Amaleq13

I'm not sure what you think that phrase means in this context but there is no "correct mode" that requires an individual to continue a discussion with someone they have concluded lacks sufficient academic grounding in the subject and/or a genuine desire or ability to discuss or comprehend the relevant evidence.

You have presented your case and been found wanting by your opponent to such a degree that further discussion is not likely to be productive.

You may disagree with that assessment but you cannot deny the sense in that action resulting from it.

When the above reaction repeats itself across settings, it is time to consider the common denominator.

Roger Pearse

I haven't followed the last few dozen posts, but if we're discussing debate etiquette, it is inappropriate for one side of the debate to appoint itself judge of which side has won the debate.

fatpie42

I didn't know there WAS an 'ignore' button on this forum. Where can I find it?

spin

Click on the user name you want to ignore. You'll find it against any of their posts. Choose: View public profile. Under the user's name you'll see "User Lists". Click and choose "Add to ignore list", then confirm. The user's posts will no longer be displayed. Obviously their name will still be shown in the threads, but not their text. I tend to respond to people too often, so if I don't see their posts there is a buffer that helps me not respond.


spin

semiopen

I hope that's not the reason I get so few responses... I'd like to think it is because my postings are so well written that there is nothing to add.

Yellum Notnef

Debate etiquette (as well as British politeness) doesn't make bullshit true. You do know this right?

Toto

Please stick to the subject or this thread may be closed.

Thanks for your attention to this.

Amaleq13

Yes, you clearly haven't been following since no one is declaring victory.

IamJoseph

Its not possible to even disagree when one puts out only abstract negations and attacks, mostly personalised, as opposed to the links I provided. Read your post again - is their a specific point illustrating my academic knowledge deficiency - where? - is it a bird or a train faster than a speeding bullet? I'm confused.

IamJoseph

My understanding is, EX NEHILO may be a latin term, but its fulcrum source is in the premise of a finite universe. Its not there - now there it is. And look ma - no hands - no tools or elements required - none existed!


My understanding is, firstly, the five books did not originally contain any marks of commas and periods, or seperations between sentences and chapters - suppossedly, it was meant to be recieved by each generation in accord with their status of knowledge and percievements. Apparantly, 'abstract' marks did not violate the law not to add or subtract, and could be added - as opposed a graven image for worship, clearly a wrong path and now unanimously accepted. Thus that first opening verse is seen with varying slants and interpreted to avoid any notion creating was not occuring and only by one Creator.

Secondly, the term ex-nehilo is generally accepted, and those translations in the stone edition do not impact here. The overiding factor is that at one time, nothing in the universe existed, namely before the universe was created; that there was a beginning [a finite universe]. This being the overiding factor says that whatever was created, was not resultant from other tools and elements - which never existed. E.g. Light is mentioned as created - there was no light before - it happened out of nothing; the same applies to life forms and the heavens and the earth - these never existed at one time - then POOF! Ex Nehilo!

The Genesis creation chapter is perhaps the most difficult one, considering only its hedy subject matter, and the issue of anything appearing which was not existent before, in its absolute form. There are levels of understanding here, from the open level to deep and kabalistic ones, which are very disorienting - as when first reading General Relativity. None can ever claim to grasp this subject comprehensively, and we can only do whatever level of knowledge status is at hand at any given time. However, this is all subject to putting up a better answer than the one at hand - this never occured - or I clearly missed it.