An invitation to debate cjlr on the Kalam Cosmological Argument
Thread Closed 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-03-2014, 05:37 PM
RE: An invitation to debate cjlr on the Kalam Cosmological Argument
There remains very little else to say.

Your claim is this:
"I have metaphysical knowledge of the conditions beyond the scope of the post-Big Bang universe."

The entirety of everything you have presented amounts to this:
"A is B because I say so".

You refuse to define A. You refuse to define B. You repeatedly and disingenuously refuse to substantiate the statement.

Rather than admit that, you bust out some tired old ploys like reversing the burden of proof, constructing false choices, skipping from one non sequitur to the next, and refusing to address my statements.

All you have is "because I say so".

You have no argument.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
[+] 7 users Like cjlr's post
25-03-2014, 06:48 PM
RE: An invitation to debate cjlr on the Kalam Cosmological Argument
(25-03-2014 05:37 PM)cjlr Wrote:  There remains very little else to say.

Your claim is this:
"I have metaphysical knowledge of the conditions beyond the scope of the post-Big Bang universe."

The entirety of everything you have presented amounts to this:
"A is B because I say so".

You refuse to define A. You refuse to define B. You repeatedly and disingenuously refuse to substantiate the statement.

Rather than admit that, you bust out some tired old ploys like reversing the burden of proof, constructing false choices, skipping from one non sequitur to the next, and refusing to address my statements.

All you have is "because I say so".

You have no argument.

If you deny either of the premises then you have to have a reason why. Saying the causal principle does not apply with regards to the coming into existence of the universe itself must be substantiated for that is what you have argued.

But you shot yourself in the foot with that because you know you have no good reason for making the universe the exception to the principle. It is fallacious.

Have anything else?
Find all posts by this user
25-03-2014, 08:31 PM
RE: An invitation to debate cjlr on the Kalam Cosmological Argument
(25-03-2014 06:48 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  If you deny either of the premises then you have to have a reason why.

No.

You are asserting the premises. You (apparently) cannot even conceive of them not being true. This is not just begging the question - this is pathologically begging the question.

You are making the claims.

You must substantiate the claims.

You are not responding to my actual words. You are not interacting with me. You are not addressing my points. You are not recognizing my objections. You are interacting with a straw man fantasy inside your head. I assume this is because it is the only one you are capable of convincing: yourself.

You are making the claims.

You must substantiate the claims.

The only objection I have made is that things are not true just because you feel like they should be.

Do you genuinely fail to see why that is unacceptable justification?

If so, you are an idiot.

If not, you're so dishonest you'd make a Cretan blush.

(25-03-2014 06:48 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Saying the causal principle does not apply with regards to the coming into existence of the universe itself must be substantiated for that is what you have argued.

No, it is not. That is not what I said. Either you do not understand the difference or you are lying your ass off because you are unable to address what I did say.

You are the one claiming it does apply.

You must substantiate that assertion.

"Because I say so" is not sufficient.

Premises may not be assumed true by default.

Let us begin by examining possible definitions of "cause" and "begin". "Begin" is contingent on the existence of time, as is "cause" and/or "effect". To speak meaningfully of cause and effect one must be able to determine temporal separation. Acts which are causally connected are those which all observers detect in the same order. This follows from the precepts of relativity. Alternately, acts which are causally connected are those which increase the net entropy of an isolated system. This follows from the precepts of thermodynamics. Time is likewise defined with respect to physical interaction: it is the quantisation of the separation along a single spacetime axis of two observably different microstates. This is why an atomic clock in a mutual reference frame detecting oscillations between orbital electron states is the best measure of 'time' available to us.

Relativity and thermodynamics are theoretical frameworks derived from observation and interaction with the surrounding universe. Time and causality are therefore contingent properties of the post Big Bang universe. They cannot be applied outside that context - but we've been over that. And how.

All right - so far so good. But that is all speaking to the observable, externally verifiable physical universe. If you were merely relying on physical principles to make your pathetic fiat case, that does not follow, as has been demonstrated to you.

You did not address those points as such, but finally made recourse to the "metaphysical" and then explicitly denied that you were appealing the the observable universe as the basis for your assertions. Notwithstanding that you did not define "metaphysical", but instead provided a cut-and-paste hack job which explicitly identified the term as "hard to define" in lieu of explaining yourself. I have given up on your defining what you mean. I'll ignore that as merely one more facet of your ignorance and/or dishonesty. There's more to cover.

Your entire assertion then rests on the following questions:
Why do you accept such a metaphysical principle? (how do you know it is true?)
Why do you apply it as you do? (how do you know where it may be applied?)

"You can't prove otherwise" is stunningly vacuous and profoundly disingenuous. It shows nothing other than that you are incapable of examining your own assumptions - that is what your earlier (and equally fatuous) claims of "b..b..but it's self-evident" amount to.

I remind you - you have abandoned recourse to observable external reality. That is why you must do to appeal to the metaphysical.

You are therefore left with subjective personal experience.

You have explicitly limited yourself to the realm of the inarguable. You have completely failed to justify your claims. You have progressively abandoned any external reference points and left yourself with only yourself to argue to. That is not an argument.

If something cannot come from nothing, it inevitably follows that one cannot form an argument from nothing.

And yet that is just what you have done. Repeatedly. This whole time. Intermixed with projecting fallacies and manufacturing straw men.

You are making the claims.

You must substantiate the claims.

And you have systematically denied yourself any means of doing so beyond personal subjective experience.

Congratulations.

(25-03-2014 06:48 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  But you shot yourself in the foot with that because you know you have no good reason for making the universe the exception to the principle. It is fallacious.

Have anything else?

You are either an idiot, or you enjoy playing one on TV. I struggle to imagine why else you might be so categorically unable to even begin to explain a single solitary thing you have claimed.

"You can't prove my assertion isn't true" has about as much rhetorical substance as "my dad is stronger than your dad".

Most of us grow out of such childish and myopic mannerisms when we learn about actual reasoning and argumentation. Apparently, you have not. Or choose not to - it amounts to the same thing.

You may substantiate your assertions, you may admit them to be fiat, or you may withdraw them.

This is the purpose of a debate. According to the structure of this debate - which you chose - it is your duty to justify the premises. That is what debate here means. Your entire purpose here is to substantiate your claims. According to the very debate structure you initiated.

You have completely failed to do so.

You have completely failed to even attempt to do so.

The sole line you have spun is "It is true because I say so and therefore it is - therefore you have to prove it wrong TROLOLOLOLOLOLOL". That is facetious beyond words - not to mention overwhelmingly inadequate, stunningly trite, disturbingly shallow, fatuously insufficient, and wholly pathetic.
(I guess there were some words)

If you admit them fiat, you have no argument. If you withdraw them, you have no argument.

This leaves you the option of justifying your premises. You have had dozens of chances to do so in your posts in this very thread. At no point have you ever attempted to.

You have no argument.

"I say so" is not an argument.

The end.

I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
[+] 11 users Like cjlr's post
26-03-2014, 06:02 PM
RE: An invitation to debate cjlr on the Kalam Cosmological Argument
Thus far I have seen nothing new in the way of an undercutting or rebutting defeater for premise 1.

From what I can tell, you do not think it is more plausible than its negation.

In other words you think that

1* Not everything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence.

Is more plausibly true than

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence.

Which means that you think things can come into being without a cause. That things can just come into being uncaused which is literally worse than magic.

When a magician pulls a rabbit out of the hat, at least you have the magician, and the rabbit.

What you are proposing is that things like rabbits can just come into being without any cause or reason whatsoever. That things can just "poof" appear without a cause.

As I have stated earlier, none of the cosmologists today who believe that there is a rational explanation for the existence of the cosmos buys what you are trying to sell.

To maintain that the universe just somehow popped into being literally from nothing uncaused is worse than magic. It is an irrational leap of blind faith.
Find all posts by this user
26-03-2014, 06:58 PM (This post was last modified: 26-03-2014 07:02 PM by cjlr.)
RE: An invitation to debate cjlr on the Kalam Cosmological Argument
Welcome back, viewers. Today we will rejoin our studies of the apologist, a rare and endangered creature, as it continues its attempt to survive in a strange new environment - the debating grounds.

Come with me...

(26-03-2014 06:02 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Thus far I have seen nothing new in the way of an undercutting or rebutting defeater for premise 1.

He begins with a reliable old trick. If he says something often enough, he may fool an opponent into accepting it! But while this behaviour is frequently successful among his own kind, it rarely has much effect on outsiders.

By attempting to portray his premises as already justified, he can fraudulently try to shift the onus of the debate. But, this apologist has made a rather serious error. He initiated the debate himself, and, according to its structure, by providing the premises for discussion his role must be to substantiate them. Unfortunately for him, he does not know how to do this. Our struggling apologist can only turn to evasion after fallacy after assertion in lieu of meeting his stated goal.

Let us see what he tries next.

(26-03-2014 06:02 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  From what I can tell, you do not think it is more plausible than its negation.

Even here, after it has been ineffective time after time, we see the apologist resorting to another well-worn trick. He knows he has no hope of forming cogent arguments, and certainly not of substantiating the premises he vacuous asserted - instead, he has resorted to fallacies. But this specimen is hiding something special! Where others of his kind may only manage to employ one fallacy at once, we have been lucky enough to catch something very special: this male has learned to multitask.

(26-03-2014 06:02 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  In other words you think that

1* Not everything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence.

Is more plausibly true than

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence.

He is aware that one fallacy he might use is a false choice. But what if his opponent does not accept the choice? Our apologist is ready for that occasion: instead of presenting the false choice as is, he has cleverly built a straw man which is itself employing the false choice to dispute the fiat unjustified premise - but within the limits of the choice, the straw man must implicitly already accept the conditions of the premise!

The apologist possesses a highly developed inner ear, which helps it avoid becoming dizzy when moving in such tight circular motions.

Unfortunately for him, the astute observer has seen these tricks before, and even when faced with the combination, easily sees through the deception.

Some of the apologist's troubles arise from its chosen premises. Although its role in the debate is to substantiate its chosen premises, it cannot do so, despite having been given many, many opportunities. The premise the apologist has chosen to discuss here is one which is categorically unverifiable by natural means - and what is more, he has already publicly recognized this. This means that the apologist has only his own subjective personal experience as justification - and he knows this will not convince any reasonable observer.

If the observer does not accept the premise by fiat, that same observer can no more be said to accept its converse. It is unclear whether the apologist understands this fundamental logical principle or not - but its actions reveal that if so, it does not feel the need for such constraints.

But as we have seen, the apologist is a stubborn creature, and will often keep trying despite repeated catastrophic failure. Let's see what he does next.

(26-03-2014 06:02 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Which means that you think things can come into being without a cause. That things can just come into being uncaused which is literally worse than magic.

When a magician pulls a rabbit out of the hat, at least you have the magician, and the rabbit.

What you are proposing is that things like rabbits can just come into being without any cause or reason whatsoever. That things can just "poof" appear without a cause.

Once again, that the apologist is refusing to explain itself. He knows he must somehow establish his premises in order to lead to his conclusion, but he is also well aware that he is unable to do so.

Because he has already resorted to metaphysical appeals, the repeated subsequent attempts to argue to contingent physical intuition are baseless and irrelevant. Perhaps he hopes that some observers will not notice the duplicity.

We see that one tactic which he returns to, time and time again, is obfuscation. By continuing to build the straw man he began earlier, he may create the appearance that someone is making a poor argument against him. This spares him the impossible task of justifying his own assertions, which he knows he cannot do.

Once again, the astute observer recognizes the simple trick, and is unconvinced.

(26-03-2014 06:02 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  As I have stated earlier, none of the cosmologists today who believe that there is a rational explanation for the existence of the cosmos buys what you are trying to sell.

