An invitation to debate cjlr on the Kalam Cosmological Argument
Thread Closed 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-03-2014, 10:58 AM
RE: An invitation to debate cjlr on the Kalam Cosmological Argument
(28-03-2014 10:32 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Premise one does not state that everything that begins to exist except the universe, has a cause for its existence.

You never defined "everything"; you never defined "begin"; you never defined "exist".

I had to do that for you.

I suggested that any coherent definition relies on a contingent physical understanding of the universe. You agreed.

Rather than wait for you to supply definitions that were never forthcoming, I skipped ahead by granting the premise for contingent physical experience.

You are making the generalisation. You are changing the context.

You must justify doing so.

"I say so" is not justification.

(28-03-2014 10:32 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  You are claiming that is what it says when it does'nt.

You are claiming knowledge of conditions beyond the post big bang universe.

You are asserting metaphysical knowledge. This is delusional special pleading.

You must substantiate the claim.

Your provided justifications do not stand. They apply only to different contexts.

This is insufficient.

(28-03-2014 10:32 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  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.

You have claimed it does apply.

You must substantiate the claim.

I make no claim of special knowledge. You do.

I make no claim to applying contingent knowledge to invalid contexts. You do.

I neither claim that it does or that it doesn't.

You are making the claim.

You must substantiate the claim.

I am asking you why you claim it does.

"I say so" is not substantiation.

(28-03-2014 10:32 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  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.

You are delusional. Asking you questions is not circular - unless your answers are.
(incidentally - they very much are)

If I ask you why, it is tragically inadequate to say why not.

This is what has happened:
You: "X is true for A."
Me: "What do you mean by 'X'? What do you mean by 'A'?"
You: ...
Me: "Never mind that. Why is X true for A?"
You: "X is true for B."
Me: "What do you mean by 'B'?"
You: ...
Me: "How do you get from B to A?"
You: "You can't prove I can't."
Me: "That is not logic. That is assertion."
You: "NO U STRAWMAN"
Me: "You are making a claim. You must substantiate the claim."
You: "That is circular."
Me: "It is not. Assertion is not substantiation."
You: "You have to prove it wrong."
Me: "That is not how logic works. That is not how a debate works."
You: "You have to prove it wrong."

Do you have any other tricks? Or have you exhausted your supply of fallacy?

That is either abjectly dishonest or bumblingly incompetent. Which is it?

I will make this as easy for you as I can:
I do not know if what you are saying is true.
I am asking you why YOU think so.
The role you chose for yourself in this debate is to explain WHY you think so.
Special pleading is not sufficient.
Assertion is not substantiation.

Any time you want to provide anything at all worth considering, feel free to do so.

Any time, bucko. Any time at all.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
[+] 5 users Like cjlr's post
28-03-2014, 11:13 AM
RE: An invitation to debate cjlr on the Kalam Cosmological Argument
I guess you can't give us a reason why the universe itself is an exception when it comes to the causal principle.
Find all posts by this user
[+] 1 user Likes Jeremy E Walker's post
28-03-2014, 11:16 AM
RE: An invitation to debate cjlr on the Kalam Cosmological Argument
(28-03-2014 11:13 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  I guess you can't give us a reason why the universe itself is an exception when it comes to the causal principle.

That is completely irrelevant.

I literally and explicitly just said I am not making that claim.

So either you can't read, or you just prefer talking to delusions rather than real people.

Repeat after me:
"Prove me wrong" is not substantiation.

You remain as vapid and clueless as ever.

You are making the claim.

You must substantiate the claim.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
[+] 3 users Like cjlr's post
28-03-2014, 11:20 AM
RE: An invitation to debate cjlr on the Kalam Cosmological Argument
Seriously, now.

Do you not understand the parameters of this discussion?

The parameters you chose?

Is that what's up?

You are making a claim.

That claim involves generalising contingent physical experience to metaphysical principle.

I am asking you to explain.

Please note that asking you to explain is not the same as asserting the converse. That is an idiotic straw man.

You are asserting metaphysical knowledge.

How?
Why?

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
[+] 7 users Like cjlr's post
28-03-2014, 02:14 PM
RE: An invitation to debate cjlr on the Kalam Cosmological Argument
For those who are just tuning in to our debate as well as those who have diligently been following since its commencement, I provide a summation of what has transpired thus far.

I presented the argument to cjlr and he wanted me to offer a definition for the words in the first premise. I did this. He stated that the definitions were not good enough.

He then stated that the word "everything" can only refer to everything "within" the universe. This is a point I do not agree with but sarcastically replied by saying "kinda goes without saying" because the point itself is immaterial to the veracity of premise one.

You see, it was cjlr's intent to redefine the term "everything" to mean everything except the universe itself. But his reasoning did not substantiate his claim, for his reasoning was that only objects available for consideration could be considered as "things". What he fails to realize is that the universe is a thing itself and therefore meets his own criteria of being something available for consideration. For the universe is a term used to refer to the sum total of all matter and energy and the space-time manifold itself.

Obviously the proponent is arguing that the universe began to exist. All one need do is glance at the conclusion of the argument.

So his first attempt at refuting premise one is to redefine the term "everything". I have shown that this was ineffectual, but not only that, but it is unjustified.

Secondly, and in conjunction with his attempt to redefine "everything", he states that:

"That limitation means that one cannot generalise contingent properties of objects within the universe to the universe as a whole."

He states that the metaphysical principle that being cannot come from non-being, that something cannot come from nothing is limited to things within the universe and cannot be said to obtain with respect to the universe itself.

As of yet he has not given a reason why this is so. He just made the claim and expects his fallacious reasoning to be accepted as true. Arthur Schopenhauer the nineteenth century atheistic philosopher when speaking of those who wish to dismiss the causal principle like cjlr does, calls their reasoning the "taxicab" fallacy. Such people use the principle until they get to the question of the universe itself and simply dismiss it without a good reason.

The only person that would accept his reasoning is one who already believes the universe is uncaused which makes his position a question begging one.

He has ran out of any kind of arguments and has relied on attempts at shifting the burden away from himself to me.

I doubt he will admit he has nothing left so from here on out I expect to see a lot of big words in bold oversized font being thrown at strawmen.
Find all posts by this user
[+] 1 user Likes Jeremy E Walker's post
28-03-2014, 02:46 PM
RE: An invitation to debate cjlr on the Kalam Cosmological Argument
(28-03-2014 02:14 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  For those who are just tuning in to our debate as well as those who have diligently been following since its commencement, I provide a summation of what has transpired thus far.

For those who do not regularly inhabit delusion, I will provide the necessary corrections to the following account.

(28-03-2014 02:14 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  I presented the argument to cjlr and he wanted me to offer a definition for the words in the first premise. I did this. He stated that the definitions were not good enough.

They were not. They were pathetically shallow.

"lol dictionary" is not a sufficient basis for science or philosophy.

(28-03-2014 02:14 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  He then stated that the word "everything" can only refer to everything "within" the universe. This is a point I do not agree with but sarcastically replied by saying "kinda goes without saying" because the point itself is immaterial to the veracity of premise one.

Jeremy is pretending to know things about the universe that cannot be substantiated, and is pretending that they are true by default to shift the burden of proof. Nobody's buying it.

When one says 'thing' one refers - explicitly - to a discrete observable phenomenon.

The universe is not a discrete observable phenomenon.

It is the framework within which we observe discrete observable phenomona.

(28-03-2014 02:14 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  You see, it was cjlr's intent to redefine the term "everything" to mean everything except the universe itself. But his reasoning did not substantiate his claim, for his reasoning was that only objects available for consideration could be considered as "things".

The only objects available for consideration according to physically contingent definitions of 'begin' and 'cause'.

Convenient how you left that bit out, hmm?

That is not redefining the term. That is insisting you use a physically coherent definition, any extension of which would then need to be justified.

(28-03-2014 02:14 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  What he fails to realize is that the universe is a thing itself and therefore meets his own criteria of being something available for consideration.

It is logically invalid to apply the rules of a set's members to the set itself.

They are separate constructs. This is elementary set theory. Do you understand this?

(28-03-2014 02:14 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  For the universe is a term used to refer to the sum total of all matter and energy and the space-time manifold itself.

That is a reasonable definition, yes.

The million dollar question is then this:
Do concepts such as causality have non-contingent meaning?

To which Jeremy asserts, "yes, because I say so," and I reply, "why?", only to get stonewalled by fallacy-ridden evasion.

(28-03-2014 02:14 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Obviously the proponent is arguing that the universe began to exist. All one need do is glance at the conclusion of the argument.

Yes - another vapid unsubstantiated assertion.

(28-03-2014 02:14 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  So his first attempt at refuting premise one is to redefine the term "everything". I have shown that this was ineffectual, but not only that, but it is unjustified.

You have backed assertion with assertion and defended obfuscation with fabrication.

That is delusion.

(28-03-2014 02:14 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Secondly, and in conjunction with his attempt to redefine "everything",

If by "redefine" we mean "require coherent definitions for"...

(28-03-2014 02:14 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  ... he states that:

"That limitation means that one cannot generalise contingent properties of objects within the universe to the universe as a whole."

Indeed. That remains true.

(28-03-2014 02:14 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  He states that the metaphysical principle that being cannot come from non-being, that something cannot come from nothing is limited to things within the universe and cannot be said to obtain with respect to the universe itself.

Let us take a moment to bask in the expertly piled misrepresentation.

"Everything which begins to exist has a cause" and "something cannot come from nothing" are not semantically equivalent. So that right there is problematic.
(that either is meaningless without its component terms being adequately defined goes without saying)

The principle (the former of the two above, that being the one originally stated, not the latter, an irrelevant red herring), as a natural observation, is - according to Jeremy himself - derived from contingent physical experience.

While it is problematic regardless - not least because the terms remain undefined - I granted (for simplicity, and to move on to the more important sections of the assertion) that being derived from contingent physical experience, it might hold for contingent physical experience.

However - in Jeremy's mind it takes on a greater weight. Like magic, it becomes metaphysical - notwithstanding that this is yet another word our delusional chum has proven completely unable to coherently define (but we fondly recall his "defining" the word by quoting a source which explicitly identified it as "hard to define").

He applies this metaphysical principle to contexts beyond those physically contingent interactions which led to its formation.

This is something which cannot be done by fiat. This is a positive claim. This must be substantiated.

He has completely failed to do so.

(28-03-2014 02:14 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  As of yet he has not given a reason why this is so. He just made the claim and expects his fallacious reasoning to be accepted as true.

The projection is strong with this one.

(28-03-2014 02:14 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Arthur Schopenhauer the nineteenth century atheistic philosopher when speaking of those who wish to dismiss the causal principle like cjlr does, calls their reasoning the "taxicab" fallacy. Such people use the principle until they get to the question of the universe itself and simply dismiss it without a good reason.

The magical thing about real logic is that what you just said is meaningless and irrelevant. Notwithstanding that A), that is not a valid fallacy, and B), that is not a thing Schopenhauer ever said. So there's that.

You are deriving a principle in one context.

You are applying it in another.

It is therefore your job to justify doing so.

You have completely failed to do so.

The structure of this argument is incredibly simplistic. All the evasion in the world will not allow you to avoid justifying your claims.

(28-03-2014 02:14 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  The only person that would accept his reasoning is one who already believes the universe is uncaused which makes his position a question begging one.

This is an extraordinarily poorly constructed straw man.

I neither claimed that the universe began nor that it was uncaused. I explicitly make no claim of knowledge regarding those statements.

Jeremy, of course, does claim privileged knowledge.

He seems to find it easier to argue with straw men than perform the task he set himself in initiating this debate:
substantiating his special claims.

(28-03-2014 02:14 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  He has ran out of any kind of arguments and has relied on attempts at shifting the burden away from himself to me.

I have not made any claims.

I have nothing to prove.

You have made claims.

You must substantiate them.

(28-03-2014 02:14 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  I doubt he will admit he has nothing left so from here on out I expect to see a lot of big words in bold oversized font being thrown at strawmen.

The reason I used such emphatic typography is that you have a great apparent difficulty in reading.

If you are claiming something to be true - you are - then you must explain why it is so.

I have spent far longer than most would bother attempting to wring an answer from you.

WHY do you believe your privileged truth claim to be valid?
WHY do you prefer transparently facetious evasion to answering the above question?

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
[+] 6 users Like cjlr's post
28-03-2014, 02:49 PM
RE: An invitation to debate cjlr on the Kalam Cosmological Argument
If anyone wants the tl;dr -

Concepts such as 'exist', 'thing', 'begin', and 'cause' possess only contingent meaning. That meaning is derived from interaction within certain physical contexts.

The salient point is this:
Do those concepts have meaning beyond those contexts??

Jeremy says yes.

I say why?

Jeremy says NO U.

And that is all we have accomplished in these thousands of words.

I leave it to the audience to judge what seems more reasonable.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
[+] 8 users Like cjlr's post
03-04-2014, 11:21 AM
RE: An invitation to debate cjlr on the Kalam Cosmological Argument
Thread closed, debate seems finished since Jeremy left.

Wind's in the east, a mist coming in
Like something is brewing and about to begin
Can't put my finger on what lies in store
but I feel what's to happen has happened before...


Find all posts by this user
Thread Closed 
Forum Jump: