Author Topic: WLC Style Apologetics Commentary Thread  (Read 43528 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline MonkeyDaddy

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 273
  • Darwins +0/-0
Re: WLC Style Apologetics Commentary Thread
« Reply #725 on: December 22, 2009, 11:01:38 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.

Great Link, GMT.

My favorite part was about actual infinities (apologies for amount of text):
Regarding the supposed impossibility of forming an infinite by successive addition, Craig's argument makes a key faulty assumption. Of course an actual infinite cannot be formed by successive addition if one only has a finite number of steps to do it in. But an actual infinite can be formed by an infinite number of successive additions. In other words, there could have been an infinite number of events before now as long as there was also an infinite amount of time before now, which is exactly as we should expect. One might object that this proves that it is necessary to start with an infinite in order to get an infinite. This is true, and it is not a problem if one postulates a universe that has always existed as a brute fact requiring no further explanation, just as theists postulate a God that has always existed as a brute fact.

Finally, there is a problem with this premise that Craig does not seem to have considered, and one that shows why the kalam cosmological argument, despite its greater sophistication, is still built on special pleading. How many things does God know? An omniscient deity, obviously, would know an infinite number of things. How many things can God do? Equally obviously, an omnipotent deity would be able to do an infinite number of things. But these are not potential infinites; they are actual infinites. The number of things God knows or can do, according to traditional theism, is not increasing indefinitely without bound; it is already as great as it will ever be. Therefore, since Craig argues that an actual infinite cannot exist in reality, then he has proven by his own argument that God does not exist - at least, not an infinite god of the type conceived of by so many theists.

So it's NOT impossible for an actual infinity to exist. So it seems to me, that if an actual infinity is possible, it doesn't seem to be analogous to a deity (how can a deity be constantly infinitely growing/increasing "without bound" - more so, if one of it's defining properties include "changeless" and "timeless").

Therefore, attempting infer a supernatural start (which is the least plausible - as no supernatural event has been discovered that had not been proven naturalistic) to the universe where a natural cause is more likely, is premature speculation and full of flaws (without proof of the supernatural).

Simply Refuted, unless, of course you pass HAL's challenge...
Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.
Thomas Jefferson

Offline HAL

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5007
  • Darwins +98/-17
  • Gender: Male
Re: WLC Style Apologetics Commentary Thread
« Reply #726 on: December 22, 2009, 11:15:22 AM »
Therefore, attempting infer a supernatural start (which is the least plausible - as no supernatural event has been discovered that had not been proven naturalistic) to the universe where a natural cause is more likely, is premature speculation and full of flaws (without proof of the supernatural).

Simply Refuted, unless, of course you pass HAL's challenge...


Supernatural is made-up nonsense until proven to exist. You might as well say that Munchkins created the universe with the help of the Witch of the North - it makes exactly as much sense as saying a supernatural deity did it. Exactly as much sense.

Majesty cannot prove the supernatural exists. Nobody has ever done that, not WLC, not anybody. So I am 100.0 % confident my challenge will go unanswered. Plus the beauty of it is I don't have to do much work at all. Since he is the claimant, he has to do all the work and all I have to do is examine his tests, methods, and theory.

Say Majesty - did we miss your theory of the supernatural? I don't recall reading it. Do you know what a theory is? Do you know how to verify and test a theory? Do you mind posting it, or even your hypothesis of the supernatural and how you propose verifying the hypothesis?

Thanks.
« Last Edit: December 22, 2009, 11:23:51 AM by HAL »

Offline Agamemnon

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4940
  • Darwins +15/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: WLC Style Apologetics Commentary Thread
« Reply #727 on: December 22, 2009, 11:55:56 AM »
Majesty cannot prove the supernatural exists. Nobody has ever done that, not WLC, not anybody. So I am 100.0 % confident my challenge will go unanswered.

That's OK, HAL. No challenge is too big for Majesty to ignore.
So far as I can remember, there is not one word in the Gospels in praise of intelligence.  --Bertrand Russell

Offline Tykster

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 913
  • Darwins +11/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: WLC Style Apologetics Commentary Thread
« Reply #728 on: December 22, 2009, 01:07:11 PM »
Majesty cannot prove the supernatural exists. Nobody has ever done that, not WLC, not anybody. So I am 100.0 % confident my challenge will go unanswered.

That's OK, HAL. No challenge is too big for Majesty to ignore.

Exactly  ;D
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 Deus ex Machina

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3029
  • Darwins +23/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • non-cdesign-proponentsist
Re: WLC Style Apologetics Commentary Thread
« Reply #729 on: December 22, 2009, 03:22:34 PM »
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.

Sweetheart, assertion by all-caps doesn't add any weight to an argument. If anything, it shows that you're losing the plot.

Quote
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.

Sorry bud, but you're wrong. The one you're looking for is 'sweeping generalisation', not 'fallacy of composition'. A fallacy of composition is something like 'there exist entities on the Earth that are sentient, therefore the Earth is sentient'. A sweeping generalisation is something like 'because some examples of category X exhibit property Y, then all instances of category X exhibit property Y'. Your accusation falls into the latter category, not the former - and is still wrong, because kcrady stated explicitly that he was not making a deductive conclusion in this case.

Quote
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.

This is more idiocy on your part. You have been provided with plenty of examples in regard to the extremely poor track record of IMPs - whether we are talking about the reason for rainbows or anything else. Again, you fail to understand the parameters of this debate.

Quote
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.

KC is not "yo boy" (whatever that translates to in English), and now you're just raving. Nowhere in the parameters of this debate is it required for kcrady to prove that no entity that might be endowed with the moniker "God" can possibly exist. If you thought otherwise, then that is your problem. Every religion that has made testable claims has come up short. That is a fact. Whether you like it or not, you cannot escape that fact. You can keep shouting in all-caps, but it does not add any weight to your argument - if anything, it simply makes it appear that you are starting to lose the plot.

Quote
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.

Well, I can't help your lack of understanding if you're not even willing to try.

Quote
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.

"Dawg"? I am not from your country, so you will have to explain that epithet to me.

As for the comment that it is "so long since you people cracked open a Physics book", those who know me will appreciate the delicious irony in this statement, given the nature of my job. And I also note that you failed to provide the working I asked for when it comes to establishing that the Big Bang contains within it a statement that violates the first law of thermodynamics, so it's obvious that your only response to my comment here is to wave your hands and dismiss it without addressing it. As for "answering" this issue in the "Levan post", all you did was added more false all-caps assertions into the mix. Friend, I am afraid that you have lost the plot completely. There is no hope for you.
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 #730 on: December 22, 2009, 03:36:43 PM »
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.

Look  dude...he  didn't  show  why  an  actual  infinity  can  exist  in  the  natural  world,  which  is  one  of  my  arguments,  he  didn't  address  the  thermodynamic  argument  either.  Yet  you  and  others  are  making  it  seem  as  if  he  put  on  this  spectacular  performance.  I  addressed  EVERY  SINGLE  ONE,  of  KCs  arguments,  and  if  i  missed  some,  I  always  went  back  to  address  them.

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. 

Naw  bro,  I  don't  need  to  change  a  thing.  He  didn't  show  why  an  actual  infinity  can  exist  in  the  natural  world,  and  if  he  did,  I  would  like  for  you  "I  am  become relevant"  to  post  exactly  where  he  proved  that  an  actual  infinity  can  exist  in  the  natural  world,  since  my  argument  is  that  it  CAN'T.  I  gave  examples  in my  opening  statement  why  it  can't,  and  I  havent  seen  a  rebuttal  for  it  YET.  About  the  expansion  argument  he  posted  I  think  two  different  models  that  are  in  the premature  stage  of  testing.  But  it  is  the  model  that  I  proposed,  that  has  the  most  evidence  leaning  towards  it,  and  it  is  the  model  that  I  proposed,  that  the  majority  of  scientist  are  leaning  towards,  and  i  pointed  it  out  time after  time  again  in  the  debate.  So  what  freakin  more  do  you  want  dude?  What  freakin  more  do  you  want??  He  committed  fallacies  that  I  called  him  out  on,  like  fallacy  of  composition.  You  can  look  the  fallacy  up  yourself,  and  then  read  his  statement  that  i  accused  him  of  making  it on,  and  tell  me  does  that  fallacy  fit  his  argument  perfectly.  What  more  do  you  freakin  want?  I  just  dont  understand how  you  can  sit  there  say  that  you  think  that  he  won.

Offline Majesty

  • Emergency Room
  • ***
  • Posts: 226
  • Darwins +0/-0
Re: WLC Style Apologetics Commentary Thread
« Reply #731 on: December 22, 2009, 03:59:45 PM »
Sweetheart, assertion by all-caps doesn't add any weight to an argument. If anything, it shows that you're losing the plot.

Notice the  focus  isn't  on  the  argument,  but  on  the  CAPS.  It  looks  like this  broke  down  spartan  aint  prepared  for  a  war  after  all  lol.


Sorry bud, but you're wrong. The one you're looking for is 'sweeping generalisation', not 'fallacy of composition'. A fallacy of composition is something like 'there exist entities on the Earth that are sentient, therefore the Earth is sentient'. A sweeping generalisation is something like 'because some examples of category X exhibit property Y, then all instances of category X exhibit property Y'. Your accusation falls into the latter category, not the former - and is still wrong, because kcrady stated explicitly that he was not making a deductive conclusion in this case.

Its  funny,  because  when  you  look  up  fallacy  of  composition,  you  will  find  out  that  fallacy  of  "hasty  generalization"  often  get  confused  with  "fallacy  of  composition".  And  i  can  see  why,  because  YOU  are  giving  an  example  of  the  two  being  confused  with one  another. 

This is more idiocy on your part. You have been provided with plenty of examples in regard to the extremely poor track record of IMPs - whether we are talking about the reason for rainbows or anything else. Again, you fail to understand the parameters of this debate.

Even  if  IMPs  have  "poor  track  records"  (even  tho  i  don't  believe  that  they  do),  that  STILL  doesn't  mean  that  IMPs  dont  exist  lol.  They  could  still  exist  despite  a  poor  track  record.  So  once  again,  you  fail  with  the  argument,  and  you  can  cling on  to  it  until  the  day  that  you  die,  but  you  will  still  be  wrong.  So  keep  your  false  hope  alive.


KC is not "yo boy" (whatever that translates to in English), and now you're just raving. Nowhere in the parameters of this debate is it required for kcrady to prove that no entity that might be endowed with the moniker "God" can possibly exist. If you thought otherwise, then that is your problem. Every religion that has made testable claims has come up short. That is a fact. Whether you like it or not, you cannot escape that fact. You can keep shouting in all-caps, but it does not add any weight to your argument - if anything, it simply makes it appear that you are starting to lose the plot. 

Really?  Give  me  a  post  that  has  every  single  religion  that  has  made  testable  claims  and  prove  that  that  particular  religion  has  been  proven  wrong.  You  made  the  statement.  So  show  me.  If  you  can't,  then  you  are  a  liar.


As for the comment that it is "so long since you people cracked open a Physics book", those who know me will appreciate the delicious irony in this statement, given the nature of my job. And I also note that you failed to provide the working I asked for when it comes to establishing that the Big Bang contains within it a statement that violates the first law of thermodynamics, so it's obvious that your only response to my comment here is to wave your hands and dismiss it without addressing it. As for "answering" this issue in the "Levan post", all you did was added more false all-caps assertions into the mix. Friend, I am afraid that you have lost the plot completely. There is no hope for you.

Regardless  of  whether  the  words  are  in  CAPS,  or  lower  case,  each  word  that  i  type  are  hittin  you people  like  a  large  grenade.  How  about  you  debate  me  on  the  issues  Deus??  If  you  wont  accept  the  challenge  to  the  debate, then  simply  keep your  comments to  yourself.

Offline Inactive_1

  • Emergency Room
  • ******
  • Posts: 2242
  • Darwins +10/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: WLC Style Apologetics Commentary Thread
« Reply #732 on: December 22, 2009, 03:59:59 PM »
Deus has volunteered to moderate this room. He will refrain from commenting on the debate, but will take over moderation and keep the comments on topic. He will do the same as I would have. If this spirals into an insult-fest it will be heavily moderated or locked at his discretion.

Offline Deus ex Machina

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3029
  • Darwins +23/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • non-cdesign-proponentsist
Re: WLC Style Apologetics Commentary Thread
« Reply #733 on: December 22, 2009, 04:14:02 PM »
How  about  you  debate  me  on  the  issues  Deus??  If  you  wont  accept  the  challenge  to  the  debate, then  simply  keep your  comments to  yourself.

Alas, I have just disqualified myself from participating in debate (see above post from Admin 1). This includes the commentary thread, so anyone who cares to pick up where I left off is free to do so.
No day in which you learn something is wasted.

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12210
  • Darwins +267/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: WLC Style Apologetics Commentary Thread
« Reply #734 on: December 22, 2009, 04:30:41 PM »
Sweetheart, assertion by all-caps doesn't add any weight to an argument. If anything, it shows that you're losing the plot.

Notice the  focus  isn't  on  the  argument,  but  on  the  CAPS.  It  looks  like this  broke  down  spartan  aint  prepared  for  a  war  after  all  lol.

Actually, his focus was on the fact that it was assertion.  As it has been all along.
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline Deus ex Machina

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3029
  • Darwins +23/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • non-cdesign-proponentsist
Re: WLC Style Apologetics Commentary Thread
« Reply #735 on: December 22, 2009, 04:33:51 PM »
I am obliged - in my new capacity - to ask Majesty to either make any closing remarks in the debate thread, or (if he declines to do so) declare that he's happy to leave the debate where it is.

Either way, as this debating system has just been instituted, I'll allow Majesty one further post in final rebuttal to any existing comments in this commentary thread - after which I must ask him, and kcrady, to refrain from posting in it.

Oh, and incidentally, please come up with new ideas for debates here!
« Last Edit: December 22, 2009, 04:36:33 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 #736 on: December 22, 2009, 04:39:45 PM »
When  i  stumbled  across  this site,  all  i  can  do  is smile.  Because  everything  that  Hawking  is  saying,  I  already  said.  Wow,  he  even  implied  that  all  space,  time,  and  matter  didn't  exist  before  the  Big  Bang.  You people  argued  me  to  DEATH  contrary  to  what  he  said.  Read..i  even  put  the  link  up.  The  second  paragraph  just  proves  how  wrong  you  people  were,  because  me  and  Hawkings  were  on  the  same  accord  all  along...wow

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/hawking/universes/html/bang.html

How did the universe really begin? Most astronomers would say that the debate is now over: The universe started with a giant explosion, called the Big Bang. The big-bang theory got its start with the observations by Edwin Hubble that showed the universe to be expanding. If you imagine the history of the universe as a long-running movie, what happens when you show the movie in reverse? All the galaxies would move closer and closer together, until eventually they all get crushed together into one massive yet tiny sphere. It was just this sort of thinking that led to the concept of the Big Bang.

       The Big Bang marks the instant at which the universe began, when space and time came into existence and all the matter in the cosmos started to expand. Amazingly, theorists have deduced the history of the universe dating back to just 10-43 second (10 million trillion trillion trillionths of a second) after the Big Bang. Before this time all four fundamental forces—gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces—were unified, but physicists have yet to develop a workable theory that can describe these conditions.

       During the first second or so of the universe, protons, neutrons, and electrons—the building blocks of atoms—formed when photons collided and converted their energy into mass, and the four forces split into their separate identities. The temperature of the universe also cooled during this time, from about 1032 (100 million trillion trillion) degrees to 10 billion degrees. Approximately three minutes after the Big Bang, when the temperature fell to a cool one billion degrees, protons and neutrons combined to form the nuclei of a few heavier elements, most notably helium.

       The next major step didn’t take place until roughly 300,000 years after the Big Bang, when the universe had cooled to a not-quite comfortable 3000 degrees. At this temperature, electrons could combine with atomic nuclei to form neutral atoms. With no free electrons left to scatter photons of light, the universe became transparent to radiation. (It is this light that we see today as the cosmic background radiation.) Stars and galaxies began to form about one billion years following the Big Bang, and since then the universe has simply continued to grow larger and cooler, creating conditions conducive to life.

       Three excellent reasons exist for believing in the big-bang theory. First, and most obvious, the universe is expanding. Second, the theory predicts that 25 percent of the total mass of the universe should be the helium that formed during the first few minutes, an amount that agrees with observations. Finally, and most convincing, is the presence of the cosmic background radiation. The big-bang theory predicted this remnant radiation, which now glows at a temperature just 3 degrees above absolute zero, well before radio astronomers chanced upon it.

Offline Majesty

  • Emergency Room
  • ***
  • Posts: 226
  • Darwins +0/-0
Re: WLC Style Apologetics Commentary Thread
« Reply #737 on: December 22, 2009, 04:40:58 PM »
I am obliged - in my new capacity - to ask Majesty to either make any closing remarks in the debate thread, or (if he declines to do so) declare that he's happy to leave the debate where it is.

Either way, as this debating system has just been instituted, I'll allow Majesty one further post in final rebuttal to any existing comments in this commentary thread - after which I must ask him, and kcrady, to refrain from posting in it.

Oh, and incidentally, please come up with new ideas for debates here!

Will  be  up  tomorrow.

Offline Emily

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5657
  • Darwins +49/-0
  • Gender: Female
Re: WLC Style Apologetics Commentary Thread
« Reply #738 on: December 22, 2009, 04:44:42 PM »
When  i  stumbled  across  this site,  all  i  can  do  is smile.  Because  everything  that  Hawking  is  saying,  I  already  said.  Wow,  he  even  implied  that  all  space,  time,  and  matter  didn't  exist  before  the  Big  Bang.  You people  argued  me  to  DEATH  contrary  to  what  he  said.  Read..i  even  put  the  link  up.  The  second  paragraph  just  proves  how  wrong  you  people  were,  because  me  and  Hawkings  were  on  the  same  accord  all  along...wow

The only difference between what Hawkings is saying and what you are saying is you're jumping to conclusions that some supernatural creator is behind it all. Science wont jump to those conclusions but some philosophers will. I agree with the big bang theory but I don't agree with your idea that some creator is it's cause regardless of whatever arguments you have - because all you're doing to making baseless assumptions.
« Last Edit: December 22, 2009, 04:46:29 PM by Emily »
"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 DisdainDavid

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1354
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Almighty Zeus
Re: WLC Style Apologetics Commentary Thread
« Reply #739 on: December 22, 2009, 04:45:11 PM »
When  i  stumbled  across  this site,  all  i  can  do  is smile.  Because  everything  that  Hawking  is  saying,  I  already  said.  Wow,  he  even  implied  that  all  space,  time,  and  matter  didn't  exist  before  the  Big  Bang.  You people  argued  me  to  DEATH  contrary  to  what  he  said.  Read..i  even  put  the  link  up.  The  second  paragraph  just  proves  how  wrong  you  people  were,  because  me  and  Hawkings  were  on  the  same  accord  all  along...wow
I don't expect you to know this but matter can be converted into energy and vice versa.  No where in that article does it state that energy could not have existed prior to the big bang.  In fact, no where in the article does it state at all that anything could or could not have existed before the big bang, let alone energy.  Yes, space and time did not exist as we currently understand them but that is not what you just tried to insinuate.  You seriously couldn't think this article helped you at all, could you?
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 pianodwarf

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4350
  • Darwins +206/-5
  • Gender: Male
  • Je bois ton lait frappé
Re: WLC Style Apologetics Commentary Thread
« Reply #740 on: December 22, 2009, 04:46:35 PM »
When  i  stumbled  across  this site,  all  i  can  do  is smile.  Because  everything  that  Hawking  is  saying,  I  already  said.  Wow,  he  even  implied  that  all  space,  time,  and  matter  didn't  exist  before  the  Big  Bang.  You people  argued  me  to  DEATH  contrary  to  what  he  said.  Read..i  even  put  the  link  up.  The  second  paragraph  just  proves  how  wrong  you  people  were,  because  me  and  Hawkings  were  on  the  same  accord  all  along...wow

Here's the section you're citing:

Quote
The Big Bang marks the instant at which the universe began, when space and time came into existence and all the matter in the cosmos started to expand. Amazingly, theorists have deduced the history of the universe dating back to just 10-43 second (10 million trillion trillion trillionths of a second) after the Big Bang. Before this time all four fundamental forces—gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces—were unified, but physicists have yet to develop a workable theory that can describe these conditions.

In other words, space and time did not exist, but matter did -- which is exactly what we've been saying all along, and directly contradicts what you said above.

Oops...
[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]:  Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

Offline Deus ex Machina

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3029
  • Darwins +23/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • non-cdesign-proponentsist
Re: WLC Style Apologetics Commentary Thread
« Reply #741 on: December 22, 2009, 04:46:48 PM »
Will  be  up  tomorrow.

Thanks Majesty. I take it that your previous post (the PBS citation) is the one post permitted, therefore I must ask you from now on to ignore any barracking you get from the peanut gallery, refrain from posting in this thread and concentrate on your closing statement. I hope that's ok. :)
No day in which you learn something is wasted.

Offline I am become relevant

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 568
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: WLC Style Apologetics Commentary Thread
« Reply #742 on: December 22, 2009, 05:00:11 PM »
Look  dude...he  didn't  show  why  an  actual  infinity  can  exist  in  the  natural  world,  which  is  one  of  my  arguments,  he  didn't  address  the  thermodynamic  argument  either.  Yet  you  and  others  are  making  it  seem  as  if  he  put  on  this  spectacular  performance.  I  addressed  EVERY  SINGLE  ONE,  of  KCs  arguments,  and  if  i  missed  some,  I  always  went  back  to  address  them.    
It's not that you missed the Majesty, as much as you didn't exactly get the points straight. Let's take the actual infinity existing in the real world. KC and other member's of the forum have already told you that Your assertion doesn't have to be true. You say it leads to logical absurdities, but do not mention them when you're asked to. This is a good example of you not absorbing the argument.



Quote
Naw  bro,  I  don't  need  to  change  a  thing.  He  didn't  show  why  an  actual  infinity  can  exist  in  the  natural  world,  and  if  he  did,  I  would  like  for  you  "I  am  become relevant"  to  post  exactly  where  he  proved  that  an  actual  infinity  can  exist  in  the  natural  world,  since  my  argument  is  that  it  CAN'T.  I  gave  examples  in my  opening  statement  why  it  can't,  and  I  havent  seen  a  rebuttal  for  it  YET.  About  the  expansion  argument  he  posted  I  think  two  different  models  that  are  in  the premature  stage  of  testing.  But  it  is  the  model  that  I  proposed,  that  has  the  most  evidence  leaning  towards  it,  and  it  is  the  model  that  I  proposed,  that  the  majority  of  scientist  are  leaning  towards,  and  i  pointed  it  out  time after  time  again  in  the  debate.  So  what  freakin  more  do  you  want  dude?  What  freakin  more  do  you  want??  He  committed  fallacies  that  I  called  him  out  on,  like  fallacy  of  composition.  You  can  look  the  fallacy  up  yourself,  and  then  read  his  statement  that  i  accused  him  of  making  it on,  and  tell  me  does  that  fallacy  fit  his  argument  perfectly.  What  more  do  you  freakin  want?  I  just  dont  understand how  you  can  sit  there  say  that  you  think  that  he  won.
He never did post an example Majesty. As you can see no one has yet claimed that they can give an example for an actual infinity existing in the universe. But what makes you claim they don't? As I've said you haven't provided any source of evidence to back your claim.
Claim: Actual infinities can't exist
Evidence provided: None
Now when you say 'the model that I proposed', are you referring to the big-bang? Because you do know that KC is using the exact same model. When you're referring to the other models he provided, you should realize that he posted them to give examples of possible models for what caused the big-bang or what was there prior to it.  
As for his statement being a fallacy of composition. Well I guess it's a bit subjective, depending on what you understood from his statements. His statements were rational logical statements that he emphasized were not conclusive, more than they were clear indicators, or strong evidence. It's not that he's stating X doesn't exist or X didn't do that. He saying why should we believe that X did this or that X exists?


EDIT: I posted this before reading Deus's posts. I'll leave it up, but won't expect a reply. If you feel like replying Majesty you can PM me.
(Also some spelling)
« Last Edit: December 22, 2009, 05:14:26 PM by I am become relevant »
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.

Offline GetMeThere

Re: WLC Style Apologetics Commentary Thread
« Reply #743 on: December 22, 2009, 05:02:21 PM »
so anyone who cares to pick up where I left off is free to do so.

You mean, we should feel free to bash our heads against a wall?

Offline Deus ex Machina

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3029
  • Darwins +23/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • non-cdesign-proponentsist
Re: WLC Style Apologetics Commentary Thread
« Reply #744 on: December 22, 2009, 05:06:33 PM »
so anyone who cares to pick up where I left off is free to do so.

You mean, we should feel free to bash our heads against a wall?

In the words of Ian Richardson: You might very well think that; I couldn't possibly comment.
No day in which you learn something is wasted.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 11994
  • Darwins +618/-23
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: WLC Style Apologetics Commentary Thread
« Reply #745 on: December 22, 2009, 05:07:18 PM »
PBS got a couple things wrong at the very least. If they got these wrong, what else?

How did the universe really begin? Most astronomers would say that the debate is now over: The universe started with a giant explosion[1], called the Big Bang. ...

... Approximately three minutes after the Big Bang, when the temperature fell to a cool one billion degrees, protons and neutrons combined to form the nuclei of a few heavier elements, most notably helium[2].
 1. I have never seen scientists refer to it as an explosion, but I see science reporters and creationists do it all the time
 2. Helium is not a heavier element.  It is the second lightest.  And as I recall, the heavy elements, like iron, were created in the gravity of dying stars when they collapse.
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline Gnu Ordure

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3832
  • Darwins +109/-9
  • Gender: Male
Re: WLC Style Apologetics Commentary Thread
« Reply #746 on: December 22, 2009, 05:09:40 PM »
Quote
I take it that your previous post (the PBS citation) is the one post permitted, therefore I must ask you from now on to ignore any barracking you get from the peanut gallery, refrain from posting in this thread

Deus, his PBS post was posted only a few minutes after yours. Majesty may not have realized that he is being obliged to leave this thread. I think you should let him make a proper goodbye to his critics here, if he wants one.

Contratulations on your promotion, btw. What are the perks of moderation these days? Do you get a uniform?
« Last Edit: December 22, 2009, 05:12:56 PM by Gnu Ordure »

Offline Agamemnon

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4940
  • Darwins +15/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: WLC Style Apologetics Commentary Thread
« Reply #747 on: December 22, 2009, 05:13:26 PM »
If he had watched the videos posted earlier in the thread, he would have known about the explosion/expansion thing as well as how some elements were formed in supernova.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernova

Quote
They play a significant role in enriching the interstellar medium with higher mass elements.
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 #748 on: December 22, 2009, 05:21:02 PM »
Wait, what? It's over now?

And I didn't get to reply... :'( Pfft, he restated his straw man again. The rest were insults.

What about the next debate being: Even assuming that there is a "first cause" as Pharaoh described, it cannot be Yahweh? That might be interesting...
« Last Edit: December 22, 2009, 05:22:48 PM by Levan »

Offline Deus ex Machina

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3029
  • Darwins +23/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • non-cdesign-proponentsist
Re: WLC Style Apologetics Commentary Thread
« Reply #749 on: December 22, 2009, 05:22:28 PM »
Quote
I take it that your previous post (the PBS citation) is the one post permitted, therefore I must ask you from now on to ignore any barracking you get from the peanut gallery, refrain from posting in this thread

Deus, his PBS post was posted only a few minutes after yours. Majesty may not have realized that he is being obliged to leave this thread. I think you should let him make a proper goodbye to his critics here, if he wants one.

Okay, fair enough - one more. But it must be a single post.

Quote
Contratulations on your promotion, btw. What are the perks of moderation these days? Do you get a uniform?

By the looks of it, all I get are these lousy stars under my name... ;)
No day in which you learn something is wasted.

Offline Deus ex Machina

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3029
  • Darwins +23/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • non-cdesign-proponentsist
Re: WLC Style Apologetics Commentary Thread
« Reply #750 on: December 22, 2009, 05:26:41 PM »
What about the next debate being: Even assuming that there is a "first cause" as Pharaoh described, it cannot be Yahweh? That might be interesting...

Feel free to suggest it here - if there are any other takers, you're good to go :)
No day in which you learn something is wasted.

Offline Gnu Ordure

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3832
  • Darwins +109/-9
  • Gender: Male
Re: WLC Style Apologetics Commentary Thread
« Reply #751 on: December 22, 2009, 05:30:46 PM »
pbs:
Quote
Approximately three minutes after the Big Bang, when the temperature fell to a cool one billion degrees, protons and neutrons combined to form the nuclei of a few heavier elements, most notably helium
screwtape:
Quote
Helium is not a heavier element.  It is the second lightest.  And as I recall, the heavy elements, like iron, were created in the gravity of dying stars when they collapse.

Screwtape, I agree the PBS description is ambiguous, but I think they're trying to say that the element helium is heavier than its constituent protons and neutron, not that it's heavier than other elements.

(I'm using Occam's Razor here. Thinking helium is a heavy element is an elementary (ha-ha) error. More likely that it's poor language skills).
« Last Edit: December 22, 2009, 07:31:10 PM by Gnu Ordure »

Offline Levan

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 525
  • Darwins +0/-0
Re: WLC Style Apologetics Commentary Thread
« Reply #752 on: December 22, 2009, 05:43:49 PM »
In other words, space and time did not exist, but matter did -- which is exactly what we've been saying all along, and directly contradicts what you said above.

Oops...

I suck at cosmology. Could you please explain that?

Besides, I think his response would be "matter can't exist without space", so it might be better to address it beforehand.

If all else fails in your attempt to explain it, however, just use immaterial energy ;)

Offline pianodwarf

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4350
  • Darwins +206/-5
  • Gender: Male
  • Je bois ton lait frappé
Re: WLC Style Apologetics Commentary Thread
« Reply #753 on: December 22, 2009, 05:51:05 PM »
In other words, space and time did not exist, but matter did -- which is exactly what we've been saying all along, and directly contradicts what you said above.

Oops...

I suck at cosmology. Could you please explain that?

Basically, the theory says that all the matter in the universe was compressed to infinite density in a dimensionless point; i.e., matter, but no space.  It sounds weird to say that matter can exist without taking up space, but this concept is not peculiar to Big Bang theory.  Black holes are said to be the same.

Quote
Besides, I think his response would be "matter can't exist without space", so it might be better to address it beforehand.

OK, answered above.
[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]:  Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn