(September 25, 2015 at 10:21 am)ChadWooters Wrote: Has anything actually been refuted in this thread? I think MK's ontological claim has not been directly addressed as a metaphysical problem. The OP boasts to reveal the LOGIC of the theistic proofs, but the skeptics have instead chosen to respond with EMPIRICAL observations of the natural world. In other words, they have failed to show that the MK's arguments are in themselves illogical. As for now, my counter-challenge to either formally debate the 5W has been tacitly declined and my offer to defend any of the 5W selected by the skeptics has gone unanswered. Will any skeptics step up to the plate?

What a total cop-out! This thread is a complete bust. I have issued my counter-challenge at least three times now. You skeptical cock-lepers have only offered a cute meme. I've had enough of this thread. If anyone is serious about fulfilling the empty boast of the OP then you can PM me.

At least you can say you won, that's the main thing.

(September 25, 2015 at 10:57 am)ChadWooters Wrote: What a total cop-out! This thread is a complete bust. I have issued my counter-challenge at least three times now. You skeptical cock-lepers have only offered a cute meme. I've had enough of this thread. If anyone is serious about fulfilling the empty boast of the OP then you can PM me.

Cock-lepers?   That's not very Christian of you is it now?

What is a cock-leper anyway?  Is that someone who likes to have a quick nibble on a leper's cock?

Chad, as far as I'm concerned, I agree -- the OP is a bust but not for the reason you think it is. Let's say that someone took up your challenge and Aquinas's arguments withstood the test. At best, you've come up with tentative reasons to be a deist. But you're not a deist. My interest is in how you bridge the chasm between a deist god and your Christian god. And the only way you can do it, it seems to me, is to come down from your lofty logical necessity perch to argue the nitty-gritty of historical evidence or the lack thereof. That, or pull the "I have personal evidence that I can't share or explain to any of you" gambit.

Now that would be a challenge worth exploring, in my opinion. But you'd rather keep it at a level where you can argue the abstract positions of the Schoolmen without sullying yourself with anything that has to do directly with what your faith actually entails. My two cents.

(September 25, 2015 at 10:57 am)ChadWooters Wrote: What a total cop-out! This thread is a complete bust. I have issued my counter-challenge at least three times now. You skeptical cock-lepers have only offered a cute meme. I've had enough of this thread. If anyone is serious about fulfilling the empty boast of the OP then you can PM me.

Don't be sad, Chad.

I just don't take you very seriously. You don't give me any indication that you'll do what we do, and fairly discuss the topic while admitting to what is and isn't good evidence. You don't give me any indication that I'll hear anything from you but scorn and derision. Why would I want to go through the trouble of engaging with you on a complex subject that will require a lot of effort (and research via Google-Fu on both the claims you make and the counter-claims), only to find that I'm ignored when I demonstrate one, some, or all of the positions are not viable? More importantly, have I ever shown an unwillingness to engage on subjects of Biblical claims or claims related to religion, like science and philosophy? The fact that no one wants to engage with you is, to me, quite telling... though do I hope someone with more patience than I have will take you up on it, just for the popcorn-munching value of watching it go down.

And before you say "well you're an atheist so I think the same about you", please consider the other exchanges we have had and ask yourself (aloud, if you like) whether I have ever given an indication that I would treat an opponent's valid position as if it was not so, simply out of ideology. I largely identify myself by what others here (including Christians) have called an "even-tempered" nature. So for me to say that I'm not willing to engage you on a subject that I think you have too much emotional connection to to have an honest conversation about, especially in light of the aggressiveness with which you are trying to manipulate us into that debate, is something you I hope you take a few minutes of your life to ponder.

---

Addendum: I should be clear. When I say "what we do", I mean those of us who actually bother with the scholarship of apologetics, science, and philosophy, not the casual bomb-throwers who just like harassing Christians on here. I should have considered their existence, here, and not used the term "we" without clarification. So... fixt!

(September 25, 2015 at 2:42 am)robvalue Wrote: I'm taking a break from heavy going topics for a few days as I get all obsessed with them sometimes. I'll be back to read the replies here in a while and reply to people

Chad W: I said I'm taking a break, as above. But as you're so incredibly rude, I've lost all interest in interacting with you. I gave you a chance recently but back on the block list you go. I didn't decline the debate, I said I'd consider it. Christ, you're rude. Plus I explained multiple reasons why 5 ways is broken.

Cross less: what is a bust? I don't understand. I tried my best with MK's arguments but I could barely understand what he was saying. I can't refute an argument that doesn't even make sense. I told Chad I'd be back in a few days and he pretends that means I'm dodging him.

I've just had a severe lack of challengers. Only MK, then an incredibly impatient Chad.

For the people with more patience, I will address any further arguments in a few days. I've tried my best here, if anyone thinks I've missed something please refer me to it and I'll check it out soon. I'm not ignoring things on purpose.

(September 25, 2015 at 11:33 am)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: I just don't take you very seriously. You don't give me any indication that you'll do what we do, and fairly discuss the topic while admitting to what is and isn't good evidence.

I am often haughty, smug, and in general behave like a pompous ass. I think if you look at the actual debate I had with Metis, you will see that I took a completely different tone, more differential and academic. Even if you do not take me seriously because of my personality, not taking the 5W seriously seems to me like an excuse to not actually engage with the ontological claims of Thomism.

Considering that Thomism was embraced by and remains the official position of the Roman Catholic Church, I don’t see how any self-respecting atheist can dismiss the 5W out of hand without properly weighing them against the objections of Descartes, Hume, and their successors. To uncritically accept those objections represents an appeal to authority.

(September 25, 2015 at 11:33 am)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: Why would I want to go through the trouble of engaging with you on a complex subject that will require a lot of effort…

The above notwithstanding, there is no shame deferring to the expertise of others. Not everyone is philosophically inclined and those who are have a wide range of topics on which to speculate.

The only reason I can see for doing the research would be if you wanted to know for yourself whether the 5W are valid rather than rely on the opinions of others. At the same time, I see that many atheists are content to say that all the ontological claims are invalid without doing the heavy lifting of actually demonstrating such.

(September 25, 2015 at 11:33 am)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: … have I ever shown an unwillingness to engage on subjects of Biblical claims or claims related to religion, like science and philosophy? The fact that no one wants to engage with you is, to me, quite telling...

In my opinion you do not shy away from opining on various subjects. I have always considered you sincere even when I thought your ideas were flawed. I can only speculate on what you feel the lack of engagement with me reveals.

(September 25, 2015 at 11:33 am)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: …for me to say that I'm not willing to engage you on a subject that I think you have too much emotional connection to have an honest conversation about, especially in light of the aggressiveness with which you are trying to manipulate us into that debate, is something you I hope you take a few minutes of your life to ponder.

I tend to adopt the tone of the thread. From the title alone, anyone can see that the OP was a boastful challenge.

Many atheists are willing to say flat-out that all logical demonstrations for the existence of God are flawed and then back away from actually revealing those flaws. When pressed they often say that they are no longer interested, feel doing so is beneath them, or that the 5W are so absurd that they hardly deserve attention. I feel justified in calling them out when they do so.

The premises I use are based on moderate realism and a specific theory of causation. I have indeed taken those criticisms to heart and have recently taken the extra step of supporting the philosophical foundations for the contested premises. That alone has taken a lot of work on my part. As a result, I am now unwilling to let those diversionary objections slide. I escalated the challenge as a fight for the title, so to speak. I think I deserve a little bit of latitude for the bluster of my pre-smackdown trash talk.

I can’t quite believe the level of ridiculousness and rudeness going on here, so I’m going to recap the posts.

(September 23, 2015 at 8:23 am)ChadWooters Wrote: I return your challenge with another: a formal debate of the 5 Ways of Thomas Aquinas. We may wish to change the terms of the debate some, giving more generous response times, perhaps, etc.

Please read my initial post and objections in my recent formal debate with Metis. Chad Wooters vs. Metis You may pick up where Metis failed horribly to refute any of the Five Ways by Aquinas. These should give you the advantage of knowing my arguments in advance whereas I must wait for you to present your objections. As for me, I will update my initial post for the sake of clarity and to include the 4th Way which I gave short shrift.

I await your response.

(September 23, 2015 at 1:45 pm)robvalue Wrote: Well, it's chock full of logical fallacies (the 5 ways), and I can point them all out if you want. I'm not sure it's much of a debate. What else is there to say?

And it uses the same label for the "answer" to all 5 arguments without justification. It doesn't show these are all the same thing, even if the arguments were valid.

(September 23, 2015 at 2:26 pm)robvalue Wrote: Oh yeah. The 5 ways is yet another attempt to waltz past the earliest point science can model with everyday naive notions about cause and effect which don't even stand up particularly well in quantum mechanics right now. I can forgive it since it was written a long time ago.

It's no different to the Kalam, it just tries to set up apparent paradoxes and then special pleads something into existence to fix the paradox.

It seems to show a discomfort with an infinite past and an infinite chain of events also, which amounts to an argument from incredulity.

If you don't want to address these points here, and think this is really worth a debate, I'll consider it.

I come back, and feel like taking a break. I haven’t read any of the replies since my last post. I make this clear in a nice, friendly way here:

(September 25, 2015 at 2:42 am)robvalue Wrote: I'm taking a break from heavy going topics for a few days as I get all obsessed with them sometimes. I'll be back to read the replies here in a while and reply to people

After a quick peek, I come back to these replies:

(September 25, 2015 at 10:21 am)ChadWooters Wrote: Has anything actually been refuted in this thread? I think MK's ontological claim has not been directly addressed as a metaphysical problem. The OP boasts to reveal the LOGIC of the theistic proofs, but the skeptics have instead chosen to respond with EMPIRICAL observations of the natural world. In other words, they have failed to show that the MK's arguments are in themselves illogical. As for now, my counter-challenge to either formally debate the 5W has been tacitly declined and my offer to defend any of the 5W selected by the skeptics has gone unanswered. Will any skeptics step up to the plate?

Bold mine. I didn’t decline it. I said I’d consider it, total misrepresentation. I tried my very best with MK but if I can’t understand what he’s even saying, how can I be expected to refute anything?
Then this:

(September 25, 2015 at 10:57 am)ChadWooters Wrote: What a total cop-out! This thread is a complete bust. I have issued my counter-challenge at least three times now. You skeptical cock-lepers have only offered a cute meme. I've had enough of this thread. If anyone is serious about fulfilling the empty boast of the OP then you can PM me.

Wow. This is a level of rudeness which surprised me, even given what I’m used to reading. Apparently I’m not allowed a few days break, and I’m making empty boasts.
I’m sure Chad will claim this as a victory, but I have simply no interest in debating people who show absolutely no respect. I already pointed out, as shown above, plenty of problems with the 5 ways which haven’t been addressed. So to make out I’ve ignored it is a lie too.

I’m not interested in anything more Chad has to say about anything. I just wanted to make these events clear to everyone else. Maybe you should read what people write Chad before calling them a cockleper.

The only rude thing I did was make a general vulgar insult in response to a dismissive non sequitur meme. Otherwise I agree with you that my quotes speak for themselves.

(September 25, 2015 at 12:22 pm)robvalue Wrote: I'm taking a break from heavy going topics for a few days as I get all obsessed with them sometimes. I'll be back to read the replies here in a while and reply to people … I said I'm taking a break, as above. But as you're so incredibly rude, I've lost all interest in interacting with you…I didn't decline the debate, I said I'd consider it. Christ, you're rude…I told Chad I'd be back in a few days and he pretends that means I'm dodging him…. I'm not ignoring things on purpose.

Then I apologize. You said you preferred to discuss the topic within the thread. I acknowledged and expressly said I respected that preference. Instead, I asked you to pick which of the 5W you wished to refute. I mistakenly believed that since you started this thread you would give it priority. When I noticed that you remained active on other threads, I interpreted that as disinterest in following up on the boast of the OP. I was wrong to come to that conclusion. You have every right to pick your battles.

But it is not true that I chastised you unjustly for taking time off. I invite you to look back at the part of my quote that you placed in bold. That sentence begins with the phrase, "As for now..." That phrase acknowledges that you declined for the time being.