aspire1670 wrote:The noise you can hear is LionIRC moving some goalposts.
Praying for a goal
Should We Or Should We Not Debate the Creationists?
Moderators: kiore, Blip, The_Metatron
Re: Should We Or Should We Not Debate the Creationists?
#181 
by Lion IRC » Jun 24, 2010 6:08 am
FORMAL DEBATE - Lion IRC (affirmative) vs Crocodile Gandhi (negative)
Topic - Gay marriage should not be legalised in society.
Moderator - Durro
Now Showing HERE.
Topic - Gay marriage should not be legalised in society.
Moderator - Durro
Now Showing HERE.
-
Lion IRC - Banned Troll
- Posts: 4077
Re: Should We Or Should We Not Debate the Creationists?
#182 by Alan C » Jun 24, 2010 6:09 am
Lose it - it means go crazy, nuts, insane, bonzo, no longer in possession of one's faculties, three fries short of a happy meal, WACKO!! - Jack O'Neill
-
Alan C - Posts: 3091
- Age: 47
Re: Should We Or Should We Not Debate the Creationists?
#183 by Ian Tattum » Jun 24, 2010 10:50 am
- Ian Tattum
- Posts: 1571
Re: Should We Or Should We Not Debate the Creationists?
#184 by dionysus » Jun 24, 2010 3:25 pm
Lion IRC wrote:I wouldnt want you to repeat dionysus' error of asking me to answer a question several times before discovering that I already HAD.
Excuse me? You didn't 'answer' the damn question until the postscript of the comment right before the one where you wanted me to thank you for finally answering the damn question. And if you'll notice, I didn't ask you the question again after I addressed the postscript. Although your 'answer' didn't really answer anything at all and was more equivalent to "It just is, okay! Now stop questioning me!".
Lion IRC wrote:
(oh for heavens metaphysics sake! This is a conceptual discussion about the metaphysic chicane whereby you cannot proceed from point A to point B unless you pass THROUGH point A. You dont think point A exists. I get that already! But if you want to grill theists about who "made God" you must first pass checkpoint "A" - the metaphysical and theological perception of a Being referred to as God. By all means, ask who made God. But first understand that in order to have a conceptual progentitor of God, the conceptual God is assumed to exist.)
No, this is a discussion about causality and your assertion that everything requires a cause except this god thing you are declaring to exist. You are the one trying to turn this into a metaphysical/theological discussion. We're trying to keep this as a causality discussion. Now, you DID answer my question, though the response was a predictable case of special pleading, in which case I can do the same thing and declare that the Big Bang was uncaused. And the best part is that my assertion (even though it is unsubstantiated just like yours) is that it enjoys a large advantage in parsimony as we know that the Big Bang happened but have no evidence that a god exists and thus your proposition is a needless complication.
-
dionysus - Name: Lukasz
- Posts: 417
- Age: 39
Re: Should We Or Should We Not Debate the Creationists?
#185 by Calilasseia » Jun 25, 2010 3:02 am
Oh dear. Looks like the in tray is full again ...
Let's take a look at this shall we?
Did you take care to formulate substantive arguments before posting it?
There's a reason I dissected your post line by line. Because it contains canards at the frequency requiring said dissection. What part of this elementary concept do you not understand?
Where did you do this, again?
Only I presented a rigorous example, from mathematics, of the use of reductio ad absurdum. Namely, the business of demonstrating that an initial hypothesis is refuted, because it leads to a contradiction, a paradox, or some other discoursive anomaly. Yet you persisted in trying to erect the specious argument that accepting a postulate by initial hypothesis, for the business of refuting that hypothesis, as many here do on a frequent basis, somehow implied acceptance of the validity of that hypothesis. What part of "this notion is wrong" do you not understand?
Ah, a familiar tactic ... use of an idiosyncratic protocol to make more work for me reformatting it into quote tags. I wonder why you chose this particular method of response? Not to worry, I'm not afraid of the requisite labour.
Excuse me, but you assert that a magic entity exists, and that this magic entity is necessary in order to understand the universe. This makes you a supernaturalist by definition. Don't try and hand-wave this away with specious apologetics, because supernaturalists erect such entities specifically because they think that natural processes aren't enough in order to understand the universe and its contents. Indeed, the whole point of erecting supernatural entities is the belief that something other than the laws of physics is required to run the universe, and supernatural entities are deliberately constructed so as to be purportedly capable of overriding those laws of physics as and when whim dictates. Your earlier erection of the "random" canard, or a variant thereof, expressly as a strawman caricature of the scientific world view, is a classic example of this particular part of the aetiology of supernaturalism at work.
Once again, let's take you through the baby steps, shall we?
[1] When a postulate is erected, its validity or otherwise is determined by appropriate provision of support for, or refutation of, that postulate.
[2] One of the standard techniques of refuting a postulate consists of reductio ad absurdum. Namely, assume at the beginning of the refutation that the postulate is true, then demonstrate either via appropriate real world evidence, or appropriate formal deduction, that said postulate leads to a contradiction or paradox if assumed to be true. Which constitutes a refutation of that postulate.
[3] At no point in the exercise is anyone required to regard that postulate as constituting a valid "axiom" about the world, until appropriate real world evidence or formal deduction establishes that validity. Indeed, since the entire point of reductio ad absurdum is the refutation of the postulate in question, the idea that anyone must accept that postulate as valid beforehand, when the entire point of the exercise is to question any asserted "validity" thereof, is a piece of errant nonsense.
Now, since I went to the trouble of establishing this concept by way of example, and indeed used a mathematical proof for that example in order to establish the rigour of the underlying mechanism, I contend that your "disagreement" with this is an elementary failure of basic logic. Just because the postulate being subject to reductio ad absurdum in this thread happens to be one that tickles your ideological erogenous zones doesn't alter this one jot, and indeed, if there is one elementary lesson that you appear not to have learned, it is that no postulate enjoys privileged status in rigorous discourse. Just because you happen to wish for your postulates about your pet magic entity to possess such a status doesn't make this so.
As for some of your more trite comments above, if you think that demolition of your canards constitutes "flattery", then you are easily pleased. Plus, given that you have yet to place the existence of your magic entity on a rigorous footing, your implied assertion above that it is possible to have a "relationship" with this entity merely constitutes more supernaturalist speculation and fantasising, in the absence of said rigorous evidence for the existence of this entity.
Moving on ...
Ahem, until independent corroboration of the existence of this entity is provided, the notion that said entity somehow exists because it "asserts" its own existence, is another of those pieces of apologetic farce that adds to the reasons why theology is regarded here with deserved scorn and derision.
Exactly how does force majeure apply here? This is a legal term absolving a party from contractual fulfilment if said fulfilment is impossible as a result of unforeseen external events. This has nothing to do with whether or not magic entities exist.
So why do you not agree to the application of reductio ad absurdum to the postulate that your pet magic entity exists? Why do I smell the distinctive odour of trying to have one's apologetic cake and eat it simultaneously here?
Au contraire, your refusal to accept the validity of the process of reductio ad absurdum makes this repetition all the more apposite.
What a pity your post indicated otherwise, as I have demonstrated yet again.
Interesting double negative there. But, leaving that syntactic curiosity aside for a moment, the simple fact is that you tried to erect the specious argument that provisional acceptance of a postulate for the purpose of discoursive testing via reductio ad absurdum somehow constituted acceptance of the validity of that postulate outside of the framework of that discoursive test, a notion that is plainly absurd. If it was not your intention to erect this notion, then you should have applied more rigour to your choice of phrase.
Oh, I'm sorry, I thought this was a technical discussion about the validity of postulates, and the proper, rigorous determination thereof. Yes, I can be sarcastic too.
In addition, whilst it is possible for people to erect fantastic postulates about supernatural entities, or indeed any other class of entity, this is distinct from the validity or otherwise of said postulates, or the process of determining this. It is logically possible for individuals to erect whatever metaphysical concepts they care to fantasise about, that I do not dispute, but if those concepts contain internal paradoxes or contradictions, then they are logically invalid. The whole point of the exercise being conducted here, at least this was the case until your tangential diversion into the mechanics of discourse shunted the thread into a siding, is to establish that the other posters in this thread regard your 'god' as an entity whose construction is replete with paradox.
Well, if you had presented your argument, such as it is, in rigorous terms, I would not have become convinced that said repetition was needed. The simple fact is that you erected an entirely specious argument with respect to the validity of postulates.
Your erection of the specious argument that acceptance by hypothesis for discoursive testing of a particular postulate, somehow implied acceptance of the validity of that postulate outside of that framework of discoursive testing, was the very reason I concluded that you didn't understand this. Getting the message here, are you?
Try because it is nothing more than a blind assertion., and one moreover deliberately constructed apologetically to evade discoursive examination.
Until you provide substantive evidence supporting the existence of this entity, and the possession of the requisite attributes, it IS a mere assertion. Try applying something other than apologetic thinking for a moment, you'll find it wonderfully refreshing.
I don't miss this point at all. Indeed, the entire thrust of discourse in this thread, prior to our little trip down the mechanics of discourse siding, consisted of testing hypotheses about this entity to destruction by determining the internal contradictions contained therein.
Except that rigorous discourse about such hypothetical entities includes the provision of proper, critically robust support for the relevant postulates. Thus far, I have yet to see any of this materialise with respect to postulates about the invisible magic men of mythology, which is why I regard said postulates as mere blind assertions. However, when various individuals take the trouble to subject these blind assertions to critical examination, said assertions are usually found wanting.
Once again, just because you happen to regard your assertions about your particular species of magic man as sacrosanct does not mean that these assertions deserve a privileged status in rigorous discourse. I suggest that you learn this lesson quickly.
And once again, your failure of understanding, as a result of feeble apologetic substitute for thought, is clearly manifest.
The "point A" you were speciously trying to establish, consisted of the notion that a postulate being subject to discoursive test must somehow necessarily be regarded as valid outside of the framework of discoursive testing, when the whole point of the discoursive test is to determine the validity or otherwise of that postulate. As I said above, if you did not intend to erect this notion, you should have exercised more rigour in your choice of phrase.
An atheist is perfectly entitiled to ask if a supernaturalist's assertions stand up to scrutiny and subject them to test. No obligation to accept the validity of those assertions outside of that framework of discoursive test exists.
Once again, the point I am making is that no one is obliged to accept the validity of your constructs outside of the framework of subjecting said constructs to discoursive test, and your implication that this we are obliged to do so is plain, flat, wrong.
Actually, his question arose as a direct result of addressing one of the well-known apologetic fabrications erected to prop up the idea of a mythological magic man, namely Kalamity Craig's weak and facile use of the cosmological argument. Which itself is based upon an unwarranted jumping to conclusion, one that renders subsidiary discussion of any 'infinite regress' superfluous to requirements and irrelevant, with respect to the business of refuting this particular collapsed intellectual soufflé. But that is a question best addressed in a separate thread.
The whole point here is that supernaturalists erect purported "arguments" claiming to support their position not only that a supernatural entity exists, but a particular supernatural entity possessing a range of attributes and properties. The nature of those attributes and properties are the subject of the corollary assertions I was referring to. Yet again, I am led to conclude that your thinking lacks rigour to a woeful extent.
And the point I am making, and have made upon numerous occasions in the past, is that until you establish a rigorous basis for the existence of a supernatural entity, postulates about the attributes and properties such an entity possesses remain firmly in the realm of speculation and fantasy, and remain mere assertions. Of course, this does not in the least prevent critical examination of those corollary assertions to see whether they result in contradiction or paradox, which is an amusingly inevitable result of basing one's thinking upon uncritical acceptance of blind assertions in the first place.
As to your contention that your concept can be anything you want, this in itself is not wrong. However, if as a consequence of erecting a suitably exotic concept, said concept strays into the realm of contradiction and paradox, do not be surprised if others alight upon this and subject it to the relevant destructive discoursive tests.
Allow me to give you a tip here. If you're going to chop my sentences into pieces, at least do so in a manner that retains their original context. Which was deliberately, and I contend, duplicitously, disrupted by your little elision at this point. I shall repair the break in what follows. Plus, the "point A" you were trying to erect was, as I have demonstrated above, entirely specious to begin with.
Reductio ad absurdum again?
Once again, you miss the point entirely. I and numerous others here do not accept magic entities, but that does not in any way preclude us from subjecting assertions about said magic entities to appropriate discoursive test, taking the form of provisionally accepting the supernaturalist's assertions, and then demonstrating that they lead to absurdity. That I have to repeat this again, despite having provided an example of the discoursive mechanics involved, and a mathematical proof at that, once more demonstrates that you have not understood what is being imparted to you here - namely that anyone can erect whatever fanciful and exotic concepts they wish, but if they wish for the rest of us to accept those concepts as valid real world constructions, they had better provide something a little more substantial than the collapsed intellectual soufflé of apologetics.
Your admission above that you plan to quote mine my words is a piece of candour you will learn to regret. As for the smug and self-satisfied laughter above, I need merely point out that spacetime curvature and quantum "weirdness" happens to be comprehensible within a precise, quantitative analytical framework enjoying support from observational reality to the tune of fifteen decimal places, something that mythology cannot even fantasise about achieving.
No, I'm merely concerned about the proper application of rigour. The woeful lack thereof in your posts suggests that your smug riposte above is a piece of hubris on your part that you would do well to abandon.
The above amateurish attempt to disrupt context I shall treat with the scorn and derision that it deserves.
I smell a particularly odious piece of well poisoning at this juncture.
If you're referring to Leibniz's use of infinitesimals in his applied mathematics, then that was actually subject to criticism by Bishop Berkeley, not Locke. However, despite the fact that mathematicians such as Euler and Riemann worked hard to remove infinitesimals from rigorous analysis, a proper concept of infinitesimal survives today in non-standard analysis, and several of Leibniz's constructions have since been independently verified as valid. Look up Abraham Robinson and non-standard analysis.
In the light of my previous expositions, the absurdity of your above mutilation of my text is transparently self-evident. Not least because anyone familiar with mathematics even at a fairly elementary level is aware that genuine axioms are something more than mere metaphysical fabrications. Euclid was aware of this 24 centuries ago. As for your assertion that reality equals metaphysics, please, it hurts to laugh.
Already dealt with this woefully non-rigorous conflation of yours above. Once again, provisional acceptance of a hypothesis, for the purpose of subjecting it to destructive discoursive test to see whether that hypothesis survives the test, does not require one to accept the validity of that hypothesis outside of the framework of said discoursive test. This elementary concept appears yet again to be unknown to you.
The trouble is, you are confused about what you yourself mean about the "point A" in question. The above discourse of mine should deal with this.
And once again provisional acceptance of a hypothesis for the purpose of discoursive testing does not require one to regard that hypothesis as true outside of the framework of the discoursive test being conducted, not least because the discoursive test is being performed precisely to determine whether acceptance of the validity thereof outside that framework is warranted. How many times do I have to repeat this until it sinks in?
ONLY from the standpoint of discoursive testing, and NOT from the standpoint of said entity being a real, concrete part of the universe. This latter issue is the reason for the erection of the discoursive test in the first place.
And with that, I shall retire for the night and catch some well earned sleep. But before doing so, a little message for you Lion ... if you can't be bothered to use quote tags properly, and choose to use, duplicitously in my view, an idiosyncratic format for addressing my arguments that results in inordinate amounts of labour in order to undo your tangled web, do not be in the least surprised if, after exerting the requisite labour to undo said tangled web, I regard you with undisguised loathing. If you're going to try and imitate me, do it competently.
Let's take a look at this shall we?
Lion IRC wrote:Oh dear. Look what we have here. The Tepanyaki Terror using 15 Ginsu steak knives to shred my post into confetti taking it one or two words at a time. The Edward Scissor Hands of line-by-line response. Did you take care to read the whole of my post before you started Calilasseia?
Did you take care to formulate substantive arguments before posting it?
There's a reason I dissected your post line by line. Because it contains canards at the frequency requiring said dissection. What part of this elementary concept do you not understand?
Lion IRC wrote:I wouldnt want you to repeat dionysus' error of asking me to answer a question several times before discovering that I already HAD.
Where did you do this, again?
Only I presented a rigorous example, from mathematics, of the use of reductio ad absurdum. Namely, the business of demonstrating that an initial hypothesis is refuted, because it leads to a contradiction, a paradox, or some other discoursive anomaly. Yet you persisted in trying to erect the specious argument that accepting a postulate by initial hypothesis, for the business of refuting that hypothesis, as many here do on a frequent basis, somehow implied acceptance of the validity of that hypothesis. What part of "this notion is wrong" do you not understand?
Lion IRC wrote:I respect you a lot so I simply can't resist answering your points below. SEE RED
Ah, a familiar tactic ... use of an idiosyncratic protocol to make more work for me reformatting it into quote tags. I wonder why you chose this particular method of response? Not to worry, I'm not afraid of the requisite labour.
Lion IRC wrote:Calilasseia wrote:Oh dear. This was posted after I provided my dissertation on assuming a hypothesis to be true for the purposes of reductio ad absurdum. Did you read that post by the way?
Let's take a look at this shall we?Lion IRC wrote:Hi dionysus,
You cannot ask even hypothetical questions about.. "who made" a non-existent Being.
Its called being disingenuous.
Wrong. When a supernaturalist
(i'm not)
Excuse me, but you assert that a magic entity exists, and that this magic entity is necessary in order to understand the universe. This makes you a supernaturalist by definition. Don't try and hand-wave this away with specious apologetics, because supernaturalists erect such entities specifically because they think that natural processes aren't enough in order to understand the universe and its contents. Indeed, the whole point of erecting supernatural entities is the belief that something other than the laws of physics is required to run the universe, and supernatural entities are deliberately constructed so as to be purportedly capable of overriding those laws of physics as and when whim dictates. Your earlier erection of the "random" canard, or a variant thereof, expressly as a strawman caricature of the scientific world view, is a classic example of this particular part of the aetiology of supernaturalism at work.
Lion IRC wrote:Calilasseia wrote:asserts that his pet magic entity
(AKA personal Jesus)Calilasseia wrote:exists, it is perfectly pertinent to ask questions
(thanks for your interest - very flattering)Calilasseia wrote:that expose the vacuity of the assertion. Especially when the process of inquiry follows the patter I presented above with respect to reductio ad absurdum of a given proposition. What part of this elementary concept do you not understand?
(I dont not understand not neither nor none of it - I simply disagree)
Once again, let's take you through the baby steps, shall we?
[1] When a postulate is erected, its validity or otherwise is determined by appropriate provision of support for, or refutation of, that postulate.
[2] One of the standard techniques of refuting a postulate consists of reductio ad absurdum. Namely, assume at the beginning of the refutation that the postulate is true, then demonstrate either via appropriate real world evidence, or appropriate formal deduction, that said postulate leads to a contradiction or paradox if assumed to be true. Which constitutes a refutation of that postulate.
[3] At no point in the exercise is anyone required to regard that postulate as constituting a valid "axiom" about the world, until appropriate real world evidence or formal deduction establishes that validity. Indeed, since the entire point of reductio ad absurdum is the refutation of the postulate in question, the idea that anyone must accept that postulate as valid beforehand, when the entire point of the exercise is to question any asserted "validity" thereof, is a piece of errant nonsense.
Now, since I went to the trouble of establishing this concept by way of example, and indeed used a mathematical proof for that example in order to establish the rigour of the underlying mechanism, I contend that your "disagreement" with this is an elementary failure of basic logic. Just because the postulate being subject to reductio ad absurdum in this thread happens to be one that tickles your ideological erogenous zones doesn't alter this one jot, and indeed, if there is one elementary lesson that you appear not to have learned, it is that no postulate enjoys privileged status in rigorous discourse. Just because you happen to wish for your postulates about your pet magic entity to possess such a status doesn't make this so.
As for some of your more trite comments above, if you think that demolition of your canards constitutes "flattery", then you are easily pleased. Plus, given that you have yet to place the existence of your magic entity on a rigorous footing, your implied assertion above that it is possible to have a "relationship" with this entity merely constitutes more supernaturalist speculation and fantasising, in the absence of said rigorous evidence for the existence of this entity.
Moving on ...
Ahem, until independent corroboration of the existence of this entity is provided, the notion that said entity somehow exists because it "asserts" its own existence, is another of those pieces of apologetic farce that adds to the reasons why theology is regarded here with deserved scorn and derision.
Exactly how does force majeure apply here? This is a legal term absolving a party from contractual fulfilment if said fulfilment is impossible as a result of unforeseen external events. This has nothing to do with whether or not magic entities exist.
So why do you not agree to the application of reductio ad absurdum to the postulate that your pet magic entity exists? Why do I smell the distinctive odour of trying to have one's apologetic cake and eat it simultaneously here?
Au contraire, your refusal to accept the validity of the process of reductio ad absurdum makes this repetition all the more apposite.
Lion IRC wrote:Calilasseia wrote:accepting a proposition by hypothesis, for the purposes of erecting a demonstration of the falsity thereof, is legitimate, as I established above. I'm tempted to ask again if you read my earlier post.
(Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes - a few yes's in advance to save you asking again and again)
What a pity your post indicated otherwise, as I have demonstrated yet again.
Interesting double negative there. But, leaving that syntactic curiosity aside for a moment, the simple fact is that you tried to erect the specious argument that provisional acceptance of a postulate for the purpose of discoursive testing via reductio ad absurdum somehow constituted acceptance of the validity of that postulate outside of the framework of that discoursive test, a notion that is plainly absurd. If it was not your intention to erect this notion, then you should have applied more rigour to your choice of phrase.
Oh, I'm sorry, I thought this was a technical discussion about the validity of postulates, and the proper, rigorous determination thereof. Yes, I can be sarcastic too.
In addition, whilst it is possible for people to erect fantastic postulates about supernatural entities, or indeed any other class of entity, this is distinct from the validity or otherwise of said postulates, or the process of determining this. It is logically possible for individuals to erect whatever metaphysical concepts they care to fantasise about, that I do not dispute, but if those concepts contain internal paradoxes or contradictions, then they are logically invalid. The whole point of the exercise being conducted here, at least this was the case until your tangential diversion into the mechanics of discourse shunted the thread into a siding, is to establish that the other posters in this thread regard your 'god' as an entity whose construction is replete with paradox.
Lion IRC wrote:Calilasseia wrote:What part of reductio ad absurdum do you not understand?
(What part of deja, deja, dejav vu do you understand, understand, understand? I read your posts. I understand them - even the bits with which I disagree. If there was something I didnt understand I would make it my business to find out. Stop repeating yourself continually asking did you read my post? Did you not understand? What part did you not understand? etc etc etc.)
Well, if you had presented your argument, such as it is, in rigorous terms, I would not have become convinced that said repetition was needed. The simple fact is that you erected an entirely specious argument with respect to the validity of postulates.
Lion IRC wrote:Calilasseia wrote:Lion IRC wrote:Example - Suppose I answer that the hypothetical God was made by another hypothetical God who was in turn made by another and another into infinity. You have not achieved any progress beyond where you started.
Which is precisely the reason the other posters here consider the process to constitute a reductio ad absurdum of the original concept. What part of this elementary concept do you not understand?
(Oh brother! I need a recorded message - I dont not understand words like hypothetical and reductio absurdum)
Your erection of the specious argument that acceptance by hypothesis for discoursive testing of a particular postulate, somehow implied acceptance of the validity of that postulate outside of that framework of discoursive testing, was the very reason I concluded that you didn't understand this. Getting the message here, are you?
Try because it is nothing more than a blind assertion., and one moreover deliberately constructed apologetically to evade discoursive examination.
Until you provide substantive evidence supporting the existence of this entity, and the possession of the requisite attributes, it IS a mere assertion. Try applying something other than apologetic thinking for a moment, you'll find it wonderfully refreshing.
I don't miss this point at all. Indeed, the entire thrust of discourse in this thread, prior to our little trip down the mechanics of discourse siding, consisted of testing hypotheses about this entity to destruction by determining the internal contradictions contained therein.
Except that rigorous discourse about such hypothetical entities includes the provision of proper, critically robust support for the relevant postulates. Thus far, I have yet to see any of this materialise with respect to postulates about the invisible magic men of mythology, which is why I regard said postulates as mere blind assertions. However, when various individuals take the trouble to subject these blind assertions to critical examination, said assertions are usually found wanting.
Once again, just because you happen to regard your assertions about your particular species of magic man as sacrosanct does not mean that these assertions deserve a privileged status in rigorous discourse. I suggest that you learn this lesson quickly.
And once again, your failure of understanding, as a result of feeble apologetic substitute for thought, is clearly manifest.
The "point A" you were speciously trying to establish, consisted of the notion that a postulate being subject to discoursive test must somehow necessarily be regarded as valid outside of the framework of discoursive testing, when the whole point of the discoursive test is to determine the validity or otherwise of that postulate. As I said above, if you did not intend to erect this notion, you should have exercised more rigour in your choice of phrase.
An atheist is perfectly entitiled to ask if a supernaturalist's assertions stand up to scrutiny and subject them to test. No obligation to accept the validity of those assertions outside of that framework of discoursive test exists.
Once again, the point I am making is that no one is obliged to accept the validity of your constructs outside of the framework of subjecting said constructs to discoursive test, and your implication that this we are obliged to do so is plain, flat, wrong.
Actually, his question arose as a direct result of addressing one of the well-known apologetic fabrications erected to prop up the idea of a mythological magic man, namely Kalamity Craig's weak and facile use of the cosmological argument. Which itself is based upon an unwarranted jumping to conclusion, one that renders subsidiary discussion of any 'infinite regress' superfluous to requirements and irrelevant, with respect to the business of refuting this particular collapsed intellectual soufflé. But that is a question best addressed in a separate thread.
The whole point here is that supernaturalists erect purported "arguments" claiming to support their position not only that a supernatural entity exists, but a particular supernatural entity possessing a range of attributes and properties. The nature of those attributes and properties are the subject of the corollary assertions I was referring to. Yet again, I am led to conclude that your thinking lacks rigour to a woeful extent.
Lion IRC wrote:Calilasseia wrote:erected with respect to magic entities of this class, constitute anything other than a fabrication of the supernaturalist mind.
(Let me break it down for you. Who made God? Which God? The hypothetical Being in this case. Oh THAT God...well since He is just a thought experiment and a concept He can be anything we want - including Uncaused!)
And the point I am making, and have made upon numerous occasions in the past, is that until you establish a rigorous basis for the existence of a supernatural entity, postulates about the attributes and properties such an entity possesses remain firmly in the realm of speculation and fantasy, and remain mere assertions. Of course, this does not in the least prevent critical examination of those corollary assertions to see whether they result in contradiction or paradox, which is an amusingly inevitable result of basing one's thinking upon uncritical acceptance of blind assertions in the first place.
As to your contention that your concept can be anything you want, this in itself is not wrong. However, if as a consequence of erecting a suitably exotic concept, said concept strays into the realm of contradiction and paradox, do not be surprised if others alight upon this and subject it to the relevant destructive discoursive tests.
Allow me to give you a tip here. If you're going to chop my sentences into pieces, at least do so in a manner that retains their original context. Which was deliberately, and I contend, duplicitously, disrupted by your little elision at this point. I shall repair the break in what follows. Plus, the "point A" you were trying to erect was, as I have demonstrated above, entirely specious to begin with.
Lion IRC wrote:Calilasseia wrote:There is no obstacle to engaging in thought about the concept, but there are plenty of obstacles to the matter of regarding the entity encapsulated by this concept as anything other than a merely asserted entity. The complete failure of any supernaturalist to place the existence of this entity on a rigorous footing being a large obstacle.
(so why is dionysus asking me about the creator of such a Being?)
Reductio ad absurdum again?
Lion IRC wrote:Calilasseia wrote:Lion IRC wrote:If a person can comfortably and logically conceive of the possibility of a God who has the conceptual ability to have a Son then anything else can ALSO be conceived. A phoenix God? A God who can disappear and reappear.
And this is precisely the problem (for you not me) with supernaturalist (I say everything which exists is natural) assertions. Once one accepts magic, and magic entities, anything is permissible.
Ta DA! Thats what Locke understood and thats the point I am making. Dont bother asking empirical finite questions about the transcendent, metaphysical - the horse has already bolted. You cant unscramble the egg. God is the "ne plus ultra of magic wands". Just say you dont believe in magic wands - end of discussion. BUT DONT GET INTO DEBATES OR CONJECTURE OR HAIR SPLITTING ABOUT WHTHER A MAGIC WAND CAN OR CAN'T MAKE RABBITS APPEAR OUT OF HATS.
Once again, you miss the point entirely. I and numerous others here do not accept magic entities, but that does not in any way preclude us from subjecting assertions about said magic entities to appropriate discoursive test, taking the form of provisionally accepting the supernaturalist's assertions, and then demonstrating that they lead to absurdity. That I have to repeat this again, despite having provided an example of the discoursive mechanics involved, and a mathematical proof at that, once more demonstrates that you have not understood what is being imparted to you here - namely that anyone can erect whatever fanciful and exotic concepts they wish, but if they wish for the rest of us to accept those concepts as valid real world constructions, they had better provide something a little more substantial than the collapsed intellectual soufflé of apologetics.
Lion IRC wrote:Calilasseia wrote:Lion IRC wrote:And logically it is possible to conceive of a state in which there is no God – Atheology.
However, since we have evidence that magic is not needed (I agree 100%) in order to understand vast classes of real world observational phenomena, and indeed is superfluous to requirements and irrelevant from the standpoint of developing a precise quantitative and predictive understanding of those classes of phenomena, one may safely conclude that this state enjoys some evidential support, until such time as reality decides to throw us a truly spectacular curve ball.
(Ha ha. Good one Cali! - That ones going in the quote mine vault. Curved space/time and quantum weirdness throws us curved balls ALL the time)
Your admission above that you plan to quote mine my words is a piece of candour you will learn to regret. As for the smug and self-satisfied laughter above, I need merely point out that spacetime curvature and quantum "weirdness" happens to be comprehensible within a precise, quantitative analytical framework enjoying support from observational reality to the tune of fifteen decimal places, something that mythology cannot even fantasise about achieving.
No, I'm merely concerned about the proper application of rigour. The woeful lack thereof in your posts suggests that your smug riposte above is a piece of hubris on your part that you would do well to abandon.
Calilasseia wrote:Lion IRC wrote:John Locke, whom I regard as the founder of empiricism and natural opponent of most forms of dogmatism, was really bothered by metaphysics in most things – except for God. Why? Because logically, God is the only concept to which metaphysics is apt.
Well since metaphysics consists yet again of the fine art of erecting fabrications (dont you mean hypotheticals?), then asserting that said fabrications (dont you mean hypotheticals?) constitute "axioms" (dont you mean hypotheticals?) about the world, it's hardly surprising that this is apt with respect to your merely asserted magic (dont you mean hypotheticals?) entity.
The above amateurish attempt to disrupt context I shall treat with the scorn and derision that it deserves.
I smell a particularly odious piece of well poisoning at this juncture.
Lion IRC wrote:
(Leibniz was trying to drag metaphysics into science and Locke wrote to one of his......hang on read your own philosophy books or else at least offer me your school lunch money if you dont want to do your own homework.)
If you're referring to Leibniz's use of infinitesimals in his applied mathematics, then that was actually subject to criticism by Bishop Berkeley, not Locke. However, despite the fact that mathematicians such as Euler and Riemann worked hard to remove infinitesimals from rigorous analysis, a proper concept of infinitesimal survives today in non-standard analysis, and several of Leibniz's constructions have since been independently verified as valid. Look up Abraham Robinson and non-standard analysis.
In the light of my previous expositions, the absurdity of your above mutilation of my text is transparently self-evident. Not least because anyone familiar with mathematics even at a fairly elementary level is aware that genuine axioms are something more than mere metaphysical fabrications. Euclid was aware of this 24 centuries ago. As for your assertion that reality equals metaphysics, please, it hurts to laugh.
Lion IRC wrote:Calilasseia wrote:Lion IRC wrote:PS – In order to avoid the charge that I am evading the original question “who made the God who exists” my formal answer is – Nobody. Uncreated is part of my definition of God and if it were shown that God had a creator guess which Being I would call Higher?
You have yet to place your original, purportedly "uncaused" magic entity on a rigorous footing. Going to do that sometime, are you?
oh for heavens metaphysics sake! This is a conceptual discussion about the metaphysic chicane whereby you cannot proceed from point A to point B unless you pass THROUGH point A.
Already dealt with this woefully non-rigorous conflation of yours above. Once again, provisional acceptance of a hypothesis, for the purpose of subjecting it to destructive discoursive test to see whether that hypothesis survives the test, does not require one to accept the validity of that hypothesis outside of the framework of said discoursive test. This elementary concept appears yet again to be unknown to you.
Lion IRC wrote:You dont think point A exists. I get that already!
The trouble is, you are confused about what you yourself mean about the "point A" in question. The above discourse of mine should deal with this.
Lion IRC wrote:But if you want to grill theists about who "made God" you must first pass checkpoint "A" - the metaphysical and theological perception of a Being referred to as God.
And once again provisional acceptance of a hypothesis for the purpose of discoursive testing does not require one to regard that hypothesis as true outside of the framework of the discoursive test being conducted, not least because the discoursive test is being performed precisely to determine whether acceptance of the validity thereof outside that framework is warranted. How many times do I have to repeat this until it sinks in?
Lion IRC wrote:By all means, ask who made God. But first understand that in order to have a conceptual progentitor of God, the conceptual God is assumed to exist.)
ONLY from the standpoint of discoursive testing, and NOT from the standpoint of said entity being a real, concrete part of the universe. This latter issue is the reason for the erection of the discoursive test in the first place.
And with that, I shall retire for the night and catch some well earned sleep. But before doing so, a little message for you Lion ... if you can't be bothered to use quote tags properly, and choose to use, duplicitously in my view, an idiosyncratic format for addressing my arguments that results in inordinate amounts of labour in order to undo your tangled web, do not be in the least surprised if, after exerting the requisite labour to undo said tangled web, I regard you with undisguised loathing. If you're going to try and imitate me, do it competently.
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
-
Calilasseia - RS Donator
- Posts: 22636
- Age: 62
- Country: England
Re: Should We Or Should We Not Debate the Creationists?
#186 by xrayzed » Jun 25, 2010 3:16 am
It would certainly be absurd. Which seems fitting.
Of course applying Platinga reasoning it can be argued that it is possible that there exists a world where there was a dinosaur Jesus, and that if it is possible then it is rational to believe that a dinosaur Jesus exists. QED some dopey fucker won't get the joke.
A thinking creationist is an oxymoron. A non-thinking creationist is just a moron.
(Source: johannessiig, here)
(Source: johannessiig, here)
-
xrayzed - Posts: 1053
- Age: 65
Re: Should We Or Should We Not Debate the Creationists?
#187 by Lion IRC » Jun 25, 2010 6:22 am
Thats what I love about your posts. I have to try really hard not to smile.
FORMAL DEBATE - Lion IRC (affirmative) vs Crocodile Gandhi (negative)
Topic - Gay marriage should not be legalised in society.
Moderator - Durro
Now Showing HERE.
Topic - Gay marriage should not be legalised in society.
Moderator - Durro
Now Showing HERE.
-
Lion IRC - Banned Troll
- Posts: 4077
Re: Should We Or Should We Not Debate the Creationists?
#188 by Alan C » Jun 25, 2010 7:36 am
It's rather like a Chihuahua picking a fight with a Velociraptor.
Lose it - it means go crazy, nuts, insane, bonzo, no longer in possession of one's faculties, three fries short of a happy meal, WACKO!! - Jack O'Neill
-
Alan C - Posts: 3091
- Age: 47
Re: Should We Or Should We Not Debate the Creationists?
#189 by redwhine » Jun 26, 2010 2:17 pm
"Start every day with a smile and get it over with." ~W.C. Fields
Go on; you know you want to. Much easier than responding to arguments.
-
redwhine - Posts: 7815
- Age: 71
- Country: England
Re: Should We Or Should We Not Debate the Creationists?
#190 by Blitzkrebs » Jun 26, 2010 3:04 pm
ikster7579 wrote:Being rational is just an excuse for not wanting to have faith.
-
Blitzkrebs - Name: Roy
- Posts: 392
- Age: 34
- Country: Amerika
Re: Should We Or Should We Not Debate the Creationists?
#191 by Mycernius » Jul 02, 2010 8:53 pm
Wow, Byers finally found his way here? Still think that glaciers are not water ice Rob? See that Cali is already carpet bombing your blind assertions and bad science. Look forward to more pwnage at your expense.
-
Mycernius - Posts: 362
- Age: 54
Who is online
Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest