(March 18, 2015 at 1:09 pm)Esquilax Wrote: [...] I've been voted best debater here two years running.
You are indeed a master debater.
Tentatively Christian; looking for a reasonable discussion
|
(March 18, 2015 at 1:09 pm)Esquilax Wrote: [...] I've been voted best debater here two years running. You are indeed a master debater. RE: Tentatively Christian; looking for a reasonable discussion
March 18, 2015 at 1:29 pm
(This post was last modified: March 18, 2015 at 1:40 pm by Mudhammam.)
(March 18, 2015 at 1:09 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Finally, Kalam is particularly galling if you know the history of the argument. It's actually the second iteration of a more general cosmological argument that used to run: "Everything has a cause, the universe is a thing, therefore the universe has a cause." Perhaps you can see the obvious flaw in that rendition of the argument? "What caused god, then?"Where in history are you placing its origin? I see "Kalam" written all over Plato's argument for "soul" in Laws Book X: Quote:
He who loves God cannot endeavour that God should love him in return - Baruch Spinoza
(March 18, 2015 at 1:29 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote:(March 18, 2015 at 1:09 pm)Esquilax Wrote: [...] I've been voted best debater here two years running. In fact..perhaps he could be called...a 'Chronic Masterdebater'.
In every country and every age, the priest had been hostile to Liberty.
- Thomas Jefferson RE: Tentatively Christian; looking for a reasonable discussion
March 18, 2015 at 1:45 pm
(This post was last modified: March 18, 2015 at 1:47 pm by Esquilax.)
(March 18, 2015 at 1:29 pm)Nestor Wrote: Where in history are you placing its origin? I see "Kalam" written all over Plato's argument for the soul in Laws Book X: Somewhere in the 9th century, according to my research, though the argument was based on earlier works like Aristotle's prime-mover. I don't particularly take issue with the argument's historical location, so much as I do the reason that it exists; the language added to the standard cosmological argument, aside from being loaded with yet more assumptions, does nothing but allow the argument to escape from the obvious defeater the original had. It's a variant argument made without basis or research, solely to avoid a pitfall that was discovered with the first attempt. It's basically a moving goalpost in argument form. FatandFaithless Wrote:In fact..perhaps he could be called...a 'Chronic Masterdebater'. Well, I do often leave my debates with theists feeling chafed and spent...
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects! (March 18, 2015 at 1:09 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Feel free to PM me if you want to learn more. My topics of note are evolution and the deconstruction of theistic arguments; apparently I'm good at that, I've been voted best debater here two years running.
"There remain four irreducible objections to religious faith: that it wholly misrepresents the origins of man and the cosmos, that because of this original error it manages to combine the maximum servility with the maximum of solipsism, that it is both the result and the cause of dangerous sexual repression, and that it is ultimately grounded on wish-thinking." ~Christopher Hitchens, god is not Great
PM me your email address to join the Slack chat! I'll give you a taco(or five) if you join! --->There's an app and everything!<---
As far as rationalizations go, I think the Kalam is one of the very worst. Flawed premises, special pleading and an irrelevant conclusion.
If anyone was ever converted to any kind of theism on the strength of the Kalam, I'd be extremely surprised. Feel free to send me a private message.
Please visit my website here! It's got lots of information about atheism/theism and support for new atheists. Index of useful threads and discussions Index of my best videos Quickstart guide to the forum RE: Tentatively Christian; looking for a reasonable discussion
March 18, 2015 at 1:51 pm
(This post was last modified: March 18, 2015 at 1:51 pm by Tonus.)
(March 17, 2015 at 10:13 pm)GriffinHunter Wrote: I am 18 years old, raised as a Christian, and now beginning to ask questions and really figure out what I believe for myself. At the moment, I'm coming from basically a Christian perspective, but I am open to being convinced otherwise and looking to discuss the issues with someone.I'm not inclined to try to convince someone otherwise, as much as I am interested in understanding what they believe and why they believe it. I think that's really all that a person should do, because I think too many of our beliefs are lightly held. If your beliefs can come through that kind of experience unscathed, then I don't see the use in trying to dissuade you. GriffinHunter Wrote:To be honest, I'm a bit intimidated by the environment of the forum here. My fear is that if I try to have a serious, full-scale, in-depth discussion in this medium, I'll quickly be overwhelmed and bombarded.Take your time reading and responding. There isn't a time limit that you need to worry about and you're not under any obligations. If it seems overwhelming, take the time you need to respond. If folks don't like that you don't respond right away, that's their issue. Rushing your responses rarely goes well, as it leads to misunderstandings and gaffes. Welcome to the forums.
"Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape- like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."
-Stephen Jay Gould
Nothing much to add about the Kalam argument. It's a claim that seems intuitive given our every day experiences, but when you break down the argument, it asserts things it cannot know.
I think the key thing to keep in mind here is the limitations of our minds to conceptualize the cosmos when we've evolved to interpret it at the macro scale at a specific point in time. Remember, our brains were built upon the need to survive, which only requires a superficial understanding of reality, and our understanding of the principle of cause of effect is built upon that need. And since the human mind evolved at a specific scale in a specific place in space-time, it is hubris for us to think all of our concepts and reasoning apply to the entire cosmos.
Even if the open windows of science at first make us shiver after the cozy indoor warmth of traditional humanizing myths, in the end the fresh air brings vigor, and the great spaces have a splendor of their own - Bertrand Russell
(March 18, 2015 at 1:46 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote:(March 18, 2015 at 1:09 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Feel free to PM me if you want to learn more. My topics of note are evolution and the deconstruction of theistic arguments; apparently I'm good at that, I've been voted best debater here two years running. I figure I can allow myself one toot of the horn. Barely a toot at all, really. It's more of a footle.
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects! |
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|