Dr. Ordway's lecture
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-05-2014, 12:11 PM
RE: Dr. Ordway's lecture
(23-05-2014 12:11 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(23-05-2014 12:08 PM)Leo Wrote:  All your arguments were refuted.

Where are these refutations?

In the threads.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Leo's post
23-05-2014, 12:12 PM
RE: Dr. Ordway's lecture
(23-05-2014 12:11 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(23-05-2014 12:07 PM)Leo Wrote:  You never provided any evidence for your assertions .

This is patently false.

This is patently true.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Leo's post
23-05-2014, 12:20 PM
RE: Dr. Ordway's lecture
(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.

Here is the classical Kalam CA:


1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.


Fallacy of equivocation:

Kalam uses the term 'begins to exist' in 2 different ways, with 2 different meanings.

In premise 1, 'begins to exist' is used to describe things withing the universe that are a rearrangement of existing matter. This is 'creatio ex materia'.

In premise 2, 'begins to exist' is being used to describe the universe being created out of nothing. This is 'creatio ex nihilo'.

Fallacy of composition:

The first premise declares "everything that begins requires a cause," and the second premise goes on to place the universe at the same logical level as its contents.

The first premise refers to every "thing," and the second premise treats the "universe as if it were a member of the set of "things." But since a set is not a member of itself, the cosmological argument is comparing apples and oranges.

There are more problems with Kalam CA, but there's a start.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 13 users Like Simon Moon's post
23-05-2014, 03:01 PM (This post was last modified: 23-05-2014 03:27 PM by Jeremy E Walker.)
RE: Dr. Ordway's lecture
(23-05-2014 12:20 PM)Simon Moon Wrote:  Kalam uses the term 'begins to exist' in 2 different ways, with 2 different meanings.

In premise 1, 'begins to exist' is used to describe things withing the universe that are a rearrangement of existing matter. This is 'creatio ex materia'.

In premise 2, 'begins to exist' is being used to describe the universe being created out of nothing. This is 'creatio ex nihilo'.

There is no mention of ex nihilo or ex materia in premise one and thus this is a red herring. The premise simply isn't concerned with how or from where the being came into existence.

The proponent of the Kalam when using the phrase "begins to exist" is signifying that (x) begins to exist at some time (t) if and only if (x) exists at (t) and there is no time prior to (t) at which (x) exists. This is how the proponent of the Kalam uses the phrase and he does so univocally in both premise one and two. Therefore there is no equivocation.






(23-05-2014 12:20 PM)Simon Moon Wrote:  Fallacy of composition:

The first premise declares "everything that begins requires a cause," and the second premise goes on to place the universe at the same logical level as its contents.

The first premise refers to every "thing," and the second premise treats the "universe as if it were a member of the set of "things." But since a set is not a member of itself, the cosmological argument is comparing apples and oranges.

It appears to me that you make a category error when speaking of composition in this way. “Composition” suggests the existence of one “big” thing made up of a bunch of “smaller” things. This is how we see the universe presently. However, the Kalam is not concerned at all with how the universe looks presently. It speaks to the universe at the time of its origin, i.e. as a singularity. All the proponent argues is that because any one thing must have a cause, this particular one thing (i.e., the singularity) must also have a cause. The notion of “composition” therefore is not even applicable in this scenario.

Not only that but....

The objection of fallacy of composition is aimed at premise one as a rebutting defeater. The fallacy of composition is when you identify a property of the parts of a whole, and thus, assume that the whole has that same property.

But the proponent of the Kalam never uses this as an argument in support for premise one so the charge falls. The support for premise one takes several forms:

1. Something cannot come from nothing.

2. If something can come into being from nothing then it becomes inexplicable why anything and everything does not come into being out of nothing.

3. Common experience and scientific evidence confirm premise one. It is constantly verified and never falsified. This is an appeal to inductive reasoning, not reasoning by composition. It is drawing an inductive inference about all the members of a class of things based on a sample of the class. Inductive reasoning undergirds all of science and is not to be confused with reasoning by composition.





(23-05-2014 12:20 PM)Simon Moon Wrote:  There are more problems with Kalam CA, but there's a start.


Bring em on! Thumbsup
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-05-2014, 03:10 PM
RE: Dr. Ordway's lecture
OK, Jeremy, assume for a moment (and that's a big assumption, a really big assumption) the KCA is an all true, all perfect, irrefutable argument for a first-cause creator (it isn't, but I'll ignore that for the sake of this question).

If the KCA is irrefutable then how can you know that the creator is Yahweh? Why isn't it Allah, or Brahma, or Quetzalcoatl, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

Heck, why isn't it ALL of them at the same time (who says there could only be one creator in existence at the time the universe was created)?

"Whores perform the same function as priests, but far more thoroughly." - Robert A. Heinlein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Aseptic Skeptic's post
23-05-2014, 03:23 PM
RE: Dr. Ordway's lecture
(23-05-2014 03:10 PM)Aseptic Skeptic Wrote:  If the KCA is irrefutable then how can you know that the creator is Yahweh? Why isn't it Allah, or Brahma, or Quetzalcoatl, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

Heck, why isn't it ALL of them at the same time (who says there could only be one creator in existence at the time the universe was created)?

You cannot know that the universe causer is Yahweh without some additional argument(s), lines of evidence.

The KCA is not an argument for any specific deity. Just a cause for the universe.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-05-2014, 03:28 PM (This post was last modified: 23-05-2014 03:39 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Dr. Ordway's lecture
(23-05-2014 03:10 PM)Aseptic Skeptic Wrote:  OK, Jeremy, assume for a moment (and that's a big assumption, a really big assumption) the KCA is an all true, all perfect, irrefutable argument for a first-cause creator (it isn't, but I'll ignore that for the sake of this question).

If the KCA is irrefutable then how can you know that the creator is Yahweh? Why isn't it Allah, or Brahma, or Quetzalcoatl, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

Heck, why isn't it ALL of them at the same time (who says there could only be one creator in existence at the time the universe was created)?

1. They've been through all this in the cljr debate, and Germy Wanker lost his ass, because from the get-go, he refused to define his terms, AND everything he said was completely destroyed.
2. I've always made this point. The "cause" whatever it is, (and Kalam assumes the properties we observe INSIDE this universe obtain externally to it, thus make it utter crap), is only the "proximate" or "nearest" cause. Kalam says nothing about "ultimate cause". It's complete bullshit. (It in no way demonstrates that the 70th son of the Babylonian chief deity, (El Elyon), Yahweh Sabaoth, and brother of the precursor of Allah, the god Sin, *is* that cause. Only an idiot Presuppositionalist, not unlike WLC or Germy Wanker can pull the rabbit out of their ass, that Kalam demonstrates Yahweh Sabaoth, the Babylonian god of the Armies ("Lord of Hosts") *is* that cause.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Bucky Ball's post
23-05-2014, 03:30 PM
RE: Dr. Ordway's lecture
(23-05-2014 03:01 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(23-05-2014 12:20 PM)Simon Moon Wrote:  Kalam uses the term 'begins to exist' in 2 different ways, with 2 different meanings.

In premise 1, 'begins to exist' is used to describe things withing the universe that are a rearrangement of existing matter. This is 'creatio ex materia'.

In premise 2, 'begins to exist' is being used to describe the universe being created out of nothing. This is 'creatio ex nihilo'.

There is no mention of ex nihilo or ex materia in premise one and thus this is a red herring. The premise simply isn't concerned with how or from where the being came into existence.

The proponent of the Kalam when using the phrase "begins to exist" is signifying that (x) begins to exist at some time (t) if and only if (x) exists at (t) and there is no time prior to (t) at which (x) exists. This is how the proponent of the Kalam uses the phrase and he does so univocally in both premise one and two. Therefore there is no equivocation.






(23-05-2014 12:20 PM)Simon Moon Wrote:  Fallacy of composition:

The first premise declares "everything that begins requires a cause," and the second premise goes on to place the universe at the same logical level as its contents.

The first premise refers to every "thing," and the second premise treats the "universe as if it were a member of the set of "things." But since a set is not a member of itself, the cosmological argument is comparing apples and oranges.

The objection of fallacy of composition is aimed at premise one as a rebutting defeater. The fallacy of composition is when you identify a property of the parts of a whole, and thus, assume that the whole has that same property.

But the proponent of the Kalam never uses this as an argument in support for premise one so the charge falls. The support for premise one takes several forms:

1. Something cannot come from nothing.

2. If something can come into being from nothing then it becomes inexplicable why anything and everything does not come into being out of nothing.

3. Common experience and scientific evidence confirm premise one. It is constantly verified and never falsified. This is an appeal to inductive reasoning, not reasoning by composition. It is drawing an inductive inference about all the members of a class of things based on a sample of the class. Inductive reasoning undergirds all of science and is not to be confused with reasoning by composition.





(23-05-2014 12:20 PM)Simon Moon Wrote:  There are more problems with Kalam CA, but there's a start.


Bring em on! Thumbsup

My problem is who's god? Hamza Tzortzis says it proves islam. I think you should first debunk every other religion first, then may you turn your sights on the atheist.

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOW_Ioi2wtuPa88FvBmnBgQ my youtube
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Metazoa Zeke's post
23-05-2014, 03:31 PM
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.

And as Dr. Carroll demonstrated in his debate with Germy Wanker's hero, WLC, you can "win" 21 debates, it proves nothing.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
23-05-2014, 03:36 PM
RE: Dr. Ordway's lecture
(23-05-2014 11:31 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(23-05-2014 07:50 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Said the idiot in whose thread the very posting of the video in question was an example of the Argument from Authority Fallacy.

How so?

Exactly. That's your MO. When you're shown to be an idiot, your lame strategy is to ask stupid questions. Read your own damn thread. It was explained yesterday. I think you were a druggie in your pre-Jebus days, and damaged your brain. You have some sort of addiction dementia, don't you ?

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: