The JE Walker debates commentary thread
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-03-2014, 01:43 AM
RE: The JE Walker debates commentary thread
(23-03-2014 07:10 PM)Monster_Riffs Wrote:  ...
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.
...




Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like DLJ's post
24-03-2014, 03:20 AM
RE: The JE Walker debates commentary thread
I hafta chuckle whenever Bucky corrects someone else's grammar. Tongue

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like houseofcantor's post
24-03-2014, 07:20 AM (This post was last modified: 24-03-2014 07:25 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: The JE Walker debates commentary thread
"Saying that the metaphysical principle applies only to events within the universe but not of the universe is unjustified question begging."

So he's admitting he lost the debate, and has nothing. Dude has had his ass handed to him on a silver platter, yet STILL continues to throw out this bullshit, which has been utterly destroyed. Apparently he can't read. It not "question begging". There is no question being begged. He's just too stupid to get the perfectly reasonable answer he's been given, and is unable to refute it, thus must resort to doing EXACTLY what he is complaining about.

"Petitio Principii: (circular reasoning, circular argument, begging the question) in general, the fallacy of assuming as a premise a statement which has the same meaning as the conclusion. The least convincing kind of petitio principii is the repetition of the same words in the same order in both premise and conclusion."

Dude was UNABLE to define his terms in the premise, then disingenuously (obviously a dishonest student of the dishonest WLC) asserted that which was NEVER stated or agreed in the premises. The only "question" that's begged, is : "Why is dicipulis JE Walker's deity so fucking retarded it needs idiots like this to defend it."

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
[+] 6 users Like Bucky Ball's post
24-03-2014, 07:24 AM
RE: The JE Walker debates commentary thread
(24-03-2014 03:20 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  I hafta chuckle whenever Bucky corrects someone else's grammar. Tongue

I ain't gonna talk ta non a yous no morz. Drinking Beverage

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
24-03-2014, 08:15 AM
RE: The JE Walker debates commentary thread
(23-03-2014 11:15 PM)Stevil Wrote:  It fizzled. Confused

We got stuck on premise 1.

Gee, go figure.
Dodgy

(23-03-2014 11:15 PM)Stevil Wrote:  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."

Ah! Yeah, he gave up on substantiating it for me, too, and eventually just said "nuh-uh it's metaphysical therefore my intuition is sufficient attestation".

Which is a joke. So good on him for providing a laugh!

(23-03-2014 11:15 PM)Stevil Wrote:  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

Yes, he told me "atheists" were afraid to say the universe had "a cause". But he couldn't out and say why ("THE CAUSE IS GAWD!") because I was pretty rigorous in specifying what was and what wasn't part of the discussion...

(23-03-2014 11:15 PM)Stevil Wrote:  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...

Well, that's dishonest claptrap.

If he can't simply explain it to you, having presumably already read that book, he doesn't understand it. Tell him that!

(23-03-2014 11:15 PM)Stevil Wrote:  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.

That was his latest flailing attempt with me, too.

Because he apparently doesn't understand that if the assumptions underlying a premise are invalid then those same assumptions must underlie its contrary, which is then also invalid.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like cjlr's post
24-03-2014, 08:47 AM
RE: The JE Walker debates commentary thread
(24-03-2014 08:36 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  I see you need help in staying focused and on track here so I am going to help you.

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence.

Why do you believe that the negation of the above proposition i.e. not everything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence is more plausible than everything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence?

If you need help, let me know.

The only response to this is "Why do you? If you need help understanding why an uncaused cause is special pleading, let me know."

WOW. He just effectively ignored the entire debate Cjr just had with him, and reset it by restating the flawed first premise. Wow!

What an intellectually dishonest slime bucket, he couldn't respond to a single objection directly. WOW.

“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
[+] 1 user Likes rampant.a.i.'s post
24-03-2014, 08:55 AM
RE: The JE Walker debates commentary thread
Pathetic that this loser is trying to move the goalposts by waving this "metaphysics vs science" red herring around.



BTW this "taxicab fallacy" bullshit is apolotard bullshit. It is NOT a fallacy.

http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?t...ab_Fallacy

The Taxi-Cab Fallacy is a complaint lodged by Christians apologists against one style moral objections to biblical authority. It is not a logical fallacy, and has no formal expression. In cases where the skeptic is inquiring into the moral reasoning of the apologist, it is not appropriate to refer to any move made by the skeptic as "fallacious." Fallacies can only occur within the context of an argument, and unless the skeptic is asserting propositions, it is impossible for the skeptic to make an argument that is fallacious.

It is asserted in the form of a metaphor from which the argument gets its name:
Street Apologetics: "The “Taxi-Cab Fallacy” is committed when one hops in and assumes a certain system of thought or worldview in an attempt to make a particular point but then jumps out of the system of thought when it suits their fancy. Such practice lacks logical consistency and is therefore a logical fallacy. A detractor of the Christian worldview cannot hop into the Christian system of thought by erecting an objection grounded in the Bible and then demand an answer be given without the use of a Bible. Again, they cannot appeal to the Bible in raising their question and then insist we throw our Bible out of the equation when we give an answer!"

The concern raised by this argument is the assertion that there can be a challenge to Biblical views, particularly on ethics, where the skeptic challenges the apologist to appeal to a source other than the Bible. If the skeptic, for example, makes a challenge as to whether it was right for Abraham to go up to the mountain to sacrifice Isaac and the apologist asserts that it was not wrong, because he was commanded to do it by God, then the skeptic's challenge has been sufficiently answered.

However, the apologist is only justified in the case that they have fallen on one side of the Euthyphro dilemma already. If the apologist has asserted that "something is good because God commands it," then they are allowed to use the assertion that God commanded it to establish that it is good. They do not need an external frame of reference. If the apologist asserts, instead, that "God commands it because it is good" then the skeptic is fully justified in asking for an external referent, because the claim that the act in question was good should be the case based on a factor totally independent of God's command. The apologist is obliged to offer that argument in its defense.
Commitments of Divine Command Theory

It is not unreasonable for the skeptic to challenge the commitments of divine command theory by engaging hypothetical situations (whether based on the Bible or otherwise) in order to demonstrate that the system that it creates is not desirable. While this is an intuitionist appeal in ethics, and not one that demonstrates the incoherence of divine command theory, it is generally regarded as a strong appeal. For example:
Skeptic: Well, if G [God] asserts that you ought to rape your son with a wine bottle, then it follows from (1) that the deontic statement is true. Is it the case that, per (2) raping someone with a wine bottle is intrinsically ethically good?

This differs from the Euthyphro dilemma in that it already assumes that the apologist has asserted that "something is good because God commands it" and then attempts to establish whether or not the command is over some intrinsic property of the action. The basis of this move is to demonstrate that the system of 'divine command theory' is arbitrary, because the ethical values of actions are dependent on the decisions made by a moral agent; God.

In a way, this common formulation of a skeptical objection to divine command theory is a bit misleading. It is an attempt to get the apologist to contradict herself by asserting that there is an intrinsic ethical property when there cannot be, because this is an arbitrary system. The more genuine articulation is this:
Skeptic: If G asserts that you ought to rape your son with a wine bottle, then it follows from (1) that you ought to rape your son with a wine bottle. Is that the case?

This is an attempt to get the skeptic to violate a strong ethical intuition. It is not a formal objection to the argument. After all, if the apologist is committed to this strong view of divine command theory, then there can be nothing logically contradictory about the assertion.



Just like every other apolotard,, you guys have got to fact-check every assertion this asshole throws out.

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
[+] 2 users Like Taqiyya Mockingbird's post
24-03-2014, 09:07 AM
RE: The JE Walker debates commentary thread
(24-03-2014 08:55 AM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  Pathetic that this loser is trying to move the goalposts by waving this "metaphysics vs science" red herring around.



BTW this "taxicab fallacy" bullshit is apolotard bullshit. It is NOT a fallacy.

http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?t...ab_Fallacy

The Taxi-Cab Fallacy is a complaint lodged by Christians apologists against one style moral objections to biblical authority. It is not a logical fallacy, and has no formal expression. In cases where the skeptic is inquiring into the moral reasoning of the apologist, it is not appropriate to refer to any move made by the skeptic as "fallacious." Fallacies can only occur within the context of an argument, and unless the skeptic is asserting propositions, it is impossible for the skeptic to make an argument that is fallacious.

It is asserted in the form of a metaphor from which the argument gets its name:
Street Apologetics: "The “Taxi-Cab Fallacy” is committed when one hops in and assumes a certain system of thought or worldview in an attempt to make a particular point but then jumps out of the system of thought when it suits their fancy. Such practice lacks logical consistency and is therefore a logical fallacy. A detractor of the Christian worldview cannot hop into the Christian system of thought by erecting an objection grounded in the Bible and then demand an answer be given without the use of a Bible. Again, they cannot appeal to the Bible in raising their question and then insist we throw our Bible out of the equation when we give an answer!"

The concern raised by this argument is the assertion that there can be a challenge to Biblical views, particularly on ethics, where the skeptic challenges the apologist to appeal to a source other than the Bible. If the skeptic, for example, makes a challenge as to whether it was right for Abraham to go up to the mountain to sacrifice Isaac and the apologist asserts that it was not wrong, because he was commanded to do it by God, then the skeptic's challenge has been sufficiently answered.

However, the apologist is only justified in the case that they have fallen on one side of the Euthyphro dilemma already. If the apologist has asserted that "something is good because God commands it," then they are allowed to use the assertion that God commanded it to establish that it is good. They do not need an external frame of reference. If the apologist asserts, instead, that "God commands it because it is good" then the skeptic is fully justified in asking for an external referent, because the claim that the act in question was good should be the case based on a factor totally independent of God's command. The apologist is obliged to offer that argument in its defense.
Commitments of Divine Command Theory

It is not unreasonable for the skeptic to challenge the commitments of divine command theory by engaging hypothetical situations (whether based on the Bible or otherwise) in order to demonstrate that the system that it creates is not desirable. While this is an intuitionist appeal in ethics, and not one that demonstrates the incoherence of divine command theory, it is generally regarded as a strong appeal. For example:
Skeptic: Well, if G [God] asserts that you ought to rape your son with a wine bottle, then it follows from (1) that the deontic statement is true. Is it the case that, per (2) raping someone with a wine bottle is intrinsically ethically good?

This differs from the Euthyphro dilemma in that it already assumes that the apologist has asserted that "something is good because God commands it" and then attempts to establish whether or not the command is over some intrinsic property of the action. The basis of this move is to demonstrate that the system of 'divine command theory' is arbitrary, because the ethical values of actions are dependent on the decisions made by a moral agent; God.

In a way, this common formulation of a skeptical objection to divine command theory is a bit misleading. It is an attempt to get the apologist to contradict herself by asserting that there is an intrinsic ethical property when there cannot be, because this is an arbitrary system. The more genuine articulation is this:
Skeptic: If G asserts that you ought to rape your son with a wine bottle, then it follows from (1) that you ought to rape your son with a wine bottle. Is that the case?

This is an attempt to get the skeptic to violate a strong ethical intuition. It is not a formal objection to the argument. After all, if the apologist is committed to this strong view of divine command theory, then there can be nothing logically contradictory about the assertion.



Just like every other apolotard,, you guys have got to fact-check every assertion this asshole throws out.

You too can be as retarded as JE Walker.
http://www.thebestschools.org/rankings/t...ologetics/
I'm almost tempted to apply to and start a class at Biola, just for shits and giggles.

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
24-03-2014, 09:10 AM
RE: The JE Walker debates commentary thread
(24-03-2014 09:04 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(24-03-2014 08:43 AM)cjlr Wrote:  I grant the premise (and have already told you I grant it) for observable interaction within the confines of the known, i.e. post-Big Bang, universe.

It cannot be assumed under any other conditions. That is facetious and inadequate. It cannot be generalised to any other conditions. That is shallow and fallacious.

Please learn to logic.

Your argument against premise one is that it obtains only with respect to events within the universe but once we get to the question of the universe itself, it is no longer applicable.

Why?

I don't know if it's possible to will yourself to become this stupid, unless you simply don't read objections to your points.

“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
24-03-2014, 09:32 AM
RE: The JE Walker debates commentary thread
(24-03-2014 09:07 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(24-03-2014 08:55 AM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  Pathetic that this loser is trying to move the goalposts by waving this "metaphysics vs science" red herring around.



BTW this "taxicab fallacy" bullshit is apolotard bullshit. It is NOT a fallacy.

http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?t...ab_Fallacy

The Taxi-Cab Fallacy is a complaint lodged by Christians apologists against one style moral objections to biblical authority. It is not a logical fallacy, and has no formal expression. In cases where the skeptic is inquiring into the moral reasoning of the apologist, it is not appropriate to refer to any move made by the skeptic as "fallacious." Fallacies can only occur within the context of an argument, and unless the skeptic is asserting propositions, it is impossible for the skeptic to make an argument that is fallacious.

It is asserted in the form of a metaphor from which the argument gets its name:
Street Apologetics: "The “Taxi-Cab Fallacy” is committed when one hops in and assumes a certain system of thought or worldview in an attempt to make a particular point but then jumps out of the system of thought when it suits their fancy. Such practice lacks logical consistency and is therefore a logical fallacy. A detractor of the Christian worldview cannot hop into the Christian system of thought by erecting an objection grounded in the Bible and then demand an answer be given without the use of a Bible. Again, they cannot appeal to the Bible in raising their question and then insist we throw our Bible out of the equation when we give an answer!"

The concern raised by this argument is the assertion that there can be a challenge to Biblical views, particularly on ethics, where the skeptic challenges the apologist to appeal to a source other than the Bible. If the skeptic, for example, makes a challenge as to whether it was right for Abraham to go up to the mountain to sacrifice Isaac and the apologist asserts that it was not wrong, because he was commanded to do it by God, then the skeptic's challenge has been sufficiently answered.

However, the apologist is only justified in the case that they have fallen on one side of the Euthyphro dilemma already. If the apologist has asserted that "something is good because God commands it," then they are allowed to use the assertion that God commanded it to establish that it is good. They do not need an external frame of reference. If the apologist asserts, instead, that "God commands it because it is good" then the skeptic is fully justified in asking for an external referent, because the claim that the act in question was good should be the case based on a factor totally independent of God's command. The apologist is obliged to offer that argument in its defense.
Commitments of Divine Command Theory

It is not unreasonable for the skeptic to challenge the commitments of divine command theory by engaging hypothetical situations (whether based on the Bible or otherwise) in order to demonstrate that the system that it creates is not desirable. While this is an intuitionist appeal in ethics, and not one that demonstrates the incoherence of divine command theory, it is generally regarded as a strong appeal. For example:
Skeptic: Well, if G [God] asserts that you ought to rape your son with a wine bottle, then it follows from (1) that the deontic statement is true. Is it the case that, per (2) raping someone with a wine bottle is intrinsically ethically good?

This differs from the Euthyphro dilemma in that it already assumes that the apologist has asserted that "something is good because God commands it" and then attempts to establish whether or not the command is over some intrinsic property of the action. The basis of this move is to demonstrate that the system of 'divine command theory' is arbitrary, because the ethical values of actions are dependent on the decisions made by a moral agent; God.

In a way, this common formulation of a skeptical objection to divine command theory is a bit misleading. It is an attempt to get the apologist to contradict herself by asserting that there is an intrinsic ethical property when there cannot be, because this is an arbitrary system. The more genuine articulation is this:
Skeptic: If G asserts that you ought to rape your son with a wine bottle, then it follows from (1) that you ought to rape your son with a wine bottle. Is that the case?

This is an attempt to get the skeptic to violate a strong ethical intuition. It is not a formal objection to the argument. After all, if the apologist is committed to this strong view of divine command theory, then there can be nothing logically contradictory about the assertion.



Just like every other apolotard,, you guys have got to fact-check every assertion this asshole throws out.

You too can be as retarded as JE Walker.
http://www.thebestschools.org/rankings/t...ologetics/
I'm almost tempted to apply to and start a class at Biola, just for shits and giggles.


"Biola prioritizes transforming collegiate education in America by placing its graduates in prestigious PhD programs around the country."


Great. More Wedge bullshhit.

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: