Calling William Lame Craig

Calling Mudd Slick

Calling John Atkinks

Wassa matta?

Can't figga out how ta uze dem computa thingeez and gits togedda?

Were eez y'all hiden?

I'm gittin bored ova heeya.

Let's git it on boyz...

Bring it!

Another 19 hrs later, and still no Master Debatur.

Guess his worldview ain't really that defensible...

Nah...I'm not going to stalk him for a debate.

I'm just going to use this thread to demonstrate that he's just another theist pussy who likes to run his mouth.

He's no better than any other theist, although he likes to thump about being scholarly and sophisticated.

He's just a 1 trick pony, who's not that good at the 1 trick he knows.

Just this OP alone, demonstrates who he thinks is a devastatingly good theist master debatur.

Theists can't debate when they have to think on their feet. They have a 'bag of tricks', and only play ball within those confines.

IOW Let the best MASTERdeBATER win!

lol, I know it's immature but I couldn't help it. 

I oughtta slap the skin off your face for replying before I could edit my previous post...

For Matt:

Cool.

Let's see what Mr_Metaphysics' hero, is all about...

Got to part 2, and it ain't lookin' too good for Slick...

It's ironic that Mr_M would point us to Slick, when this video clearly shows the fallacy which makes Mr_M's whole 'argument' in the other threads, a complete logical fallacy.

How many of us pointed it out, in soooooooooooooooooooooo many different ways.

Both Slick and Mr_M (and all theists/theism) make, is that they conflate 'conceptual' reality, with 'actual' reality, and ATTEMPT to make the 2 mutually inclusive.

a= personal conceptual mental model of x

b=absolute universal reality of x

a is possibly (but not necessarily)= b

a is possibly (but not necessarily) completely incompatible with universal reality (IOW: out to lunch)

Why these 'scholars' need to have such a simple basic concepts like that 'taught' to them (in order to explain the logical fallacy they've made), probably gives a clear indication of some kind of mental 'block'.

It's weird.

I don't get it.

They're really dense. There's no other way to describe it.

Or, they're just cons, who are simply trying to get away with equivocating...

Yah, the 500 word rule should have been the giveaway on that one. If you need that much to make a point, then you are already lost.

For the record, the rules in AvT are not so dramatic. Each debate can have the rules worked out in advance by the specific participants. I just don't see how allowing verbal diarrhea is going to help Mr. M make his point. Not that he had any intention of making a point but still....

I am already missing our chew-toy Mr_M.

He was away for a few days before, maybe he'll come back.

Especially now I have finally nailed the technical flaw in his argument (I think!).

Any OA, trying to argue the existence of any aspect of reality purely from reason and logic, ie no empirical evidence, is inherently flawed, but it can be tricky to pin the problem down in a strict sense when it is based on slippery interpretations of words like 'great', 'unlimited', etc.

The flaw in the Modal version is actually easier to pin down, because it relies on terms which are well-defined, but it can still be a bit tricky to work through.

I do like TBS's videos.

Nah.

You're trying too hard to be 'compelling' enough for him to concede defeat.

You, I, and a number of posters have defeated his 'theorum' as it stood, and within his structure and guidelines. The obvious flaw that is implicit, is that his formula inherently adds a superfluous 'constraint', by making it a hard physical value, of 1.

That's one flaw right there.

There are NOT dedcutively reasoning at all, about the origins of the universe, and biological life. They are 'boxed in' to desperately confirming their presuppositions.

It's simply ad nauseum navel gazing, and circular reasoning that should be in the Guinness Book of World Records of longest ad nauseum Null Hypothesis argument on a topic.

Apart from that, the overall 'method' of trying to prove anything a priori, is nothing more than an educated guess. Any 'guess' (educated or not) cannot overcome Boole's Inequality Theorum, and have any better odds that a simple coin toss.

As an electrical engineer, this is old hat for you. There are hundreds of patents issued on circuit designs that simply 'don't work', even though they can be argued to be 'logical'.

The same applies to 'medical devices'. I had a book on hundreds of medical devices that patents were granted to, that nobody could proved to be 'practical', or 'workable'.

Logic is simply intuition based on the past. It is NOT knowledge of the future, or a 'crystal ball' into what exists beyond our 'natural' PAST experiences and factual knowledge.

Any claims that a 'logic' can unequivocally accurately predict that a god exists, are not worth the paper they were written on. Otherwise they would have receieved a Nobel Prize, and would completely change the scope of the entire world, and all of humanity.

That would make a god retarded POS if he saw all the earthly human conflict surrounding him, to not just make an appearance, and settle the conflict.

It's completely logical to be skeptical of any claims of the supernatural.

I think if there were a god, he'd be impressed with how some of us, don't just go 'biting an apple' that's offered to us...

OK, I can't really watch that video right now. There is a limit to how much Matt Slick I can take at one time and I blew that by watching his whole damned show last night. He spent over twenty minutes reading passages from the OT that show the existence of the trinity.

Granted, you can find anything in the bible but still, since the bible is not correct, the crap that you find there is hardly proof of anything.

But Hey! He seems to have a cross shaped spaceship at the beginning of the video. I wonder if he knows why that would be a huge problem? No, actually I don't wonder. He is so brain dead that he could never see the issue which it presents.

First off, there is little perspective in space. Think about this for a second, when you see a huge passenger jet flying overhead, it probably appears as smaller than they toys you player with as a kid. So you can't tell how big the flying cross thing is. It could be a tiny thing that is a few thousand miles above the earth.

That being said, I think he meant it to be a huge thing at fairly low earth orbit.

Well, then the side bits where the arms would have been nailed to would have to flex under even modest acceleration. When that happens, the lever arm force is going to be measured in units of G (the acceleration of gravity on the surface of the earth). It will be at least a wild ride and probably fatal. Heck but even the strongest cargo will be crushed.