Dr. Ordway's lecture
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-05-2014, 03:39 PM (This post was last modified: 23-05-2014 03:43 PM by rampant.a.i..)
Dr. Ordway's lecture
And the point is, how every many debates one "wins" or "loses" about the argument, there's a reason that since presented in 1078 there have always been multiple objections to each of the premises, the premises have never been supported let alone shown to lead to the conclusion, and it continues to be a study in the evolution of semantic sleight of hand to "demonstrate" an undemonstratable, unwarranted conclusion, supported only by the fact people have been conditioned by indoctrination to accept premises which are not logically valid.

Colloquially, the argument is intellectual snake oil, still being sold in 2014 by dishonest back-alley deceitful lying sacks of shit like Craig, and it would do you well to at least wipe his residue off your face and eyes long enough to actually research why the argument leads to God the same way putting money into a broken vending machine leads to a flute of Dom Péringnon with hand-minced strawberries in it.

“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
― Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like rampant.a.i.'s post
23-05-2014, 03:39 PM
RE: Dr. Ordway's lecture
(23-05-2014 03:28 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  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.

Actually, I summed up cjlr's fundamental flaw in his argument as my last post and left him to it.

His fundamental flaw was maintaining that the universe was the exception to the causal principle without justification.

When asked why the universe was the exception by me, he simply stated because it does not apply to the universe! Facepalm

His whole argument was based on circular reasoning which is logically fallacious.




(23-05-2014 03:28 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  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),

If you have to label "inductive reasoning" which for all intents and purposes makes the scientific method even possible as "crap" to deny the premise of an argument, I would say the premise is pretty darn strong!!!

Banana_zorro



(23-05-2014 03:28 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  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 Presuppositionist, 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.

Well, I think you are right. The conclusion does not necessitate anything except that the universe has a cause.

Thumbsup
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-05-2014, 03:42 PM
RE: Dr. Ordway's lecture
(23-05-2014 03:30 PM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  
(23-05-2014 03:01 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  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.







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.







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.

Actually, I think it a step in the right direction that people here are even entertaining the argument.

I think it a step in the right direction that people are engaging in intellectual, honest discussions instead of hurling obscenities and insults and one line quips.

The KCA is an argument that theists of all stripes use to argue for a cause of the universe. That is it.

Christians have additional arguments, lines of evidence that can supplement this argument.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-05-2014, 03:45 PM
RE: Dr. Ordway's lecture
(23-05-2014 03:39 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(23-05-2014 03:28 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  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.

Actually, I summed up cjlr's fundamental flaw in his argument as my last post and left him to it.

His fundamental flaw was maintaining that the universe was the exception to the causal principle without justification.

When asked why the universe was the exception by me, he simply stated because it does not apply to the universe! Facepalm

His whole argument was based on circular reasoning which is logically fallacious.




(23-05-2014 03:28 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  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),

If you have to label "inductive reasoning" which for all intents and purposes makes the scientific method even possible as "crap" to deny the premise of an argument, I would say the premise is pretty darn strong!!!

Banana_zorro



(23-05-2014 03:28 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  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 Presuppositionist, 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.

Well, I think you are right. The conclusion does not necessitate anything except that the universe has a cause.

Thumbsup

Wrong again Germy Wanker. You lost because you refused to define the "universe". The point stands. There is no reason to presume that what is operative INSIDE and "of" this universe, is operative externally to it. He told you that, and your restating your crap argument does not make it valid. A "cause" REQUIRES absolute spacetime. The dimensions of spacetime are properties of THIS universe, and we DON'T KNOW anything further, now. Not only that, Einstein proved even IN THIS UNIVERSE there is no absolute spacetime.

Try harder Germy. Kalam is crap.

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
[+] 3 users Like Bucky Ball's post
23-05-2014, 03:50 PM
RE: Dr. Ordway's lecture
(23-05-2014 03:42 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(23-05-2014 03:30 PM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  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.

Actually, I think it a step in the right direction that people here are even entertaining the argument.

I think it a step in the right direction that people are engaging in intellectual, honest discussions instead of hurling obscenities and insults and one line quips.

The KCA is an argument that theists of all stripes use to argue for a cause of the universe. That is it.

Christians have additional arguments, lines of evidence that can supplement this argument.

That is my problem, are you trying to prove there is a god or prove that a specific god is the one that exist. Using this can at best allow a possibility of a deity. However this does not help in the probability of a deity because there is no objective evidence to support said claim. If you want to show that the bible god Yahweh is the real god then you must prove him in an objective way using predictions, observations, and can withstand peer-review in a scientific journal.

[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, 03:50 PM
RE: Dr. Ordway's lecture
(23-05-2014 03:39 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(23-05-2014 03:28 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  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.

Actually, I summed up cjlr's fundamental flaw in his argument as my last post and left him to it.

His fundamental flaw was maintaining that the universe was the exception to the causal principle without justification.

When asked why the universe was the exception by me, he simply stated because it does not apply to the universe! Facepalm

His whole argument was based on circular reasoning which is logically fallacious.

Are you sure that he wasn't just mirroring your own arguments?

You state that god is the exception to the causal principle without justification, so he mirrored that for the universe. He asks you why god is the exception and you simply reply that it does not apply to god, so he mirrored that for the universe too. Your whole argument is based on circular reasoning which is logically fallacious, so he used identical logically fallacious circular reasoning on you.

This tactic is often referred to as a "Straw Man" but it can be an effective way to demonstrate the flaws in one person's statements by restating the exact same thing in a way that illustrates those flaws. My guess is that cljr was doing exactly that to illustrate your own circular reasoning.

Maybe you should consider your own special pleading (god needs no cause because he's super-special so my circular argument is valid but nobody else's identical circular reasoning is valid) before you rely on the KCA to prove anything at all.

"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
23-05-2014, 03:52 PM
RE: Dr. Ordway's lecture
The 2 premises of the KCA insert a conclusion where "we don't know" belongs. Thus, the final conclusion doesn't follow.

@DonaldTrump, Patriotism is not honoring your flag no matter what your country/leader does. It's doing whatever it takes to make your country the best it can be as long as its not violent.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Impulse's post
23-05-2014, 03:52 PM
RE: Dr. Ordway's lecture
(23-05-2014 03:39 PM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  And the point is, how every many debates one "wins" or "loses" about the argument, there's a reason that since presented in 1078 there have always been multiple objections to each of the premises, the premises have never been supported let alone shown to lead to the conclusion, and it continues to be a study in the evolution of semantic sleight of hand to "demonstrate" an undemonstratable, unwarranted conclusion, supported only by the fact people have been conditioned by indoctrination to accept premises which are not logically valid.

Colloquially, the argument is intellectual snake oil, still being sold in 2014 by dishonest back-alley deceitful lying sacks of shit like Craig, and it would do you well to at least wipe his residue off your face and eyes long enough to actually research why the argument leads to God the same way putting money into a broken vending machine leads to a flute of Dom Péringnon with hand-minced strawberries in it.

you wrote a lot, but astoundingly said very little. aside from the attacks against the man who defends the argument you basically said you do not like the argument.

When you say things like "the premises have never been supported" it is clear you are wrong, for in this very forum I have defended the argument with support for both premises in the boxing ring.

You may not think the support was good, but to say that the premises have never been supported is simply false.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-05-2014, 03:53 PM
Dr. Ordway's lecture
(23-05-2014 03:39 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(23-05-2014 03:28 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  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.

Actually, I summed up cjlr's fundamental flaw in his argument as my last post and left him to it.

His fundamental flaw was maintaining that the universe was the exception to the causal principle without justification.

When asked why the universe was the exception by me, he simply stated because it does not apply to the universe! Facepalm

His whole argument was based on circular reasoning which is logically fallacious.

Buckwheat, at least try to build half a straw man before knocking it down.

Causality as observed in the extant universe as an artifact of such cannot be applied prior to the existence of causality itself.

The premise does not apply to conditions prior to the universe, and as mentioned to you slowly, deliberately and repeatedly while a forum member held your finger and helped you sound out the words, causality seems to not always be a liner cause -> effect relationship at the quantum level, which is the level of a singularity.

It's a non-starter. It's a no-go. You refilled the blinker fluid reservoir, but forgot to put gas in the tank, pulled all the spark plugs out and shoved them in the tape deck.

The argument does not function any more than you do without an autographed picture of William Lane Craig taped to the pillow during "prostration."

“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
― Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes rampant.a.i.'s post
23-05-2014, 04:06 PM
RE: Dr. Ordway's lecture
(23-05-2014 03:45 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  You lost because you refused to define the "universe".

Proof that this is false is found in post #6 of the debate where I defined universe.

Facepalm



(23-05-2014 03:45 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  The point stands. There is no reason to presume that what is operative INSIDE and "of" this universe, is operative externally to it. He told you that, and your restating your crap argument does not make it valid. A "cause" REQUIRES absolute spacetime. The dimensions of spacetime are properties of THIS universe, and we DON'T KNOW anything further, now. Not only that, Einstein proved even IN THIS UNIVERSE there is no absolute spacetime.

Try harder Germy. Kalam is crap.

The above is an attempt to undercut the warrant for the metaphysical causal principle by saying: "Well, the principle may obtain for everything in the universe, but when it comes to the universe itself, the principle does not obtain."

Your reason?

You say that a cause requires absolute spacetime. But why?

Why must a causal agent i.e. that which brings about an effect, ONLY exist in physical spacetime?

It seems to me that what you are doing is simply begging the question for a materialistic naturalistic worldview. A materialist would heartily agree with you. Many atheists here who are naturalists may indeed agree and you would not have to support your assertion if talking with them. But if what you intend is to present a persuasive rebutting defeater of premise one, you cannot just say: "Yeah well, causes can ONLY exist within absolute spacetime." You have to support that assertion because it is a truth claim. And anyway, how could you possible know that causes can ONLY exist in absolute spacetime?

How could you even know that?

It seems you have shouldered an incredibly heavy burden.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: