Battle Royale VII Specific discussion thread

[Zakath]

Originally posted by DEVO
Tragically I doubt Zakath will REALLY read what Bob is writing... I mean... Zakath will read it..... but will he READ it? Know what I mean?

Does READ = agree with in this instance?

[Knight]

Re: As a matter of truth

Originally posted by heusdens
Why is the position of God declared truths in no way adequate to understand the world and to find truth?

Uhm... are you cutting and pasting this material here?

TheologyOnLine is designed to be a "point" vs. "counterpoint" style forum.

We discourage simply coping and pasting large volumes of information on the forum.

Please dialog.

[heusdens]

Re: Re: As a matter of truth

Originally posted by Knight
Uhm... are you cutting and pasting this material here?

TheologyOnLine is designed to be a "point" vs. "counterpoint" style forum.

We discourage simply coping and pasting large volumes of information on the forum.

Please dialog.

I started a new thread, and I can testify, that are the words I wrote myself. I din't copy-paste that from somewhere else (however I did copy-paste that to some other discussion board but that's another thing).

Regards.

Rob

[Knight]

Re: Re: Re: As a matter of truth

Originally posted by heusdens
I started a new thread, and I can testify, that are the words I wrote myself. I din't copy-paste that from somewhere else (however I did copy-paste that to some other discussion board but that's another thing).

Regards.

Rob

Please do your best to DIALOG with others on the forum...

Sort of like...

So and so says... "bla bla bla..."

And then you respond their "bla bla bla..." and counter with "bla bla bla bla".

Know what I mean?

[DEVO]

Originally posted by Zakath
Does READ = agree with in this instance?

Uh no. "Read" in this instance means... "read".

As in... take the time to truly understand and acknowledge what Bob has said.

Do you think your going to do that this time?

[heusdens]

Re: Re: Re: Re: As a matter of truth

Originally posted by Knight
Please do your best to DIALOG with others on the forum...

Sort of like...

So and so says... "bla bla bla..."

And then you respond their "bla bla bla..." and counter with "bla bla bla bla".

Know what I mean?

You mean like ehmmmm.... I say 'XXX' and then they say 'YYYY' and then I respond 'ZZZZ'.... ehmmmmmmmm......

In thought I could already figure out all the range of possible counterargument in my head, and provide the counterarguments to those argumtens, and the counterargument to the counterarguments to those arguments, etc, already in my post...

Anyway, I get the picture. Thanks!

[Zakath]

Originally posted by DEVO
Uh no. "Read" in this instance means... "read".

As in... take the time to truly understand and acknowledge what Bob has said.

Do you think your going to do that this time?

I disagree with quite a bit of what St. Bob the Broadcaster says, not to mention his charming ad hominem style of debating...

I'm glad he finally stated what his standard was, AFTER FIVE POSTS...

Now we'll see if he can demonstrate it to us...

[DEVO]

Originally posted by Zakath
I'm glad he finally stated what his standard was, AFTER FIVE POSTS...

You see thats just what I mean, Bob stated his standard in his very first post!

In Bob's first post he wrote...

If you admit to right and wrong, then you will have provided evidence for the definition of the real God, and you will also have helped us calculate the opportunity cost of atheism. For, if there is an absolute Originator, then logically, an absolute moral standard would have originated with Him.

We are all reading these posts.. are you?

[AROTO]

Originally posted by Zakath
I disagree with quite a bit of what St. Bob the Broadcaster says, not to mention his charming ad hominem style of debating...

I'm glad he finally stated what his standard was, AFTER FIVE POSTS...

Now we'll see if he can demonstrate it to us...

Why try to demonstrate it anymore than he already has, you will deny anyway. Instead why don't you show us how you think a persons conscience could evolve.

[Zakath]

Originally posted by DEVO
You see thats just what I mean, Bob stated his standard in his very first post!

Bob has argued himself into a corner this round. Stay tuned...

[Zakath]

Originally posted by AROTO
Why try to demonstrate it anymore than he already has, you will deny anyway.

Watch the next post for some interesting developments.

Instead why don't you show us how you think a persons conscience could evolve.

I'll type this slowly so you can follow...

Bob is asserting that God is responsible for the gaps in scientific knowledge that he illustrated in his posts. I concurred that they were gaps and that I have no explanation, at present. End of story.

Once I've answered a question, if he keeps asking the same questions over and over he will not get a different answer.

[.Ant]

Originally posted by flash
Interesting tactic. Bob just responded to Zakath's charges of God-of-the-Gaps arguments by making a God-of-the-Gaps argument.

Yep. Bob is showing that Zakath's charges are unreasonable, since science uses the same gaps-logic.

[.Ant]

Originally posted by Zakath
Bob is asserting that God is responsible for the gaps in scientific knowledge that he illustrated in his posts. I concurred that they were gaps and that I have no explanation, at present. End of story.

Once I've answered a question, if he keeps asking the same questions over and over he will not get a different answer.

It seems fair for Bob to do on this point, Zakath: How can you criticise Bob using God to fill gaps, when you are using nothing?

[heusdens]

Originally posted by .Ant
It seems fair for Bob to do on this point, Zakath: How can you criticise Bob using God to fill gaps, when you are using nothing?

How can you fill holes with holes?
Not that I think that Zakath gives us the best performance in providing a real and profound basis for an atheist/materialist point of view, but the Gods of the past don't do it anymore.
You can not built up a true and profound theory about everything when you use God as your first principle. God or any spiritual 'substance' can not be taken for the primary substance there is in the world, that actualy forms and shapes the world.
That role can only be provided by a substance which is known as matter.

[.Ant]

God is not a hole.

Everyone has a first principle. You can't make any argument without one.