Dr. Ordway's lecture
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-05-2014, 09:10 PM
RE: Dr. Ordway's lecture
(23-05-2014 08:58 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(23-05-2014 08:54 PM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  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.

I love it when you resort to these little quips.

You have given up dealing with the argument and have resorted to what you are good at, talking perversely.

I don't agree with attacking the person, but you have to admit you haven't really provided an argument to refute.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Michael_Tadlock's post
23-05-2014, 09:11 PM
RE: Dr. Ordway's lecture
(23-05-2014 09:02 PM)Leo Wrote:  
(23-05-2014 09:00 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  This just about sums it up.

ShockingYes

Who created your god anyways ?

Which is greater:

That which exists necessarily, or that which exists contingently.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-05-2014, 09:12 PM
Dr. Ordway's lecture
(23-05-2014 08:58 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(23-05-2014 08:54 PM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  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.

I love it when you resort to these little quips.

You have given up dealing with the argument and have resorted to what you are good at, talking perversely.

You haven't responded to a single objection without gargling WLC argument spunk like mouthwash: what is there to respond to? The creepiness of your avatar and your rape apologist views?

“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, 09:12 PM
RE: Dr. Ordway's lecture
(23-05-2014 09:10 PM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  
(23-05-2014 08:58 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  I love it when you resort to these little quips.

You have given up dealing with the argument and have resorted to what you are good at, talking perversely.

I don't agree with attacking the person, but you have to admit you haven't really provided an argument to refute.

We can debate the Kalam in the boxing ring if you want.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-05-2014, 09:12 PM
RE: Dr. Ordway's lecture
(23-05-2014 09:12 PM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  
(23-05-2014 08:58 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  I love it when you resort to these little quips.

You have given up dealing with the argument and have resorted to what you are good at, talking perversely.

You haven't responded to a single objection without gargling WLC like mouthwash: what is there to respond to? The creepiness of your avatar and your rape apologist views?

The offer to debate me is always open.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-05-2014, 09:13 PM
Dr. Ordway's lecture
(23-05-2014 09:12 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(23-05-2014 09:10 PM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  I don't agree with attacking the person, but you have to admit you haven't really provided an argument to refute.

We can debate the Kalam in the boxing ring if you want.

What, so you can fail to support either premise a third time before giving up, then come back and present the same argument in yet another thread?

“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
23-05-2014, 09:14 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.

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



Sooooooooooo, you are really THAT fucking stupid to think that we are going to find WLC's commentary on his own shell game convincing.


Facepalm

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
23-05-2014, 09:15 PM
RE: Dr. Ordway's lecture
What the fuck happened to William Lane Craig's hands? Is anyone else bothered by them? It's almost as disturbing to watch him wave those weird, disfigured meathooks around during a debate as it is to listen to him repeat the same bullshit every time.

But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

~ Umberto Eco
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes evenheathen's post
23-05-2014, 09:16 PM
RE: Dr. Ordway's lecture
(23-05-2014 09:13 PM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  
(23-05-2014 09:12 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  We can debate the Kalam in the boxing ring if you want.

What, so you can fail to support either premise a third time before giving up, then come back and present the same argument in yet another thread?

Saying I have failed to do something does not mean I have, anymore than me saying you have failed to be perverse means you have failed to be perverse, which we know would be false by virtue of your attacks against two proponents of the Kalam.

If you have some evidence to back up your claim then do so. Otherwise, you just are beginning to sound like Taq.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-05-2014, 09:16 PM
RE: Dr. Ordway's lecture
If you are willing to take a position and defend it I would be happy to debate you in the boxing ring or anywhere else.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: