Rampant and Jeremy and the Kalam
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-05-2014, 03:16 AM
RE: Rampant and Jeremy and the Kalam
Did everyone already forget the abysmal train wrecks that were JEW's 'debates' with cjlr and stevil?

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-05-2014, 03:17 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:
[Snip]
http://www.christianforums.com/t7806053-4/

He later says:

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

Quote:Some intellectuals have actually recounted how they came to be theists after having been presented with the Kalam or the Leibnizian arguments.

*Evil chuckle*

If someone could point me in the direction of the Leibnizian argument he is referring to then it would be much appreciated.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mathilda's post
26-05-2014, 03:21 AM
RE: Rampant and Jeremy and the Kalam
(26-05-2014 03:16 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Did everyone already forget the abysmal train wrecks that were JEW's 'debates' with cjlr and stevil?
No, we didn't forget that. He recently fled from another debate, by the way. I bet William Lane Craig would be disappointed. Laugh out load

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-05-2014, 03:26 AM
RE: Rampant and Jeremy and the Kalam
(26-05-2014 03:21 AM)Vosur Wrote:  
(26-05-2014 03:16 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Did everyone already forget the abysmal train wrecks that were JEW's 'debates' with cjlr and stevil?
No, we didn't forget that. He recently fled from another debate, by the way. I bet William Lane Craig would be disappointed. Laugh out load

Okay, just checking. I'm here trying to kill time on the graveyard shift at work, and not even I am bored enough to wade through 8+ pages of JEW's bullshit. Besides, I'm looking forward to going home and troubleshooting my motorcycle's throttle issue. Drinking Beverage

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-05-2014, 06:36 AM
RE: Rampant and Jeremy and the Kalam
(26-05-2014 03:17 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  
(26-05-2014 02:24 AM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  No wonder, he can't even get basic statistical facts right:
[Snip]
http://www.christianforums.com/t7806053-4/

He later says:

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

Quote:Some intellectuals have actually recounted how they came to be theists after having been presented with the Kalam or the Leibnizian arguments.

*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

We have enough youth. How about looking for the Fountain of Smart?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-05-2014, 11:58 AM
Rampant and Jeremy and the Kalam
(26-05-2014 03:17 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  
(26-05-2014 02:24 AM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  No wonder, he can't even get basic statistical facts right:
[Snip]
http://www.christianforums.com/t7806053-4/

He later says:

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

Quote:Some intellectuals have actually recounted how they came to be theists after having been presented with the Kalam or the Leibnizian arguments.

*Evil chuckle*

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

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

“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, 12:05 PM (This post was last modified: 26-05-2014 12:09 PM by Mathilda.)
RE: Rampant and Jeremy and the Kalam
WTF!

That's crazy talk.

Thanks Rampant for the link. I did a quick search for Leibniz but just got pages about him being a mathematician and a philsopher. He should have stuck to Maths.

Anyway I'll mull over this one for a while for what I am planning.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-05-2014, 12:07 PM
RE: Rampant and Jeremy and the Kalam
(26-05-2014 11:58 AM)rampant.a.i. 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.

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
Oh, I remember that one. It's hands down one of the most hilariously flawed arguments I have ever heard.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Vosur's post
26-05-2014, 12:11 PM (This post was last modified: 26-05-2014 12:17 PM by rampant.a.i..)
Rampant and Jeremy and the Kalam
T minus 10 until MFM is in here arguing Leibniz's argument is" logically sound, and no one has raised a valid objection to it."

Edit: wrong site. MindForgedManacle has been over on AF claiming Alvin Plantinga's modal ontological argument is logically valid, and undisputed:

Quote: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.

http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?t...l_argument

“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, 12:27 PM
RE: Rampant and Jeremy and the Kalam
Well it's served my purposes. Thanks guys!

Any more classic arguments like this please send them my way.

I'll wait for the next troll to come along if Jeremy doesn't return.

This is turning out to be quite fun.

Oh just seen Rampant's next post! Now to start work on Alvin Plantinga's modal ontological argument.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: