Battle Royale VII Specific discussion thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
DEVO

DEVO

Documenting mans devolution
Originally posted by Zakath
Bob has argued himself into a corner this round. Stay tuned... :D
Click to expand...
Oh great... a statement like that usually means get ready for some MAJOR obfuscation.
 
AROTO

AROTO

New member
Originally posted by Zakath
Once I've answered a question, if he keeps asking the same questions over and over he will not get a different answer.
Click to expand...

Do you really feel confident saying "I dunno":doh: The Bible explains perfectly how the universe was created, your disbelief has created this God of the gaps argument.

I too am waiting for Bob to give a better arguement, I have no doubt that it is coming.
 
H

heusdens

New member
Originally posted by AROTO
The Bible explains perfectly how the universe was created, your disbelief has created this God of the gaps argument.
Click to expand...

Perfectly? The universe is not even 'created', and besides the Genesis account is an earth centered vision (the earth was created before the universe...) totally inaccurate and outdated.

A bedstime story for children of the age 4 perhaps, but even that is underestimating the intelectual qualities of children!
 
H

heusdens

New member
Bob's science questions

Bob's science questions

Bob's science questions

BQ14: Zakath, can science possibly discover real limitations of matter, energy, and natural processes? a) Yes b) No
If No, please explain: _________________________________________________
Click to expand...

Has Bob ever read any science book???? Science does nothing BUT providing and proving both real possibilites and limitations of the material world.

For instance science proofs that both evolution takes place AND that evolution from bacteria to mamals can not take place in a matter of years, but needs billions of years.
Like science proofs that massive stars can implode to form black holes, but that stars with masses under approx. 5 sun masses are not massive enough to form black holes.
That the speed of light is a constant to every observer, and that any material object can not exceed that speed limit.

In need of any more REAL limitations in the natural world????

BQ16: Zakath, could science conceivably ever falsify natural origins by closing the gap for the origin of the universe and biological life, showing conclusively that natural processes themselves cannot account for such origins? a) Yes b) No
Click to expand...

Does this man understand 'falsification' and scientific theory AT ALL?

Set up a test labaratory, to see if spontaniously universes occur, or life occurs?

Falsification is not the only measure to validate a scientific theory, where possible it should be applied, but the presented cases are not very susceptible in nature for falsification.

This doesn't make the theories less scientific.

BQ5: (resubmitted) Zakath, please indicate true or false: There are only three theoretical alternatives to the origin of the universe, it was either: always here, popped into existence from nothing, or was supernaturally created. a) True b) False
Click to expand...

That what the world in first instance and in essence is, is matter in eternal motion, that neither can be created or destroyed.
Popping into existence or supernatural creation are REAL limitations of matter!

BQ18: Zakath, please indicate which of these laws of thermodynamics do you believe do not apply to the universe as a whole:
a) The First Law: that nature can bring neither matter nor energy into existence from nothing.
b) The Second Law: that the universe cannot work and burn forever, since it would eventually expend all available energy.
c) Neither the First nor Second laws apply to the universe as a whole.
d) Both the First and Second laws apply to the universe as a whole.
Please do your best to explain your answer, or explain why you cannot or will not answer:
Click to expand...

Both energy and matter are indestructable (they can be transformed even into another but not created or destroyed) and therefore conserved in both a quantitive way and qualitative way.

Hence, no "heat death" and no leaking of matter or energy out of the universe.
 
One Eyed Jack

One Eyed Jack

New member
Re: Bob's science questions

Re: Bob's science questions

Originally posted by heusdens
Both energy and matter are indestructable (they can be transformed even into another but not created or destroyed) and therefore conserved in both a quantitive way and qualitative way.

Hence, no "heat death" and no leaking of matter or energy out of the universe.
Click to expand...

Heusdens, you're trying to use the first law of thermodynamics to rule out the second. It doesn't work that way.
 
Z

ZroKewl

BANNED
Banned
Re: Bob's science questions

Re: Bob's science questions

Originally posted by heusdens
Hence, no "heat death" and no leaking of matter or energy out of the universe.
Click to expand...
From my understanding, I believe the current consensus is that the universe is in fact "cooling off" -- this is because it is expanding. Sure, the overall energy is remaining the same (they think), but it is spread out over an ever increasing space. This doesn't give credence to Bob's point, however -- just wanted to clarify that.

--ZK
 
A

Aussie Thinker

BANNED
Banned
I am amazed you theists accept Bob’s ridiculous explanation for the “gaps” theory.

Zakath says.. Theists don’t know something therefore use a God to fill in the Gaps.

Bob uses some convoluted response “Science CAN’T fill some Gaps so God must fill them.

How ridiculous is that… Science can and WILL fill those gaps. Especially the ones about origins of life and this Universe. It isn’t that far off now. When they find life on another Planet.. there goes Bob’s God down the tube. I hope he can handle it if it happens in his life time.. maybe he’ll become a passionate atheist then ?
 
A

Aussie Thinker

BANNED
Banned
You have to love this puerile cop out…

Bobs says “Of course everything discovered is Natural.. God rested and let Nature take over..”

That is sooo laughable.. It clearly outlines the desperation of theists to find an excuse for why EVERYTHING we ever find has a Natural Cause!
 
.Ant

.Ant

New member
It's not laughable, it's what the Bible says... God finished his creation on the seventh day. It's not desperation, Genesis was written thousands of years before evolution was invented.

AussieThinker, that's no argument at all, you're just saying "Bob's wrong". If you're going to say that, at least back it up with *how* science can fill all the gaps.
 
A

Aussie Thinker

BANNED
Banned
How is this for the most classic of circular arguments.

Bob has tried from the start to imply that absolutes (like truth etc) exist apart from man and therefore a God must exist.

Zakath has repeatedly asked for a definition, standards or examples of absolute truth. Bob’s answers have been so ridiculous that Zakath has repeated the request until we finally get this..

Bob writes

I follow God, and He is the standard you ask for. Of course I had indicated this in my first post, and repeated it later, that the absolute standard is “God’s nature,” which is “His own righteous standard,” and I stated in 4b that our “conscience… reflects God’s ‘own righteous standard.’” So, if Zakath wastes another forty paragraphs asking twenty more times, “show us the absolute moral standard,” I will answer, the absolute moral standard is God’s righteous nature. Of course, Zakath could reject this by saying that God does not exist, and therefore my standard does not exist. But his pretending ad nauseam that I haven’t identified the standard is getting old. Perhaps Zakath is chanting this refrain in hopes that the audience will forget what they have already read.
Click to expand...

Hahahaha.. bwahaha…lol..

There we have it the proof of existence of absolute moral standards is that God has a righteous nature.. Oh.. geez.. that is hilarious.

So.. let me see.. because we have absolute moral standards we must have a God.. what are those standards.. why God’s righteous nature of course.. err hang on.. how does one fantasy prove another !

You see how simple and WRONG Bobs argument is. You see why he spends so long and a circuitous a way of delivering it.. he know how poor it is.
 
A

Aussie Thinker

BANNED
Banned
.Ant

It's not laughable, it's what the Bible says... God finished his creation on the seventh day. It's not desperation, Genesis was written thousands of years before evolution was invented.
Click to expand...

Genesis was copied form the ancient Sumerian religious babblings.. which coincidently have the same creation myth.

So God did this all 6,000 years ago.. Science has proven that wrong.. man was created by God.. science has proven that wrong.

If you want to argue that a God started the Universe and let it all happen naturally I can’t really argue against that.. that isn’t what any theist I know argues though.

AussieThinker, that's no argument at all, you're just saying "Bob's wrong". If you're going to say that, at least back it up with *how* science can fill all the gaps.
Click to expand...

If I knew how science would fill the Gaps I would be doing it, not extrapolating about it here. It has a track record of filling God gaps though and everything it has filled with NATURAL explanations. It is just normal human logic to assume it will continue to do so.

Warning ANT .. grab a God like the one I mention earlier.. it will avoid the disappointment awaiting the Bible literalists..
 
.Ant

.Ant

New member
AussieThinker, you're not following the debate very well. Bob is not proving the existence of absolute moral standards in that passage. He was merely answering Zakath's question (again) as to what the moral standard is.
 
.Ant

.Ant

New member
Originally posted by Aussie Thinker
Genesis was copied form the ancient Sumerian religious babblings.. which coincidently have the same creation myth.

So God did this all 6,000 years ago.. Science has proven that wrong.. man was created by God.. science has proven that wrong.
Click to expand...
:nono: Oh dear... go discuss it in the evolution thread. Science has done no such thing, but I'm not going to debate that here.

In any case, Zakath has given no answers as to how evolution could possibly have created man.

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker
If you want to argue that a God started the Universe and let it all happen naturally I can’t really argue against that.. that isn’t what any theist I know argues though.
Click to expand...
Yes, that's pretty much what I'm arguing. God can and does intervene, and miracles exist, but most things can be explained through natural causes.

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker
If I knew how science would fill the Gaps I would be doing it, not extrapolating about it here. It has a track record of filling God gaps though and everything it has filled with NATURAL explanations. It is just normal human logic to assume it will continue to do so.
Click to expand...
You're filling gaps with science in a way that is no better, and requires more faith, than the God of the gaps.

You didn't answer as to *how* science could possibly do this.
 
H

heusdens

New member
Re: Re: Bob's science questions

Re: Re: Bob's science questions

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
Heusdens, you're trying to use the first law of thermodynamics to rule out the second. It doesn't work that way.
Click to expand...

What is your understanding of the second law of thermodynamics, if I may ask?
 
One Eyed Jack

One Eyed Jack

New member
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bob's science questions

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bob's science questions

Originally posted by heusdens
And your point about the second law of thermodynamics?
Click to expand...

No point. If you want to continue denying the what the laws of physics tell us, then go right ahead.
 
H

heusdens

New member
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bob's science questions

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bob's science questions

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
No point. If you want to continue denying the what the laws of physics tell us, then go right ahead.
Click to expand...

In what way does your understanding of physical law conflict with something I said. I referred to the fact that matter and energy are conserved in the universe both quantitively and qualitatively.
 
One Eyed Jack

One Eyed Jack

New member
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bob's science questions

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bob's science questions

Originally posted by heusdens
In what way does your understanding of physical law conflict with something I said. I referred to the fact that matter and energy are conserved in the universe both quantitively and qualitatively.
Click to expand...

The second law of thermodynamics tells us that in a closed system, the amount of energy available for work decreases. The total amount of matter and energy doesn't change, but the amount of energy available for work does. When you say the universe isn't going to suffer a heat death, you're denying what science tells us.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top