The JE Walker debates commentary thread
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-03-2014, 03:32 PM
RE: The JE Walker debates commentary thread
Well, Stevil, looks like we've both naturally converged on the same point.

An undefined and unsubstatiated "metaphysical" assertion is inadmissible and meaningless.

I predict with great confidence that in neither case will our special friend ever admit this.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like cjlr's post
27-03-2014, 05:31 PM
RE: The JE Walker debates commentary thread
In my thread: a man sitting at rock bottom starts digging.

We have now gone in a complete circle:
"X"
"Why?"
"YOU CAN'T PROVE IT WRONG"

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-03-2014, 06:39 PM
RE: The JE Walker debates commentary thread
Maybe I'm insane.
Definition
"Trying the same thing over and over but expecting a different result."

But I do assume that being a Christian the guy believes in the strength of "his" argument.

Of course I do also realise that the guy doesn't fully understand "his own" argument nor does he fully understand our objections to it.
He is clearly cutting and pasting from the ChristianForums site.

I don't mind if he is correct on something (at least I will have had the benefit of learning something).

It's annoying when he resorts to equivocation, because we point it out to him, he must know that he is doing it. No-one gains any value from playing stupid word games. Why does he resort to this?

I like that he has finally broken down premise 1 into three points. He posted the same thing on CJLR's thread as on mine.
Points 2 and 3 are clearly invalid. Point 2 is a logic disaster, point 3 fails on equivocation (regarding change events vs "begins to exist" events as well as equating observations within our observed universe and expectations of behaviors outside the confines of our universe). Maybe Jeremy can't see that, but this does provide an opportunity to point the issues out to him.

But point 1 is the major barrier to him being open to understanding the KCA flaws.
He likes the "Causality Principle" which he thinks is an axiom of science, just as he thinks "God exists" is an axiom of reality. I have found some webpages on Christian sites which try to put this principle on a (un)holy pedestal. So no doubt Jeremy's confirmation bias kicks in and tells him this is undeniable Truth. Thing is, with science, nothing is axiomatic undeniable Truth. All scientific laws and theories are open to being challenged, they must be falsifiable to even be considered as artifacts of the scientific method.

Jeremy's defense mechanism is that he believes the "Causality Principle" to be a philosophical Truth and he believes that to be stronger than science. He jumps into science and says reality must conform with the "Causality Principle" and then jumps out of science to say the "Causality Principle" does not suffer the same fate as scientific laws when considering "outside the universe".

What he forgets is that his premise must be supported by "information from observing the world around us", I feel he thinks that observation is unimportant because he is conditioned that theory is all that is required e.g. Theology.
In 3. he says "the first premise is constantly confirmed in our experience". But this is dishonest equivocation as we have never observed any "begins to exist" event. I don't think Jeremy even cares about 3. I don't think that he recognises that premises require support via observation.

What does interest me though, is human behaviour (in particular beliefs)
How in light of compelling evidence a person (such as Jeremy) will resort to logical fallacies, deflection or simply ignore stuff, in order to maintain their own beliefs.
As an observer I am often left wondering, is this person being intentionally dishonest, am I misunderstanding their position or are they really fooling themselves in this way?
My intuition tells me that they are being intentionally dishonest but my reasoning tells me they are truly fooling themselves.

I think this phenomena is amazing to observe first hand.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Stevil's post
27-03-2014, 06:47 PM (This post was last modified: 27-03-2014 07:03 PM by Taqiyya Mockingbird.)
RE: The JE Walker debates commentary thread
Quote:
You have written much, but have said very little.

You have already conceded that the principle obtains with regards to events happening within the universe.

Thus far you have furnished no reason why we should exempt the universe itself from this principle if it is shown to indeed come into existence.

Like this moron exempts its gawd from this principle.

Quote: I find it interesting you do not even use the common argument from quantum mechanics. I was ready to interact with that argument

Oh, look -- the moron tries to dangle a strawman and see if it can get a bite.


Quote:but you seem content to argue about definitions and about a principle so established in our experiences as humans as to be virtually undeniable

It refuses to define its terms because it cannot argue without equivocating and definition-swapping.

Sux for JEW to try to run a Three-Card Monte racket when everyone knows its game.

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
27-03-2014, 06:51 PM
RE: The JE Walker debates commentary thread
(27-03-2014 10:21 AM)Charis Wrote:  Taq, you were asking who had mentioned the taxicab fallacy or something? I found this. I don't know anything about the source, but this is what it says:

http://wickershamsconscience.wordpress.c...b-fallacy/
Snip:
Quote:The taxi cab fallacy is likely mis-attributed to German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer. It runs something like this:

“Science is not a taxi-cab that we can get in and out of whenever we like”

Borwen and Bailey used it recently in an otherwise well-written critique of some of our less logically rigorous politicians. There are a couple of problems with their usage. First, the cranky Schopenhauer likely never said anything of the kind. Second, it’s not really a fallacy, although it is a useful metaphor.


LOL well the point was, however, that it was JEW who introduced that idea here, before he ran away from the general forums. And he turns around and does the same thing he is trying to accuse us of -- switching back and forth betsween "metaphysical-ONLY" and claims that his assertions are science-and-evidence-based.

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
27-03-2014, 07:02 PM
RE: The JE Walker debates commentary thread
(27-03-2014 06:39 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Maybe I'm insane.
Definition
"Trying the same thing over and over but expecting a different result."

You and me both, brother.

(27-03-2014 06:39 PM)Stevil Wrote:  I like that he has finally broken down premise 1 into three points. He posted the same thing on CJLR's thread as on mine.
Points 2 and 3 are clearly invalid. Point 2 is a logic disaster, point 3 fails on equivocation (regarding change events vs "begins to exist" events as well as equating observations within our observed universe and expectations of behaviors outside the confines of our universe). Maybe Jeremy can't see that, but this does provide an opportunity to point the issues out to him.

Oh, would that that mattered...

(27-03-2014 06:39 PM)Stevil Wrote:  But point 1 is the major barrier to him being open to understanding the KCA flaws.
He likes the "Causality Principle" which he thinks is an axiom of science, just as he thinks "God exists" is an axiom of reality. I have found some webpages on Christian sites which try to put this principle on a (un)holy pedestal. So no doubt Jeremy's confirmation bias kicks in and tells him this is undeniable Truth. Thing is, with science, nothing is axiomatic undeniable Truth. All scientific laws and theories are open to being challenged, they must be falsifiable to even be considered as artifacts of the scientific method.

Jeremy's defense mechanism is that he believes the "Causality Principle" to be a philosophical Truth and he believes that to be stronger than science. He jumps into science and says reality must conform with the "Causality Principle" and then jumps out of science to say the "Causality Principle" does not suffer the same fate as scientific laws when considering "outside the universe".

And his "metaphysical" principle is informed by contingent interaction. Thus the composition fallacy.

(27-03-2014 06:39 PM)Stevil Wrote:  What he forgets is that his premise must be supported by "information from observing the world around us", I feel he thinks that observation is unimportant because he is conditioned that theory is all that is required e.g. Theology.
In 3. he says "the first premise is constantly confirmed in our experience". But this is dishonest equivocation as we have never observed any "begins to exist" event. I don't think Jeremy even cares about 3. I don't think that he recognises that premises require support via observation.

I wouldn't let him get away with that without defining begin and exist, which he manifestly cannot do.

You gave definitions for him, and let him bollocks them up.

Either way, he's apparently content to take the rope and hang himself.

(27-03-2014 06:39 PM)Stevil Wrote:  What does interest me though, is human behaviour (in particular beliefs)
How in light of compelling evidence a person (such as Jeremy) will resort to logical fallacies, deflection or simply ignore stuff, in order to maintain their own beliefs.
As an observer I am often left wondering, is this person being intentionally dishonest, am I misunderstanding their position or are they really fooling themselves in this way?
My intuition tells me that they are being intentionally dishonest but my reasoning tells me they are truly fooling themselves.

I think this phenomena is amazing to observe first hand.

It's a master class in cognitive dissonance, all right.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like cjlr's post
27-03-2014, 07:03 PM (This post was last modified: 27-03-2014 07:09 PM by Taqiyya Mockingbird.)
RE: The JE Walker debates commentary thread
"In light of the above we have good reason to consider the premise to be more plausibly true than its negation."

Beyond the constant strawmanning of the "not-x" case, how does this moron refuse to understand that his burden of proof is MUCH higher than the premise being MERELY "more plausibly true than (whatever)? Science and the real world don't work that way. We don't accept any proposition on the mere fact of it seeming "more plausible" than its converse or than another explanation. That's pure bullshit.




EDIT: I see that you called him on that, too, cjlr, I'm still catching up. Well done.


PS: That's something that Craig asserts, that his premises only have to be more plausible than their negation, BTW. Add "Moving the Goalposts" yet another time to the long, long, long, long, long list of his fallacies.

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
27-03-2014, 07:14 PM
RE: The JE Walker debates commentary thread
(27-03-2014 02:41 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  To suggest that things could just pop into being uncaused out of nothing is to quit doing serious metaphysics and to resort to magic.




"...<blah blah blah....>.....worse than magic..."


LMAO this is RICH!

The moron has NO CLUE that this "magic" he is scoffing at is THE VERY THING HE PROPOSES AS THE CAUSE OF THE UNIVERSE!



EVERYBODY, ALL TOGETHER!:

FacepalmFacepalmFacepalmFacepalmFacepalmFacepalmFacepalmFacepalmFacepalmFacepalmFacepalmFacepalmFacepalmFacepalmFacepalm
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-03-2014, 07:43 PM
RE: The JE Walker debates commentary thread
His more plausible idea is so laughable I am amazed he can put it forth with a straight face. Imagine if a court of law were to take that as evidence. No your Honor I did not murder that man I am merely one of 5.5 billion people it is far more plausible he killed himself.

(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
[+] 2 users Like Revenant77x's post
27-03-2014, 07:46 PM
RE: The JE Walker debates commentary thread
(27-03-2014 07:43 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  His more plausible idea is so laughable I am amazed he can put it forth with a straight face. Imagine if a court of law were to take that as evidence. No your Honor I did not murder that man I am merely one of 5.5 billion people it is far more plausible he killed himself.

I dunno, I think an even better foundation for trials is the ol, "you can't prove it wrong" strategy.

I mean, that's how law courts work, right? Assumed guilt unless otherwise proven?

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: