Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Battle Royale VII Specific discussion thread

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

  • Aussie Thinker wrote:
    "Huesdens/Attention has raised a most cogent argument against God that has not really been
    ever addressed by Bob.

    That is that everything we know is material or stems from material."

    A.T. destroys his own credibility when he ascribes anything other than inanity to H/A's posts. H/A can hardly write one sentence that makes sense
    in English. "everything we know is material"?? I know the binomial theorem. Is that material? What he clearly meant was "everything we perceive through the 5 senses appears to result from matter or energy". This ultimately reduces to the perception of mass, because the original source of energy is the conversion of mass to energy. To say that matter stems only from matter is the same as saying that matter always existed. We know that this mass can't have always existed because of the Einstein/Asimov entropy arguments cited by Enyart. Furthermore, various observations and calculations point to a "big bang" type of beginning.

    Even aside from that, the perception of matter and energy is only that: perception, and NOT knowledge. You rely on matter in the form of the senses to tell you the truth about matter itself, and the only assurance that you have that it is telling the truth is "faith" in matter. Millions of people adhere to religions that hold that all of this mass and energy is nothing but illusion. You can ridicule this concept, but there is no way in the world that you can refute it.

    Comment


    • August,

      A.T. destroys his own credibility when he ascribes anything other than inanity to H/A's posts. H/A can hardly write one sentence that makes sense in English.
      I admit sometimes H/A’s posts are hard to follow but surely you are astute enough to pick up the basic theme ?


      "everything we know is material"?? I know the binomial theorem. Is that material?
      No but if you finish my quote I also say “or stems from material”. And the binomial theorem stemmed from the Human Brain.. which last time I checked was made of material.

      What he clearly meant was "everything we perceive through the 5 senses appears to result from matter or energy". This ultimately reduces to the perception of mass, because the original source of energy is the conversion of mass to energy. To say that matter stems only from matter is the same as saying that matter always existed. We know that this mass can't have always existed because of the Einstein/Asimov entropy arguments cited by Enyart. Furthermore, various observations and calculations point to a "big bang" type of beginning.
      I think that my statement is far clearer and more to the point (and you claim H/A is indecipherable).

      Even aside from that, the perception of matter and energy is only that: perception, and NOT knowledge. You rely on matter in the form of the senses to tell you the truth about matter itself, and the only assurance that you have that it is telling the truth is "faith" in matter. Millions of people adhere to religions that hold that all of this mass and energy is nothing but illusion. You can ridicule this concept, but there is no way in the world that you can refute it.
      I won’t ridicule the concept but it is pointless to argue about anything if this is true.

      It’s like the matrix situation.. an interesting concept but one we MUST ignore as reality if we are to bother with anything at all !

      Comment


      • Originally posted by August
        Aussie Thinker wrote:
        "Huesdens/Attention has raised a most cogent argument against God that has not really been ever addressed by Bob.

        That is that everything we know is material or stems from material."
        As far as I understand Mr Bob Enyart's position, he realy does not want to have a discussion taking place on that kind of issues, since it is there he can not proof his case.

        A.T. destroys his own credibility when he ascribes anything other than inanity to H/A's posts. H/A can hardly write one sentence that makes sense
        in English. "everything we know is material"?? I know the binomial theorem. Is that material? What he clearly meant was "everything we perceive through the 5 senses appears to result from matter or energy". This ultimately reduces to the perception of mass, because the original source of energy is the conversion of mass to energy. To say that matter stems only from matter is the same as saying that matter always existed. We know that this mass can't have always existed because of the Einstein/Asimov entropy arguments cited by Enyart. Furthermore, various observations and calculations point to a "big bang" type of beginning.
        I hope you can read and both understand these sentences.
        I agree my english could be better, yet this is the level of english I master, so you would have to do with that.

        Point 1.

        You have the wrong concept of matter. Partly it is my fault, because I should state exactly what I mean with matter. In some posts I do, but not all of them.
        Firstly: matter is a philosophical term and is defined in materialism as that category of existence that exists outside, apart and independend of our mind. It is the objective material world so to say.

        Now physics has it's own concept of matter. Which is cleary something different, cause it is only the physical components, and is that kind of physical existence that is discontinuous. So matter in physics denotes particles and stuff. In classical physics we would say point masses. Nowadays we would describe them as wave packets or use a quantum mechanical description.
        There are also contibuous forms of matter, like gravitational or electro magnetic field.

        Matter as a philosophical term denotes not only all forms of physical existence but all other categories of objective existence too. Like I explained in some other post, a school institution is also something objective and therefore material.
        But please take care, that I do not mean here to say that the school institution is material, because a school institution has a school building which indeed exist in the form of atoms and molecules and stuff. That is undeniable the case, but as of yet hardly relevant to the existence of the school institution, since that has nothing to do with the way in which a school institution exist. Like for instance, in the case the school building would be totally destroyed, the school board could decide to give classes in another building or even in open air. The way a school institution exist, is not reducible to the existence of physical matter.

        In the same way, when approaching material existence forms like for instance computer programs or consciousness, we have to approach that on a suitable level. It is obviously the wrong approach to think of these things in terms of physical matter.

        Our thoughts simply do not exist in the forms of atoms.

        Something aside of that is of course the fact that our consciousness neither would exist, if there was no physical brain. We obviously can connect our mental processes with physical processes going on in our brain.


        Even aside from that, the perception of matter and energy is only that: perception, and NOT knowledge. You rely on matter in the form of the senses to tell you the truth about matter itself, and the only assurance that you have that it is telling the truth is "faith" in matter. Millions of people adhere to religions that hold that all of this mass and energy is nothing but illusion. You can ridicule this concept, but there is no way in the world that you can refute it.
        Since they only refute the physical form of matter, and not the material forms, as I just denoted in the philosophical meaning of the term matter, they refute something very different, and not materialism as such. Since materialism obviously does not say that all forms of objective (material) existence are reduceble to physical matter.

        I think this obvious confusion has to do with the fact that matter in the physical sense and matter in the philosophical sense are realy different things.

        Material existence is not based on faith, but on objective existence. There is hardly a point in denying that, or you would have to be convicted of solipsism (the point of view that only your mind realy exists, the rest is an illusion created by the mind).

        Want to see a rebuttal of that idea?
        Religion is just an extention of the solipsists idea. Instead of our own and personal minds, it is then only in the mind of God in which the world exists. Solipsism is a form of subjective Idealism. Religion is a form of objective Idealism. All forms of Idealism start from the idea that consciousness is the primary thing of the world, of which the rest is dependend. Materialism states that the world exists primary in material form, and only secondary in consciouss form.



        I hope that despite my poor english sentences you still get the right idea.
        Last edited by attention; August 21st, 2003, 05:48 PM.

        Comment


        • Aussie Thinker wrote:
          " And the binomial theorem
          stemmed from the Human Brain.. which last time I checked was made of material."

          You are assuming that the mind is equivalent to the brain, which an assumption that I, and many others, do not accept. IMO, the brain is a biological computer for interpreting sensory input and for storing data, but it has no capacity for decision making or for innovative thinking. There is experimental evidence that the mind exists independently of the brain, but a materialist would never accept the evidence. So I can't prove it to you, but you can't prove that it isn't true.

          A.T. also wrote:
          " I won’t ridicule the concept but it is pointless to argue about anything if this is true.

          It’s like the matrix situation.. an interesting concept but one we MUST ignore as reality if we
          are to bother with anything at all !"

          It is pointless only to a materialist. For one who experiences a spiritual existence apart from the physical, it is the physical world that must be ignored as reality, in the fullest sense. It's only significance is whatever the perception of it contributes to the life of the spirit. Naturally, as long as your mind is closed to the concept of a world of spirit, you can't accept that. But for one who can accept it, he can at least acknowledge that any meaning that the physical world has is, at most, temporal; whereas the spiritual world - not being subject to physical laws of time and entropy - is eternal.

          IMHO, if we are to bother with anything at all, we should not waste time attempting to unravel the meaning of posts that utilize words in an unconventional way. If we have to reject accepted scientific meanings for basic concepts such as "matter", and accept H/A's definitions, we are approaching a situation where dialogue becomes meaningless. You can always win any argument if you have the freedom to define terms your own way.

          Comment


          • I find it quite interesting that so little has been said so far about Bob's lengthly 10th round posting.
            Random changes are destructive to any carefully crafted piece of work, such as a computer program, a novel or the genome of a lifeform.
            Matt 23:24Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by bob b
              I find it quite interesting that so little has been said so far about Bob's lengthly 10th round posting.
              It is probably due to the fact that we feel there is no more battle, since there is no more opponent.

              It would have been different when the Bob vs World round would be in place there, but not much people were sending in any posts on that.

              If you feel it necessary to have a reply on bob's post, I could make some reply.

              But I am working now on this extention round of the contest.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by August
                IMHO, if we are to bother with anything at all, we should not waste time attempting to unravel the meaning of posts that utilize words in an unconventional way. If we have to reject accepted scientific meanings for basic concepts such as "matter", and accept H/A's definitions, we are approaching a situation where dialogue becomes meaningless. You can always win any argument if you have the freedom to define terms your own way.
                We don't have to reject the physics definition of matter, because philosophical materialism has a different definition for matter.
                We should only be aware of the different meaning of those terms.

                There happen to be more terms that we use that have a different meaning in different disciplines of science / philosophy.

                As for instance we have the economic term "inflation", and there is a cosmological term "inflation".

                Your argument would be then that we should not adapt the cosmological inflation theory and meaning of the term inflation, since economy already defined a different meaning for inflation.

                It is silly in my point of view.

                I think we could easily provide thousands of terms, that have a definite or slight different meaning, in different fields of knowledge.

                I do not redefine words. Neither does materialism do that.

                There is still matter in the physical sense, which are the discontinuous forms of physical existence (the particles).

                But it is obviously a philosophical necessity for having a philosophical term for the existence of objective things that can not be simply reduced to physical matter or physical existence.

                I think it has been proposed to use the term materia instead of matter when it is used in a philosophical sense.

                At least that avoids miscommunication and confusion.

                I can understand that there is miscommunication and confusion on the use of the term matter.

                Many arguments against materialism are simply based on that confusion, since they argue that complexer forms of material (in the phil. sense) existence can not be reduced to physical matter (atoms, particles).

                Which is of course true, but not a valid argument against materialism.
                Last edited by attention; August 22nd, 2003, 08:25 AM.

                Comment


                • Attention,

                  I suggest you post your philosophical musings on another thread.

                  This one was set up for comment on the postings of Zakath and Enyart.

                  Thank you.

                  Your Friendly Moderator
                  Random changes are destructive to any carefully crafted piece of work, such as a computer program, a novel or the genome of a lifeform.
                  Matt 23:24Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

                  Comment


                  • bob b:

                    I do so, but as you probably noticed, I only directly commented to some misunderstandings brought forward by August.

                    Comment


                    • bob b wrote:
                      "I suggest you post your philosophical musings on another thread.

                      This one was set up for comment on the postings of Zakath and Enyart."

                      Where do we post comments on round 11?

                      Comment


                      • I was reading the post game show for the Battle Royal and this paragraph crossed me as an odd one.

                        BE: Taoist Punted Mr. Taoist, you punted, and we noticed. The two most basic laws of science (you hate them, don’t you) declare that our universe could not have made itself, and could not have always been here. And the silly second universe you posit does nothing to answer your dilemma. You punter. Also, Zakath didn’t propose a second universe, but he quoted Hawking’s ridiculous mathematical model which allowed “the existence of infinite numbers of parallel universes.” Do you remember Hawking’s inane methodology as described by Zakath in post 2a? He created a mathematical model of the universe and with it determined the viability of an infinite number of other universes! But Hawking’s utterly unscientific methodology apparently escaped countless atheists. For starters, how can Hawking create a reasonable mathematical model of the universe when we don’t yet know the size of the universe, its total mass, whether it is bounded or not, the nature of gravity, the nature of the supposed 96% of all matter which is “dark” (atheists have no proof for, but their Big Bang desperately requires, dark matter and perhaps even dark energy which supposedly neither emits nor absorbs light), and we cannot yet explain even the particle/wave behavior of light. So, how accurate could Hawking’s mathematical model of our universe be? With that much scientific ignorance about our own universe, Hawking certainly cannot create a mathematical model accurate enough to predict the feasibility of an infinite number of other universes. So his guesswork model showed what his atheism assumed to start with, that our universe could come into existence uncaused. Give that man a prize! And his model predicted the possibility of an infinite number of parallel universes (after all, you know, the number line is infinite). Try reading this quote from Zakath with a straight face:

                        This was posted by Bob. He admits there are countless numbers of questions in our knowledge about the universe right now. Yet he goes on to state that his view of the universe is correct. How can someone make an assumption like that when they don't even have a tenth of the answers to even known questions? How can you assert your version is the truth when you don't even know the truth? Thats why this arguement of God existing isn't even possible at this time. Taking faith and making it into a tangible thing isn't what faith is about anyways. I believe in God, not the Christian one, but I believe there is one in existence. I don't have the answers so I know that no arguement is going satisfy this answer. It all comes down to faith. One last thing, I wish Bob wouldn't treat the people who made the post game with contempt. They are not given the opportunity to rebut and he digs into them. That is not cool.


                        I know this isn't very eloquent, but bear with me. I don't talk about my faith often so I haven't got it down into presentable form for everyone to read.



                        Spartin

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Spartin
                          This was posted by Bob. He admits there are countless numbers of questions in our knowledge about the universe right now. Yet he goes on to state that his view of the universe is correct. How can someone make an assumption like that when they don't even have a tenth of the answers to even known questions? How can you assert your version is the truth when you don't even know the truth? Thats why this arguement of God existing isn't even possible at this time. I know this isn't very eloquent, but bear with me. I don't talk about my faith often so I haven't got it down into presentable form for everyone to read.

                          There are unanswered questions about the universe. But there is adequate information to come to the conclusion that God must exist by using known scientific facts. You may not agree (more like choose to blatently avoid the obvious) but don't try to say that simply because Bob agrees that we don't know everything about the universe then we cannot know if God exists. There are many conclusions that can be made over issues without knowing every little jot and tittle.
                          Taking faith and making it into a tangible thing isn't what faith is about anyways. I believe in God, not the Christian one, but I believe there is one in existence.
                          Let's see, you have nothing to base your beliefs on yet come here stating what they are and we should accept what you say as if it were concrete. Christians have much to base their beliefs on and come here with facts as to why you should believe in the Christian God and you deny Him.
                          I know this isn't very eloquent, but bear with me. I don't talk about my faith often so I haven't got it down into presentable form for everyone to read.
                          Around here we don't care nearly as much about eloquence nearly as we do common sense.
                          "The most terrifying words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'" - Ronald Reagan



                          Check out the "rightest" of all right wing moms. FarRightMom


                          Upgrade your TOL membership.

                          Comment


                          • Bobby's reply

                            Bobby E wrote:

                            Read this:

                            Of course, theists agree with Huey that “the world itself… denotes something that exists independent, outside and apart from our own minds.” I am also happy to agree with Huey that “a ‘nothing’ does not and cannot exist by definition.”

                            And this:

                            BE: We Know God Exists: because:
                            1. the universe could not always have been here, nor could it have made itself from nothing

                            ---------------------------------

                            Mr Bobby E conceives of the fact that a mere 'nothing' can not and does not exist. But... he nevertheless argues that the universe (the collection of all existing things) could not have been there always.

                            Well, Mr Bobby E, can you explain to the readers here, what then was existing, when there was no universe?

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Spartin
                              (....) So his guesswork model showed what his atheism assumed to start with, that our universe could come into existence uncaused. (....)
                              Since you conceive of a 'coming into existence' you already concieve of a cause for that 'coming into existence'.

                              But the error or problem in your argument is exactly that, that you try to conceive of the universe (which is in the ordinary meaning everything that exists) as that it had a 'coming into existence' history.
                              That however is inconceivable and not reconceilable with the fact that we mean with the term universe everything that exists.
                              Any causes that might exist, are then by definition part of the universe. No outside causes - again by definition - can exist.

                              We could of course conceive of the term universe in another way, in which the universe is not everything that exists. A small part of inflating and expanding spacetime bubble, we could call universe, and that could have causes outside of itself.

                              So, to start with, an atheists does not conceive of the fact that the universe has ever 'not been' or will ever 'not be'.

                              Which means in other words: it is eternally unfolding in time, without a begin or end.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Poly
                                There are unanswered questions about the universe. But there is adequate information to come to the conclusion that God must exist by using known scientific facts. You may not agree (more like choose to blatently avoid the obvious) but don't try to say that simply because Bob agrees that we don't know everything about the universe then we cannot know if God exists. There are many conclusions that can be made over issues without knowing every little jot and tittle.

                                Let's see, you have nothing to base your beliefs on yet come here stating what they are and we should accept what you say as if it were concrete. Christians have much to base their beliefs on and come here with facts as to why you should believe in the Christian God and you deny Him.

                                Around here we don't care nearly as much about eloquence nearly as we do common sense.

                                I am just stating that in my opinion there isn't sufficient evidence to support his claim as vehemently as he does. The thing is, we are not even close to quibble about the "jot and tittle". It is like a blind man describing the color red. Not even close to happening. You are like the people who thought that life spontaneously thought occured out of rancid meat. Until you have proper information, you are making blind assertions. Don't even bother trying to state that you are even close to right. It is your opinion, not fact. Just like I say it is my opinion.

                                I never stated that you should believe as I do. Would you point out where I stated that? My opinion says that the Christian viewpoint is wrong. I am not going to get mad at you for choosing such a religion. I am not going to call you a fool. Yours is a long standing religion. Just because what I have faith in isn't in any religious scriptures doesn't mean I am not entitled to my belief? Plus I am not pushing it on you.


                                As to common sense. My common sense is saying that there is too much blind assertion by most religions about the creation of the universe. That just leads me to believe that religions are fallible like the man it is created for. So instead of trying to make me sound like I lack common sense, why not ask me questions regarding how I came to my conclusions. It shows that you are jumping into another blind assertion over something you don't even know.


                                If you want to ask me some questions feel free to ask. Don't make assumptions like that. Thanks for your reply


                                Spartin
                                Last edited by Spartin; September 9th, 2003, 05:59 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X