The JE Walker debates commentary thread
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-03-2014, 10:11 AM (This post was last modified: 24-03-2014 10:35 AM by rampant.a.i..)
RE: The JE Walker debates commentary thread
I stand corrected. He just jumped the stupid shark and hit a stupid tree.

(24-03-2014 09:40 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(24-03-2014 09:30 AM)cjlr Wrote:  ... because things aren't assumed true by default.

It is fundamentally incoherent to apply contingent properties outside their context. To do otherwise is to presuppose the natural laws of the universe to have an existence external to the universe itself.

You are arguing in a circle. I asked why is the causal principle not applicable when it comes to the question of the universe's existence and you answered: it is fundamentally incoherent to apply the principle outside of its context.

All you have done is rephrased what you said earlier.

Why is it incoherent to maintain that the causal principle applies to the universe itself?

You have to answer this without arguing in a circle which you can't. You have no good reason for making the universe the exception to the principle besides the fact you beg the question that the universe is uncaused.

No you know why Schopenhauer labeled this reasoning as "the hack fallacy".

More burden reversal: Claims calling a circular argument circular is. . . Circular.

Still doesn't understand why causality would not exist previous to the space-time in which we observe causality.

Doesn't realize the accusation of begging the question by the stating universe began independent of causality applies to God as well.

Is straw-manning Cjr's position, when Cjr has repeatedly stated he does not know if the universe was caused or uncaused.

“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
[+] 3 users Like rampant.a.i.'s post
24-03-2014, 10:29 AM
RE: The JE Walker debates commentary thread
I've just spent some time going through the debates in the boxing ring and then reading this commentary thread and my conclusion is that Mr Walker is a one trick pony. I'm over him and moving on. Laugh out load

"The person who is certain, and who claims divine warrant for his certainty, belongs now to the infancy of our species." - Christopher Hitchens

"Remember kids, if you don't sin, then Jesus died for nothing. Have a great day!" - Ricky Gervais
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-03-2014, 11:53 AM
RE: The JE Walker debates commentary thread
(24-03-2014 10:29 AM)Eva Wrote:  I've just spent some time going through the debates in the boxing ring and then reading this commentary thread and my conclusion is that Mr Walker is a one trick pony. I'm over him and moving on. Laugh out load

Would that I'd been so fucking wise.

I saw where this was going before it started. At least we all got a few laughs out of the affair.

At least I won apologetics bingo.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
24-03-2014, 11:56 AM
RE: The JE Walker debates commentary thread
(24-03-2014 09:10 AM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  
(24-03-2014 09:04 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  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.

I like the part where I told him multiple times that a principle derived in certain conditions cannot be unilaterally generalised outside those conditions.

And then he just says "why?".

Like, that's literally all he's got.

cjlr: "Logic has rules".
JE: "why?"

Disingenuous fuck.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like cjlr's post
24-03-2014, 04:45 PM
RE: The JE Walker debates commentary thread
Oh, wait, the latest tactic is apparently...

(can you guess?)

Yes, that's right!
You can't prove it wrong!

Because that's how debates work. One side is correct by default and needn't establish their points, and the other side must accept them before beginning.

Yep.

This guy clearly knows his stuff.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
24-03-2014, 04:48 PM
RE: The JE Walker debates commentary thread
If I remember correctly (and it's possible that I do NOT), this is taught in the book I was talking about.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Charis's post
24-03-2014, 04:48 PM
RE: The JE Walker debates commentary thread
(24-03-2014 04:45 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Oh, wait, the latest tactic is apparently...

(can you guess?)

Yes, that's right!
You can't prove it wrong!

Because that's how debates work. One side is correct by default and needn't establish their points, and the other side must accept them before beginning.

Yep.

This guy clearly knows his stuff.

Well it is increasingly clear he has no idea how the argument he is supposed to be representing actually works. He just knows the steps by rote memorization, so when you question one of his steps he is unable and unwilling to explain the fundamental underpinnings of the argument because he doesn't know them or understand them 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
[+] 4 users Like Revenant77x's post
24-03-2014, 04:54 PM
RE: The JE Walker debates commentary thread
You two are just silly for jumping in there with him. Tongue

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like houseofcantor's post
24-03-2014, 04:55 PM
RE: The JE Walker debates commentary thread
(24-03-2014 04:54 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  You two are just silly for jumping in there with him. Tongue

That's why I told him to fuck off when he wanted me to waste my time with him. Laugh out load

(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
24-03-2014, 04:58 PM
RE: The JE Walker debates commentary thread
(24-03-2014 04:45 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Oh, wait, the latest tactic is apparently...

(can you guess?)

Yes, that's right!
You can't prove it wrong!
It's funny that in my "debate" he asserts that laws such as "conservation of energy" can't be assumed to apply outside the context of the universe.
Whereas in your "debate" he asserts that laws such as "causality" do apply outside of the universe.

We have both naturally converged on asking him to explain how he has knowledge of events and rules outside the universe.

There is no way to assess whether his premise is more plausible than its negation.

I expect that he believes in his premise because of Personal Incredulity and his argument is teleological because presumably he believes that if energy is eternal or requires no cause to exist then his god becomes redundant.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Stevil's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: