WLC Style Apologetics Commentary Thread

[Majesty]

Just  to  be  precise  about  the  debate...i  would  like  this  debate  to  be  on  the  kalam  argument,  since  i  believe it  to  be  the  most  convincing  argument  (at  least  to  me).  Another  reason  i  would  like  to  discuss  this  argument  is  because  i  am  currently  starting  my  own  "apologetic  workbook",  and  the  kalam  is  the  first  one  that  i  am  working  on.  And  after  that  i  will  move  on   to  the  other  arguments.  I  have  not  read  any  of  the  previous  discussing  involving that  argument,  as  im  sure  i  will  eventually.  If  my  opponent  will  agree  to  this  debate  shortly  afterwards,  and  we  can  get  it  started  ASAP.

[Majesty]

BM
Welcome to the forum dude. Good luck with your debate  

Appreciate  cha

[Omen]

No  doubt  i  sure  can.  Lets  say,  hypothetically,  that  i  am  an  omniscience  human  being.  And,  i  take  my  son  to  a toy  store,  and  i  tell  him  to  get  whatever  he  wants,  Daddy  will  pay  for  it.  And  my  son  proceeds  to  get  whatever  he  wants.  Now  my  question  to  you  is,  Despite  the fact  that  i  know  that  my  son  will  get  a  Xbox 360,  does  that  in  ANY  WAY,  SHAPE  OR  FORM,  stop  my  son  from  FREELY  choosing  what  he  wants?  I  think  the  answer  is  obviously  no.   My  son  can  freely  walk  throughout  the  store  and  get  whatever  he  wants,  despite  whether  i  know  what  will  get,  or  not.   Foreknowledge  does  not  contradict  free  will.

Do you know the answer your son will choose because of:

A. A logical series of cause and effect which you can map and arrive to the answer for.

B. You have 'travelled' through time in a way that you can see or have seen the future, meaning that time now becomes a pattern of unchangeable logical series of cause and effect events.

C. Magic.

If your answer is 'magic' then we don't even need to discuss the logical merits of anything because logic then has no meaning in this context.

God,  in his  omniscience,  knows  exactly  what  we  will  do,  and  he  is  not  surprised  by  anything.  How  can  you  be  surprised  about  something  you  already  know?  God,  in  his  ominscience,  also  knows  what  will  happen  if  we  DONT  do  something.  The  best  example  i  ever  seen  that  illustrates  both  God's  omniscience  and  Gods  omnipresence,  was  if  you  draw  a  10in   horizontal  line  on  a piece  of  paper,  with  an  arrow  on  each  end  of  the  line,  the  line  on  the  left  represents  the  past,  and  the  one  on  the  right  represents  the  future,  and  place  a  dot  in the  middle  of  the  line  and  that  will  represent  the  present.  Now  on  that  same  sheet  of  paper,  draw  some  eyes  at  the  top, with  the  eyes looking  down  at  the  line.  The  eyes  can  see  the  past,  present,  and  future.  I  think  thats  a  decent  example.

Are we separate from the line?

But  my  conclusion  is  Foreknowledge  does  not  contradict  free  will. 

Let's see if you can answer with anything more then 'magic'.

[Majesty]

Hello Keith:

From one US military veteran to another -- welcome to this forum.  I retired from the Air Force six years ago.  While we don't share similar theological views, you and I at least share a common bond of military service to this country.  Let that be a cause of mutual respect between us.

As for your debate, understand that we've recently done this with a poster called Fran who used WLC's arguments to try to convince us that Jesus was resurrected from the dead and that this supposed resurrection proves that God exists.  Fran tried to show this to us all during three attempts that he has carried out over the last year or so.  He failed each time, and he's currently on some kind of hiatus from here, something he does every time he fails to prove his point.  Maybe he'll return to lend you his support.

You didn't mince words in your introduction, but I caution you to not enter so boldly into the debate you may encounter here.  While you feel you're in the superior position, your opposition here has a different view.  It's likely that this debate will end as so many have before, with neither side swayed enough to alter their views.  Part of that probably stems from stubbornness, but for nonbelievers, much of that comes from the inability of theists to put forth reliable and testable evidence to support their views about deities.  Your greatest disadvantage in this debate will be the complete lack of physical evidence that reliably points to the existence of at least one deity.  That makes all arguments for deities merely philosophical exercises that can, at best, serve to convince audience members who want to believe in deities, but routinely fail to compel skeptics to accept that a god exists.  Perhaps you'll be the maverick who comes up with something new that is so compelling that we of reasonable minds can no longer accept our atheism.  Or perhaps not.  If you stick to WLC's line of reasoning, you're not that maverick.

With that said, I look forward to what you have to offer.

Jazzman

I  would  like  to  thank  you  for  your  service  as  well  Sir.  Hopefully  i  can  get  the  patience  that  you  had,  and  RETIRE  also  lol.  The  kalam  argument  is  back up  by  the  scientific  evidence  that  supports  the  universe  having  a  beginning,  and  the  philosophical  arguments  that  you  referred  to  echos  the  scientific  evidence.

[HAL]

The  kalam  argument  is  back up  by  the  scientific  evidence  that  supports  the  universe  having  a  beginning,  and  the  philosophical  arguments  that  you  referred  to  echos  the  scientific  evidence.

The beginning of our Universe isn't necessarily the beginning of everything, because we don't know if there are other Universes or objects that could have caused the beginning of our Universe.

Reference -

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/bigbang_alternative_010413-1.html

You need to learn how to say "I don't know", but no theist ever learns that phrase.

[GetMeThere]

Lets  say,  hypothetically,  that  i  am  an  omniscience  human  being.  And,  i  take  my  son  to  a toy  store,  and  i  tell  him  to  get  whatever  he  wants,  Daddy  will  pay  for  it.  And  my  son  proceeds  to  get  whatever  he  wants.  Now  my  question  to  you  is,  Despite  the fact  that  i  know  that  my  son  will  get  a  Xbox 360,  does  that  in  ANY  WAY,  SHAPE  OR  FORM,  stop  my  son  from  FREELY  choosing  what  he  wants?

So...you can predict that there positively WILL NOT be a fire in the store, and everyone will have to exit before your son makes his choice? Or an earthquake won't occur? Or that you or your son won't be injured or taken ill and have to go to the hospital. Or the store won't be robbed? Or your wife won't call with a family emergency that requires you to go home immediately? Or that something didn't get screwed up with your credit card account, and your card gets rejected? Or the power goes out unexpectedly in the store, and they can't run the cash registers? Or the store is sold out of Xbox 360 today?

If anything of those things happened then your prediction that your son will be leaving with an Xbox 360 would be WRONG. But, I'm assuming, you're saying that god WOULD know about a robbery, or whatever. God would really KNOW whether your son would walk out with the Xbox 360; you're only making a good guess. Your analogy is not apt compared to omniscience as it's attributed to god--unless you're attributing only that level of "making good guesses" to god--but that would mean he could be surprised, and sometimes be wrong.

[Inactive_1]

Majesty,

The debate is supposed to be here -

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php?topic=11160.0

If you want to debate members here go for it, but I won't try to control the responses here and you'll likely be overwhelmed by posts and chit-chat that isn't directly on-topic.

Take your pick.

[Narrow Mullen]

Majesty, if you would let me, I would like to join the debate thread. Would you be interested in letting me debate you?

Also, what shall we cover in the debate? Free will? Prayer?

[jazzman]

I  would  like  to  thank  you  for  your  service  as  well  Sir.  Hopefully  i  can  get  the  patience  that  you  had,  and  RETIRE  also  lol.

No reason why you shouldn't be able to, as long as you make it your goal.

 The  kalam  argument  is  back up  by  the  scientific  evidence  that  supports  the  universe  having  a  beginning,  and  the  philosophical  arguments  that  you  referred  to  echos  the  scientific  evidence.

Scientific evidence confirms our universe had a beginning, but that evidence doesn't tell us what that cause was.

Your burden will be to show that the cause was the deity you worship.  Science won't help you there.  Philosophy won't help you, either, because philosophical arguments can't prove anything; they exist to illuminate possibilities.  You can use a philosophical argument to convince someone that your view is correct, but that's a far cry from actually proving your position to be correct.

You've chosen a monumental task in offering to debate the Kalam Cosmological Argument.  I hope you can present something we haven't heard before.

Jazzman

[kcrady]

Welcome to the Forum, Majesty.  I'm looking forward to the debate.  If you go to the "Mailbag" here, you'll see the caliber of believers we usually get here and, very likely, facepalm repeatedly before graduating to headdesk.  So please don't take it as an insult when I say that I hope you will be able to produce at least one argument that will make me think, "You know, you might have something there..." or "Well, I disagree, but I grant that your belief system is plausible."  I'm not quite optimistic enough to expect something that'll persuade me to go "Hey, you're right!  Jesus, will you be my Lord and Savior?" because I think there is a towering mountain of evidence against literalist "Bible-believing" Christianity.  But, we'll see, won't we?

 

[Ambassador Pony]

No  doubt  i  sure  can.  Lets  say,  hypothetically,  that  i  am  an  omniscience  human  being.  And,  i  take  my  son  to  a toy  store,  and  i  tell  him  to  get  whatever  he  wants,  Daddy  will  pay  for  it.  And  my  son  proceeds  to  get  whatever  he  wants.  Now  my  question  to  you  is,  Despite  the fact  that  i  know  that  my  son  will  get  a  Xbox 360,  does  that  in  ANY  WAY,  SHAPE  OR  FORM,  stop  my  son  from  FREELY  choosing  what  he  wants?  I  think  the  answer  is  obviously  no.   My  son  can  freely  walk  throughout  the  store  and  get  whatever  he  wants,  despite  whether  i  know  what  will  get,  or  not.   Foreknowledge  does  not  contradict  free  will.

Did you get that, GetMeThere? Omniscience doesn't contradict freewill, because omniscience doesn't contradict free will.

By ambassadorial decree, I claim all potential sigs in this thread, and the debate thread, as the property of Pony.

[Ambassador Pony]

IF  i  did  have  omniscience,  will  it  effect  my  son's  free  will  to  choose  what  he  want  in  the toy  store. 

If you created him, and the universe, Yes.

[jedweber]

bookmark

[Dragnet]

When will the debate start?

So far, based on the few things Majesty has said I think I might be able to actually make some contributions to the discussion.
I would like to join in if I may.
No hard feelings if you say no.

[GetMeThere]

Did you get that, GetMeThere? Omniscience doesn't contradict freewill, because omniscience doesn't contradict free will.

Yeah. Silly me, I hadn't realized it was that straightforward. Based on that response, my omniscience tells me that the big debate ain't gonna be much...

[kcrady]

Oh, and before we all get lured into a debate on omniscience vs. free will, we should be discussing things like the debate format and the title resolution ("God Exists" "The Kalam Cosmological Argument Validates Theistic Belief" or some such), and the like?

Also, Majesty, I do have to commend your courage in being willing to be ganged up on.  Unfortunately, I can't think of any Christians here that I could benevolently wish upon you as an ally except maybe Fran, but his attendance has proven to be rather spotty.  Just curious, would you object to the idea of me posting a devil's advocate post if I see an atheist argument I consider to be open to rebuttal, just to even things out a little?

For example, I don't really think the arguments being given about omniscience vs. free will here are very strong. Imagine I'm a time-traveler from Atlantis.  I come here to the 21st Century and read a history book.  There, I discover that a chap named Napoleon will launch an invasion of Russia that will result in the defeat of his regime.  I find this interesting, so I use my Sneak-O-Scope to invisibly watch the great French general as he pores over his maps, pacing back and forth weighing his decision.  Apart from some multiverse theory (which has not entered into discussion), I would know what decision he's going to make before he does.  Does this mean Napoleon does not have free will?   From our future perspective, we know what decision he'll make.  Someone looking back at me from a future perspective of a year from now knows about the arguments I'll choose to use in this debate.  Does this mean I have no free will?

If we grant a paranormal ability like time travel, working precognition or divine omniscience, then the entity possessing it does not need to be embedded in the relative future (as we are compared to Napoleon) in order to know what choices will be made.  As far as I can tell, this means we must either reject free will or accept that someone else's knowledge of what choice will be made is compatible with free will in the person doing the choosing.

However, I don't think that genuine human free will would relieve Yahweh or moral responsibility for the choices humans would/will make, if he has inerrant foresight of what those choices will be before he decides to create humans, but that's another argument.

[13UnderTheGun]

Did you get that, GetMeThere? Omniscience doesn't contradict freewill, because omniscience doesn't contradict free will.

Yeah. Silly me, I hadn't realized it was that straightforward. Based on that response, my omniscience tells me that the big debate ain't gonna be much...

No doubt... I almost threw my iPhone against the wall when I began reading the old "I told my son not to eat from the cookie jar, but I KNEW he would" argument. Again...

A well educated guess and all-knowing omniscience are not even close to being the same thing.

You're gonna have to step it up a little Majesty...

BTW, I'd like to personally thank you for your service to our county. Seriously.  Thank you Sir.

13utg- USMC Reserve, Bravo Battery 1/14, 1993-2000. Ooh-Rah!

 

[GetMeThere]

Imagine I'm a time-traveler from Atlantis.  I come here to the 21st Century and read a history book.  There, I discover that a chap named Napoleon will launch an invasion of Russia that will result in the defeat of his regime.  I find this interesting, so I use my Sneak-O-Scope to invisibly watch the great French general as he pores over his maps, pacing back and forth weighing his decision.  Apart from some multiverse theory (which has not entered into discussion), I would know what decision he's going to make before he does.  Does this mean Napoleon does not have free will?   From our future perspective, we know what decision he'll make.  Someone looking back at me from a future perspective of a year from now knows about the arguments I'll choose to use in this debate.  Does this mean I have no free will?

Well, indeed, this argument doesn't work for me because I think we in fact do NOT possess free will[1]. I actually have less a problem with the omniscient being part (ignoring the existence of the being itself) than I have with the free will part.

But no one has suggested time travel in the PAST to address the issue of free will. Books of history are easy to come by; books describing the future are the interesting ones.

Theological fatalism is the default position accepted by philosophers[2]--from which exceptions have to be demonstrated.

1.	i.e., I EXPECT things like time travel, or friendly omniscient deities volunteering for experiments, to confirm that humans don't have free will.
2.	i.e., that the existence of a perfectly omniscient observer logically eliminates free will as a quality of the observed.

[HAL]

Admin,

I will volunteer to moderate (since I'm addicted to this place anyway) and will summarily delete any smartass comments by the uninvited . Why I'd love it. 

[GetMeThere]

From our future perspective, we know what decision he'll make.  Someone looking back at me from a future perspective of a year from now knows about the arguments I'll choose to use in this debate.  Does this mean I have no free will?

I've thought about this some more. It's true, if god lives "outside" of time (or in the "infinite" or relevant future) then he COULD know exactly what we would do, and we COULD still have free will (assuming that free will is possible)...

But there's a subtlety here: He could only know by OBSERVING the events.[1] That's different from knowing because he simply "knows." In the first case he's just a time traveller like anyone else--his special quality isn't really omniscience, per se, it's the ability to transcend time. In the second case, he's really "omniscient." He doesn't HAVE to examine future events and then claim he knows what will happen, he knows BEFORE they happen (or however you want to describe it).

Those who claim omniscience for god don't wish to say he's merely a time traveller, they wish to say that he knows all things "from the beginning." And saying that says that everything is predictable FROM IT'S STARTING QUALITIES, and saying THAT means there's no free will.

Isaiah 46:10 I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come. I say: My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please.

1.	So, for example, after creating the universe with people acting with free will, as one big "completion" in front of him, covering all time, he would have to then LOOK at it to know how it turned out.

[Levan]

I'm back, but only for a short while.

And Majesty, Kalam is not a very convincing argument.

I probably could join in, but in a few hours. Will it be too late?

[Majesty]

Wuz  poppin  yall.  Would  like  to  point  out  a  few  things..

1.  I  guess  im  gonna  have  to  start  praticing  my  quoting.  I  tried  the  "quote  forum",  it  worked  on there,  but  then  when  i  tried  to  quote  on  the  main  forum,  it  just  didnt  come  out  right.  As  soon  as  i  get  the  quoting  up  to  par,  we  can  get  started.

2.  Some  of  your  arguments  are  very  easy  to  refute.  I  forgot  the  guys  name,  but  the  air  force  retiree, stated  that  the  kalam  doesn't  state  what  the  first  cause  was.  Well,  in  my  arguments  i  will  present  reasons  to  believe  that  the  first  cause  is  PERSONAL,  which  shouldnt  be  a  problem.

3. I  would  talk  more  in depth  about  free  will  at  another  time,  and  i  can  tell  that  should  be  an  interesting  subject  as  well.

4.  I  noticed some  other  individuals  in  here  want  to  participate  in the  debate  as  well.  I  am  skeptical  about  this,  because  correct  me  if  im  wrong,  that  would  mean  i  would  have  to  respond  to  many different  people,  and  that  will  kinda  throw  me  off.  I  like  to  be  locked  in  on  one  person,  maybe  two.  I  would  love  to  debate  any  one  of  you  other people  in  here  after  my  victor over  KC.

5.  I  should  be  presenting  my  arguments  for  the  existence  of  God  tomorrow.  I  will  be  arguing  in  favor  of  the  kalam  argument,  and  KC  has  agreed  to  debate  me  on  that  issue.  KC,  just  so  you  know.......i  will  be  using  the  popular  arguments  based  on...

1. Everything  that  begins  to exist  has  a  cause
2. The  universe  exist
3. Therefore,  the  universe  has  a  cause

There  you  go,  my  arguments  will  be  on  the  forum  tomorrow.  So  stay  tuned.

Peace

[HAL]

Wuz  poppin  yall.  Would  like  to  point  out  a  few  things..

1.  I  guess  im  gonna  have  to  start  praticing  my  quoting.  

If you can't even quote text how can you prove a god exists?

[Emily]

Wuz  poppin  yall.  Would  like  to  point  out  a  few  things..

1.  I  guess  im  gonna  have  to  start  praticing  my  quoting.  I  tried  the  "quote  forum",  it  worked  on there,  but  then  when  i  tried  to  quote  on  the  main  forum,  it  just  didnt  come  out  right.  As  soon  as  i  get  the  quoting  up  to  par,  we  can  get  started.

Basically just press the 'quote' link in the upper right hand corner of what you want to quote (it has this icon next to it .

The quote can be edited. Just edit out whatever is in between the quote brackets you don't want to quote (the quote brackets are the

Code: [Select]

[quote]text that can be edited[/quote] things )

Or

 You can copy/paste what you want to quote. TO do this, copy/paste like you would anything else, press this button above the smilies, . That will bring up the quote brackets mentioned earlier. Paste what you want to quote in between the brackets.

If you do this method, it's best to tell who you are quoting. THis can be done by adding the word 'author' then the equal sign then the person you are quoting to the first set of brackets, so it looks like this

Code: [Select]

[quote author=Majesty]{what you said}[/quote]
That will make the quote look like this;

what you said

[Levan]

1. Okay, good luck with the quoting practice.

2. That's not my argument :3

3. There's an ongoing discussion about it, created by RobertHills. It's called "God doesn't believe in amputees, etc". You can join it if you want. Let's discuss it there.

4. It seems that, from the participating members post by a moderator, only two people from the site are participating in the debate...? Oh well. If there're more than three participating from this side, count me out.

5. Yeah, it's the usual Kalam. Good luck!

[Zankuu]

I  would  love  to  debate  any  one  of  you  other people  in  here  after  my  victor over  KC.

Dunning-Kruger.

[Emily]

1. Everything  that  begins  to exist  has  a  cause
2. The  universe  exist
3. Therefore,  the  universe  has  a  cause

True. The difference is that you claim (I assume) a creator instead of something that's more scientifically testable. The whole cosmological argument for god is nothing but assumption.[1]

1.	A weak argument if you ask me

[MonkeyDaddy]

1. Everything  that  begins  to exist  has  a  cause
2. The  universe  exist
3. Therefore,  the  universe  has  a  cause

Why must this be qualified with "begins to"?

Would leaving that out mean the alleged "creator" would need a cause, too?

[Levan]

Now, now... debate in the debate section !