Dr. Ordway's lecture
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-05-2014, 01:31 PM (This post was last modified: 24-05-2014 01:42 PM by Jeremy E Walker.)
RE: Dr. Ordway's lecture
(24-05-2014 01:10 PM)Mathilda Wrote:  You posted two videos from two women who have converted to Christianity. Both admit that they were driven by emotions.

This is a strawman of their testimony.

(24-05-2014 01:10 PM)Mathilda Wrote:  Jennifer Fulwiler looked at her new born baby whilst dosed up on a flood of hormones such as oxytocin after giving birth,

Come on Doctor. You can do better than this you completely make this up. There is no evidence that she was on any oxytocin after giving birth. And even if she were, so what?



(24-05-2014 01:10 PM)Mathilda Wrote:  felt extreme love for her child when she was bonding with it. She did not want to admit to herself that this was a product of neurochemicals in her brain even though science knows that it is.

Strawmanning again. She said she did not believe that her baby was merely "a collection of randomly evolved chemical reactions." She then states that if her worldview was true, then the love she had for the baby was nothing more than chemical reactions in her brain.

The view which she had up to that point held no longer was able to satisfactorily account for the love she was experiencing so this prompted her to begin RESEARCHING and studying the various other worldviews that existed.



(24-05-2014 01:10 PM)Mathilda Wrote:  At 1.00 she tells us that the birth of her baby was the catalyst for her conversion.

This is demonstrably false and shows you have not seriously dealt with what this woman has said.

She said that the birth of her baby was the catalyst for her BEGINNING TO RESEARCH other worldviews. Not her conversion.

You are strawmanning this woman's whole testimony.

(24-05-2014 01:10 PM)Mathilda Wrote:  Dr Ordway 17.30 - 18.00 says that being an atheist is pretty grim and that if you are going to have meaning in your life then you need to produce it yourself. She says:

"I tried really hard. I failed."

This by itself she says didn't make her want to become a Christian but what she has effectively admitted is that she did want to believe in something.

Wanting to believe in something does not mean Dr. Ordway's beliefs are false or irrational.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-05-2014, 01:36 PM
RE: Dr. Ordway's lecture
(24-05-2014 12:54 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(24-05-2014 12:47 PM)Chas Wrote:  Yes.

We exist in closed system.

Unless you believe something exists outside of and external to the universe that is feeding energy into it.

You are intentionally misrepresenting the second law, and intentionally asking a question with ambiguous meaning.

You are a seriously dishonest person.

The entire universe will run down according to the second law.

When honest people speak of 'open' and 'closed' systems, they are talking about locally open or closed, as in "the earth is not a closed system".

So, go fuck yourself, you dishonest asshole.

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
[+] 4 users Like Chas's post
24-05-2014, 01:37 PM
RE: Dr. Ordway's lecture
You talk of goalposts, yet you move them between what we can observe and what we can't indiscriminately. That is the fallacy of the Kalam argument.

Life evolves in an open system where the transfer of energy can happen without an overwhelming presence of obstacles. We find such a system here on earth, an odd happenstance due to our location in reference to the sun. Outside of this system life is still capable of existing, although it is rare. Life outside of the earth is presented with an overwhelming presence of obstacles for it's existence. This does not close the system, but it comes damn close to it. The kicker is the ease of transfer of energy in the universe, not the conditions that must exist for life to proliferate. We exist in an open system within the universe, but within a narrow window of opportunity for our presence. However, given the vast amount of opportunity in this universe for complex systems to arise, it's not outside of the realm of imagination that something like the earth would eventually arise, and here we are, and we understand a shitload about how it naturally happened within the system we can observe.

We are in no position to declare the universe an ultimately closed or open "system". The same goes for the concept of a creator.

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
24-05-2014, 01:37 PM
Dr. Ordway's lecture
(24-05-2014 01:31 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(24-05-2014 01:10 PM)Mathilda Wrote:  You posted two videos from two women who have converted to Christianity. Both admit that they were driven by emotions.

This is a strawman of their testimony.

It's a description of their testimony.

(24-05-2014 01:31 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(24-05-2014 01:10 PM)Mathilda Wrote:  Jennifer Fulwiler looked at her new born baby whilst dosed up on a flood of hormones such as oxytocin after giving birth,

Come on Doctor. You can do better than this.

Oxycontin is a narcotic-analgesic of the semi-synthetic opioid stripe used primarily for pain relief.

Not only do you err in this, but you completely make this up. There is no evidence that she was on any pain-killers after giving birth.

Mathilda Wrote:oxytocin

You blithering idiot. Look it up.


(24-05-2014 01:31 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(24-05-2014 01:10 PM)Mathilda Wrote:  felt extreme love for her child when she was bonding with it. She did not want to admit to herself that this was a product of neurochemicals in her brain even though science knows that it is.

Strawmanning again. She said she did not believe that her baby was merely "a collection of randomly evolved chemical reactions." She then states that if her worldview was true, then the love she had for the baby was nothing more than chemical reactions in her brain.

The view which she had up to that point held no longer was able to satisfactorily account for the love she was experiencing so this prompted her to begin RESEARCHING and studying the various other worldviews that existed.

Also, just because you can give a description of


(24-05-2014 01:10 PM)Mathilda Wrote:  At 1.00 she tells us that the birth of her baby was the catalyst for her conversion.

This is demonstrably false and shows you have not seriously dealt with what this woman has said.

She said that the birth of her baby was the catalyst for her BEGINNING TO RESEARCH other worldviews. Not her conversion.

You are strawmanning this whole woman's testimony.

(24-05-2014 01:10 PM)Mathilda Wrote:  Dr Ordway 17.30 - 18.00 says that being an atheist is pretty grim and that if you are going to have meaning in your life then you need to produce it yourself. She says:

"I tried really hard. I failed."

This by itself she says didn't make her want to become a Christian but what she has effectively admitted is that she did want to believe in something.

Wanting to believe in something does not mean Dr. Ordway's beliefs are false or irrational.

The presentation of said beliefs is an appeal to emotion. That's all you have us. Two fallacy-laden appeals to emotion. If you want to demonstrate the truth of those beliefs, we invite you to try harder.

Quote:Oxytocin (Oxt, /ˌɒksɨˈtoʊsɪn/) is a mammalian neurohypophysial hormone. Produced by the hypothalamus and stored and secreted by the posterior pituitary gland, oxytocin acts primarily as a neuromodulator in the brain.

Oxytocin plays an important role in the neuroanatomy of intimacy, specifically in sexual reproduction, in particular during and after childbirth. It is released in large amounts after distension of the cervix and uterus during labor, facilitating birth, maternal bonding, and, after stimulation of the nipples, lactation. Both childbirth and milk ejection result from positive feedback mechanisms.[1]

Recent studies have begun to investigate oxytocin's role in various behaviors, including orgasm, social recognition, pair bonding, anxiety, and maternal behaviors.[2] For this reason, it is sometimes referred to as the "bonding hormone".

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxytocin

Congrats, you've completely failed to grasp the argument being presented!

“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
24-05-2014, 01:38 PM
RE: Dr. Ordway's lecture
(24-05-2014 01:06 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(24-05-2014 12:57 PM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  Equivocating ass.


http://www.context.org/iclib/ic18/samples/

The universe doesn't qualify to be classified as an open or closed system, unless you can show what, if anything, exists outside the universe.

Great, tell that to everyone who is saying it is an open system.

No one is, you equivocating dickhead. You are intentionally misusing the term.

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
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
24-05-2014, 01:40 PM
RE: Dr. Ordway's lecture
(24-05-2014 01:37 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  You talk of goalposts, yet you move them between what we can observe and what we can't indiscriminately. That is the fallacy of the Kalam argument.

Life evolves in an open system where the transfer of energy can happen without an overwhelming presence of obstacles. We find such a system here on earth, an odd happenstance due to our location in reference to the sun. Outside of this system life is still capable of existing, although it is rare. Life outside of the earth is presented with an overwhelming presence of obstacles for it's existence. This does not close the system, but it comes damn close to it. The kicker is the ease of transfer of energy in the universe, not the conditions that must exist for life to proliferate. We exist in an open system within the universe, but within a narrow window of opportunity for our presence. However, given the vast amount of opportunity in this universe for complex systems to arise, it's not outside of the realm of imagination that something like the earth would eventually arise, and here we are, and we understand a shitload about how it naturally happened within the system we can observe.

We are in no position to declare the universe an ultimately closed or open "system". The same goes for the concept of a creator.

Strange how physicists seem to have no qualm with stating the universe is a closed system...

Oh well.....

What do they know right?

I mean you are the one that knows more than they do..... Unsure


Anyway, back to the Kalam....

Have anything in the way of actually addressing the supports I gave?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-05-2014, 01:42 PM
RE: Dr. Ordway's lecture
(24-05-2014 01:31 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(24-05-2014 01:10 PM)Mathilda Wrote:  You posted two videos from two women who have converted to Christianity. Both admit that they were driven by emotions.

This is a strawman of their testimony.

It is quite succinct and accurate.

Quote:
(24-05-2014 01:10 PM)Mathilda Wrote:  Jennifer Fulwiler looked at her new born baby whilst dosed up on a flood of hormones such as oxytocin after giving birth,

Come on Doctor. You can do better than this.

Oxycontin is a narcotic-analgesic of the semi-synthetic opioid stripe used primarily for pain relief.

Not only do you err in this, but you completely make this up. There is no evidence that she was on any pain-killers after giving birth.

You don't read very well, do you. Oxytocin, you dumb fuck.

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
[+] 4 users Like Chas's post
24-05-2014, 01:45 PM
RE: Dr. Ordway's lecture
(24-05-2014 01:31 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Wanting to believe in something does not mean Dr. Ordway's beliefs are false or irrational.

It makes it emotional, not reasoned - therefore neither rational nor irrational.

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
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
24-05-2014, 01:47 PM
RE: Dr. Ordway's lecture
(24-05-2014 01:37 PM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  It's a description of their testimony.

It cannot be a description of their testimony because they were driven to RESEARCH the truth claims of Christianity, not driven to accept the truth claims by virtue of some emotional response.

Stating otherwise is clearly strawmanning.

(24-05-2014 01:10 PM)Mathilda Wrote:  The presentation of said beliefs is an appeal to emotion. That's all you have us. Two fallacy-laden appeals to emotion. If you want to demonstrate the truth of those beliefs, we invite you to try harder.

They both actually appeal to having their intellectual questions dealt with following critical research and examination of the available evidence in support of the truth-claims of Christianity which led them to believe said claims and place their trust and faith in Christ.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-05-2014, 01:48 PM
Dr. Ordway's lecture
(24-05-2014 01:40 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(24-05-2014 01:37 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  You talk of goalposts, yet you move them between what we can observe and what we can't indiscriminately. That is the fallacy of the Kalam argument.

Life evolves in an open system where the transfer of energy can happen without an overwhelming presence of obstacles. We find such a system here on earth, an odd happenstance due to our location in reference to the sun. Outside of this system life is still capable of existing, although it is rare. Life outside of the earth is presented with an overwhelming presence of obstacles for it's existence. This does not close the system, but it comes damn close to it. The kicker is the ease of transfer of energy in the universe, not the conditions that must exist for life to proliferate. We exist in an open system within the universe, but within a narrow window of opportunity for our presence. However, given the vast amount of opportunity in this universe for complex systems to arise, it's not outside of the realm of imagination that something like the earth would eventually arise, and here we are, and we understand a shitload about how it naturally happened within the system we can observe.

We are in no position to declare the universe an ultimately closed or open "system". The same goes for the concept of a creator.

Strange how physicists seem to have no qualm with stating the universe is a closed system...

Oh well.....

What do they know right?

I mean you are the one that knows more than they do..... Unsure


Anyway, back to the Kalam....

Have anything in the way of actually addressing the supports I gave?

Have anything in the way of defending the faulty premises of the argument?

Or are you going to fail to defend the KCA as utterly as you have in two debates here, and on Christian Forums?

“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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: