The JE Walker debates commentary thread
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-03-2014, 07:11 PM (This post was last modified: 23-03-2014 07:15 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: The JE Walker debates commentary thread
(23-03-2014 07:09 PM)Baruch Wrote:  Recall - even "the potential for a universe" is something ! So it is utter nonsense to say there is nothing at the beginning and magically came something.

God does not solve anything in answering these questions but on the contrary stops further investigation, science and questioning by creating a mystery forbidden to question.

Exactly. A prior "reality" is still presumed.
The premises are unexamined.

" 'Naive physical intuition' is not substantiation."
Indeed. But a very enlightening, ruinous admission.

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
23-03-2014, 07:13 PM
RE: The JE Walker debates commentary thread
(23-03-2014 07:04 PM)Baruch Wrote:  The reason why atheists reject the concept of God in relation to the above arguments about "something cannot come from nothing" is because the Kalam cosmological argument (which is what your hinting at) has many flaws and fallacies - some of which I mentioned above.
Sticking God at the beginning really doesn't solve anything and just compounds mystery with more mystery + contradictions. Exclamation

I wouldn't even mind it very much of it were only used by strict deists; recourse to deism being not precisely a bad idea so much as it is a useless one, what with there being no reason besides cosmic narcissism to suppose "an agent possessing volition" as somehow explaining anything, and no reason besides laziness to suppose that agent needn't itself be explained...

No, the problem is the WLC-shithead types whose MO is thus:
1) assert deism
2) ???
3) conclude Christianity
4) Profit!!

Fuck that noise. How that isn't immediately obvious as a transparent and vacuous dodge to everyone is an endlessly fascinating psychological question.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like cjlr's post
23-03-2014, 07:14 PM
RE: The JE Walker debates commentary thread
I love the assumptions Jeremy is making!

Onward, my faithful steed!
[Image: ezgif-save_zps4d93a674.gif?t=1395781443]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Crulax's post
23-03-2014, 07:17 PM
RE: The JE Walker debates commentary thread
(23-03-2014 07:10 PM)Monster_Riffs Wrote:  I am not well versed in physics but reading cjlr's arguments, I am getting my head around what he is saying in a layman's way.

It will help me to get it more coherently, if I bounce it of you sciency kids in here.

I am hearing it like this.

1. All things we know and understand exist within a box.
2. The box is called the universe.
3. Time, cause and effect exist inside the box.
4. Outside of the box we have no idea if any of these principles apply, or need to apply.

That's what I'm getting from cjlr's position.

The new kid.

1. 2. 3. Same.
4. Can't bend my mind around cjlr's point 4, so I will assume our box simply belongs inside a bigger box which follows the exact same rules as our aforementioned smaller box.

Is this about right?

Well, yeah. I did just write this:
(23-03-2014 06:09 PM)cjlr Wrote:  The premises of the cosmological argument are predicated on an extremely shallow and naive cosmology - that "the universe" is a sort of box, within which certain rules apply - and that there is such a thing as "before" and "outside" the universe, which is just like a slightly bigger box within which all the same rules apply...

Tongue

(23-03-2014 07:10 PM)Monster_Riffs Wrote:  If so, does this not bring about a Russian doll style infinite regression problem?

Not as such if one merely asserts the larger box. That's an anti-explanation, but not regressive.

It is regressive if one asserts some actor as being responsible for anything, because the logical knots one ties attempting to maintain the premises for the "universe" without needing to apply them to the "external agent" are akin to running a footrace by tying one's shoes together.

(23-03-2014 07:10 PM)Monster_Riffs Wrote:  I'm looking forward to the 'therefore because God, specifically the Abrahamic God' bit. I can see it coming, as I'm sure we all can, that's going to take some comedic mental gymnastics!

Popcorn

Now, now. He did say he was specifically limiting himself to cosmological arguments.

But since he's already gone for the "you're just asserting empirical naturalism" as a dodge, I think we can safely say there's more bullshit coming down the line.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like cjlr's post
23-03-2014, 07:22 PM
RE: The JE Walker debates commentary thread
I just read the "taxi-cab" fallacy (Christians LOVE that one), he no doubt was taught to use in a pinch.

"Yes it is because you arbitrarily make the universe itself an exception to the principle without justification, thus committing the taxicab fallacy. In fact you do it again here".

Which is totally false. Dude knows NOTHING about Physics, and his problem is becoming more apparent. There is no "principle" being violated here. Space-time exists (until proven otherwise) as dimensions ONLY in this universe. Walker's ignorance is seriously astounding, and truly amazing he has never considered these matters.

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
23-03-2014, 07:25 PM
RE: The JE Walker debates commentary thread
(23-03-2014 07:17 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(23-03-2014 07:10 PM)Monster_Riffs Wrote:  I am not well versed in physics but reading cjlr's arguments, I am getting my head around what he is saying in a layman's way.

It will help me to get it more coherently, if I bounce it of you sciency kids in here.

I am hearing it like this.

1. All things we know and understand exist within a box.
2. The box is called the universe.
3. Time, cause and effect exist inside the box.
4. Outside of the box we have no idea if any of these principles apply, or need to apply.

That's what I'm getting from cjlr's position.

The new kid.

1. 2. 3. Same.
4. Can't bend my mind around cjlr's point 4, so I will assume our box simply belongs inside a bigger box which follows the exact same rules as our aforementioned smaller box.

Is this about right?

Well, yeah. I did just write this:
(23-03-2014 06:09 PM)cjlr Wrote:  The premises of the cosmological argument are predicated on an extremely shallow and naive cosmology - that "the universe" is a sort of box, within which certain rules apply - and that there is such a thing as "before" and "outside" the universe, which is just like a slightly bigger box within which all the same rules apply...

Tongue

(23-03-2014 07:10 PM)Monster_Riffs Wrote:  If so, does this not bring about a Russian doll style infinite regression problem?

Not as such if one merely asserts the larger box. That's an anti-explanation, but not regressive.

It is regressive if one asserts some actor as being responsible for anything, because the logical knots one ties attempting to maintain the premises for the "universe" without needing to apply them to the "external agent" are akin to running a footrace by tying one's shoes together.

(23-03-2014 07:10 PM)Monster_Riffs Wrote:  I'm looking forward to the 'therefore because God, specifically the Abrahamic God' bit. I can see it coming, as I'm sure we all can, that's going to take some comedic mental gymnastics!

Popcorn

Now, now. He did say he was specifically limiting himself to cosmological arguments.

But since he's already gone for the "you're just asserting empirical naturalism" as a dodge, I think we can safely say there's more bullshit coming down the line.

Thanks for that, I will post in here when I feel lost off, for clarification if that's cool. Yeah, I saw the box thing again just after I posted Big Grin

Oh, and if it takes him more than a week to play his theist cards, I will accept a forfeit that our illustrious forum members choose as fitting! ... I'm that confident! Drinking Beverage

A man blames his bad childhood on leprechauns. He claims they don't exist, but yet still says without a doubt that they stole all his money and then killed his parents. That's why he became Leprechaun-Man

Im_Ryan forum member
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Monster_Riffs's post
23-03-2014, 07:45 PM
RE: The JE Walker debates commentary thread
(23-03-2014 07:24 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(23-03-2014 07:08 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Define nothing. Define metaphysical.

And then provide some substantiation for the claim. "Naive physical intuition" is not substantiation.

To rebut your baseless assertions requires precisely as much evidence as you provide for them - none.

I find it quite revealing, quite telling, that you would go to such great lengths to deny something so undeniable.

I am learning more about the psychology of atheists the more I dialogue with them.

For you to sit up here and really try to cast doubt on something so undeniable as the principle of causation is amazing. The only reason you are doing this is because this is an argument about the existence of something that created the universe.

If it were anything else you would gladly agree that premise one is at least more plausible than its negation.

So tell me, since you disagree with premise one, tell me, why do things like bicycles, and cars, and houses, and people not just pop into existence uncaused?

Why is it that everywhere we see an effect, we see a cause for it? Without ceasing. You cannot even furnish one example of something coming into existence without a cause and yet you adamantly deny this premise!!!!Facepalm

I am utterly astonished that one who would appear to be so smart could be so willfully blind.

Apparently he's too stupid to grasp the difference between pre-causality and items being created out of existent matter as CJR clearly laid out toward the beginning of the debate.

Creating a bicycle within a universe using the physical, temporal properties within a universe is clearly not the same thing as creating the universe.

And again, we see the usual theist dodge of
"How can something be created from nothing?" when what their position actually states is:

<An all-powerful being exists>
<That all-powerful being exists independent of causation; i.e., outside and unrestrained by the temporal and spatial sphere>
<This all-powerful being that has always existed and has no cause created everything from nothing by willing it into existence>
<This being is none other than my personal interpretation of the Judeo-Christian God, despite the same creation story appearing in Hinduism 1000 some-odd years earlier>
<All biblical claims about God listed here>
<Therefore the Abrahamic God exists>

Because something cannot come from nothing unless my God wills it to

“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
[+] 2 users Like rampant.a.i.'s post
23-03-2014, 08:02 PM
RE: The JE Walker debates commentary thread
Don't break him cjlr I want to play with him after you're done!

Onward, my faithful steed!
[Image: ezgif-save_zps4d93a674.gif?t=1395781443]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Crulax's post
23-03-2014, 08:04 PM
RE: The JE Walker debates commentary thread
"If the universe is eternal in the past, then how are we here at this point in time?
If you can answer that then you deserve a cookie."

Um...Jebus done it. Now gimme my cookie already. Facepalm Weeping

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
[+] 3 users Like Bucky Ball's post
23-03-2014, 08:06 PM
RE: The JE Walker debates commentary thread
(23-03-2014 08:02 PM)Crulax Wrote:  Don't break him cjlr I want to play with him after you're done!

I think it's stevil's turn next.

I can guarantee that our exchange will have taught him nothing, so you'll certainly be able to take your turn soon enough!

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: