Dr. Ordway's lecture
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-05-2014, 06:12 PM
Re: RE: Dr. Ordway's lecture
(23-05-2014 04:56 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(23-05-2014 04:37 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  [Image: 10395804_826107267416757_2290387024604324327_n.jpg]

I believe this is the problem.

And indeed it would be a huge problem if that was what the proponent of the Kalam argues.

But the proponent of the Kalam does not argue that everything must have a creator.

Rather, the proponent argues that:

Everything that begins to exist has a cause, which is far more defensible. In fact, you will not see this objected to except for in these types of settings.

No one walks around in life expecting things to just pop into existence from nothing.

The proponent is simply an assertion. "everything that begins to exist has a clause" is not a known or backed up claim. It's just an empty assertion and no argument based off it is sound.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like ClydeLee's post
23-05-2014, 06:16 PM (This post was last modified: 23-05-2014 06:19 PM by rampant.a.i..)
Dr. Ordway's lecture
"Begins to exist" is also semantic nonsense, and nothing has ever been witnessed "beginning to exist" in the same way as the universe.

At what point does a chair "begin to exist" as a chair? When the 2nd leg is attached? 3? 4? When the wood is cut into parts for the chair?

How about a bicycle? Does it "begin to exist" sometime during when the frame is welded together from component parts ? When the wheels and chain are attached, before it has pedals?

“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
[+] 4 users Like rampant.a.i.'s post
23-05-2014, 06:26 PM
RE: Dr. Ordway's lecture
160 post in 24 hours!!!
1500 views

Jeremy E. Walker wins!!!

Too bad it a bunch of worthless jibberish and insults.

There is no god, Jeremy. If there were it would have rescued the intelligence of humanity by now.

Humanism - ontological doctrine that posits that humans define reality
Theism - ontological doctrine that posits a supernatural entity creates and defines reality
Atheism - political doctrine opposed to theist doctrine in public policy
I am right, and you are wrong - I hope you die peacefullyCool
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-05-2014, 06:40 PM
RE: Dr. Ordway's lecture
I hope the san Antonio spurs wins the 2014 championship.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-05-2014, 07:05 PM
RE: Dr. Ordway's lecture
(23-05-2014 06:40 PM)Leo Wrote:  I hope the san Antonio spurs wins the 2014 championship.

When did they begin to exist? Consider

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-05-2014, 07:06 PM
RE: Dr. Ordway's lecture
(23-05-2014 06:26 PM)TrainWreck Wrote:  160 post in 24 hours!!!
1500 views

Jeremy E. Walker wins!!!

Too bad it a bunch of worthless jibberish and insults.

There is no god, Jeremy. If there were it would have rescued the intelligence of humanity by now.

Oh, piss off. You seem to have overlooked the counter-arguments.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
23-05-2014, 07:09 PM
RE: Dr. Ordway's lecture
(23-05-2014 06:26 PM)TrainWreck Wrote:  160 post in 24 hours!!!
1500 views

Jeremy E. Walker wins!!!

Too bad it a bunch of worthless jibberish and insults.

There is no god, Jeremy. If there were it would have rescued the intelligence of humanity by now.

Actually he didn't.
He painted himself into a corner by agreeing that causes precede effects.

TrainWreck is our resident expert on "jibberish and insults".

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
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
23-05-2014, 08:10 PM
RE: Dr. Ordway's lecture
(23-05-2014 05:31 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Nothing has to be said about a premise which has no supporting evidence.

I can happily agree.

But since I have supported both premises with multiple reasons/arguments, if you want to deny the conclusion of the argument, you have to present at least one defeater for at least one premise.

(23-05-2014 05:31 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  No. There is no reason to accept the premise.

I have given several reasons to accept premise one in this thread and several reasons to accept premise two in another thread.

In order to deny one of the premises, then you must demonstrate why the particular premise's negation is more plausibly true by presenting some type of defeater of the reasons I have supplied in support of my premises.

(23-05-2014 05:31 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  By your crap logic if I said MY premise is that Pink Unicorns created the universe, YOU would have to defeat that. Don't be ridiculous.

No. I would ask you to give reasons or arguments or support for your premise just as I have done for mine. Then I would attempt to defeat them.

(23-05-2014 05:31 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  You're not that stupid. Think about it. If something happens BEFORE something else it REQUIRES time.

The space-time manifold comes into existence at t-1. Therefore time began with the first event, which would be the Cause's first time related creative act. So this view can be stated in the following way: The cause of the universe is timeless without the universe and temporal with the universe i.e in time at t-1 thereby preceding His effect both by being timeless i.e explanatorily prior to the existence of time and by virtue of causing the space-time manifold to come into existence, time is generated as a consequence. So the cause of the universe could both create t and exist at t.

(23-05-2014 05:31 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  YOU said there was a metaphysical "principle". Indeed YOU must demonstrate it.

Indeed. The causal principal is metaphysical and thus is applicable to
the universe if it is shown to begin to exist.

(23-05-2014 05:31 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  I do not. It's the default. We see it all around us. Are you blind.

No I am not blind. But appealing to a view you think is "default" is not an argument for materialism or naturalism.

You believe that nothing could cause the universe to come into existence because causes can only exist within time. I already elaborated earlier why this reasoning fails to defeat either of the two premises.

(23-05-2014 05:07 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  The cause of the spacetime manifold, all matter and all energy (the universe) cannot exist in spacetime. To maintain it would, is to be left with the absurd position that spacetime (wherein this cause would have to exist according to you ) existed prior to the coming into existence of spacetime!

(23-05-2014 05:31 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Thank you.
Therefore the conclusion is you must shut your yap, and say NOTHING further, rather than use a word ("cause") which YOU agreed has meaning ONLY IN spacetime. Your statement is meaningless. The word "cause" which MUST (as you have agreed) "precede" effect, cannot be used in a non-temporal environment. Many have attempted to explain this to you. You are too dense to get it. A "cause" is MEANINGLESS (which as YOU have agreed MUST PRECEDE effect), IF there is no spacetime. You can't Special Plead your "cause", and expect that the term has meaning IF YOU exempt it from YOU OWN FUCKING definition.

The space-time manifold comes into existence at t-1. Therefore time began with the first event, which would be the Cause's first time related creative act. So this view can be stated in the following way: The cause of the universe is timeless without the universe and temporal with the universe i.e in time at t-1 thereby preceding His effect both by being timeless i.e explanatorily prior to the existence of time and by virtue of causing the space-time manifold to come into existence, time is generated as a consequence. So the cause of the universe could both create t and exist at t simultaneously.

Drinking Beverage
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-05-2014, 08:27 PM
RE: Dr. Ordway's lecture
(23-05-2014 04:56 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(23-05-2014 04:37 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  [Image: 10395804_826107267416757_2290387024604324327_n.jpg]

I believe this is the problem.

And indeed it would be a huge problem if that was what the proponent of the Kalam argues.

But the proponent of the Kalam does not argue that everything must have a creator.

Rather, the proponent argues that:

Everything that begins to exist has a cause, which is far more defensible. In fact, you will not see this objected to except for in these types of settings.

No one walks around in life expecting things to just pop into existence from nothing.

Does everything that exist have a cause? Yes, but however what is the point? To say god is a more feasible out come?

[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
23-05-2014, 08:37 PM (This post was last modified: 23-05-2014 08:41 PM by Jeremy E Walker.)
RE: Dr. Ordway's lecture
(23-05-2014 05:46 PM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  1. Your premises assume a preternatural/supernatural agent existing, as "nature" is of the existing universe, due to the assumption that causality existed prior to the universe that is, itself, a causal network, and the only reason causality exists in the first place. You propose an unmoved mover existing prior to nature :. a supernatural entity by default, with the additional quality of "is uncaused," which is special pleading.

Actually, the above addresses neither premise.

In fact, you are attacking the conclusion of the argument, something that I honestly do not care if you do. As long as you accept premise one and two, then the conclusion follows inescapably.

In fact, throwing in the last bit about special pleading on behalf of the Kalam proponent is demonstrably false. The Kalam proponent never in supporting premise one or two alludes to the existence of this uncaused cause you speak of. This is simply a red herring.

Even if I were to give a conceptual analysis of what the conclusion calls for, it would not be special pleading to say that the Cause is uncaused, for this is the very thing that has been said by naturalists with regards to the universe i.e that it is eternal and uncaused.

(23-05-2014 05:46 PM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  2. You cannot demonstrate the supernatural exists :. Naturalism is the default rational position of any logical or scientific speculation; see Ockham's razor.

Guess what?

I do not have to! Tongue

Neither of the two premises require me to demonstrate the supernatural exits. This is simply goalpost moving.

(23-05-2014 05:46 PM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  3. The first premise is presumptive, and only contains "began to" exist in order to sneak in the unmoved mover/supernatural entity. The opening premise cannot contain the conclusion :. The argument is circular.

To say that something that begins to exist needs a cause for its existence is not presumptive in the least. This fact is constantly affirmed via inductive reasoning and never falsified.

As far as the argument being circular, this is only something that someone would say if they were not acquainted with a modus ponens syllogism.

All you have done is describe the nature of a deductive argument, one of the most basic arguments in logic. In a deductive argument the conclusion is implicit in the premises waiting to be derived by the logical rules of inference. An example of this argument is the KCA as well as the more well known All men are mortal, Socrates is a man, therefore Socrates is mortal modus ponens.





(23-05-2014 05:46 PM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  If you can't wrap your head around this, many community colleges offer night classes, including logic 101, and it would behoove you to take one.

It is interesting you should mention my need for attending classes in logic 101 seeing as how you do not know how to recognize a modus ponens syllogism when you see one.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: