Dr. Ordway's lecture
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-05-2014, 08:39 PM
RE: Dr. Ordway's lecture
(23-05-2014 08:27 PM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  
(23-05-2014 04:56 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  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?

No. Not everything that exists has a cause. To avoid an infinite regress, there must be a terminus. An unmoved mover, an uncaused cause back of all reality.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-05-2014, 08:47 PM
Dr. Ordway's lecture
(23-05-2014 08:39 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(23-05-2014 08:27 PM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  Does everything that exist have a cause? Yes, but however what is the point? To say god is a more feasible out come?

No. Not everything that exists has a cause. To avoid an infinite regress, there must be a terminus. An unmoved mover, an uncaused cause back of all reality.

Because
~~Special Pleading~~
~~Reasons~~

Congrats on ignoring every single objection, and repeating the same horse shit all over again.

And you're proposing a false dilemma for infinite regress. There are other more cogent solutions than GodDidIt. Take an epistemology class.

“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, 08:47 PM
RE: Dr. Ordway's lecture
(22-05-2014 07:14 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(22-05-2014 07:04 PM)Thinkerbelle Wrote:  What happened to the "I love you" and "I'd never do anything to hurt you?"

Calling someone ignorant =/= I do not love them.

You also compared us to dogs and swine. Among other things. That's not love, Big Brother.


Quote:Ignorant simply means uninformed.

You are not one to judge anyone's ignorance or knowledge, you who are so willfully ignorant.



Quote:I have no reason or desire to use it in the sense you think I have.

Liar.


Quote:Not everyone is full of animosity and hate.

YOU are, which is why you are here in the first place. YOU are so pissed off that we exist and dare to gather in this forum that you spend all your fucking time trying to disrupt this forum. And making a right idiot of yourself in the process.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Taqiyya Mockingbird's post
23-05-2014, 08:51 PM (This post was last modified: 23-05-2014 08:55 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Dr. Ordway's lecture
(23-05-2014 08:39 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(23-05-2014 08:27 PM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  Does everything that exist have a cause? Yes, but however what is the point? To say god is a more feasible out come?

No. Not everything that exists has a cause. To avoid an infinite regress, there must be a terminus. An unmoved mover, an uncaused cause back of all reality.

No there doesn't. Reality has been proven to be non-intuitive. Your unexamined assumption is probably the most common (street level error) assumption of those who really don't know any Physics, or who have no education.

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, 08:51 PM
RE: Dr. Ordway's lecture
(23-05-2014 08:47 PM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  
(23-05-2014 08:39 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  No. Not everything that exists has a cause. To avoid an infinite regress, there must be a terminus. An unmoved mover, an uncaused cause back of all reality.

Because
~~Special Pleading~~
~~Reasons~~

Congrats on ignoring every single objection, and repeating the same horse shit all over again.

And you're proposing a false dilemma for infinite regress. There are other more cogent solutions than GodDidIt. Take an epistemology class.

Maybe you can tell me how an infinite regress is terminated without a terminus.

Drinking Beverage
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-05-2014, 08:53 PM
RE: Dr. Ordway's lecture
(23-05-2014 08:39 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(23-05-2014 08:27 PM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  Does everything that exist have a cause? Yes, but however what is the point? To say god is a more feasible out come?

No. Not everything that exists has a cause. To avoid an infinite regress, there must be a terminus. An unmoved mover, an uncaused cause back of all reality.

What's wrong with an infinite regress ? What if that is what Reality actually is ? Your human brain may not find it satisfying, but that's tough. People didn't like Uncertainty, Relativity or Dirac's tensors either. They turned out to be true. Your Presuppositionalism is showing again. Please go to school soon.

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, 08:53 PM
RE: Dr. Ordway's lecture
Damn . Today I saw One very tall mother fucker . The dude was around 6'8.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-05-2014, 08:54 PM
Dr. Ordway's lecture
(23-05-2014 08:37 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(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.

Craig has been exposed as an intellectually dishonest liar and fraud. Your inability to unlatch your lips from the base of his sweaty shaft do not constitute validity of his "arguments," which have already been dismantled multiple times, and repeating them from the beginning is not responding to the objections.

It's working WLC's balls while you swirl your tongue. I don't come to your house and slap the WLC out of your mouth, and we'd all appreciate if you didn't bring him here to show us what a "good boy" you can be for him.

“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, 08:55 PM
RE: Dr. Ordway's lecture
(23-05-2014 08:51 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(23-05-2014 08:39 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  No. Not everything that exists has a cause. To avoid an infinite regress, there must be a terminus. An unmoved mover, an uncaused cause back of all reality.

No there doesn't. Reality has been proven to be non-intuitive. Your unexamined assumption is probably the most common assumption of those who really don't know any Physics.

reality is non-intuitive =/= infinite regress

Reality being non-intuitive is a matter of debate. Even if I grant that it is non-intuitive it is a non-sequitur to say that therefore, infinite regress.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-05-2014, 08:56 PM
RE: Dr. Ordway's lecture
(23-05-2014 07:05 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(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

You don't like basketball ?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: