[split] Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-03-2014, 03:52 PM (This post was last modified: 23-03-2014 04:11 PM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: [split] Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(23-03-2014 02:38 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(23-03-2014 01:41 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  Being that existence exists, there is just as much reason to think that it always has existed rather than complicate things by positing a supernatural creator for which there is no evidence.
It seems to me this is aimed at denying that the most plausible cause of the universe is a supernatural creator.

A supernatural creator, that itself now needs to be explained in addition to the universe. Occams razor bitch. It is not the most plausible because all it does is add extra unnecessary assumptions in comparison to other possible explanations.


(23-03-2014 02:38 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Your reasoning seems to be, and correct me if I do err, that since existence exists or rather "just is", that we should just conclude that the universe just is and has always been. Thus there is no need to posit a creator.

Assuming the universe has always existed makes less assumptions than positing that it was created by a creator. Given that we have no evidence one way or another, the idea that makes the fewest assumptions will be more probable; in this case assuming the universe has always existed rather than being created by a supernatural creator.


(23-03-2014 02:38 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  If this is your reasoning, then this is not aimed at denying that the most plausible cause of the universe is a supernatural creator at all! It is actually aimed at denying premise two of the argument.

All you need to determine that a supernatural creator is less probable than an eternal universe is math and an understanding of probability; both of which you seem to lack.


(23-03-2014 02:38 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  But why think that in light of the findings of current cosmologists that the premise: "The universe began to exist" is not more probable than its negation "The universe did not begin to exist"?

False dichotomy and strawman. We have evidence back to the inflation, but once you hit the planck scale, it's all theoretical. There are many possibilities here, including both creation and being eternal. Even if it was created, what would be the cause? If could just be a part of underlying laws we simply do not yet understand, it might be a part of the makeup of a multiverse, it might have been created by a sufficiently advance natural alien intelligence. There are far more than just two choices here, and the more assumptions you make, the less probable your idea is.


(23-03-2014 02:38 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Even on a cursory examination of the evidence for premise two one could not reasonably conclude that the universe is eternal.

Except that premise two is not a fact. You're jumping the gun there...


(23-03-2014 02:38 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  So it seems to me that premise two enjoys a wealth of support (both scientific and philosophic) and thus the proponent is justified in maintaining that premise two is more probable than its negation which is all that is needed for the premise to obtain.

You suck at probability, and you're once again using a false dichotomy and strawman.

Also, what you you doing listening to cosmologist? I just finished wading through another one of your bullshit posts where you argue that science can only operate in the present and can't be used to accurately look back past the advent of human history! Weeping


(23-03-2014 02:38 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(23-03-2014 01:41 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  This is further complicated by positing that said force magically has no need for a cause for it's own existence.

Kalam is a superfluous argument based on ignorance.
Well is this really a complication? If one reaches the conclusion that the universe has a cause that brought it into existence some 15 billion years ago then we are enjoined by the principle of parsimony to posit an explanation that sufficiently explains the effect and no more than that, nor are we to multiply causes beyond what is necessary to explain the data.

Once again, an eternal universe makes less assumptions than the Kalam's supernatural creator.


(23-03-2014 02:38 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  The proponent of the Kalam does not refer to magic to support the assertion that this cause is more plausibly uncaused. Rather, philosophical arguments against the existence of an actually infinite number of past events in concert with the principle of parsimony argue that this cause is uncaused and the terminus of the causal chain.

Supernatural = Magic

Philosophy & Logic =/= Evidence

Quantum Mechanics are illogical, but has been proven by the evidence. So no matter how much you'd like to think that infinites cannot exist, we have no evidence to support the proposition that they cannot exist. Also, you don't get to dodge the infinite regress of your supernatural creator by fiat, which is essentially what you are trying to do.

Seriously, you need to stop copy-pasting this tripe from apologetic websites and learn to think for yourself. Dodgy

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like EvolutionKills's post
23-03-2014, 03:55 PM
RE: [split] Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(23-03-2014 03:27 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(23-03-2014 03:25 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Well, thanks for showing that you do have a basic understanding of this. That means that earlier when you were trying to switch the burden of proof, you weren't being ignorant, you were being disingenuous. That makes you a liar instead of a moron, not a step up in my estimation.

I have never intended to switch the burden or alleviate myself of defending and supporting a truth claim I have made. I know too much and honestly have too good a command of what I know to have to resort to such measures.

We can debate whenever you are ready.

Debate? Is that what you call copy-pasting this tripe? Weeping

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-03-2014, 03:57 PM
RE: [split] Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(23-03-2014 03:52 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Also, what you you doing listening to cosmologist? I just finshing wading through anoterh one of your bullshti posts where you argue that science only operate in the present and can't be used to accurately look back past the advent of human history! Weeping

Come on, EK, you're not that new at this, are you?

Because obviously a source's validity is determined by whether or not it agrees with him.

Can the quote-mined and selectively read words of a given scientist be twisted and taken out of context in order to provide partial half-hearted support for apologetic assertions when convenient?

Praise the Lord, they speak the truth!

But if that same scientist and those same sentiments lend themselves instead to critical thinking, skepticism, and an acknowledgement of the limits of one's own knowledge, well, that's clearly of the devil and is probably a big conspiracy, too.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like cjlr's post
23-03-2014, 04:18 PM
RE: [split] Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(23-03-2014 03:52 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(23-03-2014 02:38 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  It seems to me this is aimed at denying that the most plausible cause of the universe is a supernatural creator.

A supernatural creator, that itself now needs to be explained in addition to the universe. Occams razor bitch. It is not the most plausible because all it does is add extra unnecessary assumptions in comparison to other possible explanations.


(23-03-2014 02:38 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Your reasoning seems to be, and correct me if I do err, that since existence exists or rather "just is", that we should just conclude that the universe just is and has always been. Thus there is no need to posit a creator.

Assuming the universe has always existed makes less assumptions than positing that it was created by a creator. Given that we have no evidence one way or another, the idea that makes the fewest assumptions will be more probable; in this case assuming the universe has always existed rather than being created by a supernatural creator.


(23-03-2014 02:38 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  If this is your reasoning, then this is not aimed at denying that the most plausible cause of the universe is a supernatural creator at all! It is actually aimed at denying premise two of the argument.

All you need to determine that a supernatural creator is less probable than an eternal universe is math and an understanding of probability; both of which you seem to lack.


(23-03-2014 02:38 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  But why think that in light of the findings of current cosmologists that the premise: "The universe began to exist" is not more probable than its negation "The universe did not begin to exist"?

False dichotomy and strawman. We have evidence back to the inflation, but once you hit the planck scale, it's all theoretical. There are many possibilities here, including both creation and being eternal. Even if it was created, what would be the cause? If could just be a part of underlying laws we simply do not yet understand, it might be a part of the makeup of a multiverse, it might have been created by a sufficiently advance natural alien intelligence. There are far more than just two choices here, and the more assumptions you make, the less probable your idea is.


(23-03-2014 02:38 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Even on a cursory examination of the evidence for premise two one could not reasonably conclude that the universe is eternal.

Except that premise two is not a fact. You're jumping the gun there...


(23-03-2014 02:38 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  So it seems to me that premise two enjoys a wealth of support (both scientific and philosophic) and thus the proponent is justified in maintaining that premise two is more probable than its negation which is all that is needed for the premise to obtain.

You suck at probability, and you're once again using a false dichotomy and strawman.

Also, what you you doing listening to cosmologist? I just finished wading through another one of your bullshit posts where you argue that science can only operate in the present and can't be used to accurately look back past the advent of human history! Weeping


(23-03-2014 02:38 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Well is this really a complication? If one reaches the conclusion that the universe has a cause that brought it into existence some 15 billion years ago then we are enjoined by the principle of parsimony to posit an explanation that sufficiently explains the effect and no more than that, nor are we to multiply causes beyond what is necessary to explain the data.

Once again, an eternal universe makes less assumptions than the Kalam's supernatural creator.


(23-03-2014 02:38 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  The proponent of the Kalam does not refer to magic to support the assertion that this cause is more plausibly uncaused. Rather, philosophical arguments against the existence of an actually infinite number of past events in concert with the principle of parsimony argue that this cause is uncaused and the terminus of the causal chain.

Supernatural = Magic

Philosophy & Logic =/= Evidence

Quantum Mechanics are illogical, but has been proven by the evidence. So no matter how much you'd like to think that infinites cannot exist, we have no evidence to support the proposition that they cannot exist. Also, you don't get to dodge the infinite regress of your supernatural creator by fiat, which is essentially what you are trying to do.

Seriously, you need to stop copy-pasting this tripe from apologetic websites and learn to think for yourself. Dodgy

Hehe. Thanks EK, I fell asleep with the laptop on my.......well, lap. It is sunday.

Jeremy, what he said. Thumbsup

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
[+] 1 user Likes evenheathen's post
23-03-2014, 04:20 PM
RE: [split] Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(23-03-2014 03:47 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  I will refer you to http://www.reasonablefaith.org

There you will find answers to some of your questions.

*Your* argument man. Not someone else's. Yours. I don't wanna read a whole damn website. Do you have comments on the points I raised?

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
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
23-03-2014, 04:32 PM (This post was last modified: 23-03-2014 04:40 PM by rampant.a.i..)
RE: [split] Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(23-03-2014 04:20 PM)morondog Wrote:  
(23-03-2014 03:47 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  I will refer you to http://www.reasonablefaith.org

There you will find answers to some of your questions.

*Your* argument man. Not someone else's. Yours. I don't wanna read a whole damn website. Do you have comments on the points I raised?

LOL. Look at this garbage:

"I remember vividly that when I first became a Christian I was very careful about what I read because I knew that there was material out there which could be destructive to my newfound faith and that I had a lot, lot more to learn before I was ready to deal with it. Do we forget that there is an enemy of our souls who hates us intensely, is bent on our destruction, and will use anything he can to undermine our faith or render us ineffective in God’s hands? Are we so naïve?

In your case I strongly suspect that, despite your having been a Christian for most of your life, you have not properly equipped yourself before reading and watching anti-Christian material. I say this, not merely because you fail to see the obvious fallacies in arguments like Dawkins’ (see http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-new-a...ts-for-god and http://www.reasonablefaith.org/dawkins-delusion ), but also by your admission that “it doesn't make much sense to me to belive in a creator of the universe,” thereby evincing your unfamiliarity with the powerful arguments for a Creator and Designer of the universe, such as the argument from contingency, the kalam cosmological argument, the fine-tuning argument, the argument from mathematical applicability, the argument from intentional states of consciousness, and so on. Even if you don’t find these arguments rationally compelling, they at least show that belief in a Creator of the universe makes sense. Equally astonishing, you report that “It makes even less sense for me to believe in a God who intervines in our lives.” Obviously, you’ve not digested Alvin Plantinga’s fine reflections on divine intervention in his chapter on “Divine Action in the World” in his Where the Conflict Really Lies (Oxford University Press, 2011). Have you looked carefully at the evidence for Jesus’ miracles or resurrection, as laid out, for example, in Graham Twelftree’s Jesus: The Miracle Worker (IVP, 1999) or my Reasonable Faith (Crossway, 2008)?"

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/garbage-i...z2wpNy9akA

What kind of "reasonable faith" requires a believer to be fully indoctrinated before being exposed to objections?

That's not reasonable or faith, that's brainwashing.

This site should be added to the list of commonly used arguments, as it seems we have yet another WLC Quote-miner here who simply selects responses from a list on reasonablefaith.org.

“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
23-03-2014, 04:49 PM
RE: [split] Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(23-03-2014 04:20 PM)morondog Wrote:  
(23-03-2014 03:47 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  I will refer you to http://www.reasonablefaith.org

There you will find answers to some of your questions.

*Your* argument man. Not someone else's. Yours. I don't wanna read a whole damn website. Do you have comments on the points I raised?

If you would like you can follow two debates I am currently involved in in the boxing ring. Your questions may be answered there. I simply do not have the time to respond to all of your questions here.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-03-2014, 04:58 PM
RE: [split] Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(23-03-2014 04:49 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(23-03-2014 04:20 PM)morondog Wrote:  *Your* argument man. Not someone else's. Yours. I don't wanna read a whole damn website. Do you have comments on the points I raised?

If you would like you can follow two debates I am currently involved in in the boxing ring. Your questions may be answered there. I simply do not have the time to respond to all of your questions here.

Eternity isn't long enough for you? Rolleyes

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
[+] 1 user Likes evenheathen's post
23-03-2014, 07:06 PM
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?



Rampant already destroyed it:

(22-03-2014 07:31 PM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  
(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.



Go the fuck away.

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
23-03-2014, 07:12 PM
RE: [split] Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(23-03-2014 07:06 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  
(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?

Go the fuck away.

At the moment JEW (do you suppose this is intentional?) is being drawn and quartered by both cjlr and Stevil and it is SO entertaining! I hope he sticks around long enough for the Full Monty.

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Full Circle's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: