Author Topic: WLC Style Apologetics Commentary Thread  (Read 45179 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline jazzman

  • www.jazz24.org
  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 797
  • Darwins +3/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • I don't get no respect
Re: WLC Style Apologetics Commentary Thread
« Reply #667 on: December 21, 2009, 04:18:25 PM »
It  would  be  nice  to  consider  the  quote  above,  if  it  wasn't  for  the  fact  that  Dawkins  has  already  debated  many  theists  already.  So  the  whole  "debating  the  issue  of  proof  of  God  is  an  illegitimate  idea"  is  just  a  flat  out  dumb  thing  to  say. 
I didn't say Dawkins won't debate theists.  You need to try to read more carefully.

Dawkins will and has debated theists.  Dawkins won't debate creationists, especially those who are, more or less, professional debaters.  If you visit this link -- http://richarddawkins.net/articles/119 -- you can read exactly why Dawkins doesn't debate people like WL Craig:
Quote
Some time in the 1980s when I was on a visit to the United States, a television station wanted to stage a debate between me and a prominent creationist called, I think, Duane P Gish. I telephoned Stephen Gould for advice. He was friendly and decisive: "Don't do it." The point is not, he said, whether or not you would 'win' the debate. Winning is not what the creationists realistically aspire to. For them, it is sufficient that the debate happens at all. They need the publicity. We don't. To the gullible public which is their natural constituency, it is enough that their man is seen sharing a platform with a real scientist. "There must be something in creationism, or Dr So-and-So would not have agreed to debate it on equal terms." Inevitably, when you turn down the invitation you will be accused of cowardice, or of inability to defend your own beliefs. But that is better than supplying the creationists with what they crave: the oxygen of respectability in the world of real science.

As I said before, Dawkins doesn't debate WLC because to do so would give respectability to an illegitimate idea.  You are a member of that gullible public Dawkins mentioned.

Thats  right,  Craig  is  a  good  debater.  But,  why  not  be  a  good  debater  if  you  will  spend  your  life  in  debates?  And  thats  right,  i  dont  have  good  debate  skills,  especially  not  going  up  against  Craig.  But  i  can  garantee  you,  if  me  and  you  ever  debated,  you  won't  stand  a  chance.  I  am  just  better  than  you. 
Dream on Keith.  You're a man of big words and little action. 

You're right to finally admit you're not a good debater.  That's a point in your favor.

Really?  Dawkins  is  not  one  of  the  greatest  biologists  who  ever  lived?? 
No, he's not. 

Wow,  just  another  example  of  you  disagreeing  just  for  the hell  of it.  I  challenge  you  to  name  one biologist  alive  today  that  has  a  better  track  record  in  the  field  of  biology  than  Richard  Dawkins. 
E.O. Wilson.  Look him up.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._O._Wilson

Challenge met.

The  man  has  a  doctorates  in  8  different  universities,  ONE  of  those  doctorates  includings  Oxford. 
All but one are honorary doctorates.  Dawkins earned only one through his own study, and that was in 1966.

Honorary doctorates don't mean much.  One doesn't earn an honorary doctorate.  They're simply expressions of appreciation and respect for a person's achievements.  Hell, even Bill Cosby has an honorary doctorate, a doctorate he didn't earn through personal academic effort or achievement.

He  is  one  of  the  greatest  biologist/science  (since  he  excelled  in  more areas  that  just  biology)  that  ever  lived  based  on  his  academic  records.  To  deny  that  is  just  being  flat  out  dumb. 
Dawkins has made no great biological discoveries, save for what he might have discovered as he prepared his dissertation.  He hasn't worked much out in the field as many other great biologists have.  Dawkins may have much knowledge of biology, but that doesn't make him a great biologist.  He's primarily a theorist, and his main area of study was ethology.  He's spent most of his career as an academician, a lecturer, an author. 

He made his name by writing about biology, and by coining the term "meme."  The public knows him not because of his work in zoology but because of his position as a very public atheist, and by the various books he's written to advance the public understanding of evolution and genetics.
Dawkins is a great author and defender of science and scientific understanding, but he isn't one of the greatest biologists who ever lived.  He's a famous and outspoken scientist who happens to be an atheist, and that's why he's often asked to debate creationists.  He doesn't get those invitations because he's a great biologist.  He gets them because he's a very public figure who opposes the nonsense that is creationism, and hence, the nonsense that is the Kalam Cosmological Argument.  He doesn't debate creationists because to do so would lend legitimacy to the illegitimate idea of creationism.  Do I need to repeat that for you?

Once again, Keith, you demonstrate why you're not prepared to debate here.

I don't much care if you don't respond to me any more.  I'll note here that you still haven't explained the absurdities and contradictions of actual infinity in nature, and I know it's because you can't.  Dr. Craig hasn't explained it, and that leaves you without a leg to stand on.  You rely too much on Craig and not enough on logic and reasoning.  And that's one reason why you lost this debate ... that and your reliance on a losing argument.

Jazzman

"Things you don't see: An old man having a Twix." -- Karl Pilkington

Offline Grogan

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 278
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
    • I Deny God
Re: WLC Style Apologetics Commentary Thread
« Reply #668 on: December 21, 2009, 04:24:21 PM »
E.O. Wilson.  Look him up.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._O._Wilson

Challenge met.

I would have said James D. Watson....hands down.  The list is pretty long. I'm always entertained by Dawkins, but his fame is in large part due to his life as an author.
Quote from: kenn
You want to understand God and the world around you through science and logic alone and, because you cannot come up with a "reasonable" explanation for what they ate when leaving the ark, you dismiss it.

Offline Majesty

  • Emergency Room
  • ***
  • Posts: 226
  • Darwins +0/-0
Re: WLC Style Apologetics Commentary Thread
« Reply #669 on: December 21, 2009, 05:31:45 PM »
I  will  be  posting  my  closing  statement  2morrow  KC.  Good  job.

Offline Majesty

  • Emergency Room
  • ***
  • Posts: 226
  • Darwins +0/-0
Re: WLC Style Apologetics Commentary Thread
« Reply #670 on: December 21, 2009, 05:34:22 PM »
After  my  closing  statement  tomorrow,  who  wants  to  debate  me  on  the  kalam  next?  Hermes,  send  me  your  next  pawn,  i  will  break  whoever  you send  to  me.

Offline Emily

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5663
  • Darwins +49/-0
  • Gender: Female
Re: WLC Style Apologetics Commentary Thread
« Reply #671 on: December 21, 2009, 05:36:02 PM »
After  my  closing  statement  tomorrow,  who  wants  to  debate  me  on  the  kalam  next?  Hermes,  send  me  your  next  pawn,  i  will  break  whoever  you send  to  me.

Why does it need to be about kalam? Have you got any other arguments?
"Great moments are born from great opportunities." Herb Brooks

I edit a lot of my posts. The reason being it to add content or to correct grammar/wording. All edits to remove wording get a strike through through the wording.

Offline jazzman

  • www.jazz24.org
  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 797
  • Darwins +3/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • I don't get no respect
Re: WLC Style Apologetics Commentary Thread
« Reply #672 on: December 21, 2009, 05:47:12 PM »
After  my  closing  statement  tomorrow,  who  wants  to  debate  me  on  the  kalam  next?  Hermes,  send  me  your  next  pawn,  i  will  break  whoever  you send  to  me.
Why would you want to continue with your losing argument?

If you want to impress people here, pick another debate subject.  There's no reason for us to beat your dead horse.

A good debate subject is anything having to do with morality.  Unlike the failed Kalam argument, moral issues are highly debatable.  You were doomed to failure right from the start because you picked an argument with an almost predetermined debate outcome, given the weakness of Kalam.  With morality, you have plenty of arguments to choose from, the outcomes of which are not predetermined: abortion, adultery, lying, killing, how we know a real Christian when we see one, why real Christians shouldn't use foul language, you name it.

Another debate about Kalam is simply another chance for you to lose.

Of course, if the only thing you've practiced is Kalam, then it's no wonder that's the only subject you want to debate.

Jazzman

Edited to correct a spelling error
« Last Edit: December 21, 2009, 06:29:28 PM by jazzman »
"Things you don't see: An old man having a Twix." -- Karl Pilkington

Offline Hermes

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 9988
  • Darwins +2/-0
  • 1600 years of oppression ends; Zeus is worshiped.
Re: WLC Style Apologetics Commentary Thread
« Reply #673 on: December 21, 2009, 06:04:53 PM »
I take it as an example of abstract philosophizing used to hide a preconception.  Like asking for perfection from someone while not allowing the same request to be asked of them.  As if perfection were a given, regardless of the facts on the ground.

Kcrady addressed the issue of infinities and that they do apply to Yahweh and any supernatural realm.  He also addressed them in reality based on what Cosmologists currently know and also consider as possible ideas worthy of investigation.  So, if Majesty or anyone wants to bring up infinities, they have to deal with all aspects of that abstract concept.  Personally, I reject them as soon as possible.  It's just another example of the theistic exercise of counting the number of angels on the head of a pin.

This  post  is  crazy.  You  say  KC  addressed  the  issues.  All  he  did  was  say  that  God  had  to  be  included  in  the  absurdity. 

I read quite a bit more, but you're correct that is part of it.  So, all?  No.  Only part.

That  is  not  having  an  answer  why  an  actual  infinity  can't  exist.  I  gave  reasons  which  states  why  God  is  excluded  from  it,  and  i  didnt  get  a  response  from  him  regarding  that. 

Actually, you did get quite a few responses.  I would be encouraged if you acknowledge them and identify why you disagree if you still do.  I know you know this, so I mention this to you so that you know that I know it as well.

So  these  very  weak  arguments  that  you  people  are  clinging  to  and  claiming  that  they  are  answers  is  just  flat  out  SOFT.  And  as  far  as him  addressing  them  in "reality"  as  you  put  it,  he  offered  some  weak  model  scenarios  that  i  also  shot  down  as  premature.

A double standard on your part, addressed and identified by Kcrady.  It does not speak well of you to ignore that part -- by intention, or by impulse.

So  Hermes,  this  whole  thing  started  off  with  you.  I  challenged  YOU,  and  YOU  accepted  it.  If  you  would  of  just  accepted  it  and  not  pushed  KC on  me,  you  would  of  saved his  ass.

If it weren't for the weather, I'd be gone by now.  On vacation.  Yet, even with that delay, the vacation is now hours away, not days.

As for Kalam, I see no reason to revisit that meal, as Kcrady has already reduced it to bones and is now simmering the last bits of marrow out for soup.  Then again, you could surprise me and everyone else with any closing comments you might decide to make in that thread.  That may spawn new interest, or leave it decisively in your favor.

And, that's really the point.  I don't like being wrong, but I like even less being ignorant of the fact that I am wrong about anything.  If someone shows me that I am currently mistaken, in the next instant I'm right again.  Why?  Because I will abandon my previous error and embrace the correction.  Even if that correction is as small as acknowledging that some details I thought were reliable turned out not to be so on some level.

I hold that all knowledge is tentative.  I may embrace and treat what I currently think as absolute and unalterable, yet even those thoughts are actually up for review if I'm given a sufficient reason to do so.

On to more practical matters, and away from philosophizing...

If you want, I have a few running threads that you can address ...

          'no souls, no afterlife'

          'what does "god" and "exists" mean in the phrase "god exists"


... though neither of those are likely to be a fruitful discussion if you treat my comments as you have Kcrady's -- a debate that is frankly disappointing.  While you disagree, I was expecting some serious effort on your part, not a total route of your position by Kcrady.

To raise my confidence in your willingness to have a reasonable conversation, I'd like to see you at a minimum acknowledge and address one of the two points I raised and you ignored.  This one;

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php?&topic=11143.msg252870#msg252870

Instead of doing so, your reply was to boast that you had the answer and that you were right, not to actually address any of my details.

If you wish not to, then that is your choice.  It will not give me a reason to be encouraged about having a conversation later.

I  have  a  message  for  you  people,  DO  NOT...i  repeat.......DO  NOT  be  the  SACRIFICIAL  LAMB  for  Hermes  lol.  Thats  all  KC  was,  a  sacrificial  lamb.  Let  Hermes  fight  his  own  battles  lol.  I  will  make  my  closing  statements  at  this  time  :0)

Come back after the first week of January and I'l be glad to oblige you -- if you can show me a thoughtful response to the one thread above.
Smart people believe weird things because they are skilled at defending beliefs they arrived at for non-smart reasons. --Michael Shermer

The history of religion is a long attempt to reconcile old custom with new reason, to find a sound theory for an absurd practice.  --Sir James George Frazer

Offline Tykster

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 913
  • Darwins +11/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: WLC Style Apologetics Commentary Thread
« Reply #674 on: December 21, 2009, 06:05:39 PM »
I remember now who Majesty reminds me of....


rhocam ~ I guess there are several trillion cells in a man, and one in an amoeba, so to be generous, lets say that there were a billion. That is one every fifteen years. So in my lifetime I should have seen two evolutionary changes.

Offline voodoo child

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1823
  • Darwins +10/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: WLC Style Apologetics Commentary Thread
« Reply #675 on: December 21, 2009, 07:50:50 PM »
Voodoo Child, you know that he's just going to bite on that and ignore everything else that's been brought up in the process.

yup, its OK, I am done reading Majesty's rebuttals, he is a copy cat, nothing more nothing less.

call me when you have something origanal Majesty, I am probably the dumbest critical thinker here.
should be an easy win for ya.   :-*
The classical man is just a bundle of routine, ideas and tradition. If you follow the classical pattern, you are understanding the routine, the tradition, the shadow, you are not understanding yourself. Truth has no path. Truth is living and therefore changing. Bruce lee

Offline Deus ex Machina

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3029
  • Darwins +23/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • non-cdesign-proponentsist
Re: WLC Style Apologetics Commentary Thread
« Reply #676 on: December 21, 2009, 07:52:26 PM »
I'm not sure if that last is supposed to be a final rebuttal or a closing statement, but I count a few cock-ups in it.

The stockbroker analogy is cute as far as it goes but Majesty creates a kind of straw man in accusing kcrady of committing a fallacy of composition. kcrady does not state outright that religion (or the notion of Invisible Magic Persons) is wrong - merely that it has retreated in the face of all the evidence we have to date, and that on the face of it, it is a pretty bad bet. On the same analogy, if a stockbroker made bad choices for me, I may choose to avoid not only that stockbroker but any other financial adviser who swore by the methodology employed by that stockbroker. To get it wrong a few times every now and then, well, that's just bad luck; to get one's ass resoundingly whipped every single time to date.

And despite Majesty's denials, this also applies to Jahweh, who apparently no longer speaks to people in gardens, curses snakes, floods planets, appears in the forms of volcanoes and burning bushes, turns people into pillars of salt, causes staves to become serpents, imbues bronze statues of serpents with magical healing powers, makes food come down from the sky, causes asses to stop dead in their tracks in the middle of highways and refuse to move for no discernible reason, sends bears to mutilate children for calling one's prophet a baldy - but rather, has been reduced to an entity that exists beyond and outside Time and Space and supposedly loves everyone in a fairly generalised way but never actually does anything in any way that could ever be objectively established, and you'll only know for sure when you're dead. The main difference between Jahweh and Apollo is that Jahweh has been reinvented more times than Peter Mandelson's[1] career.

He's still going on about how he's "demonstrated" the "absurdities of an actual infinity", but without actually demonstrating them beyond a couple of cutesy analogies and the tiresomely repeated (but unsubstantiated) assertion that science and philosophy both reject the notion.

He then waves away the Hartle-Hawking model by casting aspersions on the integrity of the cosmologists in question, saying that "this is the length they would go {...} to deny the initial singularity". That's right, Hartle and Hawking are selling out their scientific credentials and intellectual integrity to advance their own preconceptions. I suppose that the same goes for the referees and editorial boards of those journals in which their papers are published. Comments such as this are beneath contempt.

Further, at least one of his assertions with respect to the Big Bang Theory is, quite simply, false. The BBT model does not assert that there was nothing before it. In fact, the Big Bang cosmological model has absolutely nothing to say on the subject of the state of reality prior to t=0.
 1. For Americans and other aliens: Peter Mandelson is a British politician who, despite being the subject of a number of scandals, has managed to come back from the political grave more times than Dracula. He received a peerage not so long ago, which has given rise to various nicknames including "the Dark Lord" and "Lord Voldemort".
« Last Edit: December 21, 2009, 07:58:02 PM by Deus ex Machina »
No day in which you learn something is wasted.

Offline Majesty

  • Emergency Room
  • ***
  • Posts: 226
  • Darwins +0/-0
Re: WLC Style Apologetics Commentary Thread
« Reply #677 on: December 21, 2009, 07:53:30 PM »
Why does it need to be about kalam? Have you got any other arguments?

Because,  its  a  process...there  are  many  arguments  for  the  existence  of  God.  If  you  are  going  into  Christian  Apologetics,  you  have  to  master  ALL  arguments,  and  I  am  just  now  getting  the  kalam  under my  belt.  The  next  one  i  will  be  working  on,  is  the  "argument  from  design",  which  is  aka  "The  Teleological Argument",  which  is  wayyyy  more  technical.  Its  a  process  Emily,  and  I  am  just  now  scratching  the  surface.

Offline Deus ex Machina

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3029
  • Darwins +23/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • non-cdesign-proponentsist
Re: WLC Style Apologetics Commentary Thread
« Reply #678 on: December 21, 2009, 07:56:12 PM »
Why does it need to be about kalam? Have you got any other arguments?

Because,  its  a  process...there  are  many  arguments  for  the  existence  of  God.  If  you  are  going  into  Christian  Apologetics,  you  have  to  master  ALL  arguments,  and  I  am  just  now  getting  the  kalam  under my  belt.  The  next  one  i  will  be  working  on,  is  the  "argument  from  design",  which  is  aka  "The  Teleological Argument",  which  is  wayyyy  more  technical.  Its  a  process  Emily,  and  I  am  just  now  scratching  the  surface.

Ah, so is that what you're trying to do? Interesting. Lying for Jesus can be very lucrative in some parts of the United States, so I'm told. It all becomes clear, now.
No day in which you learn something is wasted.

Offline Hermes

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 9988
  • Darwins +2/-0
  • 1600 years of oppression ends; Zeus is worshiped.
Re: WLC Style Apologetics Commentary Thread
« Reply #679 on: December 21, 2009, 07:59:23 PM »
What happened to honest inquiry?  Maimed and killed by a dogma, it seems.
Smart people believe weird things because they are skilled at defending beliefs they arrived at for non-smart reasons. --Michael Shermer

The history of religion is a long attempt to reconcile old custom with new reason, to find a sound theory for an absurd practice.  --Sir James George Frazer

Offline ksm

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1592
  • Darwins +1/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: WLC Style Apologetics Commentary Thread
« Reply #680 on: December 21, 2009, 08:39:49 PM »
I  am  just  now  scratching  the  surface.

This much is evident.

Offline Majesty

  • Emergency Room
  • ***
  • Posts: 226
  • Darwins +0/-0
Re: WLC Style Apologetics Commentary Thread
« Reply #681 on: December 21, 2009, 08:58:30 PM »
The stockbroker analogy is cute as far as it goes but Majesty creates a kind of straw man in accusing kcrady of committing a fallacy of composition. kcrady does not state outright that religion (or the notion of Invisible Magic Persons) is wrong - merely that it has retreated in the face of all the evidence we have to date, and that on the face of it, it is a pretty bad bet. On the same analogy, if a stockbroker made bad choices for me, I may choose to avoid not only that stockbroker but any other financial adviser who swore by the methodology employed by that stockbroker. To get it wrong a few times every now and then, well, that's just bad luck; to get one's ass resoundingly whipped every single time to date.

It  is  still  Fallacy  of  composition  lol.  You  actually  proved  why  it  is  fallacy  of  composition.  You  said  "merely  that  it (religion)  has  retreated  in  the  face  of  all  evidence  we  have  to  date,  and  that  on  the  face  of  it,  it  is  a  pretty  bad  bet".  He  is  using  ONE  religion,  or  God,  as  the  basis  for  not  believing  in  every  conceivable  god.  And  that  is  fallacy  of  composition,  because  not  every  religion  makes  the  claim  that  he  is  stating.  Nothing  that  he  said  applies  to  the  Christian  God  (or  any  other  god  that  i  am  aware  of)  And  on  another  note,  he  is,  by  theory,  concluding  that  religion  is  wrong  because  science  has  shown  us  that  the  claims  that  religions make  is  not  a  supernatural  cause.  That  is  HIS  argument.  But my  point  is,  that  says  nothing  about  the  God  of  Christianity,  neither  does  it  prove  that  the  religion  that  he  is  referring  to  God  doesn't  exist. 

Quote
And despite Majesty's denials, this also applies to Jahweh, who apparently no longer speaks to people in gardens, curses snakes, floods planets, appears in the forms of volcanoes and burning bushes, turns people into pillars of salt, causes staves to become serpents, imbues bronze statues of serpents with magical healing powers, makes food come down from the sky, causes asses to stop dead in their tracks in the middle of highways and refuse to move for no discernible reason, sends bears to mutilate children for calling one's prophet a baldy - but rather, has been reduced to an entity that exists beyond and outside Time and Space and supposedly loves everyone in a fairly generalised way but never actually does anything in any way that could ever be objectively established, and you'll only know for sure when you're dead. The main difference between Jahweh and Apollo is that Jahweh has been reinvented more times than Peter Mandelson's[1] career.
 1. For Americans and other aliens: Peter Mandelson is a British politician who, despite being the subject of a number of scandals, has managed to come back from the political grave more times than Dracula. He received a peerage not so long ago, which has given rise to various nicknames including "the Dark Lord" and "Lord Voldemort".

This  quote  above  is  so  irrelevant  to  anything  that  addressing  it  any more  than  what  I  am  doing  right  now  would  just  be  a  waste  of  time.


Quote
He then waves away the Hartle-Hawking model by casting aspersions on the integrity of the cosmologists in question, saying that "this is the length they would go {...} to deny the initial singularity". That's right, Hartle and Hawking are selling out their scientific credentials and intellectual integrity to advance their own preconceptions. I suppose that the same goes for the referees and editorial boards of those journals in which their papers are published. Comments such as this are beneath contempt.

The  quote  that  I  gave  on  this  subject  came  DIRECTLY  from  Hawking  himself.  He  said  it, not  me.  But  you  have no  problem  accepting  KC's  quote  from  Hawking.  Oh  no,  that  was  all  fine  and  dandy.  But  the  minute  i  put  my  quote  up  from  Hawking, you  make  a  comment  on  it.  The  majority  of  this  room  is  biased,  and  full  of  crap.  And  it  is  evident  how much  CRAP  this  room is  full  of  every single  day  I  get  a  biased  post  like  the  one  above.

Quote
Further, at least one of his assertions with respect to the Big Bang Theory is, quite simply, false. The BBT model does not assert that there was nothing before it. In fact, the Big Bang cosmological model has absolutely nothing to say on the subject of the state of reality prior to t=0.

Dude,  are  you  freakin  serious??  This  is  just  complete  ignorance.  The  Big Bang Theory  recognizes  that  there  was  absolutely  nothing  prior  to  it,  no  time,  no  space,  or  no  energy. WOWWWWWWWW.  Just  disagreeing  just  to  disagree.  So  typical

Offline Majesty

  • Emergency Room
  • ***
  • Posts: 226
  • Darwins +0/-0
Re: WLC Style Apologetics Commentary Thread
« Reply #682 on: December 21, 2009, 09:01:07 PM »

This much is evident.

My  scratching  the surface  is  much  more  intellectually  sound  than  you  and  everybody  else  in  this  room  put  together  son.  Now  THAT  much  is  evident.

Offline Agga

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4290
  • Darwins +27/-42
  • The Forum is made of its members.
Re: WLC Style Apologetics Commentary Thread
« Reply #683 on: December 21, 2009, 09:07:24 PM »
Why won't you answer my question, Majesty?
I've left WWGHA now, so do everyone else a favour and don't bother replying to my old posts and necromancing my threads.

Offline Majesty

  • Emergency Room
  • ***
  • Posts: 226
  • Darwins +0/-0
Re: WLC Style Apologetics Commentary Thread
« Reply #684 on: December 21, 2009, 09:07:30 PM »

yup, its OK, I am done reading Majesty's rebuttals, he is a copy cat, nothing more nothing less.

call me when you have something origanal Majesty, I am probably the dumbest critical thinker here.
should be an easy win for ya.   :-*

How  the  hell  can  i  copy  cat  my  rebuttal  when  it  is  a  direct  response  to  what  my opponent  said??  I  am  glad  that  my  rebuttals  are  so  good  that  you  think  I  have  to  copy  lol.  Look people,  you  can't  run this  bull  crap  on  me.  Im  not  buying  none  of  the  crap  that  you  people  are  saying.  My  responses  are  CRAFTED.  The  fact  of  the  matter  is,  I  dont  have  a  reason  to  copy  cat  a  rebuttal,  because  I  already  know  the  arguments  and  the  objections  lol  I  been  doin  this  for  to  longgg  pimp.  hahahaha  Bring  it on,  whose  next???

Offline Agga

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4290
  • Darwins +27/-42
  • The Forum is made of its members.
Re: WLC Style Apologetics Commentary Thread
« Reply #685 on: December 21, 2009, 09:08:54 PM »
Bring  it on,  whose  next???
Me.

Can you tell me what it is you hope to achieve by presenting your fire-proof arguments at this site; what's your goal?
I've left WWGHA now, so do everyone else a favour and don't bother replying to my old posts and necromancing my threads.

Offline Majesty

  • Emergency Room
  • ***
  • Posts: 226
  • Darwins +0/-0
Re: WLC Style Apologetics Commentary Thread
« Reply #686 on: December 21, 2009, 09:09:23 PM »
Why won't you answer my question, Majesty?

What  question?  If  you  tell  these  PAWNS  to  stop  typin  this  bullcrap  to  me  maybe  we  can  get  down  to  some  real  business  lol.  But  what  question?

Offline Grogan

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 278
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
    • I Deny God
Re: WLC Style Apologetics Commentary Thread
« Reply #687 on: December 21, 2009, 09:11:19 PM »
lol  I  been  doin  this  for  to  longgg  pimp.  hahahaha  Bring  it on,  whose  next???

Seriously?
Quote from: kenn
You want to understand God and the world around you through science and logic alone and, because you cannot come up with a "reasonable" explanation for what they ate when leaving the ark, you dismiss it.

Offline Emily

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5663
  • Darwins +49/-0
  • Gender: Female
Re: WLC Style Apologetics Commentary Thread
« Reply #688 on: December 21, 2009, 09:11:25 PM »

Because,  its  a  process...there  are  many  arguments  for  the  existence  of  God.  If  you  are  going  into  Christian  Apologetics,  you  have  to  master  ALL  arguments,  and  I  am  just  now  getting  the  kalam  under my  belt.  The  next  one  i  will  be  working  on,  is  the  "argument  from  design",  which  is  aka  "The  Teleological Argument",  which  is  wayyyy  more  technical.  Its  a  process  Emily,  and  I  am  just  now  scratching  the  surface.

I  been  doin  this  for  to  longgg  pimp.  hahahaha  Bring  it on,  whose  next???

With all due respect to everyone on this forum, I think kcrady is one of the best you're going to get here. You should be happy with that and move on to another argument. I'm sure others would give you one hell of a debate but would it be anything that hasn't already been discussed? I don't think so.
"Great moments are born from great opportunities." Herb Brooks

I edit a lot of my posts. The reason being it to add content or to correct grammar/wording. All edits to remove wording get a strike through through the wording.

Offline Majesty

  • Emergency Room
  • ***
  • Posts: 226
  • Darwins +0/-0
Re: WLC Style Apologetics Commentary Thread
« Reply #689 on: December 21, 2009, 09:12:59 PM »
Can you tell me what it is you hope to achieve by presenting your fire-proof arguments at this site; what's your goal?

Well  the ultimate  goal  is to  bring  people  to  Christ.  I  personally  feel  as  if  the  evidence  for  God  is  OVERWHELMING,  and  i would  LOVE  for  people  to  share  that  same  enthusiasm  with  me.  I  am  on  a  apologetic  journey,  and  i  want  to  see  how  well  can  i  do  in  debates.  And  I  think  I  am  off  to  a  good  start.  But  did you  say  you  were  next?

Offline Majesty

  • Emergency Room
  • ***
  • Posts: 226
  • Darwins +0/-0
Re: WLC Style Apologetics Commentary Thread
« Reply #690 on: December 21, 2009, 09:21:14 PM »
With all due respect to everyone on this forum, I think kcrady is one of the best you're going to get here. You should be happy with that and move on to another argument. I'm sure others would give you one hell of a debate but would it be anything that hasn't already been discussed? I don't think so.

Yeah  KC  was  a  good  opponent.  Do  i  think  he  did  better  than  me?  No.  Did  he  give  me  a  challenge  on  some  issues...yes...Despite  his  challenge  did  i  still  give  a  good answer  to  his  objections....yes...

I  am  my  own  most  toughest  critic.  I  could  care  less  what  you  people  think  about  the  debate.  I  know  if i  did  well,  and  i  know  if  i  did  poor.  Talking  to you people  is  just  a process  of  going  through  the  motions  of  being  a  room  full  of  nonbelievers  lol.  Thats  all  it  is..

But  to  address  what  you  said  Emily.  Thats  the  beauty  of  it.  Everybody  will  not  have  the  same  arguments!!!  Thats  why  I  cant  wait  to  move  to  the  next  person  to  see  what  that  person  has  to  say  about  the  matter,  and  more  importantly,  I  want  to  see  how  i  will  RESPOND  to  the matter. Thats  the  beauty  of  it  all  Emily.  Im  sorry  if  i  cant  give  you  a  full  debate  on  all  the  issues,  at  least  not  yet.  To  me,  the kalam  is the  most  interesting  one   ;)

Offline Agga

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4290
  • Darwins +27/-42
  • The Forum is made of its members.
Re: WLC Style Apologetics Commentary Thread
« Reply #691 on: December 21, 2009, 09:25:38 PM »
Can you tell me what it is you hope to achieve by presenting your fire-proof arguments at this site; what's your goal?

Well  the ultimate  goal  is to  bring  people  to  Christ.
Thanks for confirming that.  So you want us, almost all of us ex-christians, to reverse our journey to atheism and become christians, again?  Why is it your business what beliefs other people hold?

Quote
I  personally  feel  as  if  the  evidence  for  God  is  OVERWHELMING,  and  i would  LOVE  for  people  to  share  that  same  enthusiasm  with  me.
Correct.  “You personally feel…” but judging by what you're hearing from everyone here do you:

A) See anyone agreeing with your personal beliefs about the validity of your evidence.
B) Think that your current attitude with people is an effective way to bring people to christ.

??

Quote
I  am  on  a  apologetic  journey,  and  i  want  to  see  how  well  can  i  do  in  debates.  And  I  think  I  am  off  to  a  good  start.
Judging by your results so far, how many people do you think are going to come to christ through you?

Quote
But  did you  say  you  were  next?
Next to debate your evidence about for god?  No.  I left the delusion of christ behind me a year ago and won't ever be going backwards.  There is no evidence for god.

I'm just curious what method you use to measure your success because so far as I don't see a single person so much as considering re-converting.
I've left WWGHA now, so do everyone else a favour and don't bother replying to my old posts and necromancing my threads.

Offline Agamemnon

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4940
  • Darwins +15/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: WLC Style Apologetics Commentary Thread
« Reply #692 on: December 21, 2009, 09:30:20 PM »
Aw  man.  I  told  myself i  wasn't  gonna  do  it.  But  since  it  is  so  tempting,  and  you  are  egging  me  on.  I  will  respond to  his  rebuttal  hehehehe

In other words, you were going to deliberately ignore something that would have shown us that you are qualified to discount modern cosmologists, because ____________________?

I can't see how that would benefit you in any way.

Bump.
So far as I can remember, there is not one word in the Gospels in praise of intelligence.  --Bertrand Russell

Offline Levan

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 525
  • Darwins +0/-0
Re: WLC Style Apologetics Commentary Thread
« Reply #693 on: December 21, 2009, 09:34:15 PM »
Fuh... going through the rebuttal...

This  point  is  granted.  Check  this  out.  If  you  have  a  stock  broker  that  is  giving  you  bad  picks  in  stock (i  dont  know  anything  about  stocks,  but  lets  use  this  example),  do  you  stop  investing  money  in  stock  as  a  whole?  No,  you  find  another  stock  broker  and  perhaps  you  will  have  better  luck  with  that  one.  With  the  restaurant  example,  you  may  stop  eating  the  food  at  THAT  particular  resteraunt,  but  do  you  stop  eating  food  at  any  other  restaurant  on  account  of  the  previous  one??  No,  you  find  another  restaurant  that  serves better  food.  So  my point  is,  Zeus  may  not  be  the  right  God  for  you,  Zeus  may  not  exist  at  all,  but  does  that  mean  that  the  Christian  God  doesn't  exist?  Does  that  mean  that  Allah  doesn't  exist?  Well, obviously  not.

Completely missing the point.

He is not saying that the stock broker is some specific supernatural explanation in this example. The broker is "IMPs in general over the history of mankind". So if you want to actually mimic/parody his example, it would be that "99.99% of restaurants ever gone to were terrible, but the next restaurant might not be terrible, so let's go!".

Extending your poorly-mimicked analogy to the subject of IMPs, it would be saying: "So my point is, mental disorders weren't caused by demons and diseases weren't caused by demons, but maybe tidal waves have demons pushing them!".

Going on to the next part... Adding a bit to it that I found relevant...

Quote
Once  again,  just  because  the  people  of the  religion  were  wrong  about  how  they  speculated  a  natural  phenomena  to  occur,  doesn't  logically  include  that  their  god  doesn't  exist.  All  you  can  show  to  prove  that  their god  didn't  do  a  specific  act  as  they  claimed  that  he  did.  That  says  NOTHING  about  whether  their  god  exist  at  all.

It doesn't say that their god does NOT exist. It does show, however, that it is much more ridiculous to choose that god, and that most people would take that as evidence enough not to pick that deity for themselves. That is why most people here are agnostic atheists - despite a claim not being true, it can't disprove the deity completely. However, it makes it so much more implausible that any sensible person would not choose it.



Quote
Never  am  I  claiming  that  i  know  more  cosmology  than  the  pro's.  What  I  am  claiming  is,  all  you  have  to  do  is  research  and  study  the  issues  to  KNOW  that  there  are  objections  to  the  models,  just  like  you  can  look up  the  kalam  argument  and  find  that  there  are objections  to  it.  The  models  in  which  you  proposed (in  fact,  all  models)  have  some  flaws  within  them.  Some  of  the  models,  as  i  pointed  out,  are  not  even  thoroughly  equated  yet.  As  it  currently  stands,  all  of  the models  are  just  POSSIBILE  scenarios.  And  just  because  they  are  possible,  that  doesn't make  them  PLAUSIBLE (appearing  likely  to  be  true).  Scientist  don't  win  Nobel Prizes  for  coming  up  with  just  "possible"  scenarios  (because  almost anything  is  possible).  They win  awards  based  on  what  is  PLAUSIBLE.  And  none  of  the models  are  plausible  as  of  yet,  which  is my  point.

Actually, a possible naturalistic scenario is all is needed to break the false dichotomy. Then, until it is shown to be highly unlikely (as it is taken seriously by many experts in the field, we know that it is valid, unless, of course, you show us why they are invalid), we should choose a naturalistic possibility.

Actually, let me say it this way: even knowing that there is no naturalistic explanation as of yet, it would be much safer to bet on the fact that there will be one. This would not work out in the case of IMPs such as Yahweh, but can safely be assumed by any sensible person that it will in naturalistic explanations.

Now, are we discounting an IMP entirely? No, but we are saying that, given the record of IMPs and naturalistic scenarios, any sensible person would guess that there is a naturalistic explanation.

Note that, by saying "...even knowing that there is no naturalistic explanation as of yet...", I am not saying that there is no naturalistic explanation (I thought it implied I thought that, anyway).

Quote
This  is silly  lol.  First  of  all,  the  existence  of  a  Yeti  has  yet  to  be  proven  or  disproven  as  well.

You say that a Yeti has yet to be proven or disproven with definite certainity? That is true.

But any sensible person would conclude that Yetis are nonexistent until it is proven to them and/or enough evidence that suggests the existence of a Yeti exists. This would make that person an agnostic a-Yeti-ist. It would be up to someone else to prove the Yeti to them.

A less sensible person would conclude that Yetis do not exist, and no evidence will exist in the future. This would make that person a gnostic a-Yeti-ist. It would be up to them to prove that there is no way a Yeti could possibly exist.

EDIT: I'm sorry, Admin 1. I didn't see your warning before I posted this one.
« Last Edit: December 21, 2009, 10:06:39 PM by Levan »

Offline GetMeThere

Re: WLC Style Apologetics Commentary Thread
« Reply #694 on: December 21, 2009, 09:34:23 PM »
The  Big Bang Theory  recognizes  that  there  was  absolutely  nothing  prior  to  it,  no  time,  no  space,  or  no  energy.

You're wrong here, and this is something you need to sort out if you wish to be honest in your arguments. Conceptually, "big bang theory" is easy to understand. Here are the main points:

1) Analysis of the movement of galaxies demonstrates that, if their movement were traced backward in time they would all come together.

2) If all the mass of the universe were to come together it would exist in the form of a "singularity."

3) A singularity has a specific definition in physics, and indeed, ultimately, the laws of physics that exist inside a singularity are NOT known. Black holes, for example, have a singularity at their center. In fact it is theorized that black holes can have a counterpart (where time is reversed) called a "white hole." Such a white hole would indeed act exactly as the singularity that created our universe acted (theoretically).

The main points are this:

1) The Big Bang is a THEORY, not an observed fact (but it's a very good theory).
2) The theory says UTTERLY NOTHING about what preceded it. It can't. It's only physical basis comes from tracing the motion of the galaxies backward, and suggesting the presence of a singularity.

Nothing before that is know or CAN be know (although theoretical physicists CAN hypothesize). This is important for you to know. It's CLEAR and UNAMBIGUOUS...and WLC has promoted somewhat of an intellectual disservice, by suggesting "conditions" before that singularity. Neither WLC nor ANYONE ELSE knows ANYTHING about what "existed" before that singularity--except to say that the space-time of OUR universe certainly didn't exist. It says NOTHING about any other space-times.

The above is not in doubt, it's not being argued by physicists, and...it's not even difficult for laymen to understand. NOBODY KNOWS WHAT CONDITIONS "EXISTED" BEFORE THE SINGULARITY--except to say that OUR space-time did not yet exist. That fact is not under debate by anyone.

Here is a two-part video on understanding the big bang. It's quite simple, but honest and accurate. Anything BEYOND what's shown in this video is SPECULATION.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FPUutjtqfw[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RHfUFljTmw[/youtube]
« Last Edit: December 21, 2009, 09:37:41 PM by GetMeThere »

Offline jazzman

  • www.jazz24.org
  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 797
  • Darwins +3/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • I don't get no respect
Re: WLC Style Apologetics Commentary Thread
« Reply #695 on: December 21, 2009, 09:47:16 PM »
Can you tell me what it is you hope to achieve by presenting your fire-proof arguments at this site; what's your goal?

Well  the ultimate  goal  is to  bring  people  to  Christ.  I  personally  feel  as  if  the  evidence  for  God  is  OVERWHELMING,  and  i would  LOVE  for  people  to  share  that  same  enthusiasm  with  me.  I  am  on  a  apologetic  journey,  and  i  want  to  see  how  well  can  i  do  in  debates.  And  I  think  I  am  off  to  a  good  start.  But  did you  say  you  were  next?
You're not a Christian.  Why do you care about bringing people to Christ?

Is that what you were trying to do when you offered this little gem here (from http://board.rapmusic.com/battle-video-archives/1189583-serious-personal-problem-mine-during-sex-4.html) ?:

Old  12-07-2009, 12:37 PM         #77 (permalink)
I_Am_PhArAoH
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 97
I_Am_PhArAoH takes it up the butt!
   
Quote:
Originally Posted by EmceeGoddess View Post
maple is the online version of mall security
Man fuck Maple. He is a bitch. That lil bitch locked my post. It dont matter tho because i know i will knock his punk ass out if he was in my presence. And that go for any other of you muthafukaz on here that think you are battle gurus and you act like you know so much. Some of yall on here are some bitches man. Str8 up.
"

Pretty interesting stuff from a man who says he's a Christian.  Is this how you spread the "Good News" about Jesus? 

Or is that how Christians talk among themselves?

Jazzman
"Things you don't see: An old man having a Twix." -- Karl Pilkington