U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-22-2013, 07:30 AM
 
Location: Westminster, London
878 posts, read 1,167,126 times
Reputation: 705

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
I know that you would like nothing better that to draw me into a debate on philosophy in which you have undoubted expertise and you would of course win by dint of superior training in the subject.

However, that does not do a thing to show that the claims that Lane Craig makes by way of making a case for God are correct. What we should be doing here is to make a case simply and understandably so that readers can follow the argument. If you would like to present a case or repeat some previous post where you explained it, (though I can't recall that you ever made a coherent case in any of your prior posts) then do so.

If I can provide a counter - case, I will, and if I don't feel I can, I'll say so.
The problem is that you've yet to raise a single substantive objection to the argument because you clearly haven't even bothered to read what the argument actually states. And you still refuse to do so when more than enough prompting and accommodation is given for you to amend your deficit.

Now, please explain to me how any reasonable person is meant to address this kind of willful ignorance, short of some type of electrophysiological intervention?


Last edited by MissionIMPOSSIBRU; 06-22-2013 at 08:36 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-22-2013, 07:40 AM
 
39,217 posts, read 10,895,806 times
Reputation: 5097
You are so coy in explaining what the argument actually is that I'm not sure what it was. You must realize that I cannot be put in the position of telling YOU what YOU are arguing. Until you do, you are merely trying to win by rhetoric.

From what I can tell you responded to a very detailed and thoughtful post by Shiloh by saying that It (the explanatory answer) was simple and you didn't know why we were struggling with it. You then posted a couple of addies where we could presumably find the explanation that you have consistently failed to provide.

"enough prompting and accommodation is given for you to amend your deficit." Just means that you insist that I provide a case for you to prod at. How about you do some work?

If the Kalam cosmological argument is supposed to be the answer, I have already shown how that was never really an answer and is even less of one these days.

Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 06-22-2013 at 07:56 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-22-2013, 09:12 AM
 
Location: Westminster, London
878 posts, read 1,167,126 times
Reputation: 705
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
You are so coy in explaining what the argument actually is that I'm not sure what it was. You must realize that I cannot be put in the position of telling YOU what YOU are arguing. Until you do, you are merely trying to win by rhetoric.

From what I can tell you responded to a very detailed and thoughtful post by Shiloh by saying that It (the explanatory answer) was simple and you didn't know why we were struggling with it. You then posted a couple of addies where we could presumably find the explanation that you have consistently failed to provide.

"enough prompting and accommodation is given for you to amend your deficit." Just means that you insist that I provide a case for you to prod at. How about you do some work?

If the Kalam cosmological argument is supposed to be the answer, I have already shown how that was never really an anewer and is even less of one these days.
So to summarise:

1. You are actually trying to defend your refusal to read a 3-line syllogism, for which a link is provided, and which has already been posted in the same thread, even when it is critical to your argument.

2. You are implicitly asserting that one has no responsibility in scholarly discourse to have some basic understanding of the subject matter one is criticising; or even worse than that, that it is the counterparty's responsibility to know your own material for you.

3. You are asserting that referencing is somehow incompatible with scholarly discourse (bye bye peer review).

Truly, truly astonishing. If you insist upon 'hand-holding' then I guess I must oblige. Note carefully, your statement:

Quote:
The 'everything must have a cause' argument is a persuasive one
And premiss 1 of the Kalam Cosmological Argument:

Quote:
Whatever begins to exist has a cause
Now would you care to address this, and not your straw man?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-22-2013, 09:46 AM
 
39,217 posts, read 10,895,806 times
Reputation: 5097
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissionIMPOSSIBRU View Post
So to summarise:

1. You are actually trying to defend your refusal to read a 3-line syllogism, for which a link is provided, and which has already been posted in the same thread, even when it is critical to your argument.

2. You are implicitly asserting that one has no responsibility in scholarly discourse to have some basic understanding of the subject matter one is criticising; or even worse than that, that it is the counterparty's responsibility to know your own material for you.

3. You are asserting that referencing is somehow incompatible with scholarly discourse (bye bye peer review).

Truly, truly astonishing. If you insist upon 'hand-holding' then I guess I must oblige. Note carefully, your statement:

And premiss 1 of the Kalam Cosmological Argument:

Now would you care to address this, and not your straw man?
There is a difference between referencing to support a case and just tossing in sources and telling others to do the work.

Now, suppose that I suppose that I address your premis by saying that in all areas that we understand that is the case. So what?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-22-2013, 01:48 PM
 
39,217 posts, read 10,895,806 times
Reputation: 5097
What I'm getting at is that this whole cosmic origins thing is really unknown and applying what is really human common sense to it is futile. There has been some progress towards showing that physics may be able to show that something can come from nothing, but rather like abiogenesis, there's a lot of work to be done. The main point is that the eternal god as the only feasible default doesn't look as unarguable as it once did.

We simply do not know. Now, Lane Craig seems to have constructed a cosmological argument by postulating (it seems) what we would need to be able to create a universe without itself needing to be created. The answer was of course something that could be labelled 'God'. But that is no evidence of anything. It has been noted that Lane Craig makes a lot of assumptions and generalizations which (to me), look like human common sense intuition which are rather exploited to lead towards a first cause which is the springboard for the leap of faith to God.

I had a look at Lane Craig's responses and I have to say that I got the old feeling of bamboozlement. As I recall 'Can you explain the ontological (something or other) of mathematical entities?' The idea being it seemed to find something so unaswerably obscure as to tie the opposition up in knots. His philosophical expertise allows him to do that, but it doesn't mean that he is saying anything that has proof.

Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 06-22-2013 at 02:03 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-22-2013, 02:14 PM
 
2,826 posts, read 1,868,402 times
Reputation: 996
We've been arguing this for 61 pages. That tells me one thing.

It's not a logical discipline in the first place.

Now, we can (and I have, on previous pages), offer a logical point or two, by way of proof/disproof either using theology or science. Science is more logical than religion, but this is because science is a hard science versus a humanity study. Atheism/theism? They're both versions of metaphysics, one acting as a shield against faith (atheism), the other acting as a spear to cut unbelief (theism).

What's logical is that this is a paradox.


The story of his spear against his shield - YouTube
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-22-2013, 02:29 PM
 
39,217 posts, read 10,895,806 times
Reputation: 5097
In a way metaphysics is something that is always at the bottom of scientific enquiry but science doesn't depend on it. Science can validate data to distinguish reliable facts from misconception without having to concern itself about what matter is made of or where the universe came from.

Atheism is more to do with logic, I suppose. It is a logical response to the god -claim and whether or not the claim was credible has to be on the basis of the evidence. Science is the best tool for that and logic is relevant, too. The Metaphysics is perhaps best left to philosophy to ask the questions and science to provide the answers - if it can.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-22-2013, 06:52 PM
 
2,826 posts, read 1,868,402 times
Reputation: 996
Yea, I'd feel best if science left the answers of how the laws of the universe (gravity, momentum, inertia, etc, etc, etc) up to itself, and let philosophy/religion deal with questions of what happens to our consciousness after we die or moral questions (provided we had religions to debate with, I don't much care for Christianity's monopoly of faith in this country; we need more Hindus and Buddhists, and a few Shinto miko).

Miko are hot.

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-22-2013, 07:10 PM
 
39,217 posts, read 10,895,806 times
Reputation: 5097
I must say that, given science's impressive track record in finding answers -indeed proof - of things we thought it never could, I would not rule out much as unanswerable, not cosmic origins, not abiogenesis, not the cause of the mystical experience and not the physical and indeed evolved mechanism of the feelings of isness, fear of death, awe of nature Aka God need for art, music and dance and indeed morality. Which is why attempts to use a supposed inability of science ever to get to the bottom of these interesting questions as a way of making 'Goddunit' as the default explanation strike me as totally invalid.

Risking off -topic, I agree with you about the Miko.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-23-2013, 03:28 AM
 
7,802 posts, read 5,286,683 times
Reputation: 2973
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulmabriefs144 View Post
We've been arguing this for 61 pages. That tells me one thing.

It's not a logical discipline in the first place.
Not so. The length of the thread is more related to the number of people coming into the thread and spewing illogic which then have to be corrected. Which you would know if you had read the whole thread like I did. I guess your "TLDR" philosophy got in the way of that however.

The logic of atheism has not been questioned much on the thread at all. Most of the thread has been correcting the illogic of theism.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top