The JE Walker debates commentary thread
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-03-2014, 03:31 PM
RE: The JE Walker debates commentary thread
(25-03-2014 02:51 PM)Charis Wrote:  cljr:
(25-03-2014 02:51 PM)Charis Wrote:  cljr:
(25-03-2014 02:51 PM)Charis Wrote:  cljr:

Angry

But actually that was entirely accurate.

Tongue

... 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, 03:56 PM
RE: The JE Walker debates commentary thread
It's both amusing watching one trick pony Jezza playing metaphysical twister and educational learning about physics. Me learning that is not Jez, he's too busy la la la-ing.

[Image: not-listening-otter-meme.jpg]

"The person who is certain, and who claims divine warrant for his certainty, belongs now to the infancy of our species." - Christopher Hitchens

"Remember kids, if you don't sin, then Jesus died for nothing. Have a great day!" - Ricky Gervais
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Eva's post
25-03-2014, 03:57 PM
RE: The JE Walker debates commentary thread
On the way out but wanted to jot a quick note -- cjlr has touched on this some but I don't recall anyone ever enunciating it entirely:

When someone says "everything that BEGINS TO EXIST has a cause", they are adding "begins to exist" for a reason. They can't say "everyrhing that exists", because the deity they are trying to prove would "exist" as well, and they lose their Special Pleading option if they include it. They would have to explain how it was caused to exist. So they say "Begins to exist" -- but as cjlr has pointed out, we aren't talking about a chair, which "begins to exist" as a chair when it is assembled out of various materials, we are really talking about *conjuring*. For teh universe to "begin to exist" in this context, it would have to be *conjured* out of nothing (by an entity/whatever).

So proponents of this "premise" are arguing "something comes from nothing", even as they strawman their opponents as believers in "something from nothing".

Out of time but wanted to throw this out for consideration.

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
[+] 5 users Like Taqiyya Mockingbird's post
25-03-2014, 04:00 PM
RE: The JE Walker debates commentary thread
(25-03-2014 03:57 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  On the way out but wanted to jot a quick note -- cjlr has touched on this some but I don't recall anyone ever enunciating it entirely:

When someone says "everything that BEGINS TO EXIST has a cause", they are adding "begins to exist" for a reason. They can't say "everyrhing that exists", because the deity they are trying to prove would "exist" as well, and they lose their Special Pleading option if they include it. They would have to explain how it was caused to exist. So they say "Begins to exist" -- but as cjlr has pointed out, we aren't talking about a chair, which "begins to exist" as a chair when it is assembled out of various materials, we are really talking about *conjuring*. For teh universe to "begin to exist" in this context, it would have to be *conjured* out of nothing (by an entity/whatever).

So proponents of this "premise" are arguing "something comes from nothing", even as they strawman their opponents as believers in "something from nothing".

Out of time but wanted to throw this out for consideration.

Didn't I cover that? Not so explicitly, I grant - there are so many problems to cover before that one!

(23-03-2014 07:48 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Fourth - it does not follow that "something" other than the universe has "always" existed, even ignoring the problems with defining either of those terms. If one can conceive of a naively infinite temporal regress, one can conceive of a naively infinite causal regress. Do you understand this?

... 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, 04:01 PM
RE: The JE Walker debates commentary thread
(25-03-2014 03:31 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(25-03-2014 02:51 PM)Charis Wrote:  cljr:
(25-03-2014 02:51 PM)Charis Wrote:  cljr:
(25-03-2014 02:51 PM)Charis Wrote:  cljr:

Angry

But actually that was entirely accurate.

Tongue

LMAO.


To be fair, I had to double-check, because it's rather indistinct on my monitor because of the font.

C-J-L-R it is.

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
25-03-2014, 04:07 PM
RE: The JE Walker debates commentary thread
(25-03-2014 03:57 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  On the way out but wanted to jot a quick note -- cjlr has touched on this some but I don't recall anyone ever enunciating it entirely:

When someone says "everything that BEGINS TO EXIST has a cause", they are adding "begins to exist" for a reason. They can't say "everyrhing that exists", because the deity they are trying to prove would "exist" as well, and they lose their Special Pleading option if they include it.
But then he is left with the obligation to show that energy began to exist.
Which he hasn't done.

And he tries to get away with his philosophical "Causation premise", demanding that it requires no scientific substantiation. Then he goes about his merry way trying to confuse conflate this "Causation premise" with Newton's laws. He is trying to have his cake and eat it too.

Science has never proven how energy can be created, science has not shown that it requires a cause. On the quantum level most science is about known probabilities rather than cause and effect. The early universe is micro (quantum) level, atoms did not exist in the early universe.

I often wonder if these people believe in KCA or if they are merely interested in showing off their "debating" skills. He quickly resorts to disingenuous techniques so I don't think he believes in his own argument.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Stevil's post
25-03-2014, 04:21 PM
RE: The JE Walker debates commentary thread
(25-03-2014 04:07 PM)Stevil Wrote:  I often wonder if these people believe in KCA or if they are merely interested in showing off their "debating" skills. He quickly resorts to disingenuous techniques so I don't think he believes in his own argument.

Well - my assumption for fundies is this:

He presupposes the conclusions. He gives zero shits how he winds up there.

... 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, 05:41 PM
RE: The JE Walker debates commentary thread
If he has truly run out of things to new things to say, this is rapidly going to become much less entertaining.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-03-2014, 05:42 PM
RE: The JE Walker debates commentary thread
Cjlr, man that looks rough. So far it's five or so pages of him trying to shift the burden of proof and accuse you of circular reasoning when you don't fall for it. So far as I can tell, there is no more content from him then that.

Here's what you do: make a new thread that asserts something that you can't back up. I don't care what it is. Maybe "God doesn't exist". Give the two premises "No one has verifiably seen God, and everything verifiable has been verified" and conclude "God doesn't exist". Then, sit back and declare that he has to disprove your two premises before you'll budge and refuse to admit any burden of proof on your own part.

I think he deserves it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RobbyPants's post
25-03-2014, 05:45 PM
RE: The JE Walker debates commentary thread
I notice that Walker's most obtuse, simplistic statements where he demonstrates that he has not understood anything you've said, are 'Liked' by dildo97.

Amusing, that.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: