Posts: 9915
Threads: 53
Joined: November 27, 2015
Reputation:
92
Dr. Craig is a liar.
May 11, 2016 at 8:09 pm
(May 11, 2016 at 7:10 pm)SteveII Wrote: (May 11, 2016 at 12:14 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: I think, "turning into" is rather generous here. [emoji12]
The worst part for me is all the extraordinary fiat regarding god's nature and attributes (assuming we could make rational sense of any of this) without a tiny shred of verifiable evidence to support it. But we are the dummies for not "just having faith..."
If you think the inferred qualities of uncaused cause, timeless, immaterial, personal, and powerful a presented as fiat, then either you do not understand the term or you do not understand the argument. Regardless of whether you believe the premises to be true, it is a logical argument. Simply dismissing it does nothing to make your case. The only way to defeat an argument is to show some form of logical fallacy or provide defeaters for the premises (see below). Incredulity is not a defeater.
From wikipedia:
In epistemology, a defeater is a belief B1 that is held to be incompatible with another belief B2, hence arguments or evidence supporting B1 can be used to refute B2.
- An undercutting defeater is B1 such that B1 does not oppose B2, but rather that the ramifications of B1, were it possible to obtain, casts doubt on the premises for B2.
- An opposing defeater is B1 such that B1 has a factual or otherwise claim that, were it to be obtained, would falsify B2.
It is your fiat I take issue with. I left the KCA behind. Logical arguments, sound or not, aren't sufficient to demonstrate that god exists. You can't even reasonably define the characteristics of God that the KCA is meant to logically conclude! Repeating them over and over like a mantra doesn't make them any less absurd, and we haven't even gotten to your lack of demonstrable evidence yet.
So then, let me get this straight: you would like to put forth a logical argument for the existence of a god who you don't believe is held accountable to logical absolutes?
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”
Wiser words were never spoken.
Posts: 3045
Threads: 14
Joined: July 7, 2014
Reputation:
14
RE: Dr. Craig is a liar.
May 11, 2016 at 8:11 pm
(May 11, 2016 at 7:24 pm)Rhythm Wrote: That's what the term personal means? LOL........holy shit.
I was not defining personal. I was explaining why the KCA infers that the cause was personal. You know what I mean. Can you describe it better for me?
Posts: 3045
Threads: 14
Joined: July 7, 2014
Reputation:
14
RE: Dr. Craig is a liar.
May 11, 2016 at 8:15 pm
(May 11, 2016 at 7:27 pm)Jehanne Wrote: (May 11, 2016 at 7:11 pm)SteveII Wrote: That does not follow. How is God an actual infinite of something?
If god become temporal and time began 13.8 billions years ago, then if god is omniscient, then all future events, from god's perspective, constitutes an actual infinite set, correct?
I congratulate you on your campaign to explore every possible angle to arrive at an actual infinite.
No, future events can never be an actual infinite. There can always be one more event. There is no number of events where adding one more will equal infinity.
Posts: 9915
Threads: 53
Joined: November 27, 2015
Reputation:
92
Dr. Craig is a liar.
May 11, 2016 at 8:16 pm
(May 11, 2016 at 7:56 pm)Time Traveler Wrote: (May 11, 2016 at 6:57 pm)SteveII Wrote:
I wasn't going to get so formal on a small point like this but...it seems that's what you want so...the term is "possible worlds" and the idea is used to express modal claims. To put it formally, in all possible worlds, I believe the concept of 8 objects and the idea of P then Q; P therefore Q are necessarily true propositions.
Wikipedia has a short article in which they define the types of modal claims you can make when discussing possible worlds. For example from the article:
"Necessarily true propositions (often simply called necessary propositions) are those that are true in all possible worlds (for example: "2 + 2 = 4"; "all bachelors are unmarried").[1] "
So, why do you think these concepts are only true in some possible worlds?
First, I don't necessarily buy into the "possible worlds" hypothesis of philosophy, which your article itself explicitly states "has been disputed." But as for your "Necessarily true propositions," these are purely definitions created by human minds. It's easy to imagine cultures which didn't have the concept of addition (certainly animals don't, and you'd be hard pressed to identify where exactly in our evolution the concept, however first expressed, that 2 + 2 = 4 originated).
But let's imagine I'm from another culture in another world. In my culture, we work solely with binary digits. Your 2 + 2 = 4 makes no sense to us. I insist that 10 + 10 = 100! This is a necessarily true proposition, despite your insistence that 10 + 10 = 20. And what do you mean by marriage, or bachelor? In my world, the males and females mate at will, without monogamous commitment. This is a necessarily true proposition, and all others are false!
To borrow from a quote I agree with...
(May 11, 2016 at 5:13 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: Numbers and relationships don't exist in the natural world. They are functions of the concept of quantity which itself is a function of the idea of an object.
So, these concepts are only true definitionally, and thus, only true in the models we build inside our own heads.
Now it's your turn... Prove that the concept of "unmarried" or "bachelor" or "plus" exists outside of human minds.
This should be good. :: popcorn ::
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”
Wiser words were never spoken.
Posts: 9915
Threads: 53
Joined: November 27, 2015
Reputation:
92
Dr. Craig is a liar.
May 11, 2016 at 8:16 pm
(May 11, 2016 at 8:02 pm)SteveII Wrote: (May 11, 2016 at 7:14 pm)Stimbo Wrote: What is "God's" nature? How do you know?
We systematically develop a list of characteristics and qualities from a combination of general revelation and special revelation. Natural theology (what we are discussing in this thread) is investigating without the help of scripture or traditions. In the quote you have from me, we were discussing logic and why I infer that logic was part of God's nature.
So, in simpler words...you don't actually know.
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”
Wiser words were never spoken.
Posts: 3045
Threads: 14
Joined: July 7, 2014
Reputation:
14
RE: Dr. Craig is a liar.
May 11, 2016 at 8:19 pm
(May 11, 2016 at 7:40 pm)wiploc Wrote: (May 11, 2016 at 7:11 pm)SteveII Wrote: That does not follow. How is God an actual infinite of something?
I said "finite," not "infinite."
Sorry. But how does there not being an infinite number of truths make God finite?
Posts: 3045
Threads: 14
Joined: July 7, 2014
Reputation:
14
RE: Dr. Craig is a liar.
May 11, 2016 at 8:20 pm
(May 11, 2016 at 7:42 pm)wiploc Wrote: (May 11, 2016 at 7:12 pm)SteveII Wrote: No, God can only do things that are logically possible. He can only know things that are logically possible.
According to Plantinga, god knows everything that will ever happen in every possible world ... and in every impossible world.
Can you show a quote and link?
Posts: 66528
Threads: 140
Joined: June 28, 2011
Reputation:
160
RE: Dr. Craig is a liar.
May 11, 2016 at 8:28 pm
(This post was last modified: May 11, 2016 at 8:36 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
(May 11, 2016 at 8:08 pm)SteveII Wrote: I see your point, but do you have another name for the characteristics inferred from the KCA? Are there any characteristics inferred from the kca, or are there merely characteristics claimed by the kca? Characteristics of what, anyway?
Quote:Would you prefer I called it the Uncaused Cause of the KCA? (UCKCA for short) 
I tried to give reasons why I think logic is grounded in the mind of...the UCKCA.
Did you? You might want to reread what you wrote about that. You seem to be using the word reason in as novel a fashion as you use the word personal. I doubt my preferences are relevant, but I'd prefer to hear those reasons, rather than hear you claim to posess them, or claim to have attempted to communicate what you have not shown to exist in the first place. I don't believe that these reasons exist, and you've given me no reason to think otherwise. I'm -certain- that your beliefs exist...and I'm almost certain that you've somehow managed to confuse your beliefs with reason, or reasons. Such as your belief that gods mind must be ordered according to some principles...as a reason that logic is grounded in the mind of a god.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Posts: 3045
Threads: 14
Joined: July 7, 2014
Reputation:
14
RE: Dr. Craig is a liar.
May 11, 2016 at 8:31 pm
(May 11, 2016 at 7:56 pm)Time Traveler Wrote: (May 11, 2016 at 6:57 pm)SteveII Wrote:
I wasn't going to get so formal on a small point like this but...it seems that's what you want so...the term is "possible worlds" and the idea is used to express modal claims. To put it formally, in all possible worlds, I believe the concept of 8 objects and the idea of P then Q; P therefore Q are necessarily true propositions.
Wikipedia has a short article in which they define the types of modal claims you can make when discussing possible worlds. For example from the article:
"Necessarily true propositions (often simply called necessary propositions) are those that are true in all possible worlds (for example: "2 + 2 = 4"; "all bachelors are unmarried").[1] "
So, why do you think these concepts are only true in some possible worlds?
First, I don't necessarily buy into the "possible worlds" hypothesis of philosophy, which your article itself explicitly states "has been disputed." But as for your "Necessarily true propositions," these are purely definitions created by human minds. It's easy to imagine cultures which didn't have the concept of addition (certainly animals don't, and you'd be hard pressed to identify where exactly in our evolution the concept, however first expressed, that 2 + 2 = 4 originated).
But let's imagine I'm from another culture in another world. In my culture, we work solely with binary digits. Your 2 + 2 = 4 makes no sense to us. I insist that 10 + 10 = 100! This is a necessarily true proposition, despite your insistence that 10 + 10 = 20. And what do you mean by marriage, or bachelor? In my world, the males and females mate at will, without monogamous commitment. This is a necessarily true proposition, and all others are false!
To borrow from a quote I agree with...
(May 11, 2016 at 5:13 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: Numbers and relationships don't exist in the natural world. They are functions of the concept of quantity which itself is a function of the idea of an object.
So, these concepts are only true definitionally, and thus, only true in the models we build inside our own heads.
Now it's your turn... Prove that the concept of "unmarried" or "bachelor" or "plus" exists outside of human minds.
You will have to explain why 10 objects plus 10 objects is not the same as 2x10 objects and the same as 20 objects--even in another culture. The fact that they do not understand the concept or don't have a description of it does not make it any less true.
An unmarried bachelor is just combining two words together that mean the opposite and therefore can be described as an Impossible Proposition in all possible worlds (from the same article):
Impossible propositions (or necessarily false propositions) are those that are true in no possible world (for example: "Melissa and Toby are taller than each other at the same time").
Posts: 3045
Threads: 14
Joined: July 7, 2014
Reputation:
14
RE: Dr. Craig is a liar.
May 11, 2016 at 8:33 pm
(May 11, 2016 at 8:04 pm)Time Traveler Wrote: (May 11, 2016 at 7:28 pm)SteveII Wrote:
Steve, you just copied and pasted my entire rebuttal without adding anything yourself. Was my response really so good, you just wanted to post it twice? 
Sometimes that happens when I spend too long typing out a reply--it just posts the original post. Damn. I will never be able to articulate my point so well as I did in that lost post... 
|
