The On Guard Conference video answers
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
30-09-2012, 09:42 PM
RE: The On Guard Conference video answers
(30-09-2012 09:30 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  
(30-09-2012 09:11 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Yup. He could not deal with the question. Interesting.
He kept confusing himself talking about the universe, which is not what was asked.
He was clearly suprised by the Special Pleading part of the question, and still just exempted himself from answering it. It's about Linguistic integrity. If the words actually mean something in the English language, they can't, for their won instance, redefine them for their special case, and expect anyone to take the argument seriously.

In his defense, he did say, and I paraphrase, "I can't cover that bet."



I'm a mofo evangelical atheist in that, I don't know shit (cept my Gwynnies), and I can make allowances for those who back away from the ledge of the absolute. Undecided

(won instance. Dammit Bucky, encouraging the grammar nazi in moi.)

oops. I didn't notice that. I do know better than that. Weeping
Edit : I had already fixed 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
01-10-2012, 12:41 AM
RE: The On Guard Conference video answers
BTW, on YouTube, the comment sections are all disabled. Clearly they want no discussion, or back-talk.

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
01-10-2012, 03:04 PM
RE: The On Guard Conference video answers
(01-10-2012 12:41 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  BTW, on YouTube, the comment sections are all disabled. Clearly they want no discussion, or back-talk.

I noticed that too... Dodgy

“What you believe to be true will control you, whether it’s true or not.”

—Jeremy LaBorde
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-10-2012, 08:53 AM
RE: The On Guard Conference video answers
Instead of asking "How does it work?", you should have asked them "How do you know that?". As you can clearly see, asking the first question allowed them to make up all kind of woo without having to give you any evidence whatsoever.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-10-2012, 09:35 AM
RE: The On Guard Conference video answers
Dammit, Vos! Please stop taking the thoughts out of my head.

I was thinking... shame no follow-up question i.e. where is your evidence or is it just opinion?

Ideas,
I think you look like a young Hugh Laurie and I didn't detect any nervousness.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-10-2012, 09:36 AM
RE: The On Guard Conference video answers
OK, I admit I haven't quite followed all these arguments between creationists and, um, whatever it is you call people who follow reality...

But, they (the creationists) seem to keep coming back to god creating the universe outside space and time, before time, however that's possible, and they just accept that at face value. They claim it's not special pleading.

The way I understand the big bang, and I could be completely misinterpreting it, is that time itself (as we know it) started at that moment, so there really is no such thing as "before", before the big bang.
But tell them that, and they insist there must be a cause, there must be a "before", without time there wouldn't be a bang because there'd be no before/after cause/effect, etc etc etc....
Can't apply that to god though, because he's "special".

Is it just me, or is that totally two-faced?
I mean, either things can occur outside space and time, or they can not. Makes no difference if it's a god, a big bang, or a pile of al dente spaghetti, correct?

[Image: 21omssh.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes LostLocke's post
02-10-2012, 09:51 AM (This post was last modified: 02-10-2012 11:28 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: The On Guard Conference video answers
(02-10-2012 09:36 AM)LostLocke Wrote:  OK, I admit I haven't quite followed all these arguments between creationists and, um, whatever it is you call people who follow reality...

But, they (the creationists) seem to keep coming back to god creating the universe outside space and time, before time, however that's possible, and they just accept that at face value. They claim it's not special pleading.

The way I understand the big bang, and I could be completely misinterpreting it, is that time itself (as we know it) started at that moment, so there really is no such thing as "before", before the big bang.
But tell them that, and they insist there must be a cause, there must be a "before", without time there wouldn't be a bang because there'd be no before/after cause/effect, etc etc etc....
Can't apply that to god though, because he's "special".

Is it just me, or is that totally two-faced?
I mean, either things can occur outside space and time, or they can not. Makes no difference if it's a god, a big bang, or a pile of al dente spaghetti, correct?

That's the least of it. Ask them "is your god sentient". Sentient is "processing information" THAT requires time. Is their god "reasonable ?". Reason is a process. Is their god "just" ? Justice requires "weighing of evidence".
What you call "two-faced" is right on ! It's more formally, expressed as "linguistic integrity" and "good-faith".
(BTW Dawkins called Cardinal Pell out on this point last year, in their debate in Australia).
The argument, (usually Kalam), THEY offer, and start/initiate, as a Logical Syllogism, and say, (or imply) that that is a way to arrive at truth.
Then, at the end of THEIR syllogism, exempt their god from the syllogism, with NO REASON for doing so, (and that is "Special Pleading),....

but it's actually more.

It's an attempt to, disingenuously, redefine the meanings of words. Words either mean what we agree, a prioi, they mean, or they don't. If they want to redefine (words), they have to get the request for redefinition, and agreement out on the table BEFORE the argument, and provide the reason for doing so. The don't.
Next, the exemption from the process of the syllogism, at the end, is evidence of entering into it in "bad faith". They KNEW they were going to exempt their god from THEIR syllogism before they started down the steps. So why then enter the syllogism, at all, in the first place ?
It's an attempt to "appear" to use Logic, even though, in the end, they really don't.
It's attempted "sleight of hand", or Sophistry. It's trickery. It's an attempt to pull a fast one.
It's called "intellectual dishonesty".

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
02-10-2012, 10:24 AM (This post was last modified: 02-10-2012 02:28 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: The On Guard Conference video answers
Here's some classic Habermas.

OMF'nG.
This is a PhD in history from Michigan State University. I see why he ended up at Liberty, as no reputable institution would take him.
He says doubt is emotional, not cognitive.
He says the "data" is the content of his belief system.




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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: