Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Battle Talk ~ Battle Royale VII

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Freak
    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.
    Wait a minute. Okay, I was with you for a while, Freak --but a chair refusing to be a chair? You're losing yourself. It's still a chair, you just add a descriptor to it.

    How would a chair "refuse" to be a chair? Is this a talking spider chair?
    --philosophizer--

    Make good choices!

    2 Corinthians 10:5 -- casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ

    Comment


    • Re: Don't take Hank to the bank, he's overdrawn.

      Originally posted by Lion
      Hank-Your ignorance is showing. There aren’t many (if any) educated scientists that would claim it was not possible to fit several of every kind of land based animal into a vessel with the Arc’s dimensions. Do a little research.
      Well if you define kind high enough on the classification scale of animals then you are correct. The problem is that it’s difficult to get a creationist to even define the word kind used in the Bible. Of course you can define it so that all the animals fit, but then they have to do a lot of evolving to have the diversity. More so than is acceptable to even the evolutionist. If you define it as a species like today, there is no way they can fit.

      Since you think I’m so ignorant, perhaps you would like to enlighten us with your expert knowledge and explain what a kind is?

      Comment


      • Originally posted by cheeezywheeezy
        Hey Hank...

        How many animals did Noah need to take on the ark? Do you even know...or are you just throwing that comment out there thinking it is actually making a point?
        Give me a definition of a kind and I’ll give you an answer.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by novice
          Freak I think a better example would be a triangle.

          Just my two cents!
          But what if the chair has 3 sides, perhaps it is a chair and a triangle.

          What if I sit on a really big spider, does it become chair?

          Why is water wet?
          That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world.
          Philippians 2:15

          Comment


          • I hope he does, I'd like to hear an explanation about that term...

            Comment


            • I agree, that was a strong follow up from Dr Zee.

              The thing is, Bob makes the case for God's existence by insisting that the naturalist's position is impossible. Zakath insists that it is not, and illustrates it by outlining some hypotheses that represent our first steps into the deepest mysteries (where did life come from, where did the universe come from).

              There are a number of advantages to the naturalist position:

              Hypotheses are, or may one day be, testable. They can be discussed, debated, modified and discarded. Even discarding is useful, because it tells us something that couldn't have happened.

              Fiat creation is not testable. There will be no hypothesis of creation beyond that of the admittedly pleasing verse of the OT. Many (most?)

              Past experience has shown us that lines in the sand about what is knowable have always been crossed. As we only have history as a guide, I select science over supernaturalism. We've only really been doing this for 400 years, why not give the process some real time?

              However, sometimes it seems that no amount of evidence will satisfy a creationist. If one day scientists demonstrate abiogenesis in a lab, the creationist will say that it proves intelligent design, and anyway, there's no evidence to say that it happened that way. Most creationists may not be really interested in truth, but then again they'd say the same about me.

              Furthermore, while Bob pussyfoots around and won't declare an interest in one deity or another, then all manifold possibilities open up. It seems he might have to use the same science he criticises to negate the creation myths of others (geology, cosmology, physics) - if he does not then surely he is forced to place Christianity on the same footing as all these other religions. This is a position I doubt he is willing to take.

              Again, the naturalist has the advantage here. And atheistic naturalism is the default position - be skeptical about all such claims. Rely on what we know and what we believe we know. There is no "proof" for theism to be found here.

              Actually, there are a couple of better arguments Bob could marshal if he insists in staying within the physical realm, but I'm not going to be helping him out.

              Novice, the point is that if there are alternate possible explanations for some of these fundamental questions (and there are, although they are extremely tentative), then the existence of the universe and life ceases to be proof of God's existence. Furthermore, if a naturalist explanation is found, it then negates a key reason for the existence of a hypothetical deity or deities.

              Finally, remember that Zakath is also being asked to prove a negative -- always a toughy. There are many things I don't accept that I can't prove away beyond a shadow of a doubt. I don't really believe that aliens are visiting this earth. I don't believe that fairies really exist. I don't believe in angels, guardian or otherwise. I don't believe in a secret conspiracy that runs the planet.

              Lots of people do believe some of these things, and to prove otherwise to their satisfaction is next to impossible. "If only you would open your eyes and drop your preconceptions", they say, "then you would see the truth."

              If Zakath can cast reasonable doubt on Bob's arguments, then Bob has failed to prove the existence of God. It will then be up to Zakath to summarize why the evidence (or lack of it) favors his position. There are still quite a lot of posts to go, Novice.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Zakath
                Letters are human-constructed symbols, as are words.
                The absolute value of the word structure "chair" is self evident. Can "chair" be spelled "spider?"

                Real letters, the absolute value coincides with the letter itself. For example: chair can only be structured as "chair" not spider.

                I don't think I understand what you're trying to get at here, Jay.
                Did you ever study the philosophy of language in school?

                A symbol only represents some other thing, it need have no intrinsic real meaning of its own.
                C is a symbol but does C have no intrinisic meaning or value?

                Comment


                • Originally posted by philosophizer
                  Wait a minute. Okay, I was with you for a while, Freak --but a chair refusing to be a chair?
                  A spider chair is not structured the same as chair. I'm speaking of it's structure. The absolute value is defined for real and complex letters (as it is structured).


                  c h a i r

                  is different from...

                  s p i d e r c h a i r

                  In it's structure.

                  Chair can only be structured chair. It is absolute.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Freak
                    The absolute value of the word structure "chair" is self evident. Can "chair" be spelled "spider?"
                    Not that I am aware of, but that's based upon purely arbitrary, man-made rules.

                    Real letters, the absolute value coincides with the letter itself. For example: chair can only be structured as "chair" not spider.
                    Letters have no absolute values, they are all symbols.

                    Did you ever study the philosophy of language in school?
                    No. If what you're trying to do is a result of that study, it seems you need to brush up on it. You're not being very clear.

                    C is a symbol but does C have no intrinisic meaning or value?
                    Intrinsic meaning? Not that I'm aware of.

                    Comment


                    • You keep referring to letters having absolute values. Numbers have absolute values, not letters...

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Flipper
                        Novice, the point is that if there are alternate possible explanations for some of these fundamental questions (and there are, although they are extremely tentative), then the existence of the universe and life ceases to be proof of God's existence. Furthermore, if a naturalist explanation is found, it then negates a key reason for the existence of a hypothetical deity or deities.
                        Wow a 4th option???

                        Can you tell me what that might be?

                        So... we have these options so far...

                        A. All the energy and matter that exists has existed forever
                        B. All the energy and matter that exists created itself from nothing
                        C. A Supernatural creator created all the energy and matter that exists

                        Without making the 4th option fit into any of the above three options I would REALLY be excited to hear (even in rough concept) what that 4th option might be!

                        Please enlighten us.
                        Oh, wise guy eh?

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Zakath
                          You keep referring to letters having absolute values. Numbers have absolute values, not letters...
                          Can the letter 'C' be anything but 'C'?????

                          It has value. Are you telling me you do not acknowledge the absolute form of constructions of words?

                          Can "computer" be "land?" Of course not. The very word "computer" (again I'm not referring to the meaning of the word) is "computer."--just as 23 is 23. When I write 23 on a paper it is 23--it is absolute.

                          Comment


                          • I'm always hugely amused by any discussion of Noah's ark. And yes, i'm aware of Woodmorrape's book.

                            I think he should do what I did, and work summer and winter holidays at a zoo. Every time I read about the ark, a sardonic smile plays about my lips.

                            Just looking after the reptile house was a full-time job that required four of us on a daily basis. The needs of many of those animals were considerable. For a start, most of them need heat and sunlight on a daily basis, something I don't really see as possible inside the ark, especially with the venomous creatures.

                            Other species are just too darn delicate. The chameleon wouldn't have lasted a week in such an environment.

                            And don't even get me started on the big mammals, which is the other part of the zoo that I worked in. So they'd be stabled for a year, would they, or would Noah and his sons take them out every other day for a bit of a walk on a leash? The senior keeper had four of his ribs broken by a rhino while he was there, because he wasn't fast enough in getting out of his pen.

                            Yes, I'm aware of this suggestion that many of these animals were cubs. Unfortunately, with many species, bringing up cubs away from their mothers is tough to do (and is often a 24 hour task), even with all the resources we have today. The mortality rate would have been hideous. And then you're left with the difficulty of teaching them all the things they learn from their peer groups and parents about hunting and surviving, otherwise they don't last a week.

                            Anyone who argues in favor of the ark myth has zero experience with exotic animals. I would wonder how much time they've spent talking to people with actual hands-on experience in looking after these creatures. Not a whole lot, I might suggest.

                            Comment


                            • I asked Zakath...

                              Originally posted by Freak
                              The absolute value of the word structure "chair" is self evident. Can "chair" be spelled "spider?"
                              --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              Zakath responds:

                              Not that I am aware of.

                              Of course that is true. "chair" is not spelled out as "spider"---just look at it's absolute form.

                              So that is absolute then, correct?

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Freak
                                A spider chair is not structured the same as chair. I'm speaking of it's structure. The absolute value is defined for real and complex letters (as it is structured).


                                c h a i r

                                is different from...

                                s p i d e r c h a i r

                                In it's structure.

                                Chair can only be structured chair. It is absolute.
                                Are you seriously only talking about spelling and not about the actual chair? I think you just fell off the "absolute" wagon.
                                --philosophizer--

                                Make good choices!

                                2 Corinthians 10:5 -- casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X