Aftermath Thread

[Deus ex Machina]

Well,  until  someone  is  able  to  refute  what  WLC  has  to  say,  then  Me,  Him,  and  his  followers  will  continue  to  use  the  arguments.  Since  it  is  not  broke,  we  wont  be  needing  to  fix  it  lol.  You  may  not  like  it,  but  hey...thats  a  personal  problem

Majesty,

It's worth going over this to avoid future misunderstandings, as there still seems to be some confusion about the terms of discussion, and also what is meant by 'refutation'. And it might be a useful object lesson for all prospective debaters, in that I think it would be useful for both antagonists to agree before a debate starts on what precisely are the terms of the debate in question, and also to state clearly (perhaps in their opening statements) what it is that they intend to have achieved by the end of the debate.

If you were under the impression that it was incumbent upon your opponent to prove the KCA to be absolutely false, then allow me to disabuse you of that notion. As it happens, even an invalid or unsound logical argument could nevertheless reach a true conclusion - albeit more by luck than good judgment.

You were supplied with objections to the KCA in several of its aspects. That you don't consider those objections to carry much weight is, I'm afraid, your problem: it is not your opponent's job to convince you of them. Your argument was shown to carry some assumptions that your opponent does not share, and neither he nor your audience are obliged to share them.

That was all that was really required of your debating opponent: to expose the flaws in the argument. You may not find those objections compelling. That's fair enough; that's your opinion. Bear in mind, however, that just because you don't find an objection compelling does not place an obligation on anyone else, neither does it allow you to claim "victory".

The objections on a number of grounds that your argument contains assumptions about reality that are not obligatory remain valid, thus casting doubt upon the soundness of the argument. Since you failed to adequately address those objections (and failed to refute the multiverse hypotheses altogether, merely waving them away with the assertion that Craig did so against Victor Stenger without actually showing the working required to demonstrate that Craig's counter-argument actually achieved the result that you claim it did), you failed to carry your argument - at least in the eyes of this audience.

You can object until you're blue in the face, but I am afraid that it is unlikely to do you any good. I would also advise showing at least a little humility.

As stated, however, there were a number of problems with the first debate. What should have happened was that a specific proposition to be established, and the terms of discussion, should have been defined right at the beginning - and the proponent should have posted their support of the proposition first. This didn't happen, the terms of discussion were never defined, and as a result, there appears to be a great deal of confusion regarding what the debate was actually about (or what constituted "winning" it). I hope to avoid this in future.

Can we move on to the topic of the next debate now, please? And please bear in mind the above when defining the terms of discussion, and compiling opening statements.

[Majesty]

You were supplied with objections to the KCA in several of its aspects. That you don't consider those objections to carry much weight is, I'm afraid, your problem: it is not your opponent's job to convince you of them. Your argument was shown to carry some assumptions that your opponent does not share, and neither he nor your audience are obliged to share them.

Not true,  give  me  a  quote  from  the  last  debate  where  my  opponent  answered  my  two philosophical  arguments??  And  I  showed  why  every  model  presented  by  my  opponent  wasn't  the  best  explanation.  The  Big Bang model  remains  the  best  explanation  of  the  beginning  of  the  universe.  You  can  look  this  up.  Stephen Hawking (who  isn't  a  theist, btw)  backs  me  up  on  this.  This  makes  all  other  models  invalid.  I  have  studied  this  issue  for  quite  some  time,  thanks  to  WLC  and  other  sources.  I  have  an  answer  for  the  majority of  all  objections  so  I  am  not  really  surprised  by  anything  you people  have  said  thus  far.

That was all that was really required of your debating opponent: to expose the flaws in the argument. You may not find those objections compelling. That's fair enough; that's your opinion. Bear in mind, however, that just because you don't find an objection compelling does not place an obligation on anyone else, neither does it allow you to claim "victory".

I  havent  seen  any  flaws  pointed  out  in  any  of  my  arguments.  Nobody  has  said  anything  yet  that  made  me  think  and say  "Hmm  he may  have  something  on  here".  The  only  problem  that  I  struggled  with  is  having  a  counter  attack  for  the  characteristics  of  the  "first  cause".  And  that  is  because  it  invovles  the  concept  of  "time".  The  concept  of  "time"  is  a  branch  of  philosophy  in  itself,  called  "philosophy  of  time".   And  anyone  that  has  studied  this  concept  know  that  it  can  get  very  technical.  But  as  far  as  the  arguments  in  favor  of  the  kalam,  I  have  yet  (in  my  honest  opinion),  been  presented  any  flaw  with  any  of  my  arguments.

The objections on a number of grounds that your argument contains assumptions about reality that are not obligatory remain valid, thus casting doubt upon the soundness of the argument. Since you failed to adequately address those objections (and failed to refute the multiverse hypotheses altogether, merely waving them away with the assertion that Craig did so against Victor Stenger without actually showing the working required to demonstrate that Craig's counter-argument actually achieved the result that you claim it did), you failed to carry your argument - at least in the eyes of this audience.  

Well,  I  didnt  want  to  get  to  far  into  debating  different  models,  because  that  is  another  debate  in  itself.  BUT  i  already  offered  my opponent,  or  anyone  IN  THESE  ROOMS,  to  have  a  debate  regarding  the  different  models  that  has  been  presented.  I  already  know  and  did  research  on  the  other  models,  so  i  know  why  the  other  models  isnt  plausible  and  why  the  Big Bang  remains  the  most  plausible  explanation.  No  one  has  accepted  the  challenge  in  a  debate  on  the  models  yet.  So  if  you  or  anyone  ELSE  in  these  rooms  think  that  the  multiverse  theory  or  any  other  theory  is  the  best  explanation,  it  is only  fair  that  you  debate  me  on  the  subject,  and  if you  are  not  willing  to  discuss  the  issues  that  you  think  are  the best,  then  you  are  just  wasteing  both  of  our  time.  No  need  to  raise  a  issue  if  you  are  not  in  a position  or  refuse  to  defend  it,  and  I  am,  and  I  am  prepared  to  do  just  that.  Oh  and  bwt,  its  funny  how  you  say  "you  failed  to  adequately  address  those  objections",  when  my  opponent  didn't  even  state  why  the  model  was  the  best.  He  just  simply  posted  a  link  and  told  me  to  read  it.  But  of  course,  you  wont  bring  that  up  to  my  opponent.  BIAS  BIAS  BIAS

You can object until you're blue in the face, but I am afraid that it is unlikely to do you any good. I would also advise showing at least a little humility.

Can  you  show  why  the  two  philosophical  arguments  fail?  If  you  cant,  then  I  guess  my  face  shall  remain  blue.

Can we move on to the topic of the next debate now, please? And please bear in mind the above when defining the terms of discussion, and compiling opening statements.

Whenever  Hermes  is  ready,  I  am  ready.

[Deus ex Machina]

Not true,  give  me  a  quote  from  the  last  debate  where  my  opponent  answered  my  two philosophical  arguments??

He answered the one about "time" in reply #5. The impossibility of an actually infinite number of physical objects I don't see as a particularly relevant contribution in support of the KCA, personally, so I don't see why it would be incumbent on your opponent to address it.

And  I  showed  why  every  model  presented  by  my  opponent  wasn't  the  best  explanation.  The  Big Bang model  remains  the  best  explanation  of  the  beginning  of  the  universe.  You  can  look  this  up.  Stephen Hawking (who  isn't  a  theist, btw)  backs  me  up  on  this.  This  makes  all  other  models  invalid.

That's incredibly sloppy ad verecundiam reasoning. Sorry, just because Hawking says it (assuming he is not being misrepresented here, and I have my suspicions about that) does not make "all other models invalid", particularly when many multiverse hypotheses are complementary to, not in competition with, the Big Bang model.

I  have  studied  this  issue  for  quite  some  time,  thanks  to  WLC  and  other  sources.  I  have  an  answer  for  the  majority of  all  objections  so  I  am  not  really  surprised  by  anything  you people  have  said  thus  far.

This was also addressed in reply #5, "A Note on Terminology". No-one disputes that the Big Bang model remains the best explanation for our cosmos - that is, the four-dimensional space-time we happen to inhabit. Nobody, however, is obliged to accept the notion that the Big Bang model is any explanation at all for the beginning of the Universe - that is, the sum totality of physical existence, not least on the grounds that one is not obliged to accept that "the cosmos" and "the Universe" are synonymous. This was pointed out to you.

What is also worth noting is that even if they were, all the Big Bang says is that we can trace the Universe back to a cosmic singularity. That we can't trace beyond that does not necessarily entail that the Universe "begins to exist" at that point - merely that we can't make any comments about its state beyond that point without engaging in sheer speculation.

And your opponent also devoted a large segment of his responses to pointing out that, even if we couldn't discover a natural explanation for the existence of the cosmos, that would still not render arbitrary supernaturalistic explanations 'more plausible', given that their track record to date is a failure rate of 100% in every single instance where we've been able to put them to the test. The closest we could ever get to is "I don't know" - and anything beyond that remains speculative.

And even if one's personal opinion remains that a supernaturalistic explanation remains the 'best' on the basis of the data we have (no matter that supernaturalistic explanations have consistently failed, and absent no criteria by which to assess them on their own merits, I fail to see how one would make a case for that), that still would not amount to proof of it.

As such, the premise "the Universe begins to exist", remains unestablished, much less any speculative ideas about any purported "cause".

So it's all very well saying you "have answers", but if those answers rest on uncommon premises, as this one does, then that's a flaw in your argument. Just for the record.

I  havent  seen  any  flaws  pointed  out  in  any  of  my  arguments.  Nobody  has  said  anything  yet  that  made  me  think  and say  "Hmm  he may  have  something  on  here".  The  only  problem  that  I  struggled  with  is  having  a  counter  attack  for  the  characteristics  of  the  "first  cause".  And  that  is  because  it  invovles  the  concept  of  "time".  The  concept  of  "time"  is  a  branch  of  philosophy  in  itself,  called  "philosophy  of  time".   And  anyone  that  has  studied  this  concept  know  that  it  can  get  very  technical.  But  as  far  as  the  arguments  in  favor  of  the  kalam,  I  have  yet  (in  my  honest  opinion),  been  presented  any  flaw  with  any  of  my  arguments.

Well, the argument about "time" is rather crucial to your premise about the notion that the Universe must have a beginning, isn't it? So that's another assumption we can chalk down that others aren't obliged to accept.

That's the thing, you see. All that your opponent needed to establish is that the KCA does not prove that there is a god. It can't, without making a shedload of assumptions along the way - and I've pointed out two here: the notion that multiverses (which do not necessarily entail infinite numbers of objects in physical reality) can't exist, and assumptions about the nature of time (not necessarily applicable to any 'multiverse' in any event). A colleague of mine has a great saying: "ASSUME makes an ASS out of U and ME".

Well,  I  didnt  want  to  get  to  far  into  debating  different  models,  because  that  is  another  debate  in  itself.  BUT  i  already  offered  my opponent,  or  anyone  IN  THESE  ROOMS,  to  have  a  debate  regarding  the  different  models  that  has  been  presented.

Feel free to start a new thread in the General Religious Discussion or Science sections on the subject of different cosmological models. Nothing is stopping you from doing that. I'll participate if I have the time. The debate rooms do not revolve around you.

I  already  know  and  did  research  on  the  other  models,  so  i  know  why  the  other  models  isnt  plausible  and  why  the  Big Bang  remains  the  most  plausible  explanation.

Ipse dixit. I'm not interested unless you show your working, which you didn't.

{...}  Oh  and  bwt,  its  funny  how  you  say  "you  failed  to  adequately  address  those  objections",  when  my  opponent  didn't  even  state  why  the  model  was  the  best.  He  just  simply  posted  a  link  and  told  me  to  read  it.  But  of  course,  you  wont  bring  that  up  to  my  opponent.  BIAS  BIAS  BIAS

It wasn't his job to establish that any particular multiverse hypothesis was "the best". Again, your misunderstanding.

Like I said, the only thing he needed to establish was that the KCA is flawed: in this instance, it rests on a premise (the Universe begins to exist) whose argumentative basis contains a fallacy of the excluded middle (multiverse hypotheses are apparently arbitrarily excluded). The premise, in that case, amounts to no more than an assertion, and one that no-one else is obliged to accept. Without that premise, the argument fails.

If you wish to make your case, you are free to start a new thread in the General Religious Discussion or Science sections - it does not have to be a formal debate in here. Formal debates here should have a specific topic, terms and format of discussion, and not every discussion is suitable to that. If you wish to present your arguments not only why every extant multiverse hypothesis is invalid, but also why no multiverse hypothesis could possibly be right, then it is up to you to make that case.

Can  you  show  why  the  two  philosophical  arguments  fail?  If  you  cant,  then  I  guess  my  face  shall  remain  blue.

Already covered above.