An invitation to debate cjlr on the Kalam Cosmological Argument
Thread Closed 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-03-2014, 12:20 PM
RE: An invitation to debate cjlr on the Kalam Cosmological Argument
(27-03-2014 11:49 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  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.

Your first problem was that you never defined your terms. "Lol dictionary" is as insufficient as it is fatuous.

Your second problem was your categorical fallacy: causality is a naturally derived principle describing contingent conditions of a post Big Bang universe. Application beyond those conditions must be justified - you completely failed to do so.

I make no claim of knowledge beyond those confines.

You do.

(23-03-2014 06:55 PM)cjlr Wrote:  The universe is necessarily an exception to a rule which applies within the limits of the universe itself.

Your third problem was how you tried to address the second problem:
(25-03-2014 02:23 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(25-03-2014 02:07 PM)cjlr Wrote:  The causal principle is an assumed natural law derived from experience within the confines of a post Big Bang universe.

The causal principle is not a natural law. This is where you err.

This is an up-front direct admission that you are not arguing to natural laws.

Your fourth problem is that you continued to argue to natural laws:
(27-03-2014 11:49 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  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.

This - in light of your appeal to the metaphysical - is fundamentally incoherent. It is therefore inadmissible.

"Existence" is only contingently defined. "Begin" is only contingently defined. "Cause" is only contingently defined.

The following applies to your argument if couched in naturalistic appeals:
(24-03-2014 04:08 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Let us enumerate what we do know and agree on:
Within the universe (ie the observable post-big bang universe), certain natural laws appear to apply.

Let us insert your additional truth claim:
Those natural laws apply "before/outside/without" the universe
[insofar as those words have any meaning in such a context, which you have not provided in any case]

It is incumbent on you to provide substantiation for this claim.

The following applies to your argument if couched in metaphysical appeals:
(25-03-2014 02:07 PM)cjlr Wrote:  You have not defined "metaphysical".
(your implicit definition appears to be "a natural law I extend by fiat")

You have not provided any reason for holding such a "metaphysical" principle. You have not provided any reason for applying such a "metaphysical" principle.

As is plain, I have already provided you ample opportunity to address my concerns. Instead you responded with fallacy and straw men. Are you now forswearing such dodges? That would be a commendable choice. We shall see.

To review:

You are the one making claims.

You must substantiate those claims.

Judging by your previous "efforts", you cannot.

Correct me if I am wrong.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
[+] 3 users Like cjlr's post
27-03-2014, 12:48 PM
RE: An invitation to debate cjlr on the Kalam Cosmological Argument
You seem adept at not responding to what I have written.

Do you or do you not deny premise one?
Find all posts by this user
27-03-2014, 12:58 PM
RE: An invitation to debate cjlr on the Kalam Cosmological Argument
(27-03-2014 12:48 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  You seem adept at not responding to what I have written.

Oh.

So you haven't abandoned vacuous evasion.

Jeremy, I was so optimistic there for a moment. Why must you prove it so unfounded?

(27-03-2014 12:48 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Do you or do you not deny premise one?

Irrelevant.

You are making the claims.

You must substantiate them.

Because you apparently don't know how such a "debate" is supposed to work, I shall enlighten you. Pay attention. We are considering a proposition - yours. That is how you framed this discussion. We are considering your premises. Our roles are therefore:
You - justify the premises.
I - question the premises.

If your premise withstands questioning it may be accepted for the purposes of considering its consequences. If your premise does not evidence substantiation it cannot be accepted by anything other than pure fiat - this is hilariously unacceptable in a structured debate.

I have done plenty of questioning. You have completely failed to do any justifying.

"Accept or deny my assertion" is a fallacious false choice. I have pointed this out to you multiple times. To ignore the error is either dishonest or stupid.

Application of natural laws beyond natural contexts is invalid. Attempts to do so are either dishonest or stupid.

Recourse to unsubstantiated fiat metaphysics is invalid. Attempts to do so are either dishonest or stupid.

Those are the two lines of "thought" - I apply the word generously - you have pursued. Neither obtains.

I make no comment as to any knowledge beyond natural contexts.

You do.

You are making the claims.

You must substantiate them.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
[+] 8 users Like cjlr's post
27-03-2014, 02:41 PM
RE: An invitation to debate cjlr on the Kalam Cosmological Argument
Premise 1 Support comes in the form of three individual arguments.

1. the causal premise is rooted in the metaphysical intuition that something cannot come into being from nothing. To suggest that things could just pop into being uncaused out of nothing is to quit doing serious metaphysics and to resort to magic.
2. If things really could come into being uncaused out of nothing, then it becomes inexplicable why just anything and everything does not come into existence uncaused from nothing.
3. Finally, the first premise is constantly confirmed in our experience, which provides atheists who are scientific naturalists with the strongest of motivations to accept it.

In light of the above we have good reason to consider the premise to be more plausibly true than its negation.

See the "The Oxford Handbook of Causation" (Oxford University Press, 2012) for further discussions on medieval and contemporary philosophical theories of causation.
Find all posts by this user
27-03-2014, 03:14 PM
RE: An invitation to debate cjlr on the Kalam Cosmological Argument
(27-03-2014 02:41 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Premise 1 Support comes in the form of three individual arguments.

This is what you should have tried 60 posts ago.

But remember - without defining your terms, no assertion you make contains any meaning. Since you are the one establishing the premise, it is your duty to define your terms. You have not done so. You have refused to do so. I will - very indulgently - address your points anyway. But they are not truly admissible unless you define your terms.

Furthermore - I have long since already granted your premise of absolute causality within the parameters of the observable post Big Bang universe. This is not a valid premise, but I granted it to save time and allow you to move on. Not that you ever did.

And lastly remember - as you, yourself established, you cannot argue a metaphysical principle via natural means. That is incoherent.

(27-03-2014 02:41 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  1. the causal premise is rooted in the metaphysical intuition that something cannot come into being from nothing. To suggest that things could just pop into being uncaused out of nothing is to quit doing serious metaphysics and to resort to magic.

Inadmissible appeal to personal credulity.

Repeat after me:
Feels are not substantiation.

You remain completely unable to explain why you hold such an intuition.

You remain completely unable to explain why you feel you can here apply such an intuition.

(27-03-2014 02:41 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  2. If things really could come into being uncaused out of nothing, then it becomes inexplicable why just anything and everything does not come into existence uncaused from nothing.

Inadmissible appeal to naturalistic contexts.

It is fallacious to argue naturally-derived principles beyond natural contexts. You have already acknowledged this.

I grant your subordinate premise of absolute causality within the known universe. I reject your fallacious generalisation to outside contexts.

(27-03-2014 02:41 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  3. Finally, the first premise is constantly confirmed in our experience, which provides atheists who are scientific naturalists with the strongest of motivations to accept it.

Inadmissible appeal to naturalistic contexts.

It is fallacious to argue naturally-derived principles beyond natural contexts. You have already acknowledged this.

I grant your subordinate premise of absolute causality within the known universe. I reject your fallacious generalisation to outside contexts.

(27-03-2014 02:41 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  In light of the above we have good reason to consider the premise to be more plausibly true than its negation.

Inadmissible false choice.

Even if the above were valid, whether or not the claim is more "plausible" than its converse is meaningless.

(27-03-2014 02:41 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  See the "The Oxford Handbook of Causation" (Oxford University Press, 2012) for further discussions on medieval and contemporary philosophical theories of causation.

Inadmissible appeal to authority.

If you wish to present material then present it yourself. If you refuse to elaborate beyond referring to the work of others I must conclude you to have no actual thoughts on the matter, making this exchange an even greater waste of time.

Two of your "arguments" are invalid according to your own chosen parameters. That's very special.

Your sole noncontradictory argument is your first. It is nothing more than pure unsubstantiated assertion. That is entirely inadequate.

The absolute entirety of your presentation is this:
"I say so".

That is not an argument. That is not compelling. That is not sufficient.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
27-03-2014, 03:33 PM (This post was last modified: 27-03-2014 03:37 PM by Jeremy E Walker.)
RE: An invitation to debate cjlr on the Kalam Cosmological Argument
(27-03-2014 03:14 PM)cjlr Wrote:  And lastly remember - as you, yourself established, you cannot argue a metaphysical principle via natural means. That is incoherent.

The very statement you just made to me is incoherent. What was it intended to signify?

(27-03-2014 02:41 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  1. the causal premise is rooted in the metaphysical intuition that something cannot come into being from nothing. To suggest that things could just pop into being uncaused out of nothing is to quit doing serious metaphysics and to resort to magic.

(27-03-2014 03:14 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Inadmissible appeal to personal credulity.

Please explain why argument one is an "inadmissible appeal to personal credulity".

(27-03-2014 03:14 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Repeat after me:
Feels are not substantiation.

Great. Since I never argued they were this is a strawman.

(27-03-2014 03:14 PM)cjlr Wrote:  You remain completely unable to explain why you hold such an intuition.

Of course I can explain why I hold the causal principle. The intuitive metaphysical principle that effects have causes is repeatedly confirmed in my experience and has never been falsified.

(27-03-2014 03:14 PM)cjlr Wrote:  You remain completely unable to explain why you feel you can here apply such an intuition.

Where did I say I felt anything?

(27-03-2014 03:14 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Inadmissible appeal to naturalistic contexts.

How is what I said an "inadmissible appeal to naturalistic contexts"? What does that even mean? Do you even know?

(27-03-2014 03:14 PM)cjlr Wrote:  It is fallacious to argue naturally-derived principles beyond natural contexts. You have already acknowledged this.

What are you talking about? Do you even have a clue?

(27-03-2014 03:14 PM)cjlr Wrote:  I grant your subordinate premise of absolute causality within the known universe. I reject your fallacious generalisation to outside contexts.

Absolute causality is not a phrase I have ever even used. Strawmanning is all you seem to be able to do at this point.

Why is stating that the causal principle applies to the universe itself fallacious?

(27-03-2014 03:14 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Inadmissible appeal to naturalistic contexts.

Again, what is this supposed to signify?

(27-03-2014 03:14 PM)cjlr Wrote:  It is fallacious to argue naturally-derived principles beyond natural contexts. You have already acknowledged this.

This does not even address the third point I gave.

Wow! Gasp

(27-03-2014 03:14 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Inadmissible false choice.

LOL.... what false choice did I present to you? Weeping

(27-03-2014 03:14 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Even if the above were valid, whether or not the claim is more "plausible" than its converse is meaningless.

Uhh....I guess you are not familiar with what constitutes a true premise in a syllogism.....

Blink

(27-03-2014 03:14 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(27-03-2014 02:41 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  See the "The Oxford Handbook of Causation" (Oxford University Press, 2012) for further discussions on medieval and contemporary philosophical theories of causation.

Inadmissible appeal to authority.

If you wish to present material then present it yourself. If you refuse to elaborate beyond referring to the work of others I must conclude you to have no actual thoughts on the matter, making this exchange an even greater waste of time.

LOL......

I supplied it as a reference, not an argument. Are you even serious? Undecided

(27-03-2014 03:14 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Two of your "arguments" are invalid according to your own chosen parameters. That's very special.

How so?

(27-03-2014 03:14 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Your sole noncontradictory argument is your first. It is nothing more than pure unsubstantiated assertion. That is entirely inadequate.

How so?

(27-03-2014 03:14 PM)cjlr Wrote:  The absolute entirety of your presentation is this:
"I say so".

Actually I gave three reasons why premise 1 is more plausible true than its negation.

No where in those three reasons did I use "Because I say so".

So this is another strawman.

(27-03-2014 03:14 PM)cjlr Wrote:  That is not an argument. That is not compelling. That is not sufficient.

Exactly. Strawmanning my arguments and then saying they are not compelling or sufficient is about all you can do at this point.
Find all posts by this user
27-03-2014, 04:16 PM
RE: An invitation to debate cjlr on the Kalam Cosmological Argument
(27-03-2014 03:33 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(27-03-2014 03:14 PM)cjlr Wrote:  And lastly remember - as you, yourself established, you cannot argue a metaphysical principle via natural means. That is incoherent.

The very statement you just made to me is incoherent. What was it intended to signify?

An argument based on natural experience cannot be fallaciously generalised beyond the confines of nature. This is a very simple observation.

You have already admitted that an argument based on natural experience cannot be generalised to apply to the universe itself.

Thus your repeated arguments to natural experience are entirely irrelevant.

(27-03-2014 03:33 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(27-03-2014 02:41 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  1. the causal premise is rooted in the metaphysical intuition that something cannot come into being from nothing. To suggest that things could just pop into being uncaused out of nothing is to quit doing serious metaphysics and to resort to magic.

(27-03-2014 03:14 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Inadmissible appeal to personal credulity.

Please explain why argument one is an "inadmissible appeal to personal credulity".

You are using physical interaction as the basis for a metaphysical principle.

What is meant by "metaphysical"? How does it differ from "physical", if it is founded on exactly the same physical experience? How do you justify the extension? How do you justify applying the principle beyond the confines of its foundation?

Until you provide better answers, I must assume you have nothing more than "I say so".

(27-03-2014 03:33 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(27-03-2014 03:14 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Repeat after me:
Feels are not substantiation.

Great. Since I never argued they were this is a strawman.

Your own gut feeling is all you have provided by way of justifying your "metaphysical intuition".

Your own gut feeling is all you can ever provide by way of justifying your "metaphysical intuition", since you have already acknowledged appeals to observable interaction to be inadmissible.

(27-03-2014 03:33 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(27-03-2014 03:14 PM)cjlr Wrote:  You remain completely unable to explain why you hold such an intuition.

Of course I can explain why I hold the causal principle. The intuition that effects have causes is repeatedly confirmed in my experience and never falsified.

Your personal experience is limited to the post big bang universe.

To assert that it applies in any other context is fallacious.

A metaphysical principle cannot be justified purely on natural experience - if so it is no more than a natural principle.

(27-03-2014 03:33 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(27-03-2014 03:14 PM)cjlr Wrote:  You remain completely unable to explain why you feel you can here apply such an intuition.

Where did I say I felt anything?

You claim that conditions beyond the post big bang universe are knowable according to some (undefined) metaphysical intuition.

Why?

(27-03-2014 03:33 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(27-03-2014 03:14 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Inadmissible appeal to naturalistic contexts.

How is what I said an "inadmissible appeal to naturalistic contexts"? What does that even mean? Do you even know?

You have already admitted that physical reality cannot justify your premise. You cannot justify your premise by appealing to metaphysical intuition, and then justify your metaphysical intuition by appealing to observable interaction with physical reality. That is circular and fallacious.

(27-03-2014 03:33 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(27-03-2014 03:14 PM)cjlr Wrote:  It is fallacious to argue naturally-derived principles beyond natural contexts. You have already acknowledged this.

What are you talking about? Do you even have a clue?

You have already admitted that physical reality cannot justify your premise. You cannot justify your premise by appealing to metaphysical intuition, and then justify your metaphysical intuition by appealing to observable interaction with physical reality. That is circular and fallacious.

If you don't understand how logical structures work, much less the vocabulary describing them, you probably shouldn't be attempting this sort of discussion.

(27-03-2014 03:33 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(27-03-2014 03:14 PM)cjlr Wrote:  I grant your subordinate premise of absolute causality within the known universe. I reject your fallacious generalisation to outside contexts.

Absolute causality is not a phrase I have even used. Strawmanning is all you seem to be able to do at this point.

