Author Topic: WLC Style Apologetics Commentary Thread  (Read 49981 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Majesty

  • Emergency Room
  • ***
  • Posts: 226
  • Darwins +0/-0
Re: WLC Style Apologetics Commentary Thread
« Reply #696 on: December 21, 2009, 09:47:23 PM »

You're wrong here 

GMT,  I'm  waiting  on  you  to  accept  the  challenge  to  a  debate  on  the  kalam  argument.  Feel  free  to  bring  your little  videos,  and  whatever  else  you  need.  I'm not  impressed  nor  worried.  The  man  in  the video  said  everything  started  with  the  singularity,  as   i  keep  stressing  to  you  people.  The  singularity  is  just  a  small  dot,  and  around  it  there  is  complete  nothingness.  I  have  been  saying  that  from  day  one.  Wow.  Just  accept  the  challenge.  If  you  are not man  enough  to  accept  the  challenge,  keep  the  videos  to  yoself.

The  next  person  that  wants  to  debate  this  issue...just  type  in  "Keith,  i  will  debate  you".  Thats  all  i  need  to  see.  I  already  got  the  ball  rolling  with  KC,  now  im  going  through  everybody  that  is  man/woman  enough  to  step  up.

Hermes....i  will  BREAK  who  you  send  to me.

Offline Inactive_1

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 2242
  • Darwins +10/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: WLC Style Apologetics Commentary Thread
« Reply #697 on: December 21, 2009, 09:57:30 PM »
Lets move all the talk not related to the main debate thread to a new topic about new debates or some other title. Keep the comments related to the debate thread associated with this comment thread. If a new topic isn't started for these other side issues I will do it and move posts there.

Offline Hermes

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 9988
  • Darwins +2/-0
  • 1600 years of oppression ends; Zeus is worshiped.
Re: WLC Style Apologetics Commentary Thread
« Reply #698 on: December 21, 2009, 09:58:50 PM »
Hermes....i  will  BREAK  who  you  send  to me.

I don't 'send' anyone.  I mention things and ask for input and assistance in this case.  Peers don't give other peers marching orders.  There is no chain of command here.  People gain and lose merit based on their own actions, and all on an individual level.

That said, if you're still here at the end of the first week of January and have thoughtfully addressed my one question, then I will be glad to have a discussion with you.
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 Boots

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1348
  • Darwins +101/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Living the Dream
Re: WLC Style Apologetics Commentary Thread
« Reply #699 on: December 21, 2009, 10:00:56 PM »
Hermes....i  will  BREAK  who  you  send  to me.

Only because our brains can't contain the stupid you're spewing, and will break under the unholy strain.

You are simply unbelievable.  Your closing was ridiculous.

You're on your way to being a great apologist.
It's one of the reasons I'm an atheist today.  I decided to take my religion seriously, and that's when it started to fall apart for me.
~jdawg70

Offline GetMeThere

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2196
  • Darwins +0/-0
Re: WLC Style Apologetics Commentary Thread
« Reply #700 on: December 21, 2009, 10:12:01 PM »
The  singularity  is  just  a  small  dot,  and  around  it  there  is  complete  nothingness.

No Majesty. A singularity is not "just a small dot," and "around it" is a Schwarzchild radius proportionate to the mass of the singularity. Beyond that radius, we know nothing and can know nothing.

By not understanding that, you make a fool of yourself.


Offline Agamemnon

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4940
  • Darwins +15/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: WLC Style Apologetics Commentary Thread
« Reply #701 on: December 21, 2009, 10:17:45 PM »
...I'm not  impressed  nor  worried.

Of course you aren't worried! Why worry when you can just ignore or bullshit your way through all the tough questions?
So far as I can remember, there is not one word in the Gospels in praise of intelligence.  --Bertrand Russell

Offline voodoo child

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1823
  • Darwins +10/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: WLC Style Apologetics Commentary Thread
« Reply #702 on: December 21, 2009, 10:34:12 PM »
Quote
How  the  hell  can  i  copy  cat  my  rebuttal 

really, who is WLC, religion, Christianity?  its all the same, it never changes.


 check the Sig bud.    \/ \/  stick around and learn something about "yourself" instead of imaginary beings.
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 GetMeThere

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2196
  • Darwins +0/-0
Re: WLC Style Apologetics Commentary Thread
« Reply #703 on: December 21, 2009, 10:43:19 PM »
Some people may want to offer support for my idea, discussed here:

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php?topic=11364.msg254157;boardseen#new

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 #704 on: December 21, 2009, 11:05:33 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.
That's true; excellent choice.  EO Wilson came immediately to my mind, but Watson is a better choice, especially compared to Dawkins.  I don't know why Majesty thinks Dawkins is so great as to be one of the greatest biologists alive today.  I guess it's because Keith simply parrots what others say, and others often have their sights set on Dawkins for reasons I've already explained.

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

Offline Levan

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 525
  • Darwins +0/-0
Re: WLC Style Apologetics Commentary Thread
« Reply #705 on: December 21, 2009, 11:24:59 PM »
Mainly, Pharaoh, what I want to do is continue on with the kcrady/Pharaoh debate.

Reading your closing statement, I feel that you completely missed the points being made. Part of my take on your closing statement is given up above - it explains why I feel you weren't able to address the point kc made.

EDIT: In addition, several others have given information on how you are misunderstanding the Big Bang concept.

My reason for simply picking up on the preexisting debate is that I feel that 1) it would be pointless repeating a large portion of the kcrady/Pharaoh debate, and 2) as I said above, I feel you did not do a good job in rebutting the points kcrady made (and thus his points are still valid).

Oh, another thing. I want you to continue the atheist/agnostic discussion. If you will read my earlier posts, you will see why "they're both atheists, thus they are exactly the same" cannot be used as a valid counterargument. A good example of how the difference affects the burden of proof is provided in the a-yeti-ist example.
« Last Edit: December 21, 2009, 11:26:45 PM by Levan »

Offline ksm

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1592
  • Darwins +1/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: WLC Style Apologetics Commentary Thread
« Reply #706 on: December 21, 2009, 11:28:16 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?

You're under no obligation to participate in this thread. Why don't you devote your time to this "real business" instead.

Actions certainly speak louder than words unfulfilled promises of actions.

Offline Levan

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 525
  • Darwins +0/-0
Re: WLC Style Apologetics Commentary Thread
« Reply #707 on: December 21, 2009, 11:31:55 PM »
I seem to be the only one here actually taking him seriously >_<

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12544
  • Darwins +301/-32
  • Gender: Male
Re: WLC Style Apologetics Commentary Thread
« Reply #708 on: December 22, 2009, 12:50:44 AM »
I seem to be the only one here actually taking him seriously >_<

Most of us have seen these sorts of antics far too many times to still take them seriously.
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Offline GetMeThere

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2196
  • Darwins +0/-0
Re: WLC Style Apologetics Commentary Thread
« Reply #709 on: December 22, 2009, 12:59:14 AM »
Most of us have seen these sorts of antics far too many times to still take them seriously.

They usually don't quite match Majesty, though. He's got, like, Dunning-Kruger CANCER or something.

Offline DisdainDavid

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1354
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Almighty Zeus
Re: WLC Style Apologetics Commentary Thread
« Reply #710 on: December 22, 2009, 01:06:22 AM »
Most of us have seen these sorts of antics far too many times to still take them seriously.

They usually don't quite match Majesty, though. He's got, like, Dunning-Kruger CANCER or something.

Seriously.  I have -never- seen someone so self-absorbed/dishonest as to actually argue that the dictionary definition and use of a word (the atheist/agnostic bit) is incorrect.  Let me clarify by saying not just that those things are incorrect but that they, and everyone who points it out to him, are incorrect simply because he says they are.  Say what you will but that level of idiocy/self-absorption is damn impressive.
I will stop to contribute in this thread until some one shows up and seem to have brain. -- Master

It's a shame how you put your trust in theories that keep on changing. Bible has stayed the same for thousands of years [. . .]  -- Skylark889

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12544
  • Darwins +301/-32
  • Gender: Male
Re: WLC Style Apologetics Commentary Thread
« Reply #711 on: December 22, 2009, 01:14:49 AM »
Most of us have seen these sorts of antics far too many times to still take them seriously.
They usually don't quite match Majesty, though. He's got, like, Dunning-Kruger CANCER or something.

True, but for my part, that only makes me less inclined to take him seriously.
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Offline ReasonIsOutToLunch

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1630
  • Darwins +0/-0
Re: WLC Style Apologetics Commentary Thread
« Reply #712 on: December 22, 2009, 02:16:24 AM »
Most of us have seen these sorts of antics far too many times to still take them seriously.

They usually don't quite match Majesty, though. He's got, like, Dunning-Kruger CANCER or something.

Seriously.  I have -never- seen someone so self-absorbed/dishonest as to actually argue that the dictionary definition and use of a word (the atheist/agnostic bit) is incorrect.  Let me clarify by saying not just that those things are incorrect but that they, and everyone who points it out to him, are incorrect simply because he says they are.  Say what you will but that level of idiocy/self-absorption is damn impressive.

Yet, somehow I remain unimpressed. Unless you mean impressive in the broadest sense. As in he made an impression. Not a good one, but an impression none the less.
God, doesn't know pi.

Offline DisdainDavid

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1354
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Almighty Zeus
Re: WLC Style Apologetics Commentary Thread
« Reply #713 on: December 22, 2009, 02:35:40 AM »
Yet, somehow I remain unimpressed. Unless you mean impressive in the broadest sense. As in he made an impression. Not a good one, but an impression none the less.

I mean impressed in the same sense that I am impressed in watching video of the detonation of a nuclear weapon.  It inspires awe but the awe is inspired mostly by the realization that stupidity now determines to what  end our fate balances. 
I will stop to contribute in this thread until some one shows up and seem to have brain. -- Master

It's a shame how you put your trust in theories that keep on changing. Bible has stayed the same for thousands of years [. . .]  -- Skylark889

Offline Deus ex Machina

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3029
  • Darwins +23/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • non-cdesign-proponentsist
Re: WLC Style Apologetics Commentary Thread
« Reply #714 on: December 22, 2009, 03:25:14 AM »
It  is  still  Fallacy  of  composition  lol.  You  actually  proved  why  it  is  fallacy  of  composition.

Wrong. You're still beating up on a straw man. It would only have been a fallacy had he concluded, categorically, that all religions were thereby absolutely wrong. He did not. He merely pointed out - rightly - that, on the face of the available evidence, they look like an extremely bad bet.

Quote
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.

False. I'll let kcrady speak in his own defense:

Quote from: kcrady
As I've already said before, my argument against IMP-based explanations was not an argument from pure, philosophical logic, but from probability.  It's the same sort of probability judgment people (except for you apparently) make all the time.
{...}
Where did I even say that it did?  What I said was that IMPs as an explanatory mechanism for natural phenomena have a track record of 100% failure.  So far you have not provided a single counter-example (beyond that which is currently in dispute between us) of a successfully-demonstrated IMP-based explanation for a natural phenomenon.  How many diseases have been shown to be caused by demons?  How many weather phenomena have been demonstrated to be caused by shamanic rain dances?  Does the fact that Every. Single. Time. an IMP-based explanation has been offered for some phenomenon, and that phenomenon has come to be understood, that it has turned out to be a natural phenomenon prove that IMPs don't exist?  No.  It just shows that, if any IMPs exist, as far as we can tell, they don't do anything.

Note that "as far as we can tell". That's an inductive inference, not a deduction, and generalizations are allowed in inductive reasoning where they are qualified as such.

Quote
And  that  is  fallacy  of  composition,  because  not  every  religion  makes  the  claim  that  he  is  stating.

You can't even get your logical fallacies straight. Had kcrady indeed made the assertion you imply he has (which he hasn't), then it would be a hasty generalization, not a fallacy of composition.

Quote
Nothing  that  he  said  applies  to  the  Christian  God  (or  any  other  god  that  i  am  aware  of)

Nothing you'd care to admit, you mean.

Quote
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.

No, it isn't. He hasn't drawn the conclusion that "religion is wrong". What he has said is that it has an extremely poor track record. If you want to embellish that and erect straw men in the process, knock yourself out. You only make yourself look like a fool in doing so, though.

Quote
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.

You seem to understand neither his argument nor the terms of the debate. He does not need to, nor has he attempted to, prove such a thing. What he has pointed out - and fairly - is that Invisible Magic Persons™ have a 100% failure record in terms of providing explanations for natural phenomena. Such as, for instance, the reason for rainbows - which does apply directly to Jahweh. :)

Quote
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.

Ipse dixit.

Quote
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.

The only "crap" here is coming from your own keyboard. The quote you gave is not the contentious issue here. What is at issue is your blithe dismissal, based on nothing bar your own faulty understanding of LCDM cosmology and personal opinion apparently, that the only reason Hartle and Hawking advance such ideas is to shore up their own preconceptions, and not out of any desire to further scientific understanding of reality. That's a serious charge.

Quote
Dude,  are  you  freakin  serious??

I am entirely serious.

Quote
This  is  just  complete  ignorance.

...on your part.

Quote
The  Big Bang Theory  recognizes  that  there  was  absolutely  nothing  prior  to  it,  no  time,  no  space,  or  no  energy.

Again, you're simply wrong. I strongly suggest you do your homework. The Big Bang recognises an "initial condition" of the cosmos; anything beyond that is quite simply outside the scope of the model. It does not assert that "there was absolutely nothing prior to it". You have, I am afraid, quite simply made that up. Since you invoked the second law of thermodynamics earlier, it's rather funny that you ignore the first: energy can neither be created nor destroyed. If you're seriously advancing the case that the Big Bang contains within it the assertion that the first law of thermodynamics is violated at t=0 and a staggering amount of energy simply appears out of nowhere, I think you need to show your working.

Quote
WOWWWWWWWW.  Just  disagreeing  just  to  disagree.  So  typical

Again, wrong. I have better things to do with my time than disagree with you purely for the sake of it.
« Last Edit: December 22, 2009, 04:19:23 AM by Deus ex Machina »
No day in which you learn something is wasted.

Offline Levan

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 525
  • Darwins +0/-0
Re: WLC Style Apologetics Commentary Thread
« Reply #715 on: December 22, 2009, 03:53:23 AM »
If I were to guess what would happen next:

Pharaoh will return.
Pharaoh will declare his victory over kcrady.
Pharaoh will respond to comments about his Dunning-Krueger cancer.
   As a bonus, I will guess that the response will include the word "pimp".
   As a second bonus, I will guess that the full word will be either "pimp face" or "pimp juice".
Pharaoh will ignore most, if not all, of my critique of his closing statement.
   As a bonus, I will guess that he will respond by restating his straw man.
Pharaoh will ignore most of DisdainDan's critique of his closing statement.
   As a bonus, I will guess that he will respond by restating his straw man.

Hopefully I am proven wrong.

Offline GetMeThere

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2196
  • Darwins +0/-0
Re: WLC Style Apologetics Commentary Thread
« Reply #716 on: December 22, 2009, 03:54:13 AM »
I've only now just noticed that the Ebon Musings site has an excellent refutation of the WLC KCA among its many excellent essays. It ends up as we all might expect: no matter what parts you may grant (it grants essentially none), you still MUST end up with a special pleading, which, of course, is not valid (or is arbitrary).

It's not terribly long--probably shorter than a SINGLE post of Majesty; yet it covers all the bases well.

Offline Majesty

  • Emergency Room
  • ***
  • Posts: 226
  • Darwins +0/-0
Re: WLC Style Apologetics Commentary Thread
« Reply #717 on: December 22, 2009, 08:42:39 AM »
Reading your closing statement, I feel that you completely missed the points being made. Part of my take on your closing statement is given up above - it explains why I feel you weren't able to address the point kc made.

Well  first  of  all,  i  didn't  make  my  closing  statement  yet,  so  i  dont  know  what  the  hell  you  are  talking  about.

EDIT: In addition, several others have given information on how you are misunderstanding the Big Bang concept.

Look  man,  stop  worrying  about  what  "others"  are  doing.  Do  your  own  freakin  research.  These  people  KNOW  that they  have lost.  Why  do  you  think  they  are  digging up  so  much  information  all  of  a  sudden?  They  KNOW  that  they  lost.  They  are  WRONG  about  the  Big  Bang  concept.  WLC  uses  this  argument  all  the  time,  he  ALWAYS  stress  how  there  wasn't  anything  natural  before  the  singularity.  Of  all  the  debates  i  seen  him  in  (over  10),  he  uses  this  SAME   argument  over  and  over  again,  and  his  opponents  never  said  "WLC  is  wrong,  the  Big  Bang  model  does  not  mean  that  everything  came  from  the  singularity,  and  that  all  space,  matter,  and  energy  came  from  it".  His  opponents  never  said  that.  Victor  Stenger,  who  is  a  physists,  didn't  even  say  that.  All  Stenger  tried  to  do  was  introduce  other  naturalist  models,  but  he  NEVER  questioned  Craig  on  his  representation  of  the  Big  Bang  model,  which  is  the  same  model  that  I  am using.  And  for  these  people  to  come  in  here  and  misrepresent  the  BBM,  and  then  try  to  cast  it  off  on me  like  I'M  the  one  that  dont  understand  it,  is  just  plain  RIDICULOUS.  Don't  let  these  pawns  in  here  dictate  how  you  learn,  go  look  it  up  yourself  man.

My reason for simply picking up on the preexisting debate is that I feel that 1) it would be pointless repeating a large portion of the kcrady/Pharaoh debate, and 2) as I said above, I feel you did not do a good job in rebutting the points kcrady made (and thus his points are still valid).

Whatever  dude.  You  dont  even  know  what  the  Big  Bang  Model  is,  thats  why  you  never  tried  to  criticize  my  representation  of  it  until  these  other people  started  doing  it.  So  how  the  hell  can  you  know  whether  i  am  effectively  rebutting  the  points  that  he  made  when  you  dont  know  a  damn  thing  about  the arguments??  What  was  the  point  that  KC  make  that  i  didn't  rebutt?  You  are  just  a  follower  Levan.  You  sit  there  and  you  see  how  the  discussion  is  going  and  then  you  just  act  according  to  however  the  discussion  is  going.  If  these  people  gave  me props,  you would  give  me  props.  If  they  criticize me,  you  will  criticize  me.  You  are  just  a  bandwagon  person.  And  if  you  are  a  real  man  and  worthy  of  respect  you  will  grow  some  balls  and  start  thinking  on  your  own  instead  of  letting  these  pawns  in  here  dictate  how  your  actions  for  the  day  will  be  lol.


Oh, another thing. I want you to continue the atheist/agnostic discussion. If you will read my earlier posts, you will see why "they're both atheists, thus they are exactly the same" cannot be used as a valid counterargument. A good example of how the difference affects the burden of proof is provided in the a-yeti-ist example.

Just  let  it  go  dude...let  it  go...

Offline Majesty

  • Emergency Room
  • ***
  • Posts: 226
  • Darwins +0/-0
Re: WLC Style Apologetics Commentary Thread
« Reply #718 on: December 22, 2009, 09:16:41 AM »
Wrong. You're still beating up on a straw man. It would only have been a fallacy had he concluded, categorically, that all religions were thereby absolutely wrong. He did not. He merely pointed out - rightly - that, on the face of the available evidence, they look like an extremely bad bet.

Dude,  read  his  opening  statement.  I  appreciate  the  love  that  you  have  for  him,  and  you  feel  the  need  to  defend  him,  but  he  was  wrong  for  saying  it,  and  you  are  even  more  wrong  for  defending him. He  is  trying  to  take  credibility  away  from  IMPs  because  the  deeds  of  the  IMPs,  which  were  given  to  the  IMPs  by  the  people  of  the  religion  HAS  BEEN  PROVEN  WRONG  by  NATURAL  PHENOMENON.  That  was  the  BASIS  of  his argument.  And  what  i  said  was,  even  if  you  can  prove  it  to  be  wrong  by  natural  phenomenon,  that  STILL  doesn't  logically  MEAN  that  their  God  doesnt  exist,  so  his  ARUGMENT  was  IRRELEVANT.  Nor  does  it  MEAN  that  we  should  GIVE  up  ALL  religion  based  on  ONE  religion  being  PROVEN  WRONG.  You  can  sit  there  and  argument  the  point  until  your  fingertips  turn  purple,  but  THAT  was  the  POINT  that  he  was  MAKING  WHETHER  YOU  LIKE  IT  OR  NOT.  It  may  of  been a  "bad  bet"  for  the  Greeks,  but  it's  not  a  bad  bet  for  CHRISTIANITY.


You can't even get your logical fallacies straight. Had kcrady indeed made the assertion you imply he has (which he hasn't), then it would be a hasty generalization, not a fallacy of composition.

This  is  another  STUPID  argument  because  i  just  looked  it up.  And  fallacy  of  composition  is  the  fallacy  that  i  accused  him  of  committing,  because  he  is  taking  one  "bad"  part  of  religion,  and using  it  as  a  basis  for  judging  all  religion  as  a  whole,  which  is  EXACTLY  what  fallacy  of  composition means.  So  dude,  if  you  dont  know  what the  hell  you  are  talking  about,  just  keep it  to  yourself.  When  he  talk  about  IMP's,  he  is  talking  about  IMP's  as  a  WHOLE,  which  includes  all  religions.  And  I  refuse  to  keep  defending  points  that  i  KNOW are  right.  So  YOU  are  the  one  that dont  know  crap  about  fallacies.


No, it isn't. He hasn't drawn the conclusion that "religion is wrong". What he has said is that it has an extremely poor track record. If you want to embellish that and erect straw men in the process, knock yourself out. You only make yourself look like a fool in doing so, though.

This  is  an  example  of  you  people  just  wanting  to  disagree.  "Extremely  poor  track  record"  oh  really?  Which  one?  There  are  thousands  of  religions  out  there.  He  can't  logically  say  that  all  religion  has  a  poor  track  record  because  he  hasn't  examined  ALL  RELIGIONS  and  all  religions  doesn't  make  the  claims  that  he  is  assuming  that  they  make,  which  is  what  his  WHOLE  argument  is  based  upon.  So  dude,  stop it,  you  cant  win  dude.  You  are  in  a  no  winning  situation.

You seem to understand neither his argument nor the terms of the debate. He does not need to, nor has he attempted to, prove such a thing. What he has pointed out - and fairly - is that Invisible Magic Persons™ have a 100% failure record in terms of providing explanations for natural phenomena. Such as, for instance, the reason for rainbows - which does apply directly to Jahweh. :) 

The  quote  above  shows  the  ignorance  creeping  out.  Ummm  yes  he  DOES  need  to  PROVE.  He  needs to  prove  that  every  single  religion  has  a  bad  track  record,  because  he  said  THAT  EVERY  RELIGION  DOES  HAVE  A  BAD  TRACK  RECORD.  He  is making  a  CLAIM.  I  understand  that  KC  is  yo  boy.  But  right  now  you  look like  a  bodygaurd  that  can't  fight.  As  far  as  the  rainbow  crap  is  concerned.  We  know how  rainbows  occur  on  a  natural  level,  but  does  that  mean  that  Yahweh  didn't  cause  the  rainbow  as recorded  in  Genesis  by  a  supernatural  occurence?  NOOOO,  it  does not  logically  follow.  IGNORANCE  IGNORANCE  IGNORANCE  lol.  Its  really  becoming  sad.

The only "crap" here is coming from your own keyboard. The quote you gave is not the contentious issue here. What is at issue is your blithe dismissal, based on nothing bar your own faulty understanding of LCDM cosmology and personal opinion apparently, that the only reason Hartle and Hawking advance such ideas is to shore up their own preconceptions, and not out of any desire to further scientific understanding of reality. That's a serious charge.

In  this  quote,  starting  from  the  word  "that",  shows  a  person  that  is  in  a  battle  that  he  can't  win,  i  dont  even  know  what  the  hell  that  means,  i  read  it  like  three  times.  Oh  well.

Again, you're simply wrong. I strongly suggest you do your homework. The Big Bang recognises an "initial condition" of the cosmos; anything beyond that is quite simply outside the scope of the model. It does not assert that "there was absolutely nothing prior to it". You have, I am afraid, quite simply made that up. Since you invoked the second law of thermodynamics earlier, it's rather funny that you ignore the first: energy can neither be created nor destroyed. If you're seriously advancing the case that the Big Bang contains within it the assertion that the first law of thermodynamics is violated at t=0 and a staggering amount of energy simply appears out of nowhere, I think you need to show your working.

I  already  answered  this  one  in the  Levan  post.  I  understand  that  some  of  you  people  are  older  than  me,  which  is  why  it  seems  like  it  was  so  long  since  you  people  cracked  open  a  Physics  book  lol.  But  you  really  lost  it dawg  lol.


Offline Majesty

  • Emergency Room
  • ***
  • Posts: 226
  • Darwins +0/-0
Re: WLC Style Apologetics Commentary Thread
« Reply #719 on: December 22, 2009, 09:21:17 AM »
No Majesty. A singularity is not "just a small dot," and "around it" is a Schwarzchild radius proportionate to the mass of the singularity. Beyond that radius, we know nothing and can know nothing.

By not understanding that, you make a fool of yourself.

WOWWWWWWWWWW  dude  you  are  ignorant.  I  think  the  video  that  you  put  up  the  dude  even  described  the  singularity  as  a  small  dot  that  is  more  smaller  than  the  size  of  a  pencil  point.  I  think  im  gonna  have  to  stop  coming  in  here.  I  cant  keep  on  answering  this  ignorance.  I  dont  know  whether  you  people  are  doing  this  on  purpose  or  you  are  just  that  damn  ignorant  on  the  subject.  Maybe  both. But  its  becoming  sickening.

Offline Inactive_1

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 2242
  • Darwins +10/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: WLC Style Apologetics Commentary Thread
« Reply #720 on: December 22, 2009, 09:29:57 AM »
WOWWWWWWWWWW  dude  you  are  ignorant. 

Time to stop the insults from BOTH sides - this is just the last example. Knock off the insults and barbs and get back to discussing the subject at hand respectfully - both sides - or this commentary thread is over.

Offline Majesty

  • Emergency Room
  • ***
  • Posts: 226
  • Darwins +0/-0
Re: WLC Style Apologetics Commentary Thread
« Reply #721 on: December 22, 2009, 09:38:48 AM »
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!".

Oh  my  freakin  goodness  dude.  You  cant  be  serious.  He  can't  speak  for  every  conceivable  IMP,  unless  he  examined  every  single  religion.

[modbreak]

Lose the insults

[/modbreak]


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.

OMGGGGGGGGG  YOU JUST  MADE  THE  POINT  FOR MEEEEEEEEE.  WOOOOOOWWWWW. You  just  said  "...however,  that  it  is  more  ridiculous  to choose  THAT  god,  and  that   most  people  would  take  that  as  evidence  enouh  not  to  pick  that  deity  for  themselves"  THAT  WAS  THE  POINT  THAT  I  HAVE  BEEN MAKING  ALL  ALONG.  I  said  that  just  because  you  find  a  bad  apple  with  the  Greek  gods  and  you  abandon  that  religion,  it  does  not logically  follow  that  you  SHOULD  not  partake  in  any  religion  based  on  that  ONE  religion  that  you just  abandoned,  because  all  religions  are  not  the  same.  

[modbreak]

Lose the insults

[/modbreak]

Lose the insults ASAP - both sides or the commentary thread is over.

Last warning.
« Last Edit: December 22, 2009, 10:09:52 AM by Admin 1 »

Offline Inactive_1

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 2242
  • Darwins +10/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: WLC Style Apologetics Commentary Thread
« Reply #722 on: December 22, 2009, 09:42:46 AM »
See my edits in your post. Lose the insults and barbs or this commentary thread will be locked, and you all can move on to a new debate. Your choice.

Offline Petey

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 882
  • Darwins +11/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: WLC Style Apologetics Commentary Thread
« Reply #723 on: December 22, 2009, 10:24:06 AM »
I've been following along with the main thread, and just wanted to mention a few things for Majesty.

1. Singularity != nothing.  I don't know what your source is, but I have never seen any scientific document claiming that a singularity is or implies ex nihilo.  The only place I've ever heard this argument is from apologists.

2. Kcrady is not offering his other "first cause" models as replacements of Big Bang cosmology.  He is offering them as plausible models of what might have caused or happened/existed before the Big Bang (you know, like you're attempting to do with your Kalam argument).  You are treating those models as "either/or" with the Big Bang, when you should be treating them as "in addition to".

3. I've noticed a similar pattern with Fran and numerous others...why is it that apologists have a habit of simply repeating their original argument, almost verbatim, after their argument has been refuted, rather than addressing the refutation directly?  I find it extremely tedious and dishonest.
He never pays attention, he always knows the answer, and he can never tell you how he knows. We can't keep thrashing him. He is a bad example to the other pupils. There's no educating a smart boy.
-– Terry Pratchett, Thief of Time

Offline I am become relevant

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 568
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: WLC Style Apologetics Commentary Thread
« Reply #724 on: December 22, 2009, 10:55:44 AM »

3. I've noticed a similar pattern with Fran and numerous others...why is it that apologists have a habit of simply repeating their original argument, almost verbatim, after their argument has been refuted, rather than addressing the refutation directly?  I find it extremely tedious and dishonest.

Right on, he's only addressed a couple of KC refutation's so far. Other than that he keeps repeating his original argument. That's why I think he's not really understanding the points that KC is presenting. I do not think that he's purely trolling though.

Anyway Majesty, if you truly want to become a debater, you should really learn to absorb your opponent's argument and address it properly, or at least appear to it address properly. You keep saying that you're addressing his arguments, but all of us fail to see where. As much as you'd like to   think we're all biased, this is not true. I for one was completely neutral to both arguments, as I hadn't heard either before. When both of you posted your opening statements, I was still neutral as both arguments appeared valid to me, but I must say that you lost me as soon as you posted your second reply to KC's refutation.   
I is back.

I'm a muslim.
No I won't email you a bomb if you tick me off, but only because I don't know how to.