redneF vs rogersherrer 1 on 1

redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
redneF vs rogersherrer 1 on 1

This is a private debate between myself and rogersherrer.

Please refrain from posting in this thread.

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
We are going to debate

We are going to debate rogersherrer's claim regarding Christian apologist William Lane Craig's 'arguments':

rogersherrer wrote:
His contentions are always perfectly stated, and his style of debating is very hard to counter.

Would you like to start with debating the soundness of his Kalam Cosmological Argument?

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


rogersherrer
Theist
rogersherrer's picture
Posts: 39
Joined: 2009-09-22
User is offlineOffline
 so how would you like this

 so how would you like this to work rednef?  Any specific rules, guidelines, exc. you would like to follow during this?

 

EDIT: Nevermind, just saw your 2nd post. I'm on it.

"Part of the broader task of Christian scholarship is to help create and sustain a cultural milieu in which the gospel can be heard as an intellectually viable option for thinking men and women."
-~William Lane Craig~-


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
No, I don't have any rules.

No, I don't have any rules. It's just words.


rogersherrer
Theist
rogersherrer's picture
Posts: 39
Joined: 2009-09-22
User is offlineOffline
I will start out with

I'm not for sure why it looks so bundled, it doesn't look like that at all when I typed it or try to edit it. Maybe somebody can inform me on what I'm doing wrong? It's good until after "3). Therefore, the universe has a cause."

I will start out with Craig's Kalam cosmological argument and why it is a legitimate one. Starting off with the actual argument:

1.)Everything that begins to exist has a cause of it's existence

2.)The universe began to exist

3.)Therefore, the universe has a cause. The first premise is coherent enough, "Everything that begins to exist has a cause of it's existence." The infinite regress objection falls apart here because something that has no beginning has no cause, i.e. God. If God never BEGAN to exist or came to be, then he would not fall into this category. Next, the second and third premises are the key. "The began to exist," therefore, "The Universe has a Cause." But, is the second premise true? Entropy throws a wrench into everything because if the universe has existed for an infinite amount of time, with cosmic drift, everything in the Universe would have drifted apart.  Craig's arguments based on the impossibility of an actual infinite-An actual infinite cannot exist.An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite.Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist. Craig's arguments based on the impossibility of the formation of an actual infinite by successive addition-A collection formed by successive addition cannot be actually infinite.The temporal series of past events is a collection formed by successive addition.Therefore, the temporal series of past events cannot be actually infinite. In essence, the Big Bang idea that the Universe expanded from a single point, provides serious support to the KC argument. The only possible objections are: 1. Cyclical existence - The Universe expands and collapses, and has done so for all eternity. (We have no evidence for such a thing, and if we did we'd cease to exist). 2. Infinite Multidemensional Reality - There are an infinite amount of parallel universes that are being created at every moment, and they have been doing so for infinity. (Another theory we have no evidence for, but is cool to think about). Based on these, the burden of proof lies with you, the skeptic. The excuse that "naturalistic" causes are all we can accept, flies out the window when the evidence points to one explaination. Ockham's Razor insists that you keep explainations simple, and since available evidence points that way, the conclusion, "The Universe has a Cause" stands. This is all a nutshell presentation of Craig's thesis. Other objections could probably be raised, which Craig has a knack for answering. If one feels so inclined, one should read Craig's three major published debates on this topic.

 

"Part of the broader task of Christian scholarship is to help create and sustain a cultural milieu in which the gospel can be heard as an intellectually viable option for thinking men and women."
-~William Lane Craig~-


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
rogersherrer wrote:I will

rogersherrer wrote:

I will start out with Craig's Kalam cosmological argument and why it is a legitimate one. Starting off with the actual argument:

1.) Everything that begins to exist has a cause of it's existence

He's not even managed to get out of the gate, with this premise.

 

Can he present a list of 'everything'?   (No)

Does he have knowledge of 'everything'?  (No)

I'll focus that even further.

Can he present a list of 'everything that began to exist'?  (No)

Does he have knowledge of 'everything that began to exist'?  (No)

 

I'll pause here for the moment, before I move on to the rest of your post. 

I say this demonstrates a very serious problem regarding his first premise.

Care to try and explain how this constitutes a sound position?

 

 

 

 

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


rogersherrer
Theist
rogersherrer's picture
Posts: 39
Joined: 2009-09-22
User is offlineOffline
“Everything that

“Everything that begins to exist has a cause of it's existence”
If you deny this premise, then you are denying a fundamental law of natural science, namely, that matter can neither be created or destroyed. That is natural law.

And for the second premise:
“The universe began to exist”
The universe came into being. If you deny this you are denying the state of the art in modern cosmology.

 

Any other clarifications needed and/or questions? I would like to see your full response so I can rebuttal.

 

"Part of the broader task of Christian scholarship is to help create and sustain a cultural milieu in which the gospel can be heard as an intellectually viable option for thinking men and women."
-~William Lane Craig~-


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Oh puhleeze...

rogersherrer wrote:
Any other clarifications needed and/or questions?

Nice try rookie...lol

My question was 'Care to try and explain how this constitutes a sound position?'

If you are avoiding my direct questioning of the 1st premise, then apparently I've beat you...

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


rogersherrer
Theist
rogersherrer's picture
Posts: 39
Joined: 2009-09-22
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:rogersherrer

redneF wrote:

rogersherrer wrote:
Any other clarifications needed and/or questions?

Nice try rookie...lol

My question was 'Care to try and explain how this constitutes a sound position?'

If you are avoiding my direct questioning of the 1st premise, then apparently I've beat you...

the first premise is perfectly sound, because I can't present a list of everything that has ever began to exist does not demonstrate a "very serious problem". The very definition of "everything" is all things, that would mean every single thing. God of course is the exception, because God did not begin to exist. The argument in this case is the Earth itself, which indeed began to exist. Do you disagree with this? You need to understand that the big bang theory states that space, time, and matter were all created at the moment of creation. This means:

There was no space causally prior to the universe beginning to exist
There was no time causally prior to the universe beginning to exist
There was no matter causally prior to the universe beginning to exist
All of these things began to exist at the first moment.

 All of these would fall under the category of "everything". Maybe I have misunderstood your questioning, if so please elaborate. 

"Part of the broader task of Christian scholarship is to help create and sustain a cultural milieu in which the gospel can be heard as an intellectually viable option for thinking men and women."
-~William Lane Craig~-


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
rogersherrer wrote:redneF

rogersherrer wrote:

redneF wrote:

rogersherrer wrote:
Any other clarifications needed and/or questions?

Nice try rookie...lol

My question was 'Care to try and explain how this constitutes a sound position?'

If you are avoiding my direct questioning of the 1st premise, then apparently I've beat you...

the first premise is perfectly sound

It cannot be.

rogersherrer wrote:
because I can't present a list of everything that has ever began to exist does not demonstrate a "very serious problem".

Special pleading fallacy.

rogersherrer wrote:
The very definition of "everything" is all things, that would mean every single thing.

Ummm...ya, that was my point.

Where is the knowledge of 'everything'?

rogersherrer wrote:
God of course is the exception, because God did not begin to exist.

According to whom??

 

lol...So should we stop here because you've won with that a priori assertion that you just pulled out of your ass?

 

Honestly kid, what grade are you in?...

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


rogersherrer
Theist
rogersherrer's picture
Posts: 39
Joined: 2009-09-22
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:rogersherrer

redneF wrote:

rogersherrer wrote:

redneF wrote:

rogersherrer wrote:
Any other clarifications needed and/or questions?

Nice try rookie...lol

My question was 'Care to try and explain how this constitutes a sound position?'

If you are avoiding my direct questioning of the 1st premise, then apparently I've beat you...

the first premise is perfectly sound

It cannot be.

rogersherrer wrote:
because I can't present a list of everything that has ever began to exist does not demonstrate a "very serious problem".

Special pleading fallacy.

rogersherrer wrote:
The very definition of "everything" is all things, that would mean every single thing.

Ummm...ya, that was my point.

Where is the knowledge of 'everything'?

rogersherrer wrote:
God of course is the exception, because God did not begin to exist.

According to whom??

 

lol...So should we stop here because you've won with that a priori assertion that you just pulled out of your ass?

 

Honestly kid, what grade are you in?...

 

Is your only goal to try and ridicule me? I wish you would stick to the points and not try and degrade me. If this is your only plan, then there is no sense in continuing. 

"Part of the broader task of Christian scholarship is to help create and sustain a cultural milieu in which the gospel can be heard as an intellectually viable option for thinking men and women."
-~William Lane Craig~-


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
rogersherrer wrote: Is your

rogersherrer wrote:
Is your only goal to try and ridicule me?

Stop insulting my intelligence with your " Is to" assertions, when I've clearly shown there is a fallacy of equivocation.

Asserting 'everything' when you can't even list 'everything', is only for 'the converted'.

If that's your standard of dialectic, you're not up to the standards around here, so maybe it's better you realize that now, and save some face.

rogersherrer wrote:
I wish you would stick to the points and not try and degrade me.

Stick to answering the points, and don't try and derail and waste my time by arbitrarily making things up as you go along.

rogersherrer wrote:
If this is your only plan, then there is no sense in continuing. 

You have no bargaining power with me. You've wasted my time. with your posturing.

You put more than enough on the table for me to keep going on without you, so I don't care what you do.

This debate will show other atheists logically that these philosophical arguments are pure folly for the gullible. And it only took a few minutes...lol

 

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris