[split] Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-03-2014, 07:10 PM (This post was last modified: 22-03-2014 07:38 PM by Taqiyya Mockingbird.)
RE: [split] Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(22-03-2014 06:48 PM)Stevil 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.
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.








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.
Your rebuttal fails because WLC isn't building his argument on the assumption that science won't find the answer. He is logically showing,

No, he's not. He's using PSEUDOlogic.


Quote:given his premises as being true that the cause MUST have been outside of the universe, he merely labels that cause as "God".

[Image: snakeoil.jpg]


Don't try to piss on our shoes and tell us it's raining. He doesn't pull the "placeholder word" gawd out of a hat.

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
22-03-2014, 07:16 PM (This post was last modified: 22-03-2014 07:19 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: [split] Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
More meaningless drivel. "External" is a spatial reference. Spacetime exists ONLY in this universe as far as we know. To say "external" to space is like saying "South of the South Pole.". "Creation" (an ACTION) outside/before time is also just as meaningless.
(And WLC is supposed to be a "philosopher". No wonder he can't get a decent job. Hahahaha.)

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
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
22-03-2014, 07:17 PM
RE: [split] Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(22-03-2014 06:54 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(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.

Indeed. I've already dug up, cited and and posted the fucking video where Craig CALLS IT the "kalaam argument FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GAWD". Jeremy IdiotStick can find it for himself this time.

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, 07:22 PM
RE: [split] Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(22-03-2014 07:16 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  More meaningless drivel. "External" is a spatial reference. Spacetime exists ONLY in this universe as far as we know. To say "external" to space is like saying "South of the South Pole.". "Creation" (an ACTION) outside/before time is also just as meaningless.
(And WLC is supposed to be a "philosopher". No wonder he can't get a decent job. Hahahaha.)

[Image: 47558545.jpg]

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
22-03-2014, 07:31 PM (This post was last modified: 22-03-2014 07:43 PM by rampant.a.i..)
RE: [split] Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(22-03-2014 05:53 PM)Lightvader Wrote:  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?

The Kalam is another revision of Aristotle's Unmoved Mover argument, and as a such assumes the reasonable response to :. <the universe must have had a cause> is :. <God exists>.

While the argument does not support or directly conclude this, the only reason to flop out the KCA is to argue the universe required an intelligent creator.

The usual objections include:

We have never witnessed an entirely new thing come into being, all "new" things are combinations of previously existing matter :. We don't know the rules of causality prior to the universe, and there is no reason to conclude causality as currently witnessed currently is identical in the lack of the space/time continuum necessary to causality.

:. God is not a warranted conclusion. It requires special pleading, and the assumption that such a being with such special qualities exists previous to shoehorning it in as a cause for the universe. It's the ultimate Deus Ex Machina: Here's the "ideal" solution to an invented problem, never mind the assumptions and steps skipped to provide <my personal cosmic deity> as the cause of the universe.

“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
[+] 4 users Like rampant.a.i.'s post
23-03-2014, 12:04 AM (This post was last modified: 23-03-2014 12:19 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: [split] Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
Alright, looks the clean up crew is already in full swing. I have nothing more to add at the moment, other than a 'good job' all around. I'll still be here in case the situation changes.


Yeah... so... how about them Steelers? Drinking Beverage

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
23-03-2014, 12:58 AM
RE: [split] Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(22-03-2014 06:04 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  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.

Okay, so what if instead of just pony, we said "fabulous magical god-pony"? In that case, we can make up whatever attributes we need to in order for it to be completely copacetic with whatever argument you may have against it.

That's what you're doing, and it's just as stupid and disingenuous.

But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

~ Umberto Eco
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like evenheathen's post
23-03-2014, 02:05 AM
RE: [split] Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
Most of you appear to be confident in your views.

Anyone want to debate me on the Kalam?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-03-2014, 02:12 AM
RE: [split] Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(23-03-2014 02:05 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Most of you appear to be confident in your views.

Anyone want to debate me on the Kalam?

No. It's been done. Kalam lost a long time ago. Go away.

But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

~ Umberto Eco
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-03-2014, 02:18 AM
RE: [split] Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(23-03-2014 02:05 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Most of you appear to be confident in your views.

Anyone want to debate me on the Kalam?

Here's my statement of the argument:
1. The universe exists.
2. The universe had a beginning.
3. Therefore the universe was created in some way.
4. Therefore the universe was created by a creator i.e. an intelligent entity, the magical flying spaghetti monster.

Do you broadly agree with this statement of the argument or would you modify it in some way?

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: