Christian vs. Humanist Morality
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-02-2017, 02:47 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(02-02-2017 02:45 PM)JDog554 Wrote:  
(02-02-2017 02:36 PM)Naielis Wrote:  It simply is not. I'm not making any exception for the creator. I'm making an important metaphysical distinction between contingent and necessary beings. Then I formulate a conclusion about the existence of a necessary being. Then I can specify about the necessary qualities of the necessary being. This is not special pleading.

Was it necessary for you to say necessary so many times?
Not necessarily.

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Naielis's post
02-02-2017, 02:49 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(02-02-2017 01:40 PM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  
(02-02-2017 12:53 PM)Naielis Wrote:  The creator was not created. I didn't say everything needs to be created but the creator. So it's simply not special pleading.

So you say.

In any case:

"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

Evidence for the creator or evidence for the claim that it wasn't special pleading?

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-02-2017, 02:52 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(02-02-2017 02:09 PM)TheInquisition Wrote:  
(02-02-2017 01:28 PM)Naielis Wrote:  I created no arbitrary distinctions. I never said everything must be created only to make an exception for the creator. I made a distinction between necessary and contingent beings.

A claim about the universe for which you have zero evidence and a claim about a being which you have no evidence.

You can wank to William Lane Craig's sophistry, but you still have zero evidence, just another silly argument.

What claim about the universe are you referring to? I have evidence for the necessary being. I use a collection of refined cosmological arguments. And Craig is an intelligent person. How are his arguments are sophistry?

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-02-2017, 02:56 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
Necessary being = latest word salad

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-02-2017, 03:05 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(02-02-2017 02:52 PM)Naielis Wrote:  
(02-02-2017 02:09 PM)TheInquisition Wrote:  A claim about the universe for which you have zero evidence and a claim about a being which you have no evidence.

You can wank to William Lane Craig's sophistry, but you still have zero evidence, just another silly argument.

What claim about the universe are you referring to? I have evidence for the necessary being. I use a collection of refined cosmological arguments. And Craig is an intelligent person. How are his arguments are sophistry?

You're playing slimy word games:

(02-02-2017 02:52 PM)Naielis Wrote:  There must be a necessary being grounded in itself or you're left with an infinite regress of spacetime. This would suggest that space and time are themselves the necessary being.

Claim 1: There must be a necessary being

Claim 2: This necessary being is "grounded in itself" whatever the hell that means. Facepalm

Claim 3: That space and time are a necessary being. WTF? Facepalm

The Kalam is sophistry because William Lane Craig thinks it is an argument for a god. It is not, it is an argument for the cause of the universe. That's it.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like TheInquisition's post
02-02-2017, 03:43 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(02-02-2017 02:56 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  Necessary being = latest word salad

What do you mean?

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-02-2017, 03:46 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(02-02-2017 03:05 PM)TheInquisition Wrote:  You're playing slimy word games:

Claim 1: There must be a necessary being

Claim 2: This necessary being is "grounded in itself" whatever the hell that means. Facepalm

Claim 3: That space and time are a necessary being. WTF? Facepalm

The Kalam is sophistry because William Lane Craig thinks it is an argument for a god. It is not, it is an argument for the cause of the universe. That's it.

Once you know there is a cause, you can make other arguments to determine the ontology of it.

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-02-2017, 03:48 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(02-02-2017 03:46 PM)Naielis Wrote:  
(02-02-2017 03:05 PM)TheInquisition Wrote:  You're playing slimy word games:

Claim 1: There must be a necessary being

Claim 2: This necessary being is "grounded in itself" whatever the hell that means. Facepalm

Claim 3: That space and time are a necessary being. WTF? Facepalm

The Kalam is sophistry because William Lane Craig thinks it is an argument for a god. It is not, it is an argument for the cause of the universe. That's it.

Once you know there is a cause, you can make other arguments to determine the ontology of it.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster is a necessary being.
Ergo the universe was created by TFSM.

Yeah, that sounds about right.

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Full Circle's post
02-02-2017, 03:54 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(02-02-2017 03:43 PM)Naielis Wrote:  
(02-02-2017 02:56 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  Necessary being = latest word salad

What do you mean?

word sal·ad
noun
a confused or unintelligible mixture of seemingly random words and phrases, specifically (in psychiatry) as a form of speech indicative of advanced schizophrenia.

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Full Circle's post
02-02-2017, 03:59 PM (This post was last modified: 02-02-2017 04:02 PM by TheInquisition.)
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(02-02-2017 03:46 PM)Naielis Wrote:  
(02-02-2017 03:05 PM)TheInquisition Wrote:  You're playing slimy word games:

Claim 1: There must be a necessary being

Claim 2: This necessary being is "grounded in itself" whatever the hell that means. Facepalm

Claim 3: That space and time are a necessary being. WTF? Facepalm

The Kalam is sophistry because William Lane Craig thinks it is an argument for a god. It is not, it is an argument for the cause of the universe. That's it.

Once you know there is a cause, you can make other arguments to determine the ontology of it.

You don't know there is a cause and all you are doing is asserting your claim for what the cause is and that claim has zero evidence.

Every part of the syllogism is flawed and has assumptions built into it, assumptions with zero evidence.Drinking Beverage

Oh and BTW, there is evidence for things in this universe occurring with no cause.

Radioactive decay

So the first point is wrong.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like TheInquisition's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: