The JE Walker debates commentary thread
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-03-2014, 07:29 PM
RE: The JE Walker debates commentary thread
(26-03-2014 07:27 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Hang on, hang on.

CJLR did you tell him that the universe came into existence fully formed with stars and planets (and light in transit), and animals including rabbits with fur and twitchy noses busy eating fully formed carrots?

Quote:What you are proposing is that things like rabbits can just come into being without any cause or reason whatsoever.

and who said anything about a reason for existence? Which sly dog snuck that one in there?

Oh, yeah. Shit.

I didn't tell anyone, but if you take every seventh letter I typed in that thread and apply some Bible Code numerology, that's exactly what it spits out:
"I am 100% convinced the universe magically appeared out of nothing for no reason because I am scared of God and this is only way I can avoid recognizing His hand in creation".

Whoops! I didn't think anybody would notice. Clearly JE W is far more brilliant than I had supposed.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-03-2014, 08:46 PM
RE: The JE Walker debates commentary thread
For future reference...

When creating a 'commentary' thread, could the OP add a link to the actual debate thread.

Also, could the Mod who closes the actual Boxing Ring thread, add a link to the associated commentary thread.

In this case, I haven't seen St.Evil's debate thread so a link to that would also be useful for future retro purposes.

Cheers.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like DLJ's post
26-03-2014, 08:56 PM
RE: The JE Walker debates commentary thread
Stevil vs JEW

cjlr vs JEW

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Revenant77x's post
26-03-2014, 09:09 PM
RE: The JE Walker debates commentary thread
"The following was taken from a post of mine on another forum.

Premise 1

The Law of causality, which is the fundamental principle of science establishes premise one as true. Without the Law of Causality, science would be rendered impossible. Science is a search for causes blah blah blah..."


Soo just what forum did he copypaata this cookie-cutter ttripe from?

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
26-03-2014, 09:18 PM
RE: The JE Walker debates commentary thread
It's copied from a post that actually states the source: he's plagiarizing an article to pass off as his original thought.

"The Law of causality, which is the fundamental principle of science establishes premise one as true. Without the Law of Causality, science would be rendered impossible. Science is a search for causes. If we know anything about reality, it is that things don't happen without a cause.
Francis Bacon, the father of modern science says: "True knowledge is knowledge by causes."(The New Organon 1620; reprint, Indianapolis: Bobbs Merrill, 1960), 121

http://www.christianforums.com/t7719558/

If you put quotation marks around a block of text, Google is pretty good at finding it. Especially in forums.

“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
[+] 5 users Like rampant.a.i.'s post
26-03-2014, 09:55 PM
RE: The JE Walker debates commentary thread
(26-03-2014 08:56 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Stevil vs JEW

cjlr vs JEW

Thanks Rev.

Started reading it.

Lot's of Sciency stuff ... quotes and things ... in JEW's OP.

Suitably Sciency retorts from St.Evil.

Left dumb-struck on later reading...
(23-03-2014 06:08 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  ...
Bringing science up in this respect is simply irrelevant.
...

Cake and eat it!

Facepalm

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like DLJ's post
26-03-2014, 10:10 PM (This post was last modified: 26-03-2014 10:18 PM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: The JE Walker debates commentary thread
@ JE Walker

[Image: pwned.gif]

[Image: Haha%2BThou%2BPWNED.jpg]

Drinking Beverage

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
26-03-2014, 10:25 PM
RE: The JE Walker debates commentary thread
(26-03-2014 09:18 PM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  It's copied from a post that actually states the source: he's plagiarizing an article to pass off as his original thought.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7719558/
Elioenai26 is a much more intelligent, reasonable and honest person than how Jeremy presents himself.

Elioenai26 agrees off the bat that in context of the syllogism that "begins to exist" cannot be equivocated with rearrangement of previously existing stuff

Where-as Jeremy tells me that I began to exist Ohmy

Also Elioenai26 admits off the bat that there is no precedent for any scientific observation of a "begins to exist" event.

So if debating Elioenai26 instead of Jeremy we could quite quickly get beyond the silliness that Jeremy presents.

Elioenai26 suggests that quantum events such as quantum fluctuations are caused "For virtual particles do not literally come into existence spontaneously out of nothing. Rather the energy locked up in a vacuum fluctuates spontaneously in such a way as to convert into evanescent particles that return almost immediately to the vacuum. "

If this is true then it would indicate that this is a change event rather than a "begins to exist" event.

Elioenai26 then reasons that the Causal Principle still holds, but the flaw (as I see it in his logic) is that we still have no precedent with regards to a "begins to exist" event, we cannot assume that "begins to exist" events require a cause and we cannot assume that energy began to exist because the KCA proponent would need to first establish that the quantum vacuum did not exist prior to the big bang event.
Causal Principle is only a hint and cannot be held in the esteem (as if it is a verified physical law) that these apologists seem to hold it.

Seems to be a waste of time debating Jeremy he doesn't understand this stuff he stole from Elioenai26
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Stevil's post
26-03-2014, 10:29 PM (This post was last modified: 26-03-2014 11:03 PM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: The JE Walker debates commentary thread
(26-03-2014 09:18 PM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  It's copied from a post that actually states the source: he's plagiarizing an article to pass off as his original thought.

"The Law of causality, which is the fundamental principle of science establishes premise one as true. Without the Law of Causality, science would be rendered impossible. Science is a search for causes. If we know anything about reality, it is that things don't happen without a cause.
Francis Bacon, the father of modern science says: "True knowledge is knowledge by causes."(The New Organon 1620; reprint, Indianapolis: Bobbs Merrill, 1960), 121

http://www.christianforums.com/t7719558/

If you put quotation marks around a block of text, Google is pretty good at finding it. Especially in forums.

So that seals the deal, doesn't it? JE is nothing more than a useless, facile, copy-pasta-tard... Facepalm

Not that it wasn't obvious before this, but this is him getting caught with his hand in the cookie jar...

[Image: 37009148.jpg]

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
27-03-2014, 02:08 AM (This post was last modified: 27-03-2014 02:15 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: The JE Walker debates commentary thread
Here is somthing I came across and seemed tangentially related in lieu of the recent 'debates' here. Given JEW's propensity for copy-pasta, plagiarizing WLC's tripe, and selective metaphysical/supernaturalism.




This is Hector Avalos (Yes, that Hector Avalos) posting on the blog of John W. Loftus (yes, that John W. Loftus) on how Craig is himself a selective supernaturalist.

W. L. Craig as a Pick-and-Choose Supernaturalist: A Response to Travis James Campbell

Hector Avalos @ Debunking Christianity Wrote:About a year ago, I began a series of responses to Dr. Travis Campbell, who wrote a critique (“Avalos contra Craig” = ACC) of my chapter on the historical Jesus in The End of Biblical Studies. See abbreviated Google version of the book.

Three posts were planned to address three issues that I had raised about William Lane Craig’s defense of the historicity of the resurrection. As Campbell (ACC, p. 290) summarizes my arguments:

A. Craig has misused C. Behan McCullagh’s criteria [for the resurrection];
B. a case can be made for the apparitions of Mary using McCullagh’s criteria (thus, we have a disproof by counterexample); and
C. Craig is a selective supernaturalist.


I addressed the first issue here. The second issue is addressed here.

The debate between myself and W. L. Craig is found here.

This post discusses how Craig is a selective supernaturalist insofar as his attack on methodological naturalism betrays an appeal to supernaturalism only for events he favors and not because of the application of some consistent criterion.

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: