[split] Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-03-2014, 06:23 AM
[split] Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(16-05-2012 05:42 AM)Zephony Wrote:  One variation of this argument is William Lane Craig's (WLC) Kalam Cosmological Argument. It states that:
  1. Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence;
  2. The universe has a beginning of its existence;
  3. The universe has a cause of its existence.
Of course WLC concludes that since the universe has a cause, it must have been God.

This is incorrect. WLC does not conclude that since the universe has a cause, it must have been God.

(16-05-2012 05:42 AM)Zephony Wrote:  This is by far one of the more difficult arguments to counter. I guess the best response would be that we currently don't have the answer, but that doesn't mean science won't figure it out, and just because it's currently unknown doesn't mean God did it.

Why would that be the best response? It seems to me one must presuppose metaphysical naturalism and methodological naturalism to come to that conclusion. In fact, why consider the question of the origin of the universe to be a scientific question at all?

(16-05-2012 05:42 AM)Zephony Wrote:  Lawrence Krauss has been publicizing the idea of "A Universe From Nothing." Basically, quantum fluctuations which pop in and out of existence account for most of the mass and energy, and yes, scientifically, something can come from nothing.

Something can come from nothing? How? Is this what one must believe in order to deny theism?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-03-2014, 07:39 AM (This post was last modified: 22-03-2014 07:44 AM by Taqiyya Mockingbird.)
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(22-03-2014 06:23 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(16-05-2012 05:42 AM)Zephony Wrote:  One variation of this argument is William Lane Craig's (WLC) Kalam Cosmological Argument. It states that:
  1. Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence;
  2. The universe has a beginning of its existence;
  3. The universe has a cause of its existence.
Of course WLC concludes that since the universe has a cause, it must have been God.

This is incorrect. WLC does not conclude that since the universe has a cause, it must have been God.


WRONG. WLC doesn't call it the fucking kalam argument for the existence for the fucking Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Quote:
(16-05-2012 05:42 AM)Zephony Wrote:  This is by far one of the more difficult arguments to counter. I guess the best response would be that we currently don't have the answer, but that doesn't mean science won't figure it out, and just because it's currently unknown doesn't mean God did it.

Why would that be the best response? It seems to me one must presuppose metaphysical naturalism and methodological naturalism to come to that conclusion.

That's not a presupposition. Magic talking fucking snakes IS.

Quote: In fact, why consider the question of the origin of the universe to be a scientific question at all?


Demonstrating that you don't have a fucking clue what science IS.

Quote:
(16-05-2012 05:42 AM)Zephony Wrote:  Lawrence Krauss has been publicizing the idea of "A Universe From Nothing." Basically, quantum fluctuations which pop in and out of existence account for most of the mass and energy, and yes, scientifically, something can come from nothing.

Something can come from nothing? How? Is this what one must believe in order to deny theism?

I am not convinced of <something can come from nothing>. All you have to do to dismiss theism is to not believe in fucking fairy tales.

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
22-03-2014, 04:59 PM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(22-03-2014 07:39 AM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  WRONG. WLC doesn't call it the fucking kalam argument for the existence for the fucking Flying Spaghetti Monster.

The person to whom I was speaking stated that WLC concludes that the cause argued for in the Kalam must be God.

This is incorrect. He argues via a conceptual analysis of said cause, that the cause of the universe is more plausibly a personal Creator who is uncaused, without beginning, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and unimaginably powerful.

The above is not equivalent to saying God must have caused the universe, but rather, the point is that the most plausible explanation is that God created the universe. He does not intend to offer some sort of epistemic certainty which would be unreasonable to even attempt.

On the contemporary scene philosophers such as Stuart Hackett, David Oderberg, Mark Nowacki, and others have defended the kalam cosmological argument, which by the way is referred to simply as the Kalam Cosmological Argument.

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-new-a...z2wjbVxuFX

(22-03-2014 07:39 AM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  That's not a presupposition. Magic talking fucking snakes IS.

Metaphysical naturalists presuppose that:

1. All that exists owes its existence to naturalistic mechanisms acting on matter.

But this is an assumption. How could scientists prove this assertion?

(22-03-2014 07:39 AM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  Demonstrating that you don't have a fucking clue what science IS.

Science broadly defined is (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe. - Wikipedia

(22-03-2014 07:39 AM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  I am not convinced of <something can come from nothing>.

Good.

(22-03-2014 07:39 AM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  All you have to do to dismiss theism is to not believe in fucking fairy tales.

Really. Then by this reasoning, I dismiss theism. But surely that cannot be, since I am a theist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-03-2014, 05:53 PM
RE: [split] Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
Welcome.
You won't have to expect an answer from the OP,he has been inactive for some time.

I have not watched WLC for a long time,so i might be wrong,
the kalam cosmological argument on it's own does not conclude that a god created the universe,but WLC does conclude that with additional arguments, but the additional arguments are worthless without the kalam argument. I cannot recall the exact arguments he uses to conclude that it must have been god who did it,so i will look into it.I also don't think zephonys counter is the best. Usually,i would say something like

we do not know what or who caused the big bang,if it even had to be caused,because some models seem to point that time started with the big bang,and to cause something requires a timephase.
To say god did it because we dont know is equally credible as saying a pony did it
And even if a god did do it,how do you know that it was the god you worship? How do you know it was not allah,thor,zeus,ghanesh,shiva or any other god?

I don't really like going outside.
It's too damn "peopley" out there....
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-03-2014, 06:04 PM
RE: [split] Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(22-03-2014 05:53 PM)Lightvader Wrote:  we do not know what or who caused the big bang,

Why do you say that?


(22-03-2014 05:53 PM)Lightvader Wrote:  if it even had to be caused,because some models seem to point that time started with the big bang,

The Standard Model which is the model that is seen to be the best as far as explaining the data we have calls for an absolute beginning of all matter, all energy, and even the space-time manifold itself.



(22-03-2014 05:53 PM)Lightvader Wrote:  and to cause something requires a timephase.

What reference or argument or evidence or support do you have for that assertion?



(22-03-2014 05:53 PM)Lightvader Wrote:  To say god did it because we dont know

That is not what the proponent of the Kalam argues.

(22-03-2014 05:53 PM)Lightvader Wrote:  is equally credible as saying a pony did it

A pony could not have created all matter. A pony is an animal. An animal is a corporeal entity consisting of matter. A material animal could not have created all matter for it would have had to exist before all matter existed in order to create all matter.

(22-03-2014 05:53 PM)Lightvader Wrote:  And even if a god did do it,how do you know that it was the god you worship? How do you know it was not allah,thor,zeus,ghanesh,shiva or any other god?

We would look at the available evidence and scrutinize it and come to a conclusion.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-03-2014, 06:40 PM
RE: [split] Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(22-03-2014 04:59 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(22-03-2014 07:39 AM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  WRONG. WLC doesn't call it the fucking kalam argument for the existence for the fucking Flying Spaghetti Monster.

The person to whom I was speaking stated that WLC concludes that the cause argued for in the Kalam must be God.

What part of He doesn't call it the kalaam argument for the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster do you fail to understand.


Quote:This is incorrect. He argues via a conceptual analysis of said cause, that the cause of the universe is more plausibly a personal Creator who is uncaused, without beginning, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and unimaginably powerful.

Look, fool, your disingenuous bullshit isn't going to cut it here. He isn't arguing for the existence of the islamic deity. And ARGUMENTS ARE NOT EVIDENCE in any case.


Quote:The above is not equivalent to saying God must have caused the universe, but rather, the point is that the most plausible explanation is that God created the universe.

No, it is not the most "plausible" explanation, not by a long shot.

Quote: He does not intend to offer some sort of epistemic certainty which would be unreasonable to even attempt.

Yes, he does, and yes, it is.

Quote:On the contemporary scene philosophers such as Stuart Hackett, David Oderberg, Mark Nowacki, and others have defended the kalam cosmological argument, which by the way is referred to simply as the Kalam Cosmological Argument.


Who gives a flying fuck.

Quote:Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-new-a...z2wjbVxuFX

No fucking way. And your "faith" isn't reasonable at all. Fuck WLC's website nd fuck you.



Quote:
(22-03-2014 07:39 AM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  That's not a presupposition. Magic talking fucking snakes IS.

Metaphysical naturalists presuppose that:

NO, they don't PRESUPPOSE anything. Naturalism is accepted because it works. Your magical fairy-story "explanations" don't.


Quote:1. All that exists owes its existence to naturalistic mechanisms acting on matter.

Citation needed.



Quote:But this is an assumption. How could scientists prove this assertion?

No, it's not an assumption, especially on the order of your assumptions of magical bullshit.

Quote:
(22-03-2014 07:39 AM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  Demonstrating that you don't have a fucking clue what science IS.

Science broadly defined is (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe. - Wikipedia

(22-03-2014 07:39 AM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  I am not convinced of <something can come from nothing>.

Good.

(22-03-2014 07:39 AM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  All you have to do to dismiss theism is to not believe in fucking fairy tales.

Really. Then by this reasoning, I dismiss theism. But surely that cannot be, since I am a theist.

It's called cognitive dissonance. Learn to think for yourself instead of believing fairy stories your pastorpimp tells you.

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
22-03-2014, 06:44 PM
RE: [split] Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(22-03-2014 06:04 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  That is not what the proponent of the Kalam argues.

Yes, it IS, and WLC calls it the "kalaam argument for the existence of gawd", so STFU, liar.



Quote:
(22-03-2014 05:53 PM)Lightvader Wrote:  is equally credible as saying a pony did it

A pony could not have created all matter. A pony is an animal. An animal is a corporeal entity consisting of matter. A material animal could not have created all matter for it would have had to exist before all matter existed in order to create all matter.

You make up YOUR bullshit story, and LV can make up his/hers. Your Gawd can't create matter, because it is a made up fairy story.



Quote:
(22-03-2014 05:53 PM)Lightvader Wrote:  And even if a god did do it,how do you know that it was the god you worship? How do you know it was not allah,thor,zeus,ghanesh,shiva or any other god?

We would look at the available evidence and scrutinize it and come to a conclusion.

Yes, because you fucking idiots are just LOADED with evidence for your imaginary fairy-tale monster. Hobo

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
22-03-2014, 06:45 PM
RE: [split] Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(22-03-2014 06:04 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(22-03-2014 05:53 PM)Lightvader Wrote:  we do not know what or who caused the big bang,

Why do you say that?
Quote:because we have no method at this time to know what happened before the big bang.
If you mean why i mentioned it,then it is because the additional arguments are usually absent,they simply conclude that the cause must've been god.

(22-03-2014 05:53 PM)Lightvader Wrote:  if it even had to be caused,because some models seem to point that time started with the big bang,

The Standard Model which is the model that is seen to be the best as far as explaining the data we have calls for an absolute beginning of all matter, all energy, and even the space-time manifold itself.

Quote:wich was created with the big bang ,correct?



(22-03-2014 05:53 PM)Lightvader Wrote:  and to cause something requires a timephase.

What reference or argument or evidence or support do you have for that assertion?

Quote:a.to cause something means there was something before and after that wich has been caused
b.before and after are concepts of time
c.therefore,if time started with the big bang,we cannot speak of causation

but then again,since it is only an if,it might not be valid



(22-03-2014 05:53 PM)Lightvader Wrote:  To say god did it because we dont know

That is not what the proponent of the Kalam argues.

Quote:i remember vaguely that he used that,but like i said,i haven't watched WLC in a long time,so i might be wrong, i'll watch hoe wlc constructs his argument, and might change it.

(22-03-2014 05:53 PM)Lightvader Wrote:  is equally credible as saying a pony did it

A pony could not have created all matter. A pony is an animal. An animal is a corporeal entity consisting of matter. A material animal could not have created all matter for it would have had to exist before all matter existed in order to create all matter.


Quote:not if that pony was spaceless and timeless Tongue
and i assume by this that you mean that your god is not consisting of matter,wich then makes me ask how something not consisting of matter can affect something of matter
also,you do know that was just a snarkly comment,right?

(22-03-2014 05:53 PM)Lightvader Wrote:  And even if a god did do it,how do you know that it was the god you worship? How do you know it was not allah,thor,zeus,ghanesh,shiva or any other god?

We would look at the available evidence and scrutinize it and come to a conclusion.
what available evidence? Also,evidence of what?
Quote:

I don't really like going outside.
It's too damn "peopley" out there....
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Lightvader's post
22-03-2014, 06:48 PM (This post was last modified: 22-03-2014 06:54 PM by Stevil.)
RE: [split] Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(16-05-2012 05:42 AM)Zephony Wrote:  One variation of this argument is William Lane Craig's (WLC) Kalam Cosmological Argument. It states that:
  1. Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence;
  2. The universe has a beginning of its existence;
  3. The universe has a cause of its existence.
Of course WLC concludes that since the universe has a cause, it must have been God.
WLC concludes that something external to the universe must have created the universe he conveniently labels that something as "God".
Just think of the word as a label rather than with the definition people often ascribe to the label.

(16-05-2012 05:42 AM)Zephony Wrote:  This is by far one of the more difficult arguments to counter. I guess the best response would be that we currently don't have the answer, but that doesn't mean science won't figure it out, and just because it's currently unknown doesn't mean God did it.
Your rebuttal fails because WLC isn't building his argument on the assumption that science won't find the answer. He is logically showing, given his premises as being true that the cause MUST have been outside of the universe, he merely labels that cause as "God".

There are actually two significant problems with the cosmological argument probably due to philosophers who don't have much interest in science.
1. The premise that the universe began to exist is incorrect.
Scientists know that the expansion of our observable universe had a beginning (about 14 billion years ago). But they don't know what was around prior to that. It cannot be ruled out that prior to the big bang there was energy and/or matter.
To be clear, the big bang marks the beginning of the expansion, it does not necessarily mark the beginning of the universe.
Given this, then WLC's argument falls over as it cannot logically be used to come to a conclusion out of necessity.

2. It is not true that everything that begins to exist had a cause for its existence. Cause and effect are a Macro level concept. At the micro level (quantum physics) its about probabilities rather than cause and effect. It has been proven that things pop into existence, it is an extremely common event.
Given this, then WLC's argument falls over as it cannot logically be used to come to a conclusion out of necessity.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-03-2014, 06:54 PM (This post was last modified: 22-03-2014 07:11 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: [split] Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(22-03-2014 06:23 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  This is incorrect. WLC does not conclude that since the universe has a cause, it must have been God.

Then you never watched him spout his Kalam argument bullshit. It's not the "most plausible" anything. What appears to humans to be "plausible" (double-slit, Uncertainty, Relativity) has been proven NOT to be Reality works.

(16-05-2012 05:42 AM)Zephony Wrote:  Why would that be the best response? It seems to me one must presuppose metaphysical naturalism and methodological naturalism to come to that conclusion. In fact, why consider the question of the origin of the universe to be a scientific question at all?

Nice try at evasion. WHAT sort of question do you THINK it is. There is no evidence for anything other than what is "natural". If you have some, let's see it. Now. Otherwise, there IS no other sort of question to ask about the origin of the universe. What is "natural" is the domain of science to inquire about. "Metaphysics" is ancient woo-woo bullshit. There is not a shred of evidence for anything "metaphysical".

(16-05-2012 05:42 AM)Zephony Wrote:  Something can come from nothing? How? Is this what one must believe in order to deny theism?

Nope. The sentence is without meaning. "Coming from" requires space-time IN PLACE already. It's a meaningless string of words.

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: