The Kalam Cosmological Argument

[Belacqua]

But you did write this: 


Despite your accusation, and your apparent backing away from it now, I have never argued that he is right, or that everyone else in history must accept what he said. 

Great, you just wanted to let me know Aristotle said this? You're a few decades late, but thanks for the effort.

In the context of the conversation, it looked like in asking me to point out Ari's flaw you were arguing that he wasn't. Are you saying then that you think  he was? Be clear. Only the disingenuous are deliberately murky.

I was describing what Aristotle said. If you are already familiar with this that's good. 

Describing what he said is not the same as saying it's right and that everyone in history has to accept it.

[brewer]

Great, you just wanted to let me know Aristotle said this? You're a few decades late, but thanks for the effort.

In the context of the conversation, it looked like in asking me to point out Ari's flaw you were arguing that he wasn't. Are you saying then that you think  he was? Be clear. Only the disingenuous are deliberately murky.

I was describing what Aristotle said. If you are already familiar with this that's good. 

Describing what he said is not the same as saying it's right and that everyone in history has to accept it.

Your prattle is only pleasing to yourself. The very definition of mental masturbation.

[Sheldon]

Did I make any claims to believe or not believe those arguments? Are you trying to set some sort of record for straw man fallacies in a single thread?

I thought you didn't know what objective evidence means? Odd to ask for something when you don't know what it means?

Are we  going to just skip past your two previous straw man fallacies? What am I saying, of course you're not going to even acknowledge your flawed reasoning.

I see...

So Russell and Nietzsche wrote rebuttals to Aristotelian causality, but you don't believe the rebuttals, because they lack objective evidence. Is that right?

Nope you don't see, or possibly you're pretending not to, but I'll play long, I'll use bullet points as you're struggling, or pretending to:
1) A poster pointed out flaws in theological variants of the KCA, citing Lane Craig specifically. 
2) You defended those variants of the KCA tacking a deity on by claiming: "Well, they're all based on Aristotle's arguments as to why a chain of causation has to end somewhere."
3) Now despite offering not one word as to why you think Aristotle's argument supported their woeful apologetics, you then asked:"Can you point out the flaws in Aristotle's argument to me?"
4) I then pointed out that opposing philosophical arguments abound, and offered two philosophers of renown as examples. 
5) You then posted a string of straw man fallacies misrepresenting what I'd said. 
6) I pointed them out carefully. 
7) You ignored these and added another straw man fallacy, that had no contextual relevance.
8) You ignored that and posted your latest straw man. 

Hope this clears things up, but don't hesitate to ask if you're still struggling, as the straw men you're posting are making me dizzy. 

For clarity, we're none the wiser as to why you think Aristotle's argument helped Lane crane assume his chosen deity as a first cause in his variant of the KCA, but if I was a gambling man, I'd say this dizzying list of tangential straw men was designed precisely to avoid you explaining your claim, based on previous discourse. I'd also think it is a reasonable bet we will never find out, but I live in hope.

[Belacqua]

I see...

So Russell and Nietzsche wrote rebuttals to Aristotelian causality, but you don't believe the rebuttals, because they lack objective evidence. Is that right?

Nope you don't see, or possibly you're pretending not to, but I'll play long, I'll use bullet points as you're struggling, or pretending to:
1) A poster pointed out flaws in theological variants of the KCA, citing Lane Craig specifically. 
2) You defended those variants of the KCA tacking a deity on by claiming: "Well, they're all based on Aristotle's arguments as to why a chain of causation has to end somewhere."
3) Now despite offering not one word as to why you think Aristotle's argument supported their woeful apologetics, you then asked:"Can you point out the flaws in Aristotle's argument to me?"
4) I then pointed out that opposing philosophical arguments abound, and offered two philosophers of renown as examples. 
5) You then posted a string of straw man fallacies misrepresenting what I'd said. 
6) I pointed them out carefully. 
7) You ignored these and added another straw man fallacy, that had no contextual relevance.
8) You ignored that and posted your latest straw man. 

Hope this clears things up, but don't hesitate to ask if you're still struggling, as the straw men you're posting are making me dizzy. 

For clarity, we're none the wiser as to why you think Aristotle's argument helped Lane crane assume his chosen deity as a first cause in his variant of the KCA, but if I was a gambling man, I'd say this dizzying list of tangential straw men was designed precisely to avoid you explaining your claim, based on previous discourse. I'd also think it is a reasonable bet we will never find out, but I live in hope.

This is not the way I see things, obviously.

[Sheldon]

Great, you just wanted to let me know Aristotle said this? You're a few decades late, but thanks for the effort.

In the context of the conversation, it looked like in asking me to point out Ari's flaw you were arguing that he wasn't. Are you saying then that you think  he was? Be clear. Only the disingenuous are deliberately murky.

I was describing what Aristotle said. If you are already familiar with this that's good. 

Describing what he said is not the same as saying it's right and that everyone in history has to accept it.

Yet when you asked for flaws in it, and I described them, you are entitled to make endless straw man claims and mendaciously assign them to me?

Irony doesn't quite cover this one I think...maybe an irony overload...

[Sheldon]

Nope you don't see, or possibly you're pretending not to, but I'll play long, I'll use bullet points as you're struggling, or pretending to:
1) A poster pointed out flaws in theological variants of the KCA, citing Lane Craig specifically. 
2) You defended those variants of the KCA tacking a deity on by claiming: "Well, they're all based on Aristotle's arguments as to why a chain of causation has to end somewhere."
3) Now despite offering not one word as to why you think Aristotle's argument supported their woeful apologetics, you then asked:"Can you point out the flaws in Aristotle's argument to me?"
4) I then pointed out that opposing philosophical arguments abound, and offered two philosophers of renown as examples. 
5) You then posted a string of straw man fallacies misrepresenting what I'd said. 
6) I pointed them out carefully. 
7) You ignored these and added another straw man fallacy, that had no contextual relevance.
8) You ignored that and posted your latest straw man. 

Hope this clears things up, but don't hesitate to ask if you're still struggling, as the straw men you're posting are making me dizzy. 

For clarity, we're none the wiser as to why you think Aristotle's argument helped Lane crane assume his chosen deity as a first cause in his variant of the KCA, but if I was a gambling man, I'd say this dizzying list of tangential straw men was designed precisely to avoid you explaining your claim, based on previous discourse. I'd also think it is a reasonable bet we will never find out, but I live in hope.

This is not the way I see things, obviously.

Obviously, offering an expansive dumbed down explanation would seem rather pointless, if you already understood that your posts were dishonest straw men, and therefore relentlessly irrational. 

As I don't see much chance you'll honestly acknowledge your straw men were dishonest misrepresentations of what I posted, maybe we can get back to the topic, and you could explain how Aristotle's argument helps Lane Craig assume his chosen deity as a first cause in his variant of the KCA? 

[Sheldon]

My apologies, I keep quoting when I mean to edit, damn it.

[Sheldon]

Oops, I replied instead of editing again, my bad.

[Sheldon]

This is getting embarrassing, again apologies. I swear I will get the hang of this.

[Sheldon]

Did I make any claims to believe or not believe those arguments?

---

Are you trying to set some sort of record for straw man fallacies in a single thread?

I thought you didn't know what objective evidence means? Odd to ask for something when you don't know what it means?

Are we  going to just skip past your two previous straw man fallacies? What am I saying, of course you're not going to even acknowledge your flawed reasoning.

---

I see...

So Russell and Nietzsche wrote rebuttals to Aristotelian causality, but you don't believe the rebuttals,

---

because they lack objective evidence. Is that right?

---

Maybe you should take your own advice, and actually read what I said before responding?