We see the apologist becoming more and more repetitive. Although he has used all of his tricks before, they were ineffective, and he is now reduced to trying the same inadequate tactics over again. What makes his task even more difficult is that he has already admitted that some of his own tactics are inadmissible.

After struggling for some time to avoid defining his terms, the apologist earlier decided to frame his premises in terms of the metaphysical. By doing so, he could avoid any difficult questions about how he could apply principles based on contingent physical interaction to contexts in which such interaction was incoherent.

But this had an unintended side-effect that the apologist may not have fully understood. He has declared himself to be unable to argue to natural observation as the basis for his premise. Despite this admission, the apologist continues to do just that, here referencing the (unattributed) opinion of (unspecified) cosmologists - explicitly, a group of physical scientists. This fabricated appeal to authority is really nothing more than an appeal to naive intuition - and the apologist has been completely unable to justify the application of his own naive intuition, nor why it should be privileged.

(26-03-2014 06:02 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  To maintain that the universe just somehow popped into being literally from nothing uncaused is worse than magic. It is an irrational leap of blind faith.

We may also observe that, having focused on his first premise for the duration of his latest spasm, he has now suddenly alluded to his second. Unfortunately for him both premises must be separately demonstrated, as they are distinct claims. In both cases, however, the apologist has already admitted that no appeal to external reality is valid, and that his acceptance of his own invented premises is due to incommunicable subjective personal experience. In deflecting the very simple questions posed him, he has gradually shrunk his own territory, until the only place left for him to stick his head is up his own behind.

After this extended observation, we have observed several ways in which the apologist has gotten itself into trouble. It is consistently unable to substantiate the premises it presents - and it has repeatedly resorted to assertion and fallacy instead of even attempting to do so.

The apologist has attempted to follow a rote script throughout his flailing attempts at interaction, but without a willing partner to play along with his halting, feeble motions, the non sequitur steps fall flat and do not impress the audience.

There is nothing else such a specimen might teach us.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
[+] 10 users Like cjlr's post
27-03-2014, 06:06 AM
RE: An invitation to debate cjlr on the Kalam Cosmological Argument
You have written much, but have said very little.

You have already conceded that the principle obtains with regards to events happening within the universe.

Thus far you have furnished no reason why we should exempt the universe itself from this principle if it is shown to indeed come into existence.

I find it interesting you do not even use the common argument from quantum mechanics. I was ready to interact with that argument but you seem content to argue about definitions and about a principle so established in our experiences as humans as to be virtually undeniable.
Find all posts by this user
27-03-2014, 07:49 AM
RE: An invitation to debate cjlr on the Kalam Cosmological Argument
(27-03-2014 06:06 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  You have written much, but have said very little.

And you have said nothing. So there's that.

(27-03-2014 06:06 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  You have already conceded that the principle obtains with regards to events happening within the universe.

That's not a concession.

It's not even relevant.

You resorted to an appeal to the metaphysical. That means you realise it is not relevant.

Do you retract that? To do so is incoherent, but I'll allow it.

Do you maintain that? Then no appeal to natural law may be made.

Take your pick.

(27-03-2014 06:06 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Thus far you have furnished no reason why we should exempt the universe itself from this principle if it is shown to indeed come into existence.

Dishonesty combo initiated!

I realise that you love this trick. But it will not serve.

I'm really tired of typing this. Maybe larger font will help?

You are making the claims.

You must substantiate the claims.

There - either you don't understand that, which makes you stunningly ignorant, or you do and don't care, which makes you hideously dishonest.

Either way you are incapable of making an argument according to the parameters you set for yourself. That's pretty special.

(27-03-2014 06:06 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  I find it interesting you do not even use the common argument from quantum mechanics.

"Common"?

Since you literally told me to stop using big words, I figured any sophisticated discussion of scientific principles would be totally beyond you.

Mentioning quantum mechanics would be a reference to observable physical interaction. And while I highly doubt you possess any understanding of the subject I would count on you at least realising that - just like spacetime and causality - such experience means nothing beyond the confines of a post big bang universe.

As you explicitly abandoned the physical as a crutch for your vapid assertions, there would be no point in doing so - even allowing that you'd understand any of it - because it would be beyond the parameters of your claim as you explicitly established it. So there's that.

(27-03-2014 06:06 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  I was ready to interact with that argument but you seem content to argue about definitions...

Dishonesty X2!! Double Combo!

Have you forgotten so soon?

You are making the claims.

Making the claims includes defining them. You have to establish what precisely you're talking about. That is the foundation of discussion. You have completely failed to do so.

(27-03-2014 06:06 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  ... and about a principle so established in our experiences as humans as to be virtually undeniable.

Dishonesty X3!! Triple Combo!!

There you go saying "in our experiences as humans" as if that were meaningful.

NO.

If you are relying on physical experience you must justify your claim of special knowledge for conditions beyond physical experience. You have completely failed to do so.

You were earlier cognisant enough to recognise your own failure. You then abandoned physical experience in order to argue for the existence of a metaphysical phenomenon.

...

Let us review:
You: "X holds for B."
Me: "Define X. Define B."
You: "NO. X holds for B."
Me: "Fine. Why?"
You: "X holds for A."
Me: "A is not B."
You: "You're saying not-X in A. That's silly."
Me: "No. Why?"
You: "X holds for A."
Me: "A is not B."
You: "X holds for A. Not-X does not hold for A. Therefore X holds for B."
Me: "That doesn't follow."
You: "You're saying not-X in A."
Me: "No."
You: "X holds for B."
Me: "Why?"
You: "Why not?"
Me: "That is insufficient."
You: "You're saying not-X in A."
Me: "No. Why?"
You: "X holds for A. Therefore X holds for B."
Me: "Why?"

Ad.
Freaking.
Nauseam.

You cannot define your terms.
You cannot address your opponent.
You only argue against straw men.
You invalidate your own arguments.
You cannot substantiate your claims.

You have no valid argument.

No doubt your deranged mind considers this outing an endurance sport. It is not. We are attempting (by which I mean I am attempting - you have never even tried) to have a discussion. The topic of the discussion is the premises you provided. They cannot be presupposed. Therefore you must substantiate them. You have struggled pitifully to avoid doing so.

You have no valid argument.

You have grown incoherent. You recognised the invalidity of applying derived physical laws beyond their context. You persist in arguing to physical experience regardless.

You have no valid argument.

You have already ignored me dozens of times. You have already steadfastly refused to define or explain your own statements dozens of times. You will never change. You will continue belabouring fallacious irrelevancies rather than fulfill the conditions you set for yourself.

I see very little point in continuing this exchange. You have completely failed to substantiate your claims. You have completely failed to address my questions. You have completely failed to engage me honestly.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
[+] 8 users Like cjlr's post
27-03-2014, 10:14 AM
RE: An invitation to debate cjlr on the Kalam Cosmological Argument
And you have completely failed to provide a good reason why you deny premise 1.
Find all posts by this user
27-03-2014, 10:18 AM
RE: An invitation to debate cjlr on the Kalam Cosmological Argument
(27-03-2014 10:14 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  And you have completely failed to provide a good reason why you deny premise 1.

That's irrelevant, according to your own parameters for this debate. I was even gracious enough to grant it under observable physical conditions, which you yourself declared to be notwithstanding.

You are making the claims.

You must substantiate the claims.

So: whaddaya got?

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
[+] 3 users Like cjlr's post
27-03-2014, 11:49 AM
RE: An invitation to debate cjlr on the Kalam Cosmological Argument
To substantiate premise one I have argued that you know effects have causes and things do not just appear or come into existence without their respective causes.

To substantiate premise one I appeal to your belief that things do not come into existence without a cause. I am sure you as a rational person believe this.

Correct me if I am wrong.
Find all posts by this user
Thread Closed 
Forum Jump: