The JE Walker debates commentary thread
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-03-2014, 08:03 PM
RE: The JE Walker debates commentary thread
(27-03-2014 07:46 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(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?

Well that is how it works in most of the world.

(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
27-03-2014, 08:23 PM
RE: The JE Walker debates commentary thread
(27-03-2014 07:03 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  "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.

One of my professors was talking about black holes today, and it reminded me of this moron's debate.
1. If we can see and know about 4% of the "stuff" this universe is comprised of, (we don't "see" or know anything about Dark Energy and Dark Matter), then to postulate we know anything "fundamental", or make generizations about the ultimate nature of reality at this point, (including JEW's causation crap), is just a *little* premature.
2. An observer far away, looking at something "falling into" (ie "at") the event horizon of a singularity, sees what appears to be time stopping. Someone can actually "fall into" one very briefly, before getting "spagettifed". So "reality" depends totally on the position in spacetime, of whom one is speaking about. Reality is not changed. The experience of it (in this universe) ultimately depends on one's position in spacetime. So...there is no "ONE" *absolute* position, (to generalize from). (We already knew that from relativity).
3. JEW is claiming there IS one "view" that's absolute. Science has proven him wrong. But I'm sure he doesn't get it. Little Billy Craig never mentioned THAT in Apologics for Dummies.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
27-03-2014, 08:26 PM
RE: The JE Walker debates commentary thread
(27-03-2014 08:03 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(27-03-2014 07:46 PM)cjlr Wrote:  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?

Well that is how it works in most of the world.

Indeed.

The explicit principle goes back to the code of Justinian. All common law and most civil law codes reaffirm the principle.

Practice may of course differ. But the large majority of the world lives in states where rule of law may be said to prevail...

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-03-2014, 04:35 AM
RE: The JE Walker debates commentary thread
(27-03-2014 06:39 PM)Stevil Wrote:  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.

I'd say that he is fooling himself. It's amazingly easy to do. You have an emotional urge towards an action and then justify it afterwards. In cases like this though the emotional urge comes from not wanting to be wrong in your faith and all the consequences that would entail. But you can't justify that to yourself so you need to find some other explanation.

With a normal person this will lead to some niggling uncomfortable doubts at the back of their mind. It's a lot easier to fool yourself if you are arrogant and cannot envisage being wrong (a common trait of theist trolls).

So their responses may seem weak even to themselves, but not as uncomfortable as the possibility of being wrong.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Mathilda's post
28-03-2014, 06:32 AM
RE: The JE Walker debates commentary thread
Seeing as we're having fun on bashing WLC and JEW's inability to comprehend anything that's been written or that he's copy-pasting, here is a breakdown of WLC's 'work' on special relativity. You know, in case you had any doubts about who to believe, a crank philosopher or the entire field of physicists. Also WLC cops out to having 'profound knowledge' of relativity, which is eerily similar to JEW's special pleading. Weeping




[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like EvolutionKills's post
28-03-2014, 07:26 AM (This post was last modified: 28-03-2014 07:39 AM by Taqiyya Mockingbird.)
RE: The JE Walker debates commentary thread
(27-03-2014 05:31 PM)cjlr Wrote:  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"

That's because what HE heard was:
"X".
"Y".

(where "Y" == "not-X").


Hobo

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
28-03-2014, 08:54 AM
RE: The JE Walker debates commentary thread
"You began to exist x number of years ago. Here the x would represent your age. This is an example."

Dude never heard of Relativity, (just as we thought).
http://www.science20.com/count_infinity/...u_know_how

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
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
28-03-2014, 11:03 AM
RE: The JE Walker debates commentary thread
Quote:Not only have you constructed a strawman of premise one, you have still failed to give a reason why the universe itself is an exception to the causal principle.

Here's the deal.

You tell me about god. Tell me what he smells like or what he looks like. Tell me what he likes for breakfast, or if he prefers Jennifer Anniston over Angelina Jolie.

Describe to me what condition his condition is in. Tell me how his physical presence is imbued with our reality, or how our reality came from his.

Tell me anything at all about god that doesn't stem from your book of crazy stories and we'll talk about how plausible it is that a god created it from nothing. (disregarding reductio ad absurdum)

When you have anything even close to evidence about the natural qualities of pre-big bang existence of energy, we'll talk about theories. Until then you can shut the fuck up about your "logical conclusions" and assumptions.

But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

~ Umberto Eco
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like evenheathen's post
28-03-2014, 11:07 AM
RE: The JE Walker debates commentary thread
(27-03-2014 06:51 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  
(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:


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.


Ohhh, ok. I kinda misunderstood what you were saying (obviously). Tongue

But yeah, he does have a bit of a double-standard thing happening on that.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Charis's post
28-03-2014, 11:15 AM
RE: The JE Walker debates commentary thread
In the debate thread, you are pointing things out to him that he said. He seems to be saying, to several things,"no I didn't" or "that's not what happened."

You might need to provide quotes of where it happened with included context for him and everyone who's watching.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: