Dr. Ordway's lecture
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-05-2014, 12:04 PM
RE: Dr. Ordway's lecture
(22-05-2014 07:01 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  I will debate you right now on the Kalam Cosmological argument in the boxing ring.

You act like the Kalam Cosmological argument is a new kid on the block. It has been around for centuries and guess what? It is still here! Still being defended and still being attacked by those who would rather think the universe just happened to pop into existence one day out of nothing, for nothing, and by nothing....


FrustyLamo


Kalam CA is still around because theists refuse to admit, or they ignore, the fallacies of composition, equivocation, special pleading and (possibly) affirming the consequent it contains.

Craig's version is nothing more than ab attempt at 'polishing a turd'.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Simon Moon's post
23-05-2014, 12:05 PM
RE: Dr. Ordway's lecture
(23-05-2014 12:02 PM)John Wrote:  
(23-05-2014 12:01 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Why is it unsound?

In case you don't remember, you were unable to establish your premises as true.

I do not have to establish them as true. Only more plausibly true than their negation.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-05-2014, 12:05 PM (This post was last modified: 23-05-2014 09:58 PM by Leo.)
RE: Dr. Ordway's lecture
(23-05-2014 12:03 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(23-05-2014 11:42 AM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  You lost two debates defending it, and it has been explained to you multiple times in several threads why it's invalid.

Summary: it's circular reasoning.

I could lose 1,000 debates defending it. That does not make the argument invalid.

Nor has anyone explained to me why it is invalid.

You lose all your presented "arguments " and never responded to the members serious questions.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Leo's post
23-05-2014, 12:06 PM
RE: Dr. Ordway's lecture
(23-05-2014 12:05 PM)Leo Wrote:  
(23-05-2014 12:03 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  I could lose 1,000 debates defending it. That does not make the argument invalid.

Nor has anyone explained to me why it is invalid.

You lose all you presented "arguments " and never responded to the members serious questions.

what you just said =/= invalid argument.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-05-2014, 12:07 PM
RE: Dr. Ordway's lecture
(23-05-2014 12:05 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(23-05-2014 12:02 PM)John Wrote:  In case you don't remember, you were unable to establish your premises as true.

I do not have to establish them as true. Only more plausibly true than their negation.

You never provided any evidence for your assertions .
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-05-2014, 12:07 PM
RE: Dr. Ordway's lecture
(23-05-2014 12:04 PM)Simon Moon Wrote:  
(22-05-2014 07:01 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  I will debate you right now on the Kalam Cosmological argument in the boxing ring.

You act like the Kalam Cosmological argument is a new kid on the block. It has been around for centuries and guess what? It is still here! Still being defended and still being attacked by those who would rather think the universe just happened to pop into existence one day out of nothing, for nothing, and by nothing....


FrustyLamo


Kalam CA is still around because theists refuse to admit, or they ignore, the fallacies of composition, equivocation, special pleading and (possibly) affirming the consequent it contains.

Craig's version is nothing more than ab attempt at 'polishing a turd'.

Ok, let's take it to the ring then.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-05-2014, 12:08 PM
RE: Dr. Ordway's lecture
(23-05-2014 12:06 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(23-05-2014 12:05 PM)Leo Wrote:  You lose all you presented "arguments " and never responded to the members serious questions.

what you just said =/= invalid argument.

All your arguments were refuted.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-05-2014, 12:09 PM
RE: Dr. Ordway's lecture
(23-05-2014 12:05 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(23-05-2014 12:02 PM)John Wrote:  In case you don't remember, you were unable to establish your premises as true.

I do not have to establish them as true. Only more plausibly true than their negation.

If your aim is to merely establish that the conclusion of your argument is more plausible than it's negation, sure, I'll grant you that. Doesn't change the fact that the argument is unsound.

In addition I find myself obliged to say that you didn't succeed in that either.

Τί ἐστιν ἀλήθεια?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like John's post
23-05-2014, 12:11 PM
RE: Dr. Ordway's lecture
(23-05-2014 12:08 PM)Leo Wrote:  
(23-05-2014 12:06 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  what you just said =/= invalid argument.

All your arguments were refuted.

Where are these refutations?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-05-2014, 12:11 PM
RE: Dr. Ordway's lecture
(23-05-2014 12:07 PM)Leo Wrote:  
(23-05-2014 12:05 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  I do not have to establish them as true. Only more plausibly true than their negation.

You never provided any evidence for your assertions .

This is patently false.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: