Rampant and Jeremy and the Kalam
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-05-2014, 05:33 PM (This post was last modified: 26-05-2014 06:06 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Rampant and Jeremy and the Kalam
(26-05-2014 11:58 AM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  
Quote:(1)
God is a being having all perfections. (Definition)
(2)
A perfection is a simple and absolute property. (Definition)
(3)
Existence is a perfection.
(4)
If existence is part of the essence of a thing, then it is a necessary being.
(5)
If it is possible for a necessary being to exist, then a necessary being does exist.
(6)
It is possible for a being to have all perfections.
(7)
Therefore, a necessary being (God) does exist.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/leibniz/#ExiGod

1. "Perfection" is subjective. No two people would agree what that even means. Perfection is a learned concept. It's not universal, by any means.
2. The moon is made of green cheese.
3. Then we are all perfect.
4. A "necessary being" is subject to, and exists WITHIN the laws of Reality, and cannot be it's master.
5. Great. Show me one.
6. Does not follow.

Logic is necessary, but not sufficient to prove something exists. Many logical syllogisms are true. That does not mean (as Carroll told Craig) they are real.

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
26-05-2014, 06:42 PM (This post was last modified: 26-05-2014 06:48 PM by Rahn127.)
RE: Rampant and Jeremy and the Kalam
(26-05-2014 12:11 PM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  P(1): It is possible that God exists.
P(2): If it is possible that God exists, then God exists in some possible worlds.
P(3): If God exists in some possible worlds, then God exists in all possible worlds.
P(4): If God exists in all possible worlds, then God exists in the actual world.
P(5): If God exists in the actual world, then God exists.
C(1): Therefore, God exists.


Possible - within the capacity of someone or something to perform a certain action.
It is possible for me to lift a 90 lb bundle of shingles.
That is within my capacity.
It is not possible for me to lift 3 bundles.
That goes beyond my capacity.

Possibilites only deal with the capacites of existing items. Humans are existing items. Therefore you can say it is within the capacity of a human being to imagine that a god exists.

You could even say that it is possible that an advanced race of beings evolved on a distant world which has the capacity for initiating life.

Once you know the capacities then you can look at and examine the possibilities.

P (1) should really begin with "something unknown has the capacity to generate a god through unknown means"
P (2) if this god, through unknown means, has the capacity to create universes, then it is possible that this god created a universe.
P (3) if i as a human being, through unknown means, have the capacity to eat gods for breakfast with a slice of toast, then it is possible that, on the daily, I eat gods for breakfast

P (4) gods no longer exist or never existed in the first place.

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-05-2014, 12:51 AM
RE: Rampant and Jeremy and the Kalam
(26-05-2014 06:36 AM)Thinkerbelle Wrote:  
(26-05-2014 03:17 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  He later says:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7806053-4/#post65072005


*Evil chuckle*

If someone could point me in the direction of the Leibnizian argument he is referring to then it would be much appreciated.

More proof that a little learning is a dangerous thing.

Leibnizian Argument

I spent the day wading through that piece of shit.

WOW.

A manual for how to pander disingenuous bullshit arguments you KNOW are fallacious. How to cheat at debate. It's fucking disgusting.

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
27-05-2014, 01:08 AM
RE: Rampant and Jeremy and the Kalam
(26-05-2014 06:36 AM)Thinkerbelle Wrote:  
(26-05-2014 03:17 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  He later says:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7806053-4/#post65072005


*Evil chuckle*

If someone could point me in the direction of the Leibnizian argument he is referring to then it would be much appreciated.

More proof that a little learning is a dangerous thing.

Leibnizian Argument


A couple of thoughts:


"A cosmological argument takes some cosmic feature of the universe—such as the existence of contingent things or the fact of motion—that calls out for explanation, and argues that this feature is to be explained in terms of the activity of a first cause, which first cause is God."

Translation from snake-oil-salesmanspeak: "We admit up front that the 'cosmological argument' is entirely a fallacious Argument from Ignorance."



"Many of those who accept the PSR do so unreflectively, because they take the PSR to be self-evident. I do not think that there is any good argument against the propriety of doing so. We are perfectly within our epistemic rights to accept the Law of Excluded Middle (LEM)—the claim that for all p, p or not-p, because of its self-evidence, absent any further argument for it. However, it will be of no use to opponents of the PSR or of the LEM to be told that the claim they deny is self-evident to us. Presumably, the claim is not self-evident to them, and we can all agree that there are many things that people have claimed to be self-evident which in fact are false, so the fact that the claim is said by us to be self-evident does not provide these opponents with much reason to accept it. There may be a presumption that what people take to be self-evident is in fact more likely true than not, but this presumption is often easily defeated."


So this asshole KNOWS that his claim that he "only has to prove that his premise is more likely than not" is moving the goalposts for an end run around his burden of proof.



"..Law of the Excluded Middle blah blah..."


That would be the FALLACY of the Excluded Middle.

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
27-05-2014, 01:21 AM
RE: Rampant and Jeremy and the Kalam
(27-05-2014 12:51 AM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  
(26-05-2014 06:36 AM)Thinkerbelle Wrote:  More proof that a little learning is a dangerous thing.

Leibnizian Argument

I spent the day wading through that piece of shit.

WOW.

A manual for how to pander disingenuous bullshit arguments you KNOW are fallacious. How to cheat at debate. It's fucking disgusting.

Just looked at that link. I see what you mean and yes ... Wow!

It's kind of mind blowing really that someone could go to so much effort to think things through logically and still believe that they are being sincere.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-05-2014, 01:25 AM
RE: Rampant and Jeremy and the Kalam
(27-05-2014 01:21 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  
(27-05-2014 12:51 AM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  I spent the day wading through that piece of shit.

WOW.

A manual for how to pander disingenuous bullshit arguments you KNOW are fallacious. How to cheat at debate. It's fucking disgusting.

Just looked at that link. I see what you mean and yes ... Wow!

It's kind of mind blowing really that someone could go to so much effort to think things through logically and still believe that they are being sincere.

It's like a fucking Comprehensive Manual for Three-Card Monte.

It's clear to me that they are quite aware that their arguments, motives and intentions are FAR from sincere.

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
27-05-2014, 01:38 AM
RE: Rampant and Jeremy and the Kalam
(27-05-2014 01:25 AM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  It's like a fucking Comprehensive Manual for Three-Card Monte.

It's clear to me that they are quite aware that their arguments, motives and intentions are FAR from sincere.


I thought I'd check out who the author was in case he was some kind of preacher of some mega church making lots of money and wanting to put his techniques down on paper just as much for his own benefit. I'm reminded of WhiskeyDebates' argument about religion being a scourge that takes all the people that could contribute to society and wastes their lives.

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

Quote:Pruss graduated from the University of Western Ontario in 1991 with a Bachelor of Science degree in Mathematics and Physics. After earning a Ph.D. in Mathematics at the University of British Columbia in 1996 and publishing several papers in Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society and other mathematical journals,[5] he began graduate work in philosophy at the University of Pittsburgh. He completed his dissertation, Possible Worlds: What They Are and What They Are Good For, under Nicholas Rescher in 2001.

So this is someone with a PhD in Maths who then devotes his career to the pointless pursuit of Philosophy. Worse than that, poorly thought out amateurish philosophy that directly misguides many thousands, or indirectly hundreds of thousands of lives. And all because a parasitic meme was instilled in his head as a child.

Why should someone of his limited intellectual capacity be given tenure when there are so many talented scientists out there who cannot find work that in any way comes close to exercising their full potential and end up as lab or code monkeys?

Because religion gets money from spreading and infecting new people.

This is why religion should die.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Mathilda's post
27-05-2014, 08:45 AM (This post was last modified: 27-05-2014 08:52 AM by rampant.a.i..)
Rampant and Jeremy and the Kalam
(27-05-2014 01:21 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  
(27-05-2014 12:51 AM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  I spent the day wading through that piece of shit.

WOW.

A manual for how to pander disingenuous bullshit arguments you KNOW are fallacious. How to cheat at debate. It's fucking disgusting.

Just looked at that link. I see what you mean and yes ... Wow!

It's kind of mind blowing really that someone could go to so much effort to think things through logically and still believe that they are being sincere.

Incidentally, this is why I really don't like Plantinga. You have people who believe they already know all the answers inserting their beliefs into a field, like epistemology, the study of what counts as knowledge, and it ruins it.

It then becomes about debunking circular arguments from the "GodDidIt" crowd that are just good enough to fool like-minded people, and wouldn't know objectivity if it hit them in the face with a Cricket bat.

“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
27-05-2014, 09:45 AM
RE: Rampant and Jeremy and the Kalam
(27-05-2014 01:38 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  
(27-05-2014 01:25 AM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  It's like a fucking Comprehensive Manual for Three-Card Monte.

It's clear to me that they are quite aware that their arguments, motives and intentions are FAR from sincere.


I thought I'd check out who the author was in case he was some kind of preacher of some mega church making lots of money and wanting to put his techniques down on paper just as much for his own benefit. I'm reminded of WhiskeyDebates' argument about religion being a scourge that takes all the people that could contribute to society and wastes their lives.

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

Quote:Pruss graduated from the University of Western Ontario in 1991 with a Bachelor of Science degree in Mathematics and Physics. After earning a Ph.D. in Mathematics at the University of British Columbia in 1996 and publishing several papers in Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society and other mathematical journals,[5] he began graduate work in philosophy at the University of Pittsburgh. He completed his dissertation, Possible Worlds: What They Are and What They Are Good For, under Nicholas Rescher in 2001.

So this is someone with a PhD in Maths who then devotes his career to the pointless pursuit of Philosophy. Worse than that, poorly thought out amateurish philosophy that directly misguides many thousands, or indirectly hundreds of thousands of lives. And all because a parasitic meme was instilled in his head as a child.

Why should someone of his limited intellectual capacity be given tenure when there are so many talented scientists out there who cannot find work that in any way comes close to exercising their full potential and end up as lab or code monkeys?

Because religion gets money from spreading and infecting new people.

This is why religion should die.

I liked the part where he was prattling on about "you can't trisect an angle with a straightedge and compass", since I was trisecting right triangles with a straightedge and compass when I was in 9th grade... 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
[+] 2 users Like Taqiyya Mockingbird's post
27-05-2014, 10:23 AM
Rampant and Jeremy and the Kalam
The thread we just had (unless I'm mixing up TTA and AF again) where the OP went into some retarded argument about numerical bases, The Golden Ratio, and Fibonacci sequences made me want to bang my head against a wall. Numbers are not magical, and seeing a "hidden code underlying all of nature" or "perfect geometry" speaks more to projectionist wishful thinking.

http://youtu.be/4oyyXC5IzEE

Very long video, but he absolutely destroys myths about The Golden Rule and Fibonacci sequences.

“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: