WLC Style Apologetics Commentary Thread

[GetMeThere]

PREDICTION AFTER POST #1:

Majesty will be unable to actually comprehend it, and so will not even respond directly to its points. Instead, he'll proceed with his own, patented, WLC wall of canned ideas as though the first post never existed.


i.e., it'll be a bit like this

[Emily]

After reading KC's amazing opening statement I am very excited to see where this goes.

[Majesty]

PREDICTION AFTER POST #1:

Majesty will be unable to actually comprehend it, and so will not even respond directly to its points. Instead, he'll proceed with his own, patented, WLC wall of canned ideas as though the first post never existed.


i.e., it'll be a bit like this

If  you  think  that  first  post  was  that  good  and  it  will  have  me  that  shook,  then  you  are  sadly  mistaken  son.

[jazzman]

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.

You'll eventually learn that you can't prove a first cause of any sort by using philosophy.  The best you'll do is present an argument that might convince some people who are already inclined to accept that deities exist.  The Kalam Cosmological Argument is not sufficient to sway skeptics.  We already know this.  You're attempting to use an argument that has failed in the past and will continue to fail. 

What will happen here, Keith, is that this debate will end with you claiming victory, even though you'll have seen sufficient evidence to show the Kalam argument to be ineffective.  If you're an honest man, Keith, you'll admit today you could be wrong about your belief in God, and you'll publicly agree that you're willing and prepared to change your mind about God if your debate opponents offer an effective argument that refutes the Kalam argument.  It is, after all, your primary weapon in this debate; if it fails, you have no choice but to rethink your position ... if you're honest.  Are you willing to admit that you could be wrong?

That retired Air Force guy ...

Jazzman

[Hermes]

See what I mean here.  We can pick up the conversation there if you like.

Sorry to get off topic.  Henceforth, I will stick to commentary on the debate.

Good post!  Thanks for the link.

The same type of thing happens with "god"/"God" (generic or specific?) and "exists".  Absolutely impenetrable.

[HAL]

If  you  think  that  first  post  was  that  good  and  it  will  have  me  that  shook,  then  you  are  sadly  mistaken  son.

 

What - you think you have a new argument we have never heard before? 

And don't think that double spacing will hypnotize kcrady, it won't work on him or anybody else here.

[Majesty]

 

Are you willing to admit that you could be wrong?

Are  you  willing  to  ask  my opponent  the  same  question?  To  me  it  seems  as  if  you  guys  are  in  fear  of  the  kalam  argument.  But  thats  ok,  because  each  and  every  last  one  of  you people  will  have  hell  to  pay.  I  am  going  through  each  and  every  last  one  of  you.  Jazzman,  you  can  be next.

I  will  present  my  arguments  later  on,  we  are  extremely  business  at  the  job,  but later  on  tonight,  it  is  ON  like  Donkey  Kong!!

[HAL]

  But  thats  ok,  because  each  and  every  last  one  of  you people  will  have  hell  to  pay. 

Bring it.

[kcrady]

PREDICTION AFTER POST #1:

Majesty will be unable to actually comprehend it, and so will not even respond directly to its points. Instead, he'll proceed with his own, patented, WLC wall of canned ideas as though the first post never existed.


i.e., it'll be a bit like this

In fairness, I think that in general accordance with the practice of formal debates, Majesty would properly more or less ignore my post initially, using his Opening Statement to state his positive case for the validity of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, and only address my post in his first Rebuttal.  So, if he does what you expect (ignore my first post and proceed with his own arguments in his first post) I think it would be premature to start blowing any whistles on him.  If he fails to address my points in subsequent rebuttal posts, then it's fair to call him on it.  But I think he is fully entitled to use his first post to present a positive case for his position instead of responding to mine.  If anything, it's what he "should" do, though I would not presume to actually tell him what he should post.

[jazzman]

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?

Yes, it would.  If the Christian God is eternal, it cannot have a beginning.  This is crucial to Christian, Muslim and Jewish belief in this particular deity.  The God of Abraham must be eternal, else this God is not the powerful deity that people of these three religions believe this deity to be. 

It's essential that God be the "Uncaused Cause" of all things.  Therefore, the Kalam Cosmological Argument must begin the way it does.  Otherwise, God needs a cause, and and thus we begin infinite regression.  That's a losing battle, and theists know it.  So they frame the argument in a way that allows them to avoid dealing with infinite regression.

Jazzman

[13UnderTheGun]

Enough trash talk Keith. You gonna post your opening statement in the main thread so we can get this cage match going? Or not...

"Are you ready? *points to KC* Are you ready? *points to Magesty*.... Let's get it on!"

[kcrady]

 

Are you willing to admit that you could be wrong?

Are  you  willing  to  ask  my opponent  the  same  question?

I am quite capable of being wrong.  Which is why I consider error-correction mechanisms like reason, logic, and the scientific method to be vital if I want to have my world-view asymptotically converge on reality rather than wandering off into error.

To  me  it  seems  as  if  you  guys  are  in  fear  of  the  kalam  argument.

I'm not really sure where you get that impression, but hopefully you will be able to demonstrate the full extent of its fearsomeness for us.

But  thats  ok,  because  each  and  every  last  one  of  you people  will  have  hell  to  pay.  I  am  going  through  each  and  every  last  one  of  you.  Jazzman,  you  can  be next.

I  will  present  my  arguments  later  on,  we  are  extremely  business  at  the  job,  but later  on  tonight,  it  is  ON  like  Donkey  Kong!!
[/quote]

LOL.  I do hope your presentation will live up to the hype.  OTOH, I never found Donkey Kong to be very impressive as a video game...

[kcrady]

Enough trash talk Keith. You gonna post your opening statement in the main thread so we can get this cage match going? Or not...

"Are you ready? *points to KC* Are you ready? *points to Magesty*.... Let's get it on!"

Heh.  Though I prefer: LET'S GET READY TO RUM-BULLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL!!! 

[monkeymind]

OK, Rambo Majesty but save your energy for the fight.

Of course I (and many others here) would be willing to admit defeat. Do you think we are here just for the fun of it? Defeat in this debate could mean eternal life, so I for one, would be thanking you. So it's a win only situation from my side of the fence.

On the other hand, if you are wrong, you will still have a lot left to deal with. In the event of your acceptance that there is no reason to believe in a resurrected Jesus, your house of cards will come crashing down. You will then experience anger, denial, and grief for loss of many of your core beliefs. A lot will change for you and it will not necessarily be that easy.

I'm thinking proceed with confidence, but not arrogance.

[GetMeThere]

So, if he does what you expect (ignore my first post and proceed with his own arguments in his first post) I think it would be premature to start blowing any whistles on him.  If he fails to address my points in subsequent rebuttal posts, then it's fair to call him on it.  But I think he is fully entitled to use his first post to present a positive case for his position instead of responding to mine.  If anything, it's what he "should" do, though I would not presume to actually tell him what he should post.

I base my prediction on past results: when christians hear about science they think technology, and say "Yes, it's nice. But god is love."

Most don't seem to PERCIEVE that it used to be a TOTALLY magic world, and that science is the ONLY thing that has broken down all that magic. They don't PERCIEVE that what they have now is only a tiny toe-hold on what they once had. It's a frog-in-slowly-heating-water-deal. I've never seen a christian truly acknowledge the TREND of human understanding (that it's RELENTLESSLY away from magic and RELENTLESSLY toward materialism--or at least rationality in general). Anyone who sees that trend, actually, can't drop religion fast enough. When a person truly sees that trend they feel like an idiot not acknowledging it--and hopping on. When they don't, it's because they see it as "just technology."

[jazzman]

Are  you  willing  to  ask  my opponent  the  same  question? 

No need to.  I know from comments Kcrady has made in other threads that he's open to evidence that he could be wrong.  In fact, you'll find that most nonbelievers here will say the same thing, including me.  You're probably not the person who will, finally and forever, present evidence sufficient to prove that your deity exists.  If you were, you wouldn't use the KCA as your primary debate position.

So I ask you again: Are you willing to admit you could be wrong about your beliefs in God?

To  me  it  seems  as  if  you  guys  are  in  fear  of  the  kalam  argument. 

No one here is afraid of the Kalam argument. 

But  thats  ok,  because  each  and  every  last  one  of  you people  will  have  hell  to  pay. 

You're too sure of yourself, Keith.  Perhaps you should save the boasting until you've actually successfully argued your point.

I  am  going  through  each  and  every  last  one  of  you.  Jazzman,  you  can  be next.

Next?  You're talking about "next" when you haven't begun "first" yet.  You have your Kalam debate opponents.  You shouldn't take on more than you can handle at once.  Succeed with them before you concern yourself with who comes next.

Jazzman

[GetMeThere]

Enough trash talk Keith. You gonna post your opening statement in the main thread so we can get this cage match going? Or not...

"Are you ready? *points to KC* Are you ready? *points to Magesty*.... Let's get it on!"

Heh.  Though I prefer: LET'S GET READY TO RUM-BULLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL!!! 

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XU6LEElJ15M[/youtube]

[GetMeThere]

To  me  it  seems  as  if  you  guys  are  in  fear  of  the  kalam  argument.

I certainly do fear it. For me there's nothing more fear-inspiring than looming boredom from walls of casuistry and avoidance of the obvious in favor of the speculative.

[kcrady]

Atheists can fear no travesty
Like what shall be unleashed by Majesty

A terror more fearsome than Saddam
It's worse than an Islamic Bomb
Hide the children, hide your Mom
It's the argument they call Kalam.

[Levan]

My, my. I come back and all I see is people taunting each other 

Well, I've got nothing to contribute, so I'll be leaving.

P.S. Majesty, please stop spacing out your words! If it's a form of hypnotism, it sure works on me...

[monkeymind]

.

[blahsphemer]

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

 

Are you willing to admit that you could be wrong?

Are  you  willing  to  ask  my opponent  the  same  question?  To  me  it  seems  as  if  you  guys  are  in  fear  of  the  kalam  argument.  But  thats  ok,  because  each  and  every  last  one  of  you people  will  have  hell  to  pay.  I  am  going  through  each  and  every  last  one  of  you.  Jazzman,  you  can  be next.

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

howdy Majesty and ty for your service
i won't be debating you in the other thread, but maybe you could answer me this...
how do you know that the universe had a beginning did you observe it happening?

[Agamemnon]

Are  you  willing  to  ask  my opponent  the  same  question?  To  me  it  seems  as  if  you  guys  are  in  fear  of  the  kalam  argument.  But  thats  ok,  because  each  and  every  last  one  of  you people  will  have  hell  to  pay. 

Tacit admission that you know you don't have a good enough argument to convince us atheists, so we're destined for hell.

Why would we fear an argument if it revealed the truth?

[JeffPT]

Are  you  willing  to  ask  my opponent  the  same  question?  To  me  it  seems  as  if  you  guys  are  in  fear  of  the  kalam  argument.  But  thats  ok,  because  each  and  every  last  one  of  you people  will  have  hell  to  pay.  I  am  going  through  each  and  every  last  one  of  you.  Jazzman,  you  can  be next.

Afraid of it?  No, we just have no issue with it.  Most of the people here are agnostic atheists.  That means we accept that a god type diety COULD exist.  That doesn't mean it does. It is simply being intellectually honest enough to admit that someone could, one day, prove that a god of some sort exists.    The job of the theist is to convince someone else that their God actually does.  Since none of you can do that, we are just as free to simply say it doesn't.  When you find a way to prove that an all powerful, invisible, omnimax, benevolent sky daddy who gives no information about himself exists... then we will talk.  Until then, the kalam argument not only stops far short of actually proving a god MUST exist, it doesn't even remotely encroach on the idea of which God it is. 

Hell to pay... lol.  Good one!! 

You will lose.  You don't have truth on your side.  You have no chance of winning.  The reason WLC seems to win is because he is a good debater.  It's a verbal skill, not a written one. He could sell you the shirt off your back.  He could make a muslim buy a lap dance from a 2 dollar crack whore.   But you have stepped into a debate where people have time to respond to the arguments with well thought out responses, and not get caught up in the lies and deceitful ramblings where he notoriously gets science wrong.  WLC would lose there.  So will you. 

Sorry man, God is not real.  Bank on it.   

[HAL]

To  me  it  seems  as  if  you  guys  are  in  fear  of  the  kalam  argument. 

"William Lane Craig has formulated the argument as follows:[2]

       1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
       2. The universe began to exist.
       3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Craig argues that the first premise is supported most strongly by intuition, but also experience. He asserts that it is "intuitively obvious," based on the "metaphysical intuition that something cannot come into being from nothing," and doubts that anyone could sincerely deny it." [1]

Craig is making a (bad) assumption that our intuition and experience are the things we should trust when making scientific judgments. This has been proven false time and time again. Take quantum mechanics for one. I won't go into all the details here but suffice it to say our "experience and intuition" have nothing to do with how quantum mechanics works, and that's just one example from science.

Also, we don't know if there are structures other than our Universe out there, so just because our Universe started from a Big Bang doesn't preclude other structures that could have caused it which have always existed, and that we cannot observe at this time. We simply don't know - and not knowing doesn't mean that a deity caused it to happen. Therefore you will not succeed in your argument. But I will let you fail in the other debate thread. 

1.	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalam_cosmological_argument

[Narrow Mullen]

But  thats  ok,  because  each  and  every  last  one  of  you people  will  have  hell  to  pay.  I  am  going  through  each  and  every  last  one  of  you.

That'd be pretty cool, actually. But do you really think you can make every single one of us believe in the Bible, and the Christian one at that?

[Hermes]

Are you willing to admit that you could be wrong?

Are  you  willing  to  ask  my opponent  the  same  question?

As many of us used to be theists of some sort, the answer has already been given; yes.  We did admit we were wrong and changed our minds.

[Majesty]

Ok  people,  enough  with  the  small  talk.  I  am  now  about  to  present  my  arguments.  I  have  read  all  of  your  comments  up  this  point,  are  yall  ready?  It  is  6:57pm  in  AZ,  i  dont  know  what  the  hell  time  zone  AZ  is  in...but  im  starting  my  presentation,  RIGHT  NOW??  hehehehe  LETS  GO!!!

[Emily]

Alright. Good. You've kept up waiting long enough.