The JE Walker debates commentary thread
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-03-2014, 01:50 PM
RE: The JE Walker debates commentary thread
I don't even know what to call that. Stupid4Jesus?

“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
25-03-2014, 02:19 PM
RE: The JE Walker debates commentary thread
(25-03-2014 01:50 PM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  I don't even know what to call that. Stupid4Jesus?

I think DLJ had the principle nailed down pretty well with, "The homeschooling is strong with this one."

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
25-03-2014, 02:19 PM
RE: The JE Walker debates commentary thread
I used his own words to argue against him.

Let's see what happens!

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
25-03-2014, 02:38 PM
RE: The JE Walker debates commentary thread
Seems he's having a rough time. He's pretty much just copy/pasting a description of metaphysics now.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Charis's post
25-03-2014, 02:41 PM (This post was last modified: 25-03-2014 02:45 PM by rampant.a.i..)
RE: The JE Walker debates commentary thread
He argued for causality as a natural law before as support for "something can't come from nothing" BS

Because "Natural Laws" are supposed to be unchanging mechanical principles of the known universe, they can't apply to a cosmological argument regarding the origin of, especially one calling for an entity which violates Natural Law by definition.

“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
25-03-2014, 02:47 PM (This post was last modified: 25-03-2014 10:53 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: The JE Walker debates commentary thread
"Everything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence."

No. We all know the minute that is allowed in as presented, he will make an exception for his own particular deity, which he will declare "always existed".
We do not know what conditions existed (if any) prior to the Big Bang. The universe may have always existed. In fact Hawking's friend, Roger Penrose, ("Cycles of Time"), thinks the universe may have endlessly expanded and contracted, and "re-banged" expanded, and re-contracted. We don't know. That is not acceptable to people that are anal-retentive, and REQUIRE simplistic answers TODAY. It's all really about Psychology, cognitive closure, and ambiguity tolerance. Not mush else.

He refuses to define "exists" as in doing so he MUST invoke a temporal (space-time) reference, and that will defeat him, and he knows it, thus will never do it. Any "being" which never changes, (at all) cannot be said to "exist" or "be alive". Anything which changes, exists in (and REQUIRES) space-time, (unless you're as deluded as WLC, and posit "non-tensed" time.)

Kalam is really about a "proximate" (closest or "nearest") cause business.
Ask the theist : Q. "Is your deity omnipotent ?" A: "Of course".
Q. Then there is no reason your deity could not have created a race of robot universe makers, is there ?" a. "Um, no".

The fact is, it IS a trick question, and no one here is dumb enough to fall into the inevitable trap that we all know is coming.

Everything means everything. Except his Jebus god. We all know that's coming.

Begins to exist means begins to exist.
"Begins" in the absence of space-time is meaningless. It's the same as asking "What is the universe expanding into". "Begins to exist" is a meaningless set of letters, put into three words that have no coherent meaning content. They appear, without examination, to refer to something, that in fact has no meaning. A question here for a theists might be "Did your god intend to create the universe ?" There is only one possible answer, and it ends the discussion, (secondary to the time requirement).

Cause means cause.
That's part of the problem. The real question is where did Causality come from, and in fact "causality coming from" is just as meaningless as the statement above, for the same reason, (and actually others, ie how can a deity "cause" something if "causality" is not already in place".) If the deity "created" causality the time requirement ruins them here also, (or the creator exists in pre-existent Reality, and is thus not the creator of all things).

Existence means existence. These words are not technical terms, you do not have to have a degree to know what they mean. We use them quite regularly in ordinary conversation.

Actually they are very technical words. An examination of their actual linguistic content reveals how meaningless the entire discussion actually is.

Saying that everything needs a cause except the universe without giving a reason that is not circular is not helping you.
Nope. He can't stand the fact that we refuse to play the stupid child game according to the idiot rules that they taught him in Apologetics. He's lying by saying anyone has agreed to "everything needs a cause except the universe". No one has agreed to that. He's like a two-year old stomping his foot, demanding the game be played HIS way. I knew he was incapable of a real discussion. He spouts by rote the Apologetics he learned by rote. He is incapable of independent thought.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Bucky Ball's post
25-03-2014, 02:51 PM
RE: The JE Walker debates commentary thread
Jeremy: let's debate!
cljr: 'kay....
Jeremy: .....
cljr: yes?
Jeremy: X!
cljr: define what you mean.
Jeremy: go look it up. it doesn't take a degree to know what those mean.
cljr: I can't agree with X. You're not making sense.
Jeremy: Ha! you need to substantiate that claim or that's circular reasoning!
cljr: ....
Jeremy: *stands on the chessboard and preens his feathers* I win.
cljr: but your premise....



And that's my strawman for the day.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Charis's post
25-03-2014, 03:04 PM
RE: The JE Walker debates commentary thread
I don't know if it's cognitive dissonance, or if first-causers just can't fathom "before the universe" as anything but a black void with God floating in it, because null existence defies any potential experience.

In fact, we don't even know what exists outside the observable universe, and it's led to some pretty bizarre theories of what could exist outside.

http://io9.com/5799335/five-weird-theori...e-universe

Personally, I think these are bunk, but the Sci-Fi nerd in me still loves thinking about it.

“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
25-03-2014, 03:19 PM
RE: The JE Walker debates commentary thread
I ran a quick search and found that this "Jeremy" is also distinguishing him/herself in a like manner in other fora -- thought I'd drop a linkie in case anyone would like to gain a little more insight into it's "thought" processes....or get a few laughs...

http://www.christianforums.com/t7809399-8/#post65163283

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
25-03-2014, 03:22 PM
RE: The JE Walker debates commentary thread
(25-03-2014 02:51 PM)Charis Wrote:  Jeremy: *stands on the chessboard and preens his feathers* I win.


[Image: 20120622052737!Rofl.gif]

[Image: www.rofl.to_jew-jitsu.jpg]

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: