This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

WLC Wins Another Debate

#51DrAlbertBanduraPosted 2/6/2013 6:00:41 AM
WLC has a terrible time addressing basic criticisms of KCA (which itself is essentially special pleading for a rule that itself cannot be established) and it's painfully obvious in an awkward kinda way that he has problems overturning claims which carry equivalency but which contradict KCA. Case in point: his exchange with TBS. That was clumsy.
---
Two fish are in a tank. One turns to the other and says, "You man the guns. I'll drive."
http://img267.imageshack.us/img267/9504/bandura.jpg
#52fudrickPosted 2/6/2013 6:02:23 AM
PhiZZiZle posted...
According to fudrick?


According to anyone who both has knowledge of the subject and isn't biased. I'd like to see you direct me toward a physicist who finds the argument to be valid

PhiZZiZle posted...
KCA is his bread and butter. Go to his website, read his written material, watch his debates. The man has literally spent thirty years studying and defending the KCA... His doctoral thesis is on the KCA...


Which is, honestly, pretty f***ing sad

PhiZZiZle posted...
How can you possibly claim this?


I dunno, because it's true I guess. He simply hasn't, and in all likelihood simply can't, prove the premises to be true in all cases
---
Best FCs:
GH1: Decontrol | GH2: Jordan, Hangar 18 | GH80s: Because It's Midnite | GH3: One, Soothsayer | RB2: I Ain't Superstitious
#53CdrRoguePosted 2/6/2013 6:03:32 AM
KCA's entire basis sits on completely limited or unsubstantiated claims though, and he has never cleared up that issue. He just says they're "self-evident".

They're not.

Also, at best, KCA can be argued for some kind of deistic intervention. WLC somehow finds a "therefore Jesus" buried in there somewhere which has never made any sense.
#54fudrickPosted 2/6/2013 6:09:39 AM
CdrRogue posted...
KCA's entire basis sits on completely limited or unsubstantiated claims though, and he has never cleared up that issue. He just says they're "self-evident".

They're not.


Yeah, this. He literally cites "metaphysical intuition" as his reasoning for positing the first premise of the standard KCA. That's f***ing nonsense
---
Best FCs:
GH1: Decontrol | GH2: Jordan, Hangar 18 | GH80s: Because It's Midnite | GH3: One, Soothsayer | RB2: I Ain't Superstitious
#55JonWood007Posted 2/6/2013 9:27:46 AM(edited)
PhiZZiZle posted...
Jon, all your issues have been addressed by WLC....

Except for the history of Jesus stuff... I haven't found much from wlc on that. He tends to refer to others about history since he is a philosopher.


Can you lay out his arguments for me?

I'm just saying it seems idiotic for Craig to think he KNOWS the answer when his philosophical understandings are likely totally inadequate.

Not to mention it's easy to counter any point on paper by just saying "screw it, it's magic", but does that make it true? What PROOF does Craig have in making whatever counter assertions he tries to make? Or is he talking out of his butt? I'm guessing it's the latter.

Wrap your heads around this. Before the big bang, TIME DID NOT EXIST. There was literally no causal dimension in which events happened in. This did not begin until boom. What caused the boom? We don't know. COuld it have been a God? Maybe. Could it have been something else? Also maybe. The thing is, we don't know. KCA fails to address things regarding space time and advanced quantum physics. All it says is that temporal events can't go back ad infinitum, therefore, God. even though he magically eternally exists, because, you know, it's magic and doesn't need to make sense. He has a double standard for the universe, but not for God. It's a case of special pleading.

And let's not forget quantum physics which scientists struggle to understand, that does all kinds of freaky things like atoms being in 2 places at once, etc. There's also dark matter, which is a mystery (and has a lot to do with lawrence Krauss's theory).

So as far as I'm concerned, WLC is an idiot, the dude has degrees in philosophy and theology, and according to posts above, made up his own imaginary doctorate based on a theory that he himself made up. Tell me, has his crap even been peer reviewed? I doubt it.

WLC is an idiot. Sure, he's good at talking, and trying to back people into corners in debates, but his arguments have no real substance. It's all just fancy words.

I'm not saying that God can't exist, or a god definitely did not create the universe, but people like WLC look at science with contempt and try to say "we know, for sure, that something had to create the universe". It's a mere hypothesis, nothing more.

I'm gonna let Matt Dillahunty's counterapologetics wiki take care of the rest: http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Kalam
---
Desktop: Phenom II X4 965 | 4 GB DDR3 | GTX 580 | 1 TB HD | W7 | 650W Antec | 1600x900
Laptop: A6 3400m | 4 GB DDR3 | HD 6520g | 500 GB HD | W7 | 1366x768
#56Julian_CaesarPosted 2/6/2013 4:17:30 PM
From: AynRandySavage | #027
Julian_Caesar posted...
logical certainty of God's existence according to what we know about the universe is putting logic/knowledge before God in the hierarchy of the mind. After all, there is nothing inherently logical about God creating the universe from nothing...unless you've already accepted (by faith) that God exists and created everything (or perhaps that some Being exists and created everything, whatever).


There's an entire tradition of Christian apologetics that you're overlooking. The idea that it WASN'T Possible to prove god's existence and nature through rationality was incredibly uncommon up until the Protestant Reformation.


The entire point of the Protestant Reformation was salvation by faith alone, yes. While that was done specifically to combat things like indulgences, I don't think it's a coincidence that it led to the idea of belief in God by faith alone, rather than proof external to Scripture. And seeing as how I'm Protestant, should it surprise you that I believe in faith as an entity which should not be dependent on logical proof?

From: Proudclad | #029
Faith is an action. Not a mindset. Having a powerful mindset rooted in logic and reason does NOT mean you cannot have faith. WTF.


Yes, you're absolutely right. It's an action, not a mindset. Logic and reason do not preclude you from having faith. But I'm specifically talking about the idea that Craig is promoting (whether he realizes it or not), that faith is dependent on logic and reason. That is to say, we should believe God exists because the Kalam Cosmological Argument says so, not because the Bible says so.

Jesus and Paul and Peter and James used intellect to argue. They also used simple words backed by the Holy Spirit. There's a time and place for everything.


I also agree. But in every instance I can think of, they pointed to faith in Jesus as the reason for their lives...they didn't point to reasoning as their source of faith. And their faith was based on their personal experiences and revelations of Jesus' life.

Craig would f***ing DEMOLISH Dawkins.


And thereby proving what, exactly? That the words and arguments of the Christians are better words and arguments than those of the atheists? Do you REALLY think that Jesus desires us to construct arguments which would, if true, logically demand that everyone believe He exists? It's one thing to defend the internal consistency of our faith in Jesus. It's quite another to say that faith in Jesus is a logical necessity.

Dan Cathy did more good for Christianity in a few months by making friends with the leader of Campus Pride, than WLC will do in his entire lifetime of trying to "prove" that God exists. And not because he "pandered" to non-believers, as if WLC is "standing strong" in anything besides his own intellect. Cathy apparently believed that the way to show Jesus to others is to act as Jesus would have acted, by breaking bread with people who are seen by the larger Christian community as "sinners," just as the Pharisees saw the prostitutes and tax collectors as "sinners." With the key point being, now just as it was then, that we are ALL sinners...and that "hating the sin but loving the sinner" shouldn't be any different from loving your own self, or your own family, or your own comfortable circle of friends.

Cathy showed Windmeyer the love of Jesus. WLC may have done that for others too, but he certainly isn't doing it by trying to gain Pharisitical superiority over the Gentiles of our modern day.
---
Every day the rest of your life is changed forever.
#57Julian_CaesarPosted 2/6/2013 4:19:18 PM
From: JonWood007 | #046
WLC is basically a professional Orange Wizard. Need I say more?


Post of the week, right here.
---
Every day the rest of your life is changed forever.
#58AdmiralBisonPosted 2/7/2013 12:31:55 AM
WLC would love to debate Dawkins because it would give good publicity and give him more credit then what he actually deserves.
The strange thing though WLC will not debate some of his former students who have become Atheists.

A lot of his debate tactics are complete bull.

I've noticed he expects his opponents to discredit his opening talk and to build an alternative view in their first opening speech.
Which goes to show his level of dishonesty towards what Atheism is about.

Also when cornered on questionable moralities in the Bible he feins pity towards Atheists anger on some of the doctrines in the bible.

WLC is a complete slime ball.

For those who are getting familiar with prominent Christian apologists.

John Lennox has a very condescending style of apologetics, dismisses current tragedies by merely saying "he feels sorry" without really addressing the issues brought up and moves on, as well as appeals to what makes sense to himself when facts say differently.

Dinesh D'zousa
Eric Hovind

can and have won many debates via dishonesty, logical fallacies, strawman tactics, and misrepresentations.
---
If delusions and Illusions are an en-escapable part of our entire lives, why not just pick a positive one?
#59lastheroPosted 2/7/2013 1:19:59 AM
Yeah. The fact that Eric Hovind - not even the original, Kent, but his vacuous, annoying, inept, creatively bankrupt son - can win a debate is pretty strong proof that the validity of your argument isn't tied with how well you do in debates.
---
X-Men: First Class RPG - Welcoming all new players!
[http://s1.zetaboards.com/New_Mutants/index/]
#60FlashOfLightPosted 2/10/2013 11:34:19 AM
At 1:33:11 Rosenberg says "I made the point that the Principle of Sufficient Reason is false, it's not just that it's not known to be true, it's that it's just plain out flat false, and disconfirmed all over the galaxy, all over the universe, all over the multiverse..."

You have got to be KIDDING me.

This is the same guy that at 1:14:11 says that "What it says in that book, is that all these alleged absurdities - along with atheism - follow from the truth of science. Now you can reject all of these alleged absurdities, but if I'm right about the logical structure of my argument - you got to reject science..."

He just busted his own argument and didn't even get it.
---
Hi, do you have an unused or unwanted sig? Don't delay, we can help, write to Better Sig Now, P.O. Box 917, for an affordable, quality sig - Today!