Battle Royale VII Specific discussion thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

Nathon Detroit

New member
Due to the fact that the Battle Talk thread has evolved into discussions about just about anything EXCEPT BR VII we have decided to start a new discussion about Battle Royale VII - and this is it!

Any posts that are off topic will be deleted by the moderator of this thread "Bob B" - welcome back Bob!

So what are your comments regarding BR VII?
 

novice

Who is the stooge now?
For Zakath to be successful in this debate he will have to give compelling evidence that everything that exists from the universe, to our solar system to the first cell to the human being could come into existence without help from a supernatural force.

Or at very least Zakath will have to give us a conceptual idea of how this might have happened.

So far, he has failed miserably.

In my opinion Zakath is making the same mistake in BR VII as he did in BR II. It seems he wants to use these battles as a means to mock the Christian God. But neither BR VII nor BR II hinge upon Christianity necessarily.

It's logically possible that a god could exist that wasn't the God of the Bible and absolute morality could have been set by another god.

I feel like Zakath cannot get over the fact that he just can't mock the Christian God and therefore he really doesn't have much ammo.
 

XenBobForo

Administrator
Staff member
Offering time...

Offering time...

To Knight (the moderator) and Zakath (the opponent),

I posted my third round entry extremely early in the morning (since that's when I finished it). However, I didn't want to impose on Zakath a requirement that he be up all night, or at 4 a.m. (my time) to meet the ensuing deadline. So, I would like to offer this one-time deadline extension to Zakath whereby he could make his fourth-round post any time before noon on June 28th.

Sincerely, Bob Enyart
 

Nathon Detroit

New member
Re: Offering time...

Re: Offering time...

Originally posted by Bob Enyart
To Knight (the moderator) and Zakath (the opponent),

I posted my third round entry extremely early in the morning (since that's when I finished it). However, I didn't want to impose on Zakath a requirement that he be up all night, or at 4 a.m. (my time) to meet the ensuing deadline. So, I would like to offer this one-time deadline extension to Zakath whereby he could make his fourth-round post any time before noon on June 28th.

Sincerely, Bob Enyart
Sounds fair to me.
 

shima

New member
Hmmm

So far, the arguements from Bob are all easily refuted because he didn't really bring any new or original arguements other than the consciousness aproach.

However, Zakath has not yet built a case for himself, ie he didn't bring any arguments that argue against the existence of God.
 

novice

Who is the stooge now?
Originally posted by shima
Hmmm

So far, the arguements from Bob are all easily refuted
Well I suggest you PM Zakath we these refutations! Hurry before its too late!!
 

BlueChild

New member
I think Bob Enyart was quite merciful in his last post. I found it to be the least interesting of his posts so far. I am really glad they have 10 posts. This is so interesting! I look forward to seeing how it works out and where it goes from here.
 

heusdens

New member
Originally posted by novice
For Zakath to be successful in this debate he will have to give compelling evidence that everything that exists from the universe, to our solar system to the first cell to the human being could come into existence without help from a supernatural force.

Or at very least Zakath will have to give us a conceptual idea of how this might have happened.

So far, he has failed miserably.

This is indeed the weakest side of the position of Zakath, which is due to the fact that he is not a consequential materialist, and therefore can not claim to be a true atheist.

Here is what materialism has to say about this issue:

Matter denotes the category of that what exists outside and independend of the mind.
Matter and motion / change are inseperateble, cause nowhere we can detect matter without motion or motion without matter.
Space and time just denote the "modes of existence" of matter.

Materialism acknowledges the fact that matter is infinite.
This acknowledgement does not direct to any specific age or spatial extent of matter, but it denotes that material transformations are endlessly evolving in time, without begin or end.
Infinity of matter means that any material form residing within a finite spatio-temporal extent, transforms into a new material form, also within a fine spatio-temporal extend.
And this can be said to be the case for all scales of material formations, and throughout all of time, without begin or end.

As such, no "begin of matter" can be conceived of.
Outside of matter, nothing exists, at least not in an objective and independend way (outside and independend of our mind).

As such the concept of a deity has no existence outside and independend of our mind.

And as a comment on this discussion, it also makes clear that this whole discussion is in fact senseless, since the discussion is not about wether or not the existence of that supposed deity, has some objective existence, outside and independend of the mind.

I see no reason to reject the idea that God exists as a concept of language and of mind, meaningfull to many people. Why should one reject that?

The real issue is however wether or not such a deity has objective existence, that is : apart from and outside of our mind.
 
Last edited:

heusdens

New member
Originally posted by shima
Hmmm

So far, the arguements from Bob are all easily refuted because he didn't really bring any new or original arguements other than the consciousness aproach.

However, Zakath has not yet built a case for himself, ie he didn't bring any arguments that argue against the existence of God.

The real question is : why should one argue against the existence of God? I am not a theist, but I have no problem in acknowledging the fact that in the minds of many people, a deity exists. Also, even when I know biology well enough, I have no objection against the idea of the existence of ducks that can talk. If you are not familiar with that, probably you never read donald duck.

The real issue here is if and wether to proponents of the existence of a deity, can make their case clear and provide evidence that a deity exists as an objective entity, that is outside and independend of our mind.

The true case is of course that a deity as a true entity, which has objective existence apart from and outside of the mind, can never be detected.

The objective world, outside and independend of our minds, exists in the form of moving matter. Matter is in motion / change for all eternity, and can neither be destroyed or created.
Outside of matter there is no objective existence.
hence no deity as an objective entity, apart from and outside of our mind can be assumed.

For matter, as an objective entity, which exists apart from and outisde of our minds, we have plenty of evidence. We know the sun and the earth existed even before there were humans or any life forms at all.
For a deity, no such proof, or even an indication has ever been given.

This is why I reject the idea that there is a deity in an objective way and outside and apart from the mind.

This in itself does not contradict the fact that the concept which people have in their heads, must be thought of to have subjective significance and existence, and as such we should not doubt or reject the fact that this is the case.

And another point is that even when we can claim that there is an objective reality, most if not all of our knowledge will be arived at only in a subjective way (even if science and measurements by instruments broaden our own sensory perceptions and means of knowing about the world), which even if the fact that the objective reality undoubtly and irrefutable exists, makes this a hard case.
 
Last edited:

novice

Who is the stooge now?
Ahhhh... Zakath's 4th post was a "content-less" disaster!

I would ask that the towel be thrown in for Zakath if I weren't having so much fun reading Bob's posts.
 

shima

New member
>>Ahhhh... Zakath's 4th post was a "content-less" disaster!<<

Perhaps you should read it again. It had a load of content. You may not agree with it, but that is something else.
 

novice

Who is the stooge now?
Originally posted by shima
>>Ahhhh... Zakath's 4th post was a "content-less" disaster!<<

Perhaps you should read it again. It had a load of content. You may not agree with it, but that is something else.
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?
 

jeremiah

BANNED
I think I said somewhere in that other 80 page:eek: thread, that I thought Zakath's worst post was his third, because of his changing topics and mischaracterizing the God of the Bible, and mocking of Christians. I think his 4th post is now his best. He does pose some challenging and logical arguments as to why a person might not believe that there is a God. The idea that many people explained phenomenon that was inexplicable, to God, that can now be attributed to NATURE or SCIENCE, and that the gap is closing is compelling. Of course that is one of the reasons that I am a Christian, and why I believe that the Bible has already predicted that this would happen. In Genesis 3-22 and 11-6. Man is now fast approaching the ability to reverse engineer many of the things that God does. The tower of Babel slowed man down by several millenium. Now man is beginning to observe how the cell works and God says, Nothing which they purpose to do will be impossible for them.
 

AROTO

New member
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:up:
 

jeremiah

BANNED
..... 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 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:

jeremiah

BANNED
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.
 

heusdens

New member
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.
 

heusdens

New member
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:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top