Dr. Ordway's lecture
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-05-2014, 01:48 PM
Re: RE: Dr. Ordway's lecture
(24-05-2014 11:49 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Things that come into existence have causes.

saying something a dozen times doesn't make it proven true.

You are making an assertion, please stop and contemplate that.

"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
[+] 2 users Like ClydeLee's post
24-05-2014, 01:50 PM
RE: Dr. Ordway's lecture
(24-05-2014 01:45 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(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.

That was not their reason for accepting the truth claims of Christianity. Rather, it was one of the reasons that encouraged them to start critically examining the various other worldviews in existence.

Strawmanning their testimony is the only way you can attack it it seems.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-05-2014, 01:50 PM
RE: Dr. Ordway's lecture
(24-05-2014 01:40 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  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?

You are equivocating the universe with existence. Leave the goalposts alone. Or is this too deep for you? I'm not an intellectual by any means, but the basic elements of the argument are pretty clear if you are capable of viewing them without any presuppositions.

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
24-05-2014, 01:52 PM
RE: Dr. Ordway's lecture
(24-05-2014 01:48 PM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  
(24-05-2014 01:40 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  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?

Deal with what I have provided.

I have provided several lines of support for premise two. So far you have not even engaged them.

Drinking Beverage
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-05-2014, 01:56 PM
RE: Dr. Ordway's lecture
Christ on a stick man! I cannot take reading Jeremy's idiotic and inflexible ideas anymore. Saying the same fucking thing one thousand times does not make it true you jackass. You conflate philosophy and science to the degree that makes you worthless to interact with in any serious discussion. AHHHHHH! The stupid burns! Somebody please make it stop!

“Truth does not demand belief. Scientists do not join hands every Sunday, singing, yes, gravity is real! I will have faith! I will be strong! I believe in my heart that what goes up, up, up, must come down, down, down. Amen! If they did, we would think they were pretty insecure about it.”
— Dan Barker —
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Timber1025's post
24-05-2014, 01:59 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.

No it isn't.



(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.


Clear evidence that you don't actually read what people are posting.

OXYTOCIN not Oxycontin (never heard of that)


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

Quote: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".




(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.


1.25-1.45

"And I realised that if that's true then all the love that I feel for him is it all nothing more than chemical reactions in our brains. And I looked down at him and I realised that's not true. It's not the truth. I didn't know where to go from there but that is what prompted me to start researching topics of spirituality "




(24-05-2014 01:31 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(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.


... which ultimately led to her conversion to Christianity. You are struggling now so having to nitpick details.



(24-05-2014 01:31 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(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.

Wanting to believe in something is driven by emotion, not logic.

It also strongly suggests that her critical thinking skills were more likely to be compromised.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Mathilda's post
24-05-2014, 02:10 PM
RE: Dr. Ordway's lecture
(24-05-2014 01:59 PM)Mathilda Wrote:  Wanting to believe in something is driven by emotion, not logic.

It also strongly suggests that her critical thinking skills were more likely to be compromised.

I do not ever recall either of the women saying that they wanted to believe in Christianity and therefore this was why they converted from atheism to Christianity.

I never recall hearing them say that. Now if you can recall this, simply provide the time in which they did.

Hahah....

It seems to me their critical thinking skills were actually being put to good use once they decided to begin researching the various truth claims of other worldviews.

In fact, if you listen to Dr. Ordway she clearly states that believing something that was irrational and indefensible was not something that she as a person could even do.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-05-2014, 02:11 PM
Dr. Ordway's lecture
(24-05-2014 01:47 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(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.

What research did they uncover supporting their belief in Christ?

“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
24-05-2014, 02:12 PM
RE: Dr. Ordway's lecture
(24-05-2014 01:56 PM)Timber1025 Wrote:  Somebody please make it stop!

In the Smokey-the-bear voice Only you can prevent increased post count.

I'd rather fondle the used toilet paper inspired by the morning coffee than engage in discussion with this character, but the rest of the community seems to revel in it. Dodgy

[Image: ZF1ZJ4M.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
24-05-2014, 02:13 PM
Dr. Ordway's lecture
(24-05-2014 02:10 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(24-05-2014 01:59 PM)Mathilda Wrote:  Wanting to believe in something is driven by emotion, not logic.

It also strongly suggests that her critical thinking skills were more likely to be compromised.

I do not ever recall either of the women saying that they wanted to believe in Christianity and therefore this was why they converted from atheism to Christianity.

I never recall hearing them say that. Now if you can recall this, simply provide the time in which they did.

Hahah....

It seems to me their critical thinking skills were actually being put to good use once they decided to begin researching the various truth claims of other worldviews.

In fact, if you listen to Dr. Ordway she clearly states that believing something that was irrational and indefensible was not something that she as a person could even do.

Any psychologies or psychiatrist can tell you: Trusting the patient's own assessment of their behavior and validity of their internal thought process is no guarantee either of those correspond with reality.

“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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: