Win $1,000! Prove Rational Atheism

Kelly Tripplehorn
Theist
Posts: 1
Joined: 2007-04-24
User is offlineOffline
Win $1,000! Prove Rational Atheism

 

if you,as a non-theist,  can expalin inductive science without invoking
God, we will give you $1,000.

The philosophy department at Stanford University will be the disinterested
third party judge to see if you can.

Good luck
http://i53network.org/The_Stanford_Challenge.html

or

http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=I53Network


NinjaTux
NinjaTux's picture
Posts: 265
Joined: 2007-01-02
User is offlineOffline
You as a x-tian have a very

You as a x-tian have a very simple problem....EVEN if your x-tian proposition is x-tianly true, it does not prove that x-tianity is solely responsible...

No Gods, Know Peace.


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
Kelly Tripplehorn describes

Kelly Tripplehorn describes the challenge:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-aIsI6EYcA
Kelly Tripplehorn at Snopes:http://www.snopes.com/embarrass/email/tripplehorn.asp


MrRage
Posts: 896
Joined: 2006-12-22
User is offlineOffline
From the

From the video:

Quote:
...since the first two chapters of Genesis inform me that God created the world with order and uniformity. And I as a Christian can assume that the past laws of nature will be like the future laws of nature, because God has implicitly told me so in his word.

I don't see how Christians are any better off.

How does Christianity give you uniformity of nature? Dead people stay dead. Virgin women don't give birth. You can't feed 5000 people with a few loaves and fish. People can't walk on water. Somehow Jesus broke the uniformity here. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Miracles rule out the uniformity of nature.

This is besides the point, but I can make $1000 in one week at work. Your challenge, if it's even possible, would take years of my life at best.


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
A challenge to atheists to

A challenge to atheists to prove a negative (not possible with any proposition) based on an unsubstantiated premise. I challenge Paul Kelly Tripplehorn to prove he doesn't have an invisible gerbil up his whitebread ass.


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
magilum wrote: Kelly

magilum wrote:

Kelly Tripplehorn at Snopes:http://www.snopes.com/embarrass/email/tripplehorn.asp

No way. Is this the same guy?

OMGoodness. It is the same guy: http://i53network.org/Home_Page.html

wtf? Yet another name to add to the list beside Haggard, Falwell, Baker et al.

After all, sin is sin in the eyes of their maker. right? Oh wait. The only reason we know that is from past experience of reading a book. Hmmm.

 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


MrRage
Posts: 896
Joined: 2006-12-22
User is offlineOffline
darth_josh wrote: wtf? Yet

darth_josh wrote:

wtf? Yet another name to add to the list beside Haggard, Falwell, Baker et al.

Not quite. He wasn't a TV evangelist. I'm not trying to back up this guy (I think his argument is a crock of shit), but...we're not supporters of using ad hominems, right?


Edger
Posts: 104
Joined: 2007-01-14
User is offlineOffline
Wow Kelly. Your break up

Wow Kelly. Your break up letter was almost as brilliant as Stanford's $1000 challenge. I've gotta admit...I'm stumped.

Now I've got 1 for you:

What's the difference between Christian philosophy and a chicken? 


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
I'd agree with you on that,

I'd agree with you on that, MrRage, if I anticipated the question of character was off the table. If he considers nature a confirmation of ham-fisted mythology, it's easy (but admittedly presumptuous) to suppose he considers morality proof as well.

 

From his site:

“In the summer of 2003, I was an intern in Washington D.C. at the Senior Texas Senator’s office representing the Honorable Kay Bailey Hutchison. Though the Holy Spirit had come into me 2 months earlier, I was still susceptible to my insecurities and misjudgments. I said some very hateful, unchristian things in an email to a fellow employee that offended her deeply.“


mouse
Posts: 129
Joined: 2007-02-21
User is offlineOffline
did the leaking of that

did the leaking of that email (and the person's name) violate privacy laws?


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Wow, just wow.

Wow, just wow.

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
MrRage wrote: darth_josh

MrRage wrote:
darth_josh wrote:

wtf? Yet another name to add to the list beside Haggard, Falwell, Baker et al.

Not quite. He wasn't a TV evangelist. I'm not trying to back up this guy (I think his argument is a crock of shit), but...we're not supporters of using ad hominems, right?

You're absolutely right. I had to post and run a little while ago to help a friend with truck problems. There was no way that I could have inductively proven that I was going to finish my post when I got home though.

HOWEVER, I am using electricity right now in order to send this message to the servers to post. I can induce that using electricity means that someone else is providing the electricity. I know that I will not work for free ergo I can logically predict that person will need to be paid. That means that my electricity bill will be due in order for the electrician to be paid. Regardless of whether I am dead or alive, the electricity bill will be due.

Since I can show a result by posting this with the help of the electricians producing the computer's power and their motives for doing so is to get paid then I can make the assumption that all electricians needed to produce electricity for message board posts will make electricity bills due for other people posting.

I am not using a god right now. There is not a producer for a god ergo no one will need to be paid. I will not have a god bill due because regardless of whether I am alive or dead, there is no god used ergo no bill due.

Thus there is not nor will there be a god because there is no use.

 

Where's my $1,000?

 

He's still creepy in a stalker kind of way.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


MrRage
Posts: 896
Joined: 2006-12-22
User is offlineOffline
magilum wrote: I'd agree

magilum wrote:

I'd agree with you on that, MrRage, if I anticipated the question of character was off the table. If he considers nature a confirmation of ham-fisted mythology, it's easy (but admittedly presumptuous) to suppose he considers morality proof as well.

From his site:

“In the summer of 2003, I was an intern in Washington D.C. at the Senior Texas Senator’s office representing the Honorable Kay Bailey Hutchison. Though the Holy Spirit had come into me 2 months earlier, I was still susceptible to my insecurities and misjudgments. I said some very hateful, unchristian things in an email to a fellow employee that offended her deeply.“

I guess I'm a little tired of bashing people, but this is more than that. I see where you're going with this. 1 Cor 5:17 "Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come."


pariahjane
pariahjane's picture
Posts: 1595
Joined: 2006-05-06
User is offlineOffline
Wow.  This guy's a real

Wow.  This guy's a real gem.  He has no problem beating people and lying to get to the top.  How very christian of him.  Yikes. 

If god takes life he's an indian giver


kmisho
kmisho's picture
Posts: 298
Joined: 2006-08-18
User is offlineOffline
darth_josh wrote: magilum

darth_josh wrote:
magilum wrote:

Kelly Tripplehorn at Snopes:http://www.snopes.com/embarrass/email/tripplehorn.asp

No way. Is this the same guy?

OMGoodness. It is the same guy: http://i53network.org/Home_Page.html

wtf? Yet another name to add to the list beside Haggard, Falwell, Baker et al.

After all, sin is sin in the eyes of their maker. right? Oh wait. The only reason we know that is from past experience of reading a book. Hmmm.

What a pathetic individual. Quoting from the i53 site:

Quote:
One Sunday, after a weekend of college partying, I began to reflect on who I was, where I was going, and what kind of things were important to me. At first, these thoughts began only as a quaint, intellectual exercise, but as I continued to ponder deeper into the existential significance of my life, these thoughts quickly turned from mere academic musings into a life or death struggle to find meaning.

What a drama queen. I have a lesson for him: Meaning will not kill you or help you live. You can do without meaning altogether. 

Quote:
These thoughts began to consume my mind with such a furious passion that while at Amherst College, I locked my dorm room door and decided that I was not going to come out until I discovered at least one ounce of true meaning in my life.

Mr. Intellectual suddenly decides to think one day. If he'd started sooner, maybe taken some lessons in thinking, he wouldn't have made so many mistakes in his thinking.

Quote:
Over the next week I evaluated what I deemed important, and I soon discovered that the thrust...

How Freudian... 

Quote:
...of my heart’s desires could be completely boiled down to secular success and hedonistic pleasure. In other words, I reached the inescapable conclusion that I was a sinner who lived chiefly to gratify my flesh and tickle my ego.
If I had to guess, I'd say he was feeling a little guilty about doing nothing but masturbating all day. Anyway, he didn't figure out by thinking about it that he was a sinner. Someone implanted that demonseed in him long before this.

Quote:
From that day forward, I decided I was going devote my entire being to serving a force that was higher than myself, mainly God.
Mainly god, sure, but not only god. Wouldn't want to upset the other higher powers out there. Everyone knows that higher powers can't tie their own shoelaces with people serving them all the time. And it would be bigotry to serve one higher power but not all of them.


Tilberian
Moderator
Tilberian's picture
Posts: 1118
Joined: 2006-11-27
User is offlineOffline
Looked at the "Problem of

Looked at the "Problem of Induction" link and noticed that the first thing they do is attempt to throw out the Oxford dictionary definition of "induction." All the proof we need that no one will ever see that $1000.

All swans ever observed are white therefore as far as we know, swans are white. Yep, that induction thing sure is a house of cards. Undecided

 

Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
MrRage wrote:

MrRage wrote:
From the video:
Quote:
...since the first two chapters of Genesis inform me that God created the world with order and uniformity. And I as a Christian can assume that the past laws of nature will be like the future laws of nature, because God has implicitly told me so in his word.
I don't see how Christians are any better off. How does Christianity give you uniformity of nature?

Through the 'uniformity of god'

Seriously.

The problem, however, is that even if the theist could demonstrate a uniformity of god, it wouldn't solve the problem of induction:

Two reasons:

1) The uniformity is a non solution because the problem of induction has nothing to do with the assumption of uniformity of nature, it has to do with the problem of making inferences regarding the future - and the UON asssumption is a necesary, but not a sufficient justificationfor such an inference in the first place! So neither would an assumption of a uniformity of god!

Why?

That leads us to point 2

2) As Howson & Urbach point out, assuming a uniformity of nature is a nonsolution, since it's a fairly empty assumption. For how is nature uniform? And what, really, are we talking about. What would really be needed are millions upon millions of uniformity assumptions for each item under discussion. We'd need one for the melting temperature of water, of iron, of nickel, etc, etc. For example "block of ice x will melt at 0 Celsius;" for these types of assumptions actually say something. Furthermore, the uniformity of nature assumptions fall prey to meta-uniformity issues - for how are we to know that nature will always be uniform? Well, we have to assume that too. And how do we know that the uniformity of nature is uniform? Ad infinitum. So, to "solve" induction by uniformity of nature solutions doesn't really work.

So,the presupper doesn't even grasp the actual nature of the problem of induction, most likely because he's never even read Hume.

I demonstrate this in more detail here:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/an_easy_argument_to_refute_van_tillian_calvinist_presuppositionalism

 An actual solution for the problem of induction is Bayesian theory, which gives induction a deductive foundation:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/why_the_problem_of_induction_really_isnt_a_problem_and_why_theists_dont_even_get_it_right

 Not everyone accepts Bayesian theory as "the" solution, but not everyone accepts evolution either....

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Kelly Tripplehorn

Kelly Tripplehorn wrote:

 

if you,as a non-theist, can expalin inductive science without invoking
God, we will give you $1,000.

If you, as a theist, can explain inductive science while making a coherent reference TO god, I will give you $10,000.

1) Provide an ontology for 'god' that does not steal from naturalism.

2) Give a step by step demonstration as to how this 'god' provides a justification or foundation for inductive science.

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
I'm not finding the first

I'm not finding the first link, todangst.

The second one was specifically for this challenge so that's the better one anyway.

I still want my $1,000 for the electricity bill and a party. 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
darth_josh wrote: I'm not

darth_josh wrote:

I'm not finding the first link, todangst.

The second one was specifically for this challenge so that's the better one anyway.

The second link meets the challenge, earning me the 1000. However, they won't pay, because 1) in order for them to pay they'd have to know what they were talking about.

 

The first link shows just one reason why any reference to 'god' fails anyway:

 

http://www.rationalresponders.com/an_easy_argument_to_refute_van_tillian_calvinist_presuppositionalism

 

And of course, one cannot make a reference to the supernatural at all, so I again repeat my 10,000 dollar challenge. 

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


caseagainstfaith
Silver Member
caseagainstfaith's picture
Posts: 202
Joined: 2006-09-10
User is offlineOffline
todangst wrote:

todangst wrote:

The second link meets the challenge, earning me the 1000. However, they won't pay, because 1) in order for them to pay they'd have to know what they were talking about.

 

Though I have no doubt you can answer the challenge, the post claims the judge will be the philosophy department at Stanford University. Stanford's a great university, wouldn't their philosophy dept. be able to understand your response?


Susan
Susan's picture
Posts: 3561
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Everyone will notice that

Everyone will notice that Kelly posted and then fled.

I wonder if he came back, read a few of the replies and realized he was up against some folks that know what they're talking about.

Darth, when you get the $1000, can I come to the party? 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
Susan wrote: Everyone will

Susan wrote:

Everyone will notice that Kelly posted and then fled.

I wonder if he came back, read a few of the replies and realized he was up against some folks that know what they're talking about.

Darth, when you get the $1000, can I come to the party?

Yep. BYOB though because I don't know what everyone drinks. I'll even get the caterer to include veggie platters.

I think I have a good chance since I used christian-type presuppositionalism and todangst used rational logic. Got to know how to talk to the masses, y'know.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


Susan
Susan's picture
Posts: 3561
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Diet Coke, please. Surely

Diet Coke, please.

Surely you'll have Diet Coke for everyone else to use as mixers.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
caseagainstfaith

caseagainstfaith wrote:
todangst wrote:

The second link meets the challenge, earning me the 1000. However, they won't pay, because 1) in order for them to pay they'd have to know what they were talking about.

 

Though I have no doubt you can answer the challenge, the post claims the judge will be the philosophy department at Stanford University.

I'm not refering to Stanford, I'm refering to the idiots offering the 1000 dollars.... Stanford has nothing to do with this challenge, all we have is the claim that they will be a judge... they are not presenting the challenge, nor are they involved with the phoney offer of reward......

If you peruse the Stanford philosophy site, you'll not find any reference to presuppositonalism as the response to the problem of induction! The philosophers who discuss the problem all offer coherent (i.e. naturalistic) responses. The debate is over the fact that some still feel there is no one satisfactory response, (think of this akin to the evolution debate)

So we already see one bit of dishonesty in this 'challenge'...

Quote:

Stanford's a great university, wouldn't their philosophy dept. be able to understand your response?

 

Of course. They'd already have my response in fact. But Stanford has nothing to do with the 1000 dollar challenge... so your already falling for this theistic bullshit... they are attempting to get people to believe that Stanford is making this challenge, when in fact I'm not aware of any serious philosphical response to the problem that DOES rely on a 'god' reference. I don't see anyone in the Stanford philosophy department making the argument "god", therefore induction.

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


MrRage
Posts: 896
Joined: 2006-12-22
User is offlineOffline
todangst wrote: But

todangst wrote:

But Stanford has nothing to do with the 1000 dollar challenge... so your already falling for this theistic bullshit... they are attempting to get people to believe that Stanford is making this challenge, when in fact I'm not aware of any serious philosphical response to the problem that DOES rely on a 'god' reference. I don't see anyone in the Stanford philosophy department making the argument "god", therefore induction.

I've got to admit that when I first saw this I thought Standford was behind this for about half a minute.

Christians love throwing out prestigious university names even though they have no real affiliation with them.


Bill Johnson
Bill Johnson's picture
Posts: 17
Joined: 2006-09-08
User is offlineOffline
From

From http://i53network.org/The_Stanford_Challenge.html: "The two videos below fill out the details of the challenge. All you need to do in order to collect your $1,000 is get your non-theistic answer published (concerning your epistemological warrant for your inductive inference) in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, under its heading The Problem of Induction."

First of all, there is no mention of any such challenge on the Stanford site, especially on the page on "the problem of induction," where such would be expected.

Secondly: at the bottom of the page on "the problem of induction," it reads: "Copyright © 2006 by John Vickers <John.Vickers@cgu.edu>." The "cgu" in John Vickers' email address indicates that he is the same John Vickers who is the Professor of Philosophy at the Claremont Graduate University. Why would a professor's entry in an encyclopedia be open to amateur contributions? Well, it very likely wouldn't be, because it's not an entry in Wikipedia for fuck sakes, it's an entry in a scholarly source. Additionally, I'm sure the professors on the editorial board don't have time for amateur contributions, as they usually are poor, insignificant, in error, etc., whereas scholarly contributions are likely to be worth the time looking at. Here is a brief description of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

Quote:
Welcome to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP). From its inception, the SEP was designed so that each entry is maintained and kept up to date by an expert or group of experts in the field. All entries and substantive updates are refereed by the members of a distinguished Editorial Board before they are made public. Consequently, our dynamic reference work maintains academic standards while evolving and adapting in response to new research. You can cite fixed editions that are created on a quarterly basis and stored in our Archives (every entry contains a link to its complete archival history, identifying the fixed edition the reader should cite). The Table of Contents lists entries that are published or assigned. The Projected Table of Contents also lists entries which are currently unassigned but nevertheless projected.


http://plato.stanford.edu/about.html

"From its inception, the SEP was designed so that each entry is maintained and kept up to date by an expert or group of experts in the field."

So, the SEP entries don't appear to be open to contributions from amateurs, yet "The Stanford Challenge" is open to anyone. Additionally, how likely is it that an atheist, logic/philosophy scholar will respond to this poorly-presented challenge, let alone be aware of it in the first place? Obviously the challenge is rigged so no money is really at stake. What's new?

So this is what the logical conclusion is: whoever issued "The Stanford Challenge" did so unilaterally and disingenuously with the purpose of gaining emotional gratification. The person(s?) behind this challenge is a joke.

EDIT:

Quote:
todangst wrote:
caseagainstfaith wrote:
todangst wrote:

The second link meets the challenge, earning me the 1000. However, they won't pay, because 1) in order for them to pay they'd have to know what they were talking about.

 

Though I have no doubt you can answer the challenge, the post claims the judge will be the philosophy department at Stanford University.

I'm not refering to Stanford, I'm refering to the idiots offering the 1000 dollars.... Stanford has nothing to do with this challenge, all we have is the claim that they will be a judge... they are not presenting the challenge, nor are they involved with the phoney offer of reward......

If you peruse the Stanford philosophy site, you'll not find any reference to presuppositonalism as the response to the problem of induction! The philosophers who discuss the problem all offer coherent (i.e. naturalistic) responses. The debate is over the fact that some still feel there is no one satisfactory response, (think of this akin to the evolution debate)

So we already see one bit of dishonesty in this 'challenge'...

Quote:

Stanford's a great university, wouldn't their philosophy dept. be able to understand your response?

Of course. They'd already have my response in fact. But Stanford has nothing to do with the 1000 dollar challenge... so your already falling for this theistic bullshit... they are attempting to get people to believe that Stanford is making this challenge, when in fact I'm not aware of any serious philosphical response to the problem that DOES rely on a 'god' reference. I don't see anyone in the Stanford philosophy department making the argument "god", therefore induction.

Good, I'm not the only one who saw through this bullshit challenge.


caseagainstfaith
Silver Member
caseagainstfaith's picture
Posts: 202
Joined: 2006-09-10
User is offlineOffline
todangst wrote: Stanford

todangst wrote:

Stanford has nothing to do with this challenge, all we have is the claim that they will be a judge... they are not presenting the challenge, nor are they involved with the phoney offer of reward......

 

Sorry.  My error for entertaining the possibility that a theist challenge was legit.  What was I thinking? 


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
MrRage wrote: todangst

MrRage wrote:
todangst wrote:

But Stanford has nothing to do with the 1000 dollar challenge... so your already falling for this theistic bullshit... they are attempting to get people to believe that Stanford is making this challenge, when in fact I'm not aware of any serious philosphical response to the problem that DOES rely on a 'god' reference. I don't see anyone in the Stanford philosophy department making the argument "god", therefore induction.

I've got to admit that when I first saw this I thought Standford was behind this for about half a minute. 

I'm sure that was the intent.  

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Bill Johnson wrote: So,

Bill Johnson wrote:



So, the SEP entries don't appear to be open to contributions from amateurs, yet "The Stanford Challenge" is open to anyone. Additionally, how likely is it that an atheist, logic/philosophy scholar will respond to this poorly-presented challenge, let alone be aware of it in the first place? Obviously the challenge is rigged so no money is really at stake. What's new?

So this is what the logical conclusion is: whoever issued "The Stanford Challenge" did so unilaterally and disingenuously with the purpose of gaining emotional gratification. The person(s?) behind this challenge is a joke.

 

Thank you for these clarifying points.   The stanford site's discussion of the 'problem of induction' is a scholarly approach to a philosophical question. It already includes various solutions to the 'problem'. None of these solutions involve making a special plead fallacy to a 'god'. 

In addition, anyone who takes the time to read the 'problem' will learn that it is hardly at all anything like the 'problem' that internet theists believe it to be.... science marches on, and no one has to do a 'hail mary' before beginning an experiment in order to make it work.

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


Bill Johnson
Bill Johnson's picture
Posts: 17
Joined: 2006-09-08
User is offlineOffline
todangst wrote:

todangst wrote:

Thank you for these clarifying points. The stanford site's discussion of the 'problem of induction' is a scholarly approach to a philosophical question. It already includes various solutions to the 'problem'. None of these solutions involve making a special plead fallacy to a 'god'.

In addition, anyone who takes the time to read the 'problem' will learn that it is hardly at all anything like the 'problem' that internet theists believe it to be.... science marches on, and no one has to do a 'hail mary' before beginning an experiment in order to make it work.

More reasons why this challenge is a joke.

I have a challenge for Kelly Tripplehorn: "Produce a statement (dated before the time of this post) from the philosophy department at Stanford University which says they agreed to be 'the disinterested third party judge' in 'The Stanford Challenge.'"


cslewisster
Theist
cslewisster's picture
Posts: 64
Joined: 2006-11-06
User is offlineOffline
Honestly I'm a stupid theist

Honestly I'm a stupid theist and I saw that this whole thing was a trap as soon as I clicked the link. Unless someone on here is Saul Kripke there is almost no way you could ever get an article published in SEP. This is really a non-challenge.

ttdm.blogspot.com


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
In the video, you Induced

In the video, you Induced that if you dropped a fork it will fall to the ground. Your method of induction was incorrect. What if it was metal and I dropped it in a magnetic field? How's that for uniformity?

 

$1,000 plz

 


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Bill Johnson wrote: I have

Bill Johnson wrote:

I have a challenge for Kelly Tripplehorn: "Produce a statement (dated before the time of this post) from the philosophy department at Stanford University which says they agreed to be 'the disinterested third party judge' in 'The Stanford Challenge.'"

 

I'm fully prepared to believe that Stanford is as disinterested as you can get in being a judge in this challenge. 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote: In

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

In the video, you Induced that if you dropped a fork it will fall to the ground. Your method of induction was incorrect. What if it was metal and I dropped it in a magnetic field? How's that for uniformity?

 

$1,000 plz

 

 

Lol.

 

Just read the site some more, it's a fountain of ignorance.

 

Here they give the same old, pathetic, argument that abstractions are immaterial:



If you answered that the law of noncontradiction is material, then in order to collect your money, you must give an empirical demonstration

 

 What other types of demonstration are there?

 

of where the law of noncontradiction is located.

 


Simple. In a brain.  The demonstration is that I can provide you with the law by telling you about it.

 

Moreover, you must tell us, in pounds, the exact weight of the law of noncontradiction.

 

The law is encoded, neurochemically, in my brain. The bundle of neurons devoted to the concept are in my cerebral cortex... I don't see the value of weighing these neurons for you... seeing as your arugment is based on a ridiculous strawman fallacy that the idea just exists as a 'concept' floating about without any substance.

 

 

Lastly, if you claim that the law of noncontradiction is located in an object like a symbolic logic textbook, then you must prove that if the textbook was destroyed, the law of noncontradiction would perish with it.

 
The concept is created a priori, whenever a sentient brain  contemplates  existence. Now, you tell me: how can something exist immaterially? How can an idea exist without a brain?

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
cslewisster wrote: Honestly

cslewisster wrote:
Honestly I'm a stupid theist and I saw that this whole thing was a trap as soon as I clicked the link. Unless someone on here is Saul Kripke there is almost no way you could ever get an article published in SEP. This is really a non-challenge. [/quote]

 

Lol.... yes, if you explore this guy's site, the stupidity multiplies exponentially.... 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10549
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
todangst wrote: darth_josh

todangst wrote:
darth_josh wrote:

I'm not finding the first link, todangst.

The second one was specifically for this challenge so that's the better one anyway.

The second link meets the challenge, earning me the 1000. However, they won't pay, because 1) in order for them to pay they'd have to know what they were talking about.

 

The first link shows just one reason why any reference to 'god' fails anyway:

 

http://www.rationalresponders.com/an_easy_argument_to_refute_van_tillian_calvinist_presuppositionalism

 

And of course, one cannot make a reference to the supernatural at all, so I again repeat my 10,000 dollar challenge. 

 

I'll add 10k of my own on top of it. Canadian currency. At the rate the economy is moving, we'll be back ahead of the US dollar in no time, so I'm technically offering even more if you choose your timing right. Smiling

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.