
    1,109
    Thanks
    12
    Thanked 132 Times in 123 Posts

    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    74376

    hey huey:

    heusdens wrote: "Besides, what is the point in arguing about the existence of God, if one does not distinguishes and defines what one means with existence. Objective existence? Subjective existence?"

    and "the comic figure Donald Duck exists"

    hey huey: don't sweat it. In America we have an agreement that we tell each other when we're talking about cartoons if there's any doubt. In this way, we greatly increase the productivity of American pest exterminators. When a potential customer calls and says, "I have a mouse in my garage," then believe it or not, they don't have to clarify whether or not they are talking about mickey or microsoft. They just get right down to business. That's one reason that we have such great productivity in America. -Sincerely, Bob Enyart
    The Bob Enyart Live talk show airs at KGOV.com weekdays at 5 pm E.T. Also, same time, same station, check out Theology Thursday (.com) and on Fridays, Real Science Radio (.com) a.k.a. rsr.org. All shows are available 24/7 and you can call us at at 1-800-8Enyart.

  8. #23
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    31
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    I am a firm believer that the onus of proof is on the one making the assertion. Science can not disprove the existence of a deity. It simply isn't possible due to the flexiblity of the theistic position. It's an extension of "God of the Gaps". Even if mankind were to learn everything there is to know about the universe and it's creation, all the theist needs to do is step outside the universe and point to a diety. Theism is a position that can recede to infinity when countered with observable facts. Therefore, all that science can do, is show that God is not a necessary component of the universe. The rest is a judgement call. You either believe in your religious text of choice, or you don't. Personally, I will side with data that can be observed. While it isn't within the context of this debate, I would wonder how Bob "proves" that his God, is the "correct" God.

  9. #24
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    274
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    199

    Re: hey huey:

    Originally posted by Bob Enyart
    hey huey: don't sweat it. In America we have an agreement that we tell each other when we're talking about cartoons if there's any doubt. In this way, we greatly increase the productivity of American pest exterminators. When a potential customer calls and says, "I have a mouse in my garage," then believe it or not, they don't have to clarify whether or not they are talking about mickey or microsoft. They just get right down to business. That's one reason that we have such great productivity in America. -Sincerely, Bob Enyart
    And getting right down to business then (which is an agreement we have in the Netherlands, don't talk around the subject at hand), what then is your choice for the existence category to which God belongs, that of Micky Mouse, or that of the real mice?
    I do not deny the existence of God as a concept of the mind, neither as I don't deny that mice can talk in the context of the comic figure of Mickey Mouse.
    It seems however that to the figure of God, there are attributed powers that seem to indicate that God would exists apart from and independend of our minds. One of these powers being that "He" created the universe. The universe being something material, having objective existence independend of our minds (the cosmos existed long before mankind came into being), then is said to be created by a "mindfull" principle in the form of a Deity, but then tell me how a mere principle, which misses objective existence, can interact in any way with the material world.

    Nobody, except exceptionally foolish people (solipsist or hard-line idealist) would deny the ordinary material world having objective existence.

    So my question to you would then be: does God have objective existence or not? (God having subjective existence is not denied by me, or any other atheist).

    My position is very clear: outside and apart of our minds, God can not be hold to have objective existence. God simply fails to have any objective existence. It would be healthy for the debate also, to make such a distinction.

  10. #25
    Over 750 post club Flipper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    815
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    2374
    Aroto:

    It is apparent that he is unable to battle Bob on the existing science, but he did make a moving point in his last thread
    I think that's because most of Bob's scientific posts were refuted on the Battle Royale chat thread. And it's no kind of an argument to go: "well you if you can't show me specific evidence, then there can't possibly be any evidence".

    For me, Bob blew any scientific credibility he might have had when he called Stephen Hawking on not taking basic physics into consideration. I'm sure that the noted physicist and Cambridge Lucasian Professor of Mathematics Stephen Hawking is wrong because he chooses to disregard the immutable laws of physics on a whim, whereas right wing radio talk show host Bob Enyart is right. The only other option is that Bob does not know of what he speaks, and that can't be, can it?

    Muscular christianity encourages this sort of anti-intellectualism.

  11. #26
    Gold level Subscriber Bob Enyart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Rocky Mountains
    Posts
    1,109
    Thanks
    12
    Thanked 132 Times in 123 Posts

    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    74376
    heusdens wrote: "And getting right down to business then (which is an agreement we have in the Netherlands, don't talk around the subject at hand), what then is your choice for the existence category to which God belongs, that of Micky Mouse, or that of the real mice?"

    hey huey: never mind.

    Sincerely, -Bob Enyart
    The Bob Enyart Live talk show airs at KGOV.com weekdays at 5 pm E.T. Also, same time, same station, check out Theology Thursday (.com) and on Fridays, Real Science Radio (.com) a.k.a. rsr.org. All shows are available 24/7 and you can call us at at 1-800-8Enyart.

  12. #27
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    274
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    199
    Originally posted by Flipper
    Aroto:



    I think that's because most of Bob's scientific posts were refuted on the Battle Royale chat thread. And it's no kind of an argument to go: "well you if you can't show me specific evidence, then there can't possibly be any evidence".

    For me, Bob blew any scientific credibility he might have had when he called Stephen Hawking on not taking basic physics into consideration. I'm sure that the noted physicist and Cambridge Lucasian Professor of Mathematics Stephen Hawking is wrong because he chooses to disregard the immutable laws of physics on a whim, whereas right wing radio talk show host Bob Enyart is right. The only other option is that Bob does not know of what he speaks, and that can't be, can it?

    Muscular christianity encourages this sort of anti-intellectualism.
    The work of Stephen Hawking, and esp. his popular works like "Brief History of Time", do reflect some incorrect visions, with huge philosophical implications.
    The issue on hand here is the idea of the possibility of the "beginning of time" which Stephen Hawking has popularized.
    Stpehen Hawking himself does not have an entirely fixed point of view on this. While at one point promoting the very idea or possibility of a "beginning of time" (formalized into the hypothese known as the Hawking-Turok thesis) on the other side he clearly defends the negation of that position, when he claims for instance that "physicists don't know how to make physics from nothing" and statements like "the universe should just be", which reflect on the idea that no beginning of time concept should be considered.
    It has been said that, while Stephen Hawking most definately is an atheist, both his wife and his publisher have drawn him into publishing some ideas that are in fact theistic viewpoints.
    After all, Stephen Hawking is just human, and can not entirely escape from influences from outside.

  13. #28
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    274
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    199
    Originally posted by Bob Enyart
    heusdens wrote: "And getting right down to business then (which is an agreement we have in the Netherlands, don't talk around the subject at hand), what then is your choice for the existence category to which God belongs, that of Micky Mouse, or that of the real mice?"

    hey huey: never mind.

    Sincerely, -Bob Enyart
    So is that your FINAL WORD on this debate?

    Defending lengthy the position of the existence of God, and when someone asks the very basic question, what existence category one has in mind for this Deity, responds with: never mind?

    It's a very weak escape, Mr Enyart!

    Why don't you just admit, that when talking about the existence of God, this deity or any other deity, resides into the same category of existence as talking mice?

  14. #29
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    274
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    199
    Bob Enyan playing the morality card

    Bob Enyard is playing a hard game in his last post, and claims that his theistic viewpoints provide for absolute moral standards.
    His historic knowledge however is very poor as to the issue of the holocaust. Some insights in the historic conditions that provided the context for the holocaust (the biggest crime against humanity for all of known history) and the second world war, would have cleared out that the centuries of catholic morality (the jews which had to blame the crucification of Jesus) were a major context for the nazi genocide policy against both the jews and the bolshewists (atheists), costing the lives of about 6 million jews and 20 million russians and that of many others.
    And what about the theistic morality then of the catholic church. Did these theist ever protest agains the committing of those large scale crimes against humanity? No, instead the church institutions collaborated on a large scale with the nazi's.

    At least this indicates there is a large gap between theistic morality in theory and in practice. Those who offered their lives in the struggle against the nazi's and the protection of jews and others from the nazi crimes, they were the real bearers of high morality standards.
    Amongst them there were many atheists, communist, who fought against the nazi's. Let us keep that in mind!

  15. #30
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    389
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    I thought that Bob's fourth post was excellent! I am glad that he was able to explain his position, even more clearly, and refute most of Zakaths, without referring to the Bible. I think that it is time for Zakath to make his own compelling case for atheism. Thus far he has only made an intellectual case for agnosticism. His atheism is simply what he chooses to " believe", it seems to me. I don't think that one should believe in something just because they do not "want" to believe in the alternative.
    For instance, every baseball season I start out thinking, anyone but the Yankees, yet they are usually the best team with the most talent, but that does not ever keep me from always rooting against them. I think that atheists can be the same way in regards to God. The answers to life's dilemnas will eventually be found, "but it just can't be God!"
    Last edited by jeremiah; June 30th, 2003 at 06:21 AM.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us