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, 05:20 PM
RE: An invitation to debate cjlr on the Kalam Cosmological Argument
(27-03-2014 05:14 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Nah bro.

We are not going to be going back and forth in a circle.

You made the claim that the universe is exempt from the causal principle.

Substantiate the claim bro....

The best way out of a hole is to dig down, eh? Well, in that case, just keep on digging, son.

I am entering this dialogue with an agnostic position. You are attempting to demonstrate your premises to me. The keyword is "demonstrate". Note how it is not synonymous with "assert" or "declare". That is important.

That is the definition of a debate. Those are the parameters you proposed for this discussion. You are advocating a position. I am questioning that position. I have made no claims of knowledge. Only you have done so. I have asked you to define and justify your claims. You have completely failed to do so.

To demonstrate your premises you claim that a metaphysical principle - informed by contingent personal subjective experience - is applicable beyond the context of that experience.

I never said it was. I never said it wasn't.

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, 05:25 PM
RE: An invitation to debate cjlr on the Kalam Cosmological Argument
Edited the ol' post, eh?

(27-03-2014 05:14 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  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.

If you keep ignoring the glaring flaws in what you have presented, you bet your ass I'll keep letting you know.

But I'd like to savour this moment, because this is where you go full retard.

(27-03-2014 05:14 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  I have not made the claim, you made it. Now back it up without arguing in a circle.

It's a special kind of special to argue that making a claim is not making a claim.
(and by "special" I of course mean "transparently presuppositional")

Apparently you do not understand what "claim" means.

You are the advocate in this debate.

That means we are discussing the premises you provide.

You asserted that your contingently-derived "metaphysical" principle was applicable.

I asked you why.

You have completely failed to answer.

"You can't prove it wrong" is perhaps the least adequate response imaginable.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
[+] 3 users Like cjlr's post
27-03-2014, 05:59 PM
RE: An invitation to debate cjlr on the Kalam Cosmological Argument
You said the causal principle cannot be applied to the universe itself.

Why?
Find all posts by this user
27-03-2014, 06:20 PM
RE: An invitation to debate cjlr on the Kalam Cosmological Argument
(27-03-2014 05:59 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  You said the causal principle cannot be applied to the universe itself.

Why?

Oh, child.

You are not even trying.

I mean, really?

Really??

If you somehow missed everything I just said, well. Let me reiterate:
I make no claim of knowledge.
You do.

Let me reiterate:
You are generalising a physically contingent principle to a metaphysical principle.
Why?

Let me reiterate:
Why not? is not substantiation.
You can't prove otherwise is not substantiation.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
[+] 6 users Like cjlr's post
28-03-2014, 04:39 AM
RE: An invitation to debate cjlr on the Kalam Cosmological Argument
Stop dodging the question.

Why do you claim the universe is the exception to the principle?

I am not letting you off the hook this time. You will answer it or admit you have no reason for it being the exception to the principle.
Find all posts by this user
28-03-2014, 07:19 AM
RE: An invitation to debate cjlr on the Kalam Cosmological Argument
Still waiting.
Find all posts by this user
28-03-2014, 07:20 AM
RE: An invitation to debate cjlr on the Kalam Cosmological Argument
(28-03-2014 04:39 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Stop dodging the question.

I have dodged nothing.

I make no claim of knowledge.
You do.

(28-03-2014 04:39 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Why do you claim the universe is the exception to the principle?

I have never once made that claim.

Either you are too stupid to know the difference or so dishonest you don't care.

(28-03-2014 04:39 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  I am not letting you off the hook this time. You will answer it or admit you have no reason for it being the exception to the principle.

I make no claim of knowledge.
You do.

You are generalising a physically contingent principle.
Why?

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
[+] 4 users Like cjlr's post
28-03-2014, 07:27 AM
RE: An invitation to debate cjlr on the Kalam Cosmological Argument
"The universe is necessarily an exception to a rule which applies within the limits of the universe itself."

These were your words.

Now since you have made this claim, you need to substantiate it.
Find all posts by this user
28-03-2014, 07:31 AM
RE: An invitation to debate cjlr on the Kalam Cosmological Argument
(28-03-2014 07:27 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  "The universe is necessarily an exception to a rule which applies within the limits of the universe itself."

These were your words.

Yes. They were.

(28-03-2014 07:27 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Now since you have made this claim, you need to substantiate it.

This is nothing more than a restatement of your premise. Causality is an applicable principle within the confines of a post Big Bang universe. I accepted the statement you made to that effect. This is an observationally derived and contingent principle.

You claim it is more than that.

You claim greater knowledge.

Why?

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
28-03-2014, 10:32 AM
RE: An invitation to debate cjlr on the Kalam Cosmological Argument
(28-03-2014 07:31 AM)cjlr Wrote:  This is nothing more than a restatement of your premise. Causality is an applicable principle within the confines of a post Big Bang universe. I accepted the statement you made to that effect. This is an observationally derived and contingent principle.

You claim it is more than that.

You claim greater knowledge.

Why?

Premise one does not state that everything that begins to exist except the universe, has a cause for its existence.

You are claiming that is what it says when it does'nt.

Not only have you constructed a strawman of premise one, you have still failed to give a reason why the universe itself is an exception to the causal principle.

Everyone is waiting for you to give a good reason why the universe does not need a cause for its existence.

Do not argue in a circle please.
Find all posts by this user
Thread Closed 
Forum Jump: