Rampant and Jeremy and the Kalam
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-05-2014, 12:35 PM
RE: Rampant and Jeremy and the Kalam
(25-05-2014 11:55 AM)Leo Wrote:  This Jeremy is pathetic . He needs getting fucked in the ass by a blue whale cock .

Ah come on now... What have the whales ever done to deserve that?

[img]

via GIPHY

[/img]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Sam's post
25-05-2014, 01:19 PM
RE: Rampant and Jeremy and the Kalam
(25-05-2014 11:42 AM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  
(25-05-2014 11:12 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  It's possible that he's at church dosing up on righteousness and fervour.

Naaaaaahhhhh....He's fled to his home territory now over posting getting his sorry ass kicked at Christianforums.com:


http://www.christianforums.com/t7824118-7/

That's such a shame because I had an argument that I know that he won't have heard before and it would have been really good for his personal research.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Mathilda's post
25-05-2014, 03:25 PM
RE: Rampant and Jeremy and the Kalam
(24-05-2014 03:29 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Kalam

Premise 1

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
a. something cannot come from nothing. - René Descartes > Meditations on First Philosophy

Let us start here.
We've already shown you (Jeremy) the issue of the first premise.

When you say "begins to exist" you are not meaning the change in shape of something i.e. carving a chair out of a tree. You are meaning the coming into existence from nothing. If you try to equate these things and state that observations show that chairs are created due to a cause then you are dishonestly equivocating. We have shown you this issue in your argument already.
Are you sure you want to continue being dishonest?

When you say "Everything that begins to exist" this represents a set of one item, in particular "Energy", because that is the only thing postulated as to have come into existence from nothing.

When you say that "Energy coming into existence has a cause", you are speculating because there is no observation to support this, no precedent.

How are you asserting that energy does come into existence and has a cause? Where is your evidence?
Your appeal to the causal principal is weak because it is a philosophical guess. People have been philosophising for thousands of years on this stuff but the only objective, empirical knowledge we have is what scientists have worked out since they developed the robust scientific method and they have devised their Physical Laws and Theories based on empirical evidence. The first law of thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed.
Of course you are now going to appeal and say outside of our universe our modeled physical laws may not apply. Which is fine. But all that can tell is that we don't know the conditions, the laws, the behaviours outside our universe.
A philosophical guess, unsupported by empirical evidence is bad science.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like Stevil's post
25-05-2014, 05:15 PM (This post was last modified: 25-05-2014 05:23 PM by Impulse.)
RE: Rampant and Jeremy and the Kalam
(24-05-2014 03:29 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
The statement implies that not everything begins to exist since it is only talking about everything that begins to exist. And I would agree. The last part, "has a cause", is an assumption. Where's the proof?

Also, if you believe this to be true, then how do you explain your god? You either have to hold that he didn't begin to exist - which means he exists from nothing - or he did begin and therefore has a cause. Both contradict the typical creationist position.

(24-05-2014 03:29 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  a. something cannot come from nothing. - René Descartes > Meditations on First Philosophy
First, this isn't even part of the KCA. Second, something can come from nothing. Look up quantum physics.

I am not accountable to any God. I am accountable to myself - and not because I think I am God as some theists would try to assert - but because, no matter what actions I take, thoughts I think, or words I utter, I have to be able to live with myself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Impulse's post
26-05-2014, 12:12 AM
RE: Rampant and Jeremy and the Kalam
It's as simple as this:

"Everything that begins to exist has a cause." The key word there is "Everything". If this is true then:

1. The universe began to exist so it has a cause.
2. God began to exist so it has a cause.

But wait, the KCA fanboys will say that god didn't begin to exist. This is special pleading. You no more know that god has no beginning than you know that the universe has no beginning. You're content to say "God is eternal and has no beginning." Fine. I'm equally content to say "The matter in the universe is eternal and has no beginning."

We're each arguing stuff we cannot possibly know.

So, you can say god is eternal without beginning and I can say matter is eternal without beginning. Where does that get us?

Well, it gets us to the fact that the KCA becomes meaningless. Apparently, there are TWO possibilities of eternal, uncaused, no-beginnings. God, and matter.

Me, I think it FAR more likely that some atoms, or some bosons, or some other inanimate, non-sentient, non-omnipotent particles have had eternal existence than that some kind of superman with infinite knowledge of things that didn't exist and infinite but unused power just happens to have always existed. But that has nothing to do with the KCA.

What does my post have to do with the KCA?

I reject your first premise because no human being can know what, if anything, has or has not existed without beginning to exist. Therefore, until we can answer that unequivocally, such a premise is nonsense.

"Whores perform the same function as priests, but far more thoroughly." - Robert A. Heinlein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Aseptic Skeptic's post
26-05-2014, 12:40 AM
RE: Rampant and Jeremy and the Kalam
(26-05-2014 12:12 AM)Aseptic Skeptic Wrote:  Apparently, there are TWO possibilities of eternal, uncaused, no-beginnings. God, and matter.

Me, I think it FAR more likely that some atoms, or some bosons, or some other inanimate, non-sentient, non-omnipotent particles have had eternal existence than that some kind of superman with infinite knowledge of things that didn't exist and infinite but unused power just happens to have always existed. But that has nothing to do with the KCA.
I can't explain how knowledge and intelligence can be eternal.
You need data, information and intelligence first to gain knowledge, experience certainly helps too.

If I were to place my bet I'd go with the energy/primitive particles idea rather than a fully formed god with knowledge and intelligence and everything.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
26-05-2014, 01:00 AM
RE: Rampant and Jeremy and the Kalam
(25-05-2014 01:19 PM)Mathilda Wrote:  
(25-05-2014 11:42 AM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  Naaaaaahhhhh....He's fled to his home territory now over posting getting his sorry ass kicked at Christianforums.com:


http://www.christianforums.com/t7824118-7/

That's such a shame because I had an argument that I know that he won't have heard before and it would have been really good for his personal research.

Laugh out load
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-05-2014, 02:24 AM
Rampant and Jeremy and the Kalam
No wonder, he can't even get basic statistical facts right:

Jeremy E. Walker Wrote:Sadly very few .
The percentage of atheists who are philosophers would be similarly low.

The simple truth of the matter is that the vast majority of people in the world whether they be theist or atheist simply are not philosophers!

Quote:8. God: atheism 72.8%; theism 14.6%; other 12.6%.

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

http://io9.com/what-percentage-of-philos...-485784336

“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
26-05-2014, 02:33 AM
RE: Rampant and Jeremy and the Kalam
(26-05-2014 02:24 AM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  No wonder, he can't even get basic statistical facts right:

Jeremy E. Walker Wrote:Sadly very few .
The percentage of atheists who are philosophers would be similarly low.

The simple truth of the matter is that the vast majority of people in the world whether they be theist or atheist simply are not philosophers!

Quote:8. God: atheism 72.8%; theism 14.6%; other 12.6%.

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

http://io9.com/what-percentage-of-philos...-485784336
I'm going to have to disagree with you there. Jeremy didn't say that the percentage of atheists among philosophers is low, he said that the percentage of philosophers among atheists is. There is a significant difference between the two. Sleepy

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-05-2014, 02:45 AM
Rampant and Jeremy and the Kalam
Perhaps I should better qualify that, as the percentage of theists who are philosophers appears significantly lower than the percentage of theists who are not philosophers.

He was also posting this as support to:

Jeremy E Walker Wrote:The arguments don't seem to be getting any better.
In the November/December 2013 99th issue of Philosophy Now subtitled The God Issue, University of Western Michigan philosopher Quentin Smith is quoted by Dr. William Lane Craig, (Research Professor of Philosophy at the Talbot School of Theology, California) as lamenting what Smith called “the desecularization of academia that evolved in philosophy departments since the late 1960s.” (‘The Metaphilosophy of Naturalism’, Philo, Vol 4, #2, at philoonline.org).

You see variant, things really began to take off in the late 60's with the collapse of verificationism. The article goes on to say:

Complaining of naturalists’ passivity in the face of the wave of “intelligent and talented theists entering academia today,” Smith concludes, “God is not ‘dead’ in academia; he returned to life in the late 1960s and is now alive and well in his last academic stronghold, philosophy departments.”

**Emphasis mine**.

Dr. Craig goes on to say that with this renaissance of Christian philosophy came the resurgence of interest in natural theology.

So variant, while it is no doubt that the majority of philosophers today can be classified as non-theists, there is an undeniable resurgence of interest in God among bright and budding philosophers.

God is not dead after all.

This is food for thought!

philosophynow.org/issues/99/Does_God_Exist

“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: