Atheism is unreasonable

[The Grand Nudger]

Perhaps you should invite HM to the other, (now) identical thread?

[FifthElement]

Not if the existence of infinity is dependent upon whether or not it can be traversed, which it is.

If time is infinite, then the "set" of any event and the number of events which preceded it is infinite...so for any single event to come to past, an infinite set has been traversed.

Makes no sense.

Makes no sense to YOU.

Please point us here to a scientific research/paper (other then "I cannot wrap my mind around it, therefore it's not possible" assumption) which proves that there is something inherently contradictory about an infinite regress.

[His_Majesty]

Right, but that's very clearly not what the rules we'd agreed upon were. I both linked you to a lengthy explanation, and explained them myself in PM.

I didn't look at the link because I thought everything was self explanatory...but I guess I was wrong.

Also? Most debates have a pair of opening statements, both of which present their case before moving on to the response rounds. Not only did you just decide to skip your own opening statement and head straight for a response, but what would those response rounds be in response to if not for what was already presented?

I told you specifically that my aim was to refute all evidences that would you present for evolution, and I honestly felt I didn't need an opening statement to do that. When WLC presents his opening argument, it consists of a small piece as an intro, and the main BODY of the opening argument consists of his "evidential" presentation. After completion, his opponent walks to the podium and also begins with a small piece as an intro, and then he PROCEEDS to rebut WLC's arguments.

That's what I am used too.

So, did you not read the rules I suggested? Because, to be clear, this is what happened: I linked you to some rules, you agreed, posted out of turn, and then got shitty with the admins and myself when we tried to correct the problem. If the reason you didn't follow the rules really was your own misunderstanding, then getting pissy with CD was a real asshole move.

I will admit I didn't read the rules and I only got pissy because I felt the debate was going well according to my understanding.

Oooh, so you just wanted to outright dismiss the parts that disagreed with you, while strutting around during the bits that agree with you.

That is what happens with you are dealing with a concept that has lots of lies mixed in with lots of truths...you have to strut around the lies to get to the truth.

So... you don't know anything about cladistics? That's cool, you can just admit it. We all know you have no idea what you're talking about already, you don't need to hide it.

"...a concept that has lots of lies mixed in with lots of truths"

And you just decided it was meaningless based on... what, exactly? Your own inability to understand it?

It is meaningless based on the established scientific method.

Because to someone who's actually well versed in the terminology and methodology of biological science, it has a lot of meaning. That's why it's so funny whenever you wave things off as bio-babble; the people who actually study this stuff understand it just fine. The one who doesn't understand it at all is the one who makes up his own terms and then insists that everyone else use them like a toddler.

What is your single most best evidence for the theory of evolution? Enough talk.

You don't support your claim that it's babble, you don't give us any indication that you have education sufficient to label it that, and your conduct thus far gives us no reason to believe you understand even the simplest of facts; from the outside looking in, all the word "bio-babble" is is an- apparently unintentional!- admission that you are both unwilling and unable to understand the science you think you can disagree with.

Again, it is bio-babble because its concepts are meaningless in light of an established scientific method. Science is supposed to be based on observation and repeated experiment, and we've never seen anything come close to the archae changes that evolutionists believe happened millions of years ago when no one was around to see it (conveniently).

---

Please point us here to a scientific research/paper (other then "I cannot wrap my mind around it, therefore it's not possible" assumption) which proves that there is something inherently contradictory about an infinite regress.

The reason why I know it isn't possible is because I CAN wrap my mind around it. But what I can't wrap my mind around is the question of how something can happen in reality, but can't happen in a simple thought analogy.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Liar, and not a very good one at that.

Man please. I didn't lie about anything. What the hell is there for me to lie for?

Bracketing out the very obvious lack of credentials on any and every subject you've sought to discredit on here, the lie where you agreed to abide by the T&Cs of the debate (which, contrary to what you've posted below, are standardized and ubiquitous to formal debates IRL and online - and I've actually bee to quite a few at various universities where I've studied so you can't bullshit your way around that) and then proceeded to completely disregard them.

The rules were set out for you to both to follow in a standard format - opening statement, rebuttals, conclusion. Simple. It's a standard format used in almost every formal debate.

Actually, it isn't simple. In my apologetic journey I've watched DOZENS upon DOZENS of debates and this is the only debate I've known to have participants RESPOND to opening statements separately from the main presentations.

In WLC debates and the other dozens that I've seen, in the opening statement is where you PRESENT your material...all of that other crap is unwarranted and a waste of time.

Again, demonstrably bullshit. The format of formal debates is standardized. Go to any university or debating hall and you'll get a similar or variant of what was agreed between you and Esquilax.

And it's funny that you should trot out WLC. I'm actually doing my PhD at the same university where WLC gained his own PhD here in England and I can tell you 100% that debates between student societies and internal/external presenters are in a similar format to the one employed here. And I know he participated in debates on apologetics here. So again, stop talking shit.

Only evidences further to me that your academic credentials are zero, and thus your (often bizarre) views on the very academic subjects you seek to discredit can be dismissed.

Seems like the only good thing you can do is present the worse possible case for espousing your particular form of Christian apologetics.

It isn't a particular form, it is the same arguments that have been argued for the past century by Christian apologetics, and I've yet to see you even attempt to refute anything...all you've done is bitch and moan..which itself isn't worth to much of anything as far as I'm concerned.

I bitch and moan when idiots like you give me things to bitch and moan about.

Thus, stop being stupid, post something that has some substance, and maybe people will take you seriously. Until then, you're just another anonymous goon on the Internet with a penchant for hoarding incorrect information on subjects you don't know anything about from apologist websites and presenting them like you've got something to say. Really weird how you guys come onto atheist forums like you've got something to prove over subjects like evolution and then proceed to make utter fools of yourself.

Someone mentioned the dunning Kruger effect before.

[His_Majesty]

Firstly, to most everyone's dissatisfaction, I have never at anytime acknowledged that time exists.

I refused to get suckered into this nonsense.

[IATIA]

Firstly, to most everyone's dissatisfaction, I have never at anytime acknowledged that time exists.

I refused to get suckered into this nonsense.

Again, to be expected. Would not want to contaminate your theistic view point with any free thought. OMG, that would be a sin.

[The Grand Nudger]

The reason why I know it isn't possible is because I CAN wrap my mind around it. But what I can't wrap my mind around is the question of how something can happen in reality, but can't happen in a simple thought analogy.

Simple explanation. You've created a shitty "thought analogy". Let's put this on on the scales eh?

Shitty thought analogy / something that has been observed to happen cannot happen.

Hmn, I don't know which one I'm going to side with...it's just so damned difficult...... Or, and this is revolutionary...you could go make the observations yourself and see whether or not they line up with the observations of others. You know, scientific method and all that. Start with peas, maybe - establish the foundation before tackling more difficult experiments?

[pocaracas]

What sort of reasoning leads someone to decide to "study" apologetics?

[Esquilax]

I didn't look at the link because I thought everything was self explanatory...but I guess I was wrong.

Oh, but I didn't just give you the link. I also directly explained the rules in my PM to you. The only way you could have avoided seeing the rules is if you both didn't read the link, nor the PM I sent you at all. So when you said what I'd sent you "looked good," I guess you were lying.

Besides, as Fidel pointed out, debates routinely function just as the rules of the debate area set out. In fact, since you seem to be such a fan of William Lane Craig, here he is in official debate using exactly those rules:





That was this year. Whoops, here's another one, and this one mirrors our rules even more closely! hock:





And here's a third! Boy, you'd think WLC would understand that he's never been in a debate where he responds to an opening statement before, and not do that! hock:





We can see two things, from this demonstration. The first is that you have literally no idea what you're talking about, even with regards to the things you're supposedly well versed in. The second is that "I've never seen it," from you in particular is absolutely not an indicator of reality.

I told you specifically that my aim was to refute all evidences that would you present for evolution, and I honestly felt I didn't need an opening statement to do that. When WLC presents his opening argument, it consists of a small piece as an intro, and the main BODY of the opening argument consists of his "evidential" presentation. After completion, his opponent walks to the podium and also begins with a small piece as an intro, and then he PROCEEDS to rebut WLC's arguments.

That's what I am used too.

As the above should demonstrate, it's not what WLC is used to.

I will admit I didn't read the rules and I only got pissy because I felt the debate was going well according to my understanding.

Well then where do you get off shouting down CD and pretending that the rules were unfair to you?

That is what happens with you are dealing with a concept that has lots of lies mixed in with lots of truths...you have to strut around the lies to get to the truth.

Your problem is that you never see fit to actually support your dismissals in any way. You just go "that's a lie," but you never bother to demonstrate that this is so. Why should any of us take you seriously if the extent of your argumentation is just "nuh uh!"?

"...a concept that has lots of lies mixed in with lots of truths"

Did you... did you just quote yourself from a few lines ago more strenuously, as though I should have known about the (baseless, fiat) sentence you had yet to say when I made my last post?

Other than that, what I said above.

It is meaningless based on the established scientific method.

How? Because, the last time I checked, the scientific method contained the standard scientific classification system, and did not contain any acknowledgement of "kinds."

What is your single most best evidence for the theory of evolution? Enough talk.

Yes, I'm familiar with the dishonest creationist tactic of demanding that a complex conclusion built out of a number of converging lines of evidence be reduced to a single talking point. Put simply, I refuse to bow to your desire to oversimplify things into something you can strawman more easily.

The best evidence for evolution was presented in my opening statement during the debate, to which your sole response was to attempt to make up and attach something new to the definition that was never present before, and then dismiss the rest by fiat assertion. Your sad attempt to respond to my evidence does not mean the evidence just vanishes, it just means you're more in love with your "kinds" fantasy than with the facts.

By the way, do you have a definition for "kind" yet? Or haven't you made it up yet?

Again, it is bio-babble because its concepts are meaningless in light of an established scientific method. Science is supposed to be based on observation and repeated experiment, and we've never seen anything come close to the archae changes that evolutionists believe happened millions of years ago when no one was around to see it (conveniently).

But Chuck wasn't talking about the archaeopteryx. He was talking about the classification system that we use to organize animals, and why certain species (dinosaurs, not archaeopteryx specifically) fit in where they do.

Did you dismiss what he said as bio-babble without even reading it? Is this just like the rules of the debate?

Do you read anything at all before you disagree with it?

[Cyberman]

Bump.

@Madge: serious question, if you'll indulge. What is science to you? What do you think it means, how does it work, how do you recognise what is science and what isn't? Thanks.