Battle Royale VII Specific discussion thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

Ash1

New member
Zakath! Are you okay??? :shocked: <-- toothless wonder

Bob's not pulling his punches...maybe this is gonna be a TKO


Let's see if Zakath has anything left in him...'cause his "God of the Gaps" argument was just devastated in Round 5.
 

claire

BANNED
Banned
Originally posted by Michael12
And you just demonstrated my point even further. Of course we differ on things like "reasonable" and "necessary". Without specific circumstances attached, ideas like moral right and wrong, reasonable, and necessary, are ALL relative.

Of course I supported your point in that respect, since we agree on that particular issue..one must attach particular circumstances to make ANY judgment on right, wrong, reasonable, necessary, good or evil.....The example of killing the intruder and your rape under the "save the world" scenario), clearly demonstrates that. I could list a dozen examples that were "seemingly" contrary to the ten commandments, which would generate differing opinions on all sides of the issue of good and right, or evil and wrong.....that is why I don't believe Bob can demonstrate moral absolutes across the board :)

by Michael
It would, in fact, be reasonable if one's highest priority were the continuation of the species. I'm not addressing your tongue in cheek "get them to agree to procreate" because the point of the scenario is that they refuse to do so, despite reasoning and my good looks :D


Well, the continuation of the species is a judgment (in my opinion) of the architect of it...it raises the age old question...for which there is no definitive answer, why are we here? If we are here to "continue the species" then you would be correct....if we are here to learn everything we can with the primary object of aligning our souls as nearly as humanly possible with god so that we can spend eternity at one with him, then the answer would be different....again, proving your point...that it is subjective and relative...and to head off your argument, yes, God uses man to do his work, so the "survival of the species" might, and probably is placed in the hands of man. (p.s., and any "last woman" of the species who could not be persuaded by your logic and undisputed good looks doesn't deserve to survive :D)

by Michael
So who decides who is right? The knee-jerk answer among theists is "God". But the theists can no more prove the existence of their God then atheists can prove His non-existence. So we are back to square one, which means relativity.


Well, the knee jerk reaction of THIS theist is Man decides what is right and good, based on his knowledge of God and what God has taught us (which is why we have brains and choices), WITH this proviso...God created (by whatever means one subscribes) asociety of humans...since the nature of man is also the product of God then God knew that we would be faced with moral dilemmas which would overlap with societal needs.....hopefully, man will use his knowledge of God when exercising his societal boundaries which will enhance the survival of the species as well as not destroy his own soul....and chance for eternity.
 

ZroKewl

BANNED
Banned
RE Bob's 5th posting:

1) Bob has a funny understanding of science.

2) Bob is making points that would disprove the existence of the Christian God (as described in the Bible) -- specifically the points on morality.

3) Bob is also obfuscating and dodging questions.

I'll let Zakath expound on my observations in his next posting. :shut:

--ZK
 

flash

BANNED
Banned
Interesting tactic. Bob just responded to Zakath's charges of God-of-the-Gaps arguments by making a God-of-the-Gaps argument. :confused:
 

heusdens

New member
As a matter of truth

As a matter of truth

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

A theist position is a doctrine in that it starts with the doctrine that there is a God. The world in the way in which is exists is then attributed as being caused or created by God. Formerly a lot of things which were known to exist but not understood, where therefore attributed to the existence of God. It is obviously clear that this never has presented any real explenation, and real understanding and any real knowledge about the world, and of what that the world in first instance and in essence is. Within the system of thought that starts out with the doctrine of there being a God, there can be of course no real proof nor disproof about the existence of God. For that, one needs to look outside of this doctrine, and find truth itself. If God speaks to man and declares a truth, then we are confronted with the question weather that particular declared truth is true or not. If one adapts to the vision of theism, the truth of this particular statement, is decided upon solely on Gods word. So, for example, if God declares it to be the case that the moon is made of butter, then this truth is being regarded as being true solely because that is being declared as such by god, and being independend of the fact wether or not the moon in fact is composed of and made of butter.
As it is stated (we have God's word on that) that the world is made by God, then in the theist vision, the fact that the world in fact exist, is a "proof" of God. This in disregard of the question of what in fact the world in first instance is, how it is formed, how we understand the world to be, and it's causes for being there at all and changing.

How can we find truth outside of the system of God declared truths?

Despite these declarations of truth, man has confronted these declarations of fundamentalist theist thought with the fact that wether or not a declared particular truth is in fact true, with the fact that such is not dependend in any way of that particular truth declaration, but solely dependend on reality itself. Wether or not the earth revolves around the sun is something, which is in no way dependend on whatever declaration of truth is ever made by anyone (including God), but solely dependend on wether or not in fact the earth revolves around the sun. In this way man has not only discovered truths, which seem to have no relation with any declared truth, but as can be pointed out, are in fact in flagrant contradiction with particular God declared truths. This not only shows that the closed system of thought as presented by theism, has fundamental flaws, but needs replacement alltogether. In a fundamental way this means that for any truth system to be valid, all statements of truth which have no other source then subjective interpretations of reality, whatever their source in fact is, must be thrown out in first instance, and not be considered of relevance other then their objective conformity with reality itself. This includes of course all statement regarding the supposed existence of God itself also, as well as all other declared truths, for which no objective evidence exist.
In our drastic measures, in first instance we seem to be left with nothing at all. All our mental constructs are under recondsideration, and even the most trivial truths we have, must be admitted not to have relevance. This will unequivocally lead us to the most fundamental question in philiosophy, which is then the question: why is there something (anything at all) instead of nothing?

That is where this in fact leads us! We are totally naked and deprived from all of our mental constructs, even our most precious thoughts about the world, and this is where it takes us! Wondering about why at all a world exist! How do we solve such a puzzle? And we don't even know if at all a viable answer to this question exists! Where are we going here? Where does it take us? We better get us some inner rest, cause we will need all of our mental capabilities to solve this horrific and tremendous puzzle. We are stunned and perplexed, as to where we have arrived. Is there a way out of this, or are we completely dazed and perplexd, and never find a solution to this big monstruous puzzle. What first amazes us that at first instance, no attempt at all, seems to work. If we have to assume that nothing, nothing at all, could be hold to exist, then how can there be at all a world? From nothing will not get us to something, even the infinitessimal something, the barely at all something. From nothing at all, from the inexistence of the world, we can not get something. Not in a thousand, not in a billion, not in a 10 to-the-power of 10 to-the-power of trillion years, and in fact not even time does exist.

We must therefore make a truth statement here: There are no grounds at all to form something, to reason something, to conclude something when there is not something.
From an inexisting world, we can not find any reason any fundation to why at all the world would exist or have to exist, if it in fact at all exist. So, either we are eternally blocked, since no world could have ever formed, if ever there was a state of total nothingness. So where is the way out here? This may appear to be a total block, an eternal barrier, a puzzle never to be solved by humankind, but it can become immediately clear to us, that even when we were exercising through this teeming question, the world itself and our pressence in it, as well as our mental cognitive powers have not left us, but remained present all the time. The world itself neither ourselves, have not left us, but are there. So even if none of our mental thoughts can be hold relevance, at least we have to conclude this: There is a world, and we are in it!

We can not conclude in first instance anyt further then that, we have no idea of what the world in first instance is composed of. We only know just that: There is a world, in whatever form, and not nothing! As we sterted our mental excercise, we have stated that there was no possible way the world or anything could come into existence if there ever was a non-existing world, so the fact that there is in fact a world, whatever it is that the world in first instance is, it must have been there for all of eternity!

That is what we can know, and what we must remember of being true. The fact that the world exist, must mean that since a non-existing world can not bring forth anything, that what the world in first instance is or forms, must have always been there! So THAT puzzle is solved then!

Now onto the question of what the world in first instance is, or forms or shapes. For the world to exist, there must be something significant, some primary stuff that constitutes and shapes the world. Although we have no idea of what that primary substance in essence is, we know that it can not be dependend on anything else for it's existence. That what the world forms, shapes and makes the world to be, must be a primary substance which is not in any way dependend on anything else, since it must have existed at all time. What could that essential substance be?

We go back to the discovery we just made, the discovery that the world in fact exist and does not not-exist. How was I able of making that very statement at all? I made this discovery by not just looking into the world, and see or perceive that it exist, but also by my mental processes, or whatever is it that constitutes my thinking and directs my actions. So this then calls for a hypothese of to what the world in primary essence could be. And here I have two options:
  • It could be that the world in first instance is that what forms and shapes me, causes me to exist to be able to think and conclude things. Although I have as of yet no idea of what that could be, I just call that my consciousness, and denote that as that what in essence is what I am about, makes me me, and enables me to think and to act.
  • And the alternative for this is, that if the world in essence would not be formed by that what constitutes me, then it needs to be something that is independend, apart from and outside of my consciousness.

Now which one of these, could be the answer to that what is the essence of the world, that what in primary sence constitutes the world and forms and shapes the world. As of yet, we do not have much to go for, except that we need to adapt our former conclusion, which was that: that what is the primary stuff that forms and shapes the world, and is the essence of the world, needs to have been there for all time.

Here we have a clue as to which of the above hypothesis is the correct one. It appears to me that my first hypothese, which was the hypothese that the world in first and primary instance is formed by my consciousness, can not be correct. Cause my consciouss thougths seem to be to go no further back then at most 40 years. Is there a possibility in which I could fit this hypothese with the former conclusion? Could it be that my conscious memories before that time are simply gone, but that I existed in another form before that time? Or could it be that the world happens to have formed at the same time with my consciousness? Since the hypothesis states that I am the primary substance of the world, this would then need to be the case, but this conflicts with the fact that that what the world in primary essence is, must be something that was there all the time.

I therefore have to conclude that my first hypothesis is wrong, and therefore I have to adapt the second hypothesis, which states: that what the world forms and shapes, and what the world in essence is, and which existed in all time and has always existed, is a substance or essence which is apart from, outside and independend of my consciousness.
 
Last edited:

Zakath

Resident Atheist
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?
 

Nathon Detroit

New member
Re: As a matter of truth

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

New member
Re: Re: As a matter of truth

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
 

Nathon Detroit

New member
Re: Re: Re: As a matter of truth

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? :D
 

DEVO

Documenting mans devolution
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

New member
Re: Re: Re: Re: As a matter of truth

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? :D

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

Resident Atheist
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

Documenting mans devolution
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

New member
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

Resident Atheist
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... :D
 

Zakath

Resident Atheist
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

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

.Ant

New member
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

New member
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

New member
God is not a hole.

Everyone has a first principle. You can't make any argument without one.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top