By "absolute causality" I mean your assertion that "everything which begins to exist has a cause".

That is not a valid premise - not least because you have not defined your terms. But it is a premise I will happily grant you within the confines of the observable universe for the sake of argument. It is necessarily then true only in terms of observable physical interaction. It is therefore unfounded to generalise it beyond those contexts.

(27-03-2014 03:33 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Why is stating that the causal principle applies to the universe itself fallacious?

You cannot generalise contingent definitions of "cause", "begin", and "exist" - which you have not defined in any case - to contexts outside that contingency. That is fallacious.

(27-03-2014 03:33 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(27-03-2014 03:14 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Inadmissible appeal to naturalistic contexts.

Again, what does is this supposed to signify?

The same thing it did last time, my special friend.

You have already admitted that physical reality cannot justify your premise. You cannot justify your premise by appealing to metaphysical intuition, and then justify your metaphysical intuition by appealing to observable interaction with physical reality. That is circular and fallacious.

(27-03-2014 03:33 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(27-03-2014 03:14 PM)cjlr Wrote:  It is fallacious to argue naturally-derived principles beyond natural contexts. You have already acknowledged this.

This does not even address the third point.

Wow! Gasp

Your third point was explicitly contingent on "our observation".

That directly necessitates that it is only applicable under observable conditions.

You are applying it outside observable conditions.

Until you justify that expanded application, it remains unsupported assertion.

(27-03-2014 03:33 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(27-03-2014 03:14 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Inadmissible false choice.

LOL.... what false choice did I present to you? Weeping

"X is more plausible than its negation, therefore X is true".

That is a false choice. It is fallacious.

(27-03-2014 03:33 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(27-03-2014 03:14 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Even if the above were valid, whether or not the claim is more "plausible" than its converse is meaningless.

Uhh....I guess you are not familiar with what constitutes a true premise in a syllogism.....

Blink

No. "X is more plausible than not-X, therefore X" is not logically valid.

It is somewhat problematic that so much of your "argument" is predicated on invalid logic.

(27-03-2014 03:33 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(27-03-2014 03:14 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Inadmissible appeal to authority.

If you wish to present material then present it yourself. If you refuse to elaborate beyond referring to the work of others I must conclude you to have no actual thoughts on the matter, making this exchange an even greater waste of time.

LOL......

I supplied it as a reference, not an argument. Are you even serious? Undecided

If it contains relevant material, present that material. If you understand the material, there is no obstacle beyond laziness for failing to do so.

Referring to a lengthy outside source and saying "oh, it's in there somewhere" is not a useful contribution.

(27-03-2014 03:33 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(27-03-2014 03:14 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Two of your "arguments" are invalid according to your own chosen parameters. That's very special.

How so?

You have already admitted that physical reality cannot justify your premise. You cannot justify your premise by appealing to metaphysical intuition, and then justify your metaphysical intuition by appealing to observable interaction with physical reality. That is circular and fallacious.

What about this is so hard for you to understand?

(27-03-2014 03:33 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(27-03-2014 03:14 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Your sole noncontradictory argument is your first. It is nothing more than pure unsubstantiated assertion. That is entirely inadequate.

How so?

Your "metaphysical intuition" is meaningless.

Unsubstantiated assertion does not justify a premise.

(27-03-2014 03:33 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(27-03-2014 03:14 PM)cjlr Wrote:  The absolute entirety of your presentation is this:
"I say so".

Actually I gave three reasons why premise 1 is more plausible true than its negation.

Two of which were invalid according to your own parameters, and one of which was meaningless.

(27-03-2014 03:33 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  No where in those three reasons did I use "Because I say so".

So this is another strawman.

You did not use those exact words, no.

But you have never even defined your terms. You are claiming that personal experience may be generalised beyond the confines of the known universe. You have provided no justifications for such generalisation beyond merely asserting as much.

(27-03-2014 03:33 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(27-03-2014 03:14 PM)cjlr Wrote:  That is not an argument. That is not compelling. That is not sufficient.

Exactly. Strawmanning my arguments and then saying they are not compelling or sufficient is about all you can do at this point.

Your "arguments" are nothing of the sort. They are presuppositional assertions justified by fiat. I dismiss them accordingly.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
[+] 4 users Like cjlr's post
27-03-2014, 04:45 PM
RE: An invitation to debate cjlr on the Kalam Cosmological Argument
(27-03-2014 04:16 PM)cjlr Wrote:  An argument based on natural experience cannot be fallaciously generalised beyond the confines of nature. This is a very simple observation.

Why? This is the same old rehash of your circular argument you presented earlier. Why is it that you admit the causal principle obtains for every instance within the universe but when you come to the question of the coming into existence of the universe itself which is simply the totality of all natural constituents, you maintain the causal principle no longer applies?

This once again is an arbitrary exemption. It is fallacious. I have repeatedly stated this and you have yet to give a response that is not circular.

In light of the above, I believe you have nothing left to say.

I will wait until you can give some type of good argument as to why the universe itself is an exemption to the causal principle. The burden is on you.
Find all posts by this user
27-03-2014, 04:59 PM
RE: An invitation to debate cjlr on the Kalam Cosmological Argument
(27-03-2014 04:45 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(27-03-2014 04:16 PM)cjlr Wrote:  An argument based on natural experience cannot be fallaciously generalised beyond the confines of nature. This is a very simple observation.

Why? This is the same old rehash of your circular argument you presented earlier. Why is it that you admit the causal principle obtains for every instance within the universe but when you come to the question of the coming into existence of the universe itself which is simply the totality of all natural constituents, you maintain the causal principle no longer applies?

I had thought we were past this stage. When it comes to disappointment, well, you never disappoint me.

You are making the claim.

You must substantiate the claim.

Things are not true just because you say so. Your claim is not a default position. It must be substantiated. That is your role in this debate, according to the parameters you established.

"I may infer my contingent physically-derived knowledge to apply outside the universe" is not a valid unless substantiated. You have completely failed to substantiate it. What's more, you have completely failed to even define your terms.

Such a claim cannot be assumed to be true. That is a facetious attempt to avoid justifying yourself.

My objection is not circular. Calling it circular does not make it circular. Things are not true just because you say so.

(27-03-2014 04:45 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  This once again is an arbitrary exemption.

It is the exact opposite of arbitrary.

You have made a claim.

I asked you why.

"Why not" is not substantiation. It is infantile twaddle.

(27-03-2014 04:45 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  It is fallacious. I have repeatedly stated this and you have yet to give a response that is not circular.

In which case you either do not understand how logic actually works, or you simply don't care.

Stupid, or dishonest. Your move!

(27-03-2014 04:45 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  In light of the above, I believe you have nothing left to say.

You have proven unable to address a single objection.

You have instead settled for re-asserting the same unsubstantiated claims and defending them with the same invalid arguments.

My objections have not changed over the duration.

So, no, I don't have anything new to say.

As soon as you actually offer something new, I would love to comment on it.

(27-03-2014 04:45 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  I will wait until you can give some type of good argument as to why the universe itself is an exemption to the causal principle. The burden is on you.

...

"You have to show it's not true" is not an argument.

That is a laughably transparent attempt to shift the burden of proof. Your premises are not the default position. That is not how a debate works. This discussion begins tabula rasa. Every statement you make - remember that you are the advocate here, in the role you chose - must be justified. You have completely failed to do so.

Have you forgotten a little something?

You are making the claim.

You must substantiate the claim.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
[+] 4 users Like cjlr's post
27-03-2014, 05:14 PM
RE: An invitation to debate cjlr on the Kalam Cosmological Argument
You did this before.

When I asked you to substantiate your claim that the universe was the exception to the causal principle you responded with your oversized bold font.

I have not made the claim, you made it. Now back it up without arguing in a circle.
Find all posts by this user
Thread Closed 
Forum Jump: