The JE Walker debates commentary thread
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-03-2014, 10:09 PM
RE: The JE Walker debates commentary thread
"If we go by the law of conservation of energy which states that energy cannot be created or destroyed then how can Jeremy assert that there is a cause for the creation of energy?"

The total energy of the universe is zero. (Gravity can have a negative energy).
I think your question can extend to the universe.

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
23-03-2014, 10:31 PM
RE: The JE Walker debates commentary thread
(23-03-2014 09:19 PM)Charis Wrote:  Ahhh, the lovely methods in Greg Koukl's book "Tactics" that AiG followers were often referred to....

I tried to see if it was available as .pdf (there was a site that appeared to have it, but looks like bullshit to me), but I simply refuse to buy a copy as that would be me putting bread on that son of a bitch's table.

Can you give us the tldr version?

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
23-03-2014, 11:13 PM (This post was last modified: 23-03-2014 11:26 PM by Charis.)
RE: The JE Walker debates commentary thread
Sure, though I will be going from memory for the moment (I have the book somewhere, but need to find it).

Most of it has to do with just asking questions, which in and of itself isn't necessarily a bad thing. Where it gets dumb is when the object becomes reversing the burden of evidence and almost ONLY asking questions which becomes very nagging and obnoxious when you are expected to answer and then told to go prove it.... and often not being allowed to ask questions yourself for any answers without being told that YOUR questions are just red herrings and to stay on topic. There's also their claim that the default position is the Bible because of popular belief over such a period of time in our culture, so any view asserting anything OTHER than Bible now bears the burden of proof. Steer a conversation with dodgy questions and call nearly all answers to said questions "truth claims" that they now have to go prove.

There's also the part in there about presenting just the cold, hard facts.... funny how that part seems to get overlooked in practice though...

A lot of it is like the Socratic Method. I think Koukl's is called his "Columbo Tactic."

At least one part of the book talks about having a discussion with an atheist even if you don't really know much by just making sure you're the one asking the questions and making THEM prove THEIR position. Because "remember, you're just asking. You've never actually claimed anything." Or something to that effect.

My suspicion is that Jeremy E Walker is acting as he is due to having studied this book, especially as he keeps using the term "truth claim" instead of just "claim," "assertion," etc. He continues using the specific term "truth claim" which is a term Greg Koukl's book revolves around, at least in part because a very common debate topic is the idea of absolute truth.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Charis's post
23-03-2014, 11:15 PM
RE: The JE Walker debates commentary thread
(23-03-2014 09:34 PM)cjlr Wrote:  How's your J.E. Walker misadventure going, Stevil?

I didn't want to cross-contaminate so I haven't been reading it so far.

I can only assume the worst.
Wink
It fizzled. Confused

We got stuck on premise 1.
I requested scientific references in support of his premise.
He stated "The first premise is not rooted in science at all, rather, it is a metaphysical principle."
then he said "Scientific methodology has no bearing on what constitutes a good philosophical argument for the existence of God"
Which got me all confused because our debate was about the universe having a cause. I don't know why he mentioned god all of a sudden. Angel
He also stated "Actually, this whole argument is a philosophical one with premises supported by scientific research."
I asked him to provide links to the supporting scientific research,
He told me to buy a $30 book...

It seems that it boils down to
"If the premises are more plausible than their negation..."
He doesn't seem to have to provide any proof or even try to convince me as to why it would be more plausible.
I guess it may work for those people whom already believe this nonsense.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Stevil's post
23-03-2014, 11:21 PM
RE: The JE Walker debates commentary thread
(23-03-2014 11:15 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(23-03-2014 09:34 PM)cjlr Wrote:  How's your J.E. Walker misadventure going, Stevil?

I didn't want to cross-contaminate so I haven't been reading it so far.

I can only assume the worst.
Wink
It fizzled. Confused

We got stuck on premise 1.
I requested scientific references in support of his premise.
He stated "The first premise is not rooted in science at all, rather, it is a metaphysical principle."
then he said "Scientific methodology has no bearing on what constitutes a good philosophical argument for the existence of God"
Which got me all confused because our debate was about the universe having a cause. I don't know why he mentioned god all of a sudden. Angel
He also stated "Actually, this whole argument is a philosophical one with premises supported by scientific research."
I asked him to provide links to the supporting scientific research,
He told me to buy a $30 book...

It seems that it boils down to
"If the premises are more plausible than their negation..."
He doesn't seem to have to provide any proof or even try to convince me as to why it would be more plausible.
I guess it may work for those people whom already believe this nonsense.

So what he's doing here is two things:
1. Requiring that the members here provide up-front substantiation for their "truth claims" which are usually only answers to his questions or refutations to what he provides as "evidence"
2. Requiring ALSO that the members now go HUNT DOWN AND PURCHASE the substantiations for HIS claims!


UGH
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Charis's post
23-03-2014, 11:23 PM
RE: The JE Walker debates commentary thread
(23-03-2014 10:09 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  "If we go by the law of conservation of energy which states that energy cannot be created or destroyed then how can Jeremy assert that there is a cause for the creation of energy?"

The total energy of the universe is zero. (Gravity can have a negative energy).
I think your question can extend to the universe.
Yes (gravitational potential energy = -ve), but that doesn't help us understand how to create energy. We would need to create energy and potential energy at the same time. I presume scientists haven't worked out how to do that yet.
But as luck would have it, Jeremy knows how to do it, he knows how to cause it to happen.

It is fascinating stuff. I am looking forward to him explaining it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-03-2014, 11:33 PM
RE: The JE Walker debates commentary thread
Whereas, had he read the book himself, he should have been able to summarize the arguments raised in it.

I've noticed that creationists like Drich often do this, and I wonder if it isn't a variation on the irrelevant conclusion fallacy. Sometimes it's in the form of copy-paste dumping text that is long, often complex, but may not actually address the question it supposedly answers.

Or in this case, a linked book Walker is aware no one is going to purchase and read before responding to the thread: he's provided himself an escape hatch to the tune of "well, if you don't want to take the time to understand my argument, you can't respond appropriately".

In actuality, he hasn't advanced a coherent argument, but has used a wall of text as a barrier against objections.

It's not "his argument," as he doesn't understand it well enough to present it.

And he assumes, rather smugly and arrogantly, that this has somehow "won" a debate: his opponent "backed down" form a response he never actually gave.

“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
23-03-2014, 11:39 PM
RE: The JE Walker debates commentary thread
[Image: pigeon.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Charis's post
23-03-2014, 11:55 PM
RE: The JE Walker debates commentary thread
It seems he started the presup and tried to bury it under plausible "facts" (which are only just assertions) as fast as possible so most people wont notice. Once called out he constructed strawmen of his opponent's arguments and sprinkled some condescension for good measure. Why do they always think speaking arrogantly will make their arguments more compelling? Good job cjlr and stevil for your patience and for increasing my awareness on the kalam cosmo and its weak points.

It seems they can never escape the need to fall back on special pleading. Tsk tsk tsk.


If you don't want a sarcastic answer, don't ask stupid questions. Drinking Beverage
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like ivaneus's post
24-03-2014, 12:56 AM
RE: The JE Walker debates commentary thread
(23-03-2014 11:55 PM)ivaneus Wrote:  It seems he started the presup and tried to bury it under plausible "facts" (which are only just assertions) as fast as possible so most people wont notice. Once called out he constructed strawmen of his opponent's arguments and sprinkled some condescension for good measure. Why do they always think speaking arrogantly will make their arguments more compelling? Good job cjlr and stevil for your patience and for increasing my awareness on the kalam cosmo and its weak points.

It seems they can never escape the need to fall back on special pleading. Tsk tsk tsk.

Because that is what every cosmological argument boils down to. They're all presuppositional, and they all require special pleading to conclude what they intend to.

They also rely heavily on causality, which as Cjr's assessment pointed out, is ridiculous to apply before causality existed.

This is why I loathe Alvin Plantinga. He uses dubious arguments like these, knowing they're intellectually dishonest, and presents them as foundations of what qualifies as knowledge, and
solutions to regress. At least William Lane Craig, the Gish that he is, admits what he's doing is semantic sleight of hand, to fool the average listener into accepting what "he already knows" to be "True".

“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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: