Dr. Ordway's lecture
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-05-2014, 09:18 PM
RE: Dr. Ordway's lecture
(23-05-2014 08:10 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Indeed. The causal principal is metaphysical and thus is applicable to
the universe if it is shown to begin to exist.
Drinking Beverage

Sure. You can state your evidence for this at any time. Drinking Beverage

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
[+] 2 users Like evenheathen's post
23-05-2014, 09:22 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.

And exactly what direction do you think that is, Wanker? The direction of you trying to evangelize this forum, which you lied and denied.



Quote: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 CA isn't intellectual or honest. It's Three Card Fucking Monte.


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

Your hero Bill "Larry" Craig doesn't call it the fucking kalam argument FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GAWD for nothing, moron.


The fact that it can't stand on its own is you assholes' problem.


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

And all of them fall with the CA, which falls on its face under its own weight.

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, 09:26 PM
RE: Dr. Ordway's lecture
(23-05-2014 03:50 PM)Aseptic Skeptic Wrote:  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.

I believe you are attempting to describe the perfectly valid and legitimate rebuttal tactic of Reductio Ad Absurdum, rather than a Straw Man.

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
[+] 6 users Like Taqiyya Mockingbird's post
23-05-2014, 09:29 PM
RE: Dr. Ordway's lecture
(23-05-2014 03:52 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(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 have done no such thing. AND you fled -- RAN AWAY -- from both debates.


Quote:You may not think the support was good, but to say that the premises have never been supported is simply false.

Just because you spout some bullshit that was immediately destroyed doesn't mean you supported the premises, moron.

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, 09:37 PM
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 ?

The KCA is convenient that way. It just happens anyone promoting it claims to have the exact solution to what <unspecified cause> is.

It applies causality and "common sense" logic that never have applied prior to the universe, and appears to conclude "Therefore, the Big Bang was caused!"

Nothing is known about said cause(s), and given it took 11 Billion years for the universe to START cooling down from 13,0000° C -- Never mind that, the proponent of the KCA jumps straight from "common sense = had a cause" to:

Deus ex: GodDidIt

God snapped his fingers, the universe appeared, took 11 billion years to begin cooling, waited 3 billion years, then created Earth, waited 1 billion years, created single celled life, waited 2 billion years, created multicellular life, then 2.5 million years ago, created the first ancestors of modern humans, and then 200,000 years ago, God finally created human beings.

“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
[+] 3 users Like rampant.a.i.'s post
23-05-2014, 09:37 PM
RE: Dr. Ordway's lecture
(23-05-2014 04:51 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(23-05-2014 03:50 PM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  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.

No. This argument is not to prove any deity exists. That is not why I use it.

It is not really to "prove" anything. It is an argument for a cause of the universe. That is it.

I use it primarily with people to show them what one has to believe if they deny either of the premises. IOW, what the cost is for denying premise one or two.

"The kalam cosmological argument is an exercise in positive apologetics aimed at proving that God exists." -- Your fucking IDIOT hero, Bill "Larry" Craig

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/in-defens...l-argument

In the section of his website listed as:



Home> Scholarly Articles> The Existence of God> In Defense of the Kalam Cosmological Argument



So, FUCK YOU again, you fucking LIAR.

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, 09:40 PM
Dr. Ordway's lecture
(23-05-2014 09:18 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  
(23-05-2014 08:10 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Indeed. The causal principal is metaphysical and thus is applicable to
the universe if it is shown to begin to exist.
Drinking Beverage

Sure. You can state your evidence for this at any time. Drinking Beverage

Wait, now the causal principle is metaphysical?

Liner cause and effect existed before linear time existed?

[Image: zy4y2avu.jpg]

Causality: Causing effects BEFORE THERE WERE ANY.

“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, 09:41 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.

It's "far more defensible" because it is a SPECIAL PLEADING FALLACY as well as a MOVING THE GOALPOSTS FALLACY.



Quote: In fact, you will not see this objected to except for in these types of settings.

Because it is usually perpetrated on people who do not understand debate. Or fallacies.



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

YOU do -- your gawd magicks them into existence from nothing, claims your batshit religion.

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
[+] 4 users Like Taqiyya Mockingbird's post
23-05-2014, 09:49 PM (This post was last modified: 23-05-2014 09:57 PM by Taqiyya Mockingbird.)
RE: Dr. Ordway's lecture
(23-05-2014 09:11 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(23-05-2014 09:02 PM)Leo Wrote:  Who created your god anyways ?

Which is greater:

That which exists necessarily, or that which exists contingently.

You didn't answer the question.





(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.

You have already fled TWO debates after getting your ass handed to you in both of them.

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, 09:54 PM (This post was last modified: 23-05-2014 09:58 PM by Taqiyya Mockingbird.)
RE: Dr. Ordway's lecture
(23-05-2014 09:16 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(23-05-2014 09:13 PM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  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.

Except for that little part where everyone concerned has D-E-M-O-N-S-T-R-A-T-E-D that you have failed to support your premises.



Quote:If you have some evidence to back up your claim then do so. Otherwise, you just are beginning to sound like Taq.

r.a.i. appreciates the compliment. Cool

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
[+] 1 user Likes Taqiyya Mockingbird's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: