The apologia of the cosmos. Evidence of God

[Gadarene]

ad hominem, poisoning the well.

You would know.

 

[Elioenai26]

That conclusion has already been reached, and the path has been elaborated and expounded upon in this thread many times over.

Would you please furnish the post numbers that substantiate these "conclusions" which have been, as you say, been done "many times over"? I am unaware of any such posts.

 

[The Engineer]

I also would like to remind you that it is expedient for us to keep to the topic of the OP. If you would like to address me in any other manner, please do so via PM.

If you care so much about the debate, then why do you ignore the debate when it doesn't fit you?

I would be delighted to respond to any post that has a direct bearing on the OP. As it stands, I have allowed too many tangents and side discussions to overshadow the OP.

You asked for the evidence, now you refuse to comment on it because it has no bearing on the OP? Then why did you ask for it in the first place? Especially because you made the initial statement that initiated this derailment. It was you who (unsuccessfully) tried to defend the mind-brain-dualism, not us.

Poisoning the well, muddying the waters, and ad hominem attacks are not going to be viable reasons for discontinuing discussion regarding the cosmological argument.

Then what are viable reasons for discontinuing a discussion? Because you're an expert in it.

If you guys desire to treat this as an academic debate, which I have no desire to do nor was it my intention, then please stick to the mainline of the OP.

Your intention was to lecture us, so that we would look like idiots. Didn't turn out so well, I guess, which is why you want to press the reset button so hardly.

EDIT:

Would you please furnish the post numbers that substantiate these "conclusions" which have been, as you say, been done "many times over"? I am unaware of any such posts.

We're not your delivery boys. You didn't comment on the fact that you ignored us, either, even after we presented you with three examples. Why would we search for the posts now? So that you ignore them, too?

 

[Danyc]

Would you please furnish the post numbers that substantiate these "conclusions" which have been, as you say, done "many times over"? I am unaware of any such posts.

Oh, Elioenai. Believe me. We know.

 

[Elioenai26]

I was making on-topic posts. You did not respond to them.

You say "I know the truth". You are shown where your arguments are faulty. You do not acknowledge these faults. What is there to discuss?

If any portion of my arguement is faulty, then I am bound to admit it as faulty.

However, you saying it is faulty does not make it so. Likewise, if I say that your counter-arguments are faulty, that does not make them so. In a discussion of this sort, you must provide evidence for your assertions. I have provided an apologia that is a framework for the basic form of the cosmologocal argument. Within the argument, evidence has been supplied to support the first two premises. Therefore, the conclusion soundly and logically follows from the premises. Therefore, we have good reason for believing that the universe was created by an immaterial, supernatural being.

Now if you do not agree with this conclusion, state so, and then provide a good argument as to why you do not.

Every rebuttal that has been given so far has been shown to be insufficient in refuting the cosmological argument.

 

[Elioenai26]

Oh, Elioenai. Believe me. We know.

Provide them please, and then also make sure you provide my responses to said posts. You can do so all in one post if you like.

 

[Davian]

If any portion of my arguement is faulty, then I am bound to admit it as faulty.

However, you saying it is faulty does not make it so. Likewise, if I say that your counter-arguments are faulty, that does not make them so. In a discussion of this sort, you must provide evidence for your assertions. I have provided an apologia that is a framework for the basic form of the cosmologocal argument. Within the argument, evidence has been supplied to support the first two premises. Therefore, the conclusion soundly and logically follows from the premises. Therefore, we have good reason for believing that the universe was created by an immaterial, supernatural being.

Now if you do not agree with this conclusion, state so, and then provide a good argument as to why you do not.

Every rebuttal that has been given so far has been shown to be insufficient in refuting the cosmological argument.

To reiterate: You say "I know the truth". What is there to discuss?

 

[Elioenai26]

If you care so much about the debate, then why do you ignore the debate when it doesn't fit you?

This is not a debate. Now if you want to debate me personally, just you and I, then you may start a new thread. But until then, I do not consider this a debate.

You asked for the evidence, now you refuse to comment on it because it has no bearing on the OP? Then why did you ask for it in the first place? Especially because you made the initial statement that initiated this derailment. It was you who (unsuccessfully) tried to defend the mind-brain-dualism, not us.

I have been responsible for allowing this post to derail on several occasions. But no more. Mind-brain-dualism is not pertinent to this thread, therefore, I will not be elaborting on it, unless you can form a good argument as to why it is pertinent to this thread and how it is. The burden for the argument is on you.

Then what are viable reasons for discontinuing a discussion? Because you're an expert in it.

A viable reason is any that does not involve a personal attack on myself or any other proponent of the cosmological arguement. This is referred to as an ad hominem (Latin for "to the man"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it. Ad hominem reasoning is normally described as a logical fallacy, more precisely an informal fallacy and an irrelevance.*

Your intention was to lecture us, so that we would look like idiots. Didn't turn out so well, I guess, which is why you want to press the reset button so hardly.

My intention is listed in the thesis of the apologia, post 1, page 1.

EDIT:

We're not your delivery boys. You didn't comment on the fact that you ignored us, either, even after we presented you with three examples. Why would we search for the posts now? So that you ignore them, too?

I am not going to furnish your counter-arguments for you. The burden is on you to do so, not me.

Simply furnish the posts you would like me to comment on before the thread was derailed, and I would be more than happy to speak on them.

* Material courtesy of Wikipedia

 

[Gadarene]

A viable reason is any that does not involve a personal attack on myself or any other proponent of the cosmological arguement. This is referred to as an ad hominem (Latin for "to the man"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it. Ad hominem reasoning is normally described as a logical fallacy, more precisely an informal fallacy and an irrelevance.

It's amazing how many people don't know what an ad hom is, and I'm hardly surprised that you don't either.

No-one was making remarks about you or your conduct to falsify the cosmological argument. Remarks of that kind were made when you started smearing atheists again.

 

[Gadarene]

I am not going to furnish your counter-arguments for you. The burden is on you to do so, not me.

Simply furnish the posts you would like me to comment on before the thread was derailed, and I would be more than happy to speak on them.

* Material courtesy of Wikipedia

If you'd actually displayed a modicum of intellectual integrity and answered Engineer et al when they asked you the questions in the first instance....

 

[Elioenai26]

To reiterate: You say "I know the truth". What is there to discuss?

Well, since this thread is regarding the cosmological argument, it is only proper to discuss the cosmological argument.

If I make a statement such as: "I know the truth", then it must be understood according to the context in which it was used. I spoke of knowing the truth regarding the cause of the universe and the origin of life in this world.

We have established in the apologia that truth exists, and that it is knowable. Objective assimilation and understanding of the available evidence places one in a good position to make a judgment regarding the claims of Christianity, specifically those of Jesus Christ. Knowing the truth regarding the topic of discussion is acquired via what is termed a "properly basic" belief. I have a personal relationship with the Creator of the cosmos, and therefore, I know the truth.

You too, and anyone else who desires to, can know the truth.

 

[Elioenai26]

If you'd actually displayed a modicum of intellectual integrity and answered Engineer et al when they asked you the questions in the first instance....

If they want their questions answered, then they will ask them. If they do not then they will not.

 

[Danyc]

If they want their questions answered, then they will ask them. If they do not then they will not.

They have asked them. Multiple times.

 

[Elioenai26]

It's amazing how many people don't know what an ad hom is, and I'm hardly surprised that you don't either.

No-one was making remarks about you or your conduct to falsify the cosmological argument. Remarks of that kind were made when you started smearing atheists again.

Gadarene, I will have to recall you to the post in which I was first accused of plagiarizng. The accusation was an answer to a refutation of a post that a gentleman had made which was shown to be fallacious.

Instead of dealing with the refutation directly, he accused me of plagiarism. This was a negative attack on my character. For, even if I had intentionally plagiarized anything, it still would not have discredited the arguement. The argument stands or falls on it's support or lack thereof, not whether the proponent of the argument has plagiarized.

 

[Gadarene]

Gadarene, I will have to recall you to the post in which I was first accused of plagiarizng. The accusation was an answer to a refutation of a post that a gentleman had made which was shown to be fallacious.

Instead of dealing with the refutation directly, he accused me of plagiarism. This was a negative attack on my character. For, even if I had intentionally plagiarized anything, it still would not have discredited the arguement. The argument stands or falls on it's support or lack thereof, not whether the proponent of the argument has plagiarized.

Of course it doesn't. Did they specifically claim it did?

The problem is if you can't even be honest to cite your sources, it doesn't bode well for the prospect of honest debate.

 

[Elioenai26]

Of course it doesn't. Did they specifically claim it did?

The problem is if you can't even be honest to cite your sources, it doesn't bode well for the prospect of honest debate.

I shall leave you all to be the judge of what is dishonest and what is honest.

I have never directly or indirectly, intentionally or unintentionally used someone else's work here and claimed that it was my own. I never have and I never will. I have no reason to do so, nor do I need to.

And it must be reiterated again, if a person desires to offer a counter-argument to the cosmological argument, then they can do so. I have never questioned anyone's integrity or motives regarding their soruces and references when they counter the arguments I have used. I could care less what anyone uses to formulate and compile their argument! The whole point is to build a case using references and sources that facilitate constructing one's argument via whatever means they choose.

I have never sought to censor, or limit an atheist or anyone else in their attempts at arguing against me.

Now ToddNotTodd has referred to a renowned apologist as an "idiot with a thesaurus", and you yourself have repeatedly belittled Dr. Craig, a man whose credentials and track record in academic debate are above reproach. You have made a mockery of him and you mock me because I use his work.

So let any talk of honesty and dishonesty be laid to the side, and let us focus on the matter at hand, which is the cosmological argument.

I thank you in advance for your cooperation.

 

[The Engineer]

If any portion of my arguement is faulty, then I am bound to admit it as faulty.

As far as I can tell, you never admit a failure. You just keep talking about something else.

Every rebuttal that has been given so far has been shown to be insufficient in refuting the cosmological argument.

Hate to sound like you, but can you please link to the respective posts?

However, you saying it is faulty does not make it so. Likewise, if I say that your counter-arguments are faulty, that does not make them so. In a discussion of this sort, you must provide evidence for your assertions.

Really? I thought it was about demanding evidence and then completely ignoring it.

This is not a debate. Now if you want to debate me personally, just you and I, then you may start a new thread. But until then, I do not consider this a debate.

You know this is a forum, right? That's a place where people go to debate. It's not a place where you can just plagiarize whatever you want while we quietly listen to you.

I have been responsible for allowing this post to derail on several occasions. But no more.

Why did you change your mind so suddenly?

Mind-brain-dualism is not pertinent to this thread, therefore, I will not be elaborting on it

Well, you elaborated on it before, why not elaborate on it now?

A viable reason is any that does not involve a personal attack on myself or any other proponent of the cosmological arguement.

So you say that every reason is valid as long as it doesn't attack you or the proponents of the cosmological argument? All the other fallacies and non sequiturs are okay? Doesn't sound logical to me.

This is referred to as an ad hominem (Latin for "to the man"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it. Ad hominem reasoning is normally described as a logical fallacy, more precisely an informal fallacy and an irrelevance.

Dude, you're on the philosophy board and you can't even write what an argumentum ad hominem is without relying on wikipedia? Seriously?

I am not going to furnish your counter-arguments for you. The burden is on you to do so, not me.

The burden to read these things is not on me, it's on you. Your repeated requests for us to deliver posts to you because you didn't read them or just forgot about them were never legitimate to begin with.

Simply furnish the posts you would like me to comment on before the thread was derailed, and I would be more than happy to speak on them.

Suddenly, you're interested in commenting on them? Why this sudden change of heart, when you ignored them before? (Even before you decided that we should probably return to the main topic... after 30 pages)

I also like your choice of words. You don't want to discuss the posts; you want to speak on them. As harsh as it may sound, Christianforums is not your personal blog.

If they want their questions answered, then they will ask them. If they do not then they will not.

Read this:

They have asked them. Multiple times.

Gadarene, I will have to recall you to the post in which I was first accused of plagiarizng. The accusation was an answer to a refutation of a post that a gentleman had made which was shown to be fallacious.

I'm pretty sure it wasn't about how fallacious "your" arguments were, but about how rude it is to plagiarize the content of other people because you can't think of your own responses.

Instead of dealing with the refutation directly, he accused me of plagiarism. This was a negative attack on my character.

Still, it was based on the truth. The truth was that you shamelessly ripped off other people's work.

For, even if I had intentionally plagiarized anything, it still would not have discredited the arguement.

Doesn't mean we have to discuss a post of yours that you haven't even written yourself.

Just think about what would happen if everybody would reply by uploading other people's content.

The argument stands or falls on it's support or lack thereof, not whether the proponent of the argument has plagiarized.

I addressed this several times in this post.

 

[The Engineer]

I shall leave you all to be the judge of what is dishonest and what is honest.

No problem. Dishonesty would be your style of argumentation: Plagiarize content, ignore answers, claim the answers you ignored never existed in the first place, shout BACK TO TOPIC! after 30 pages after you helped derail the thread... yeah, that's dishonesty, I guess.

I have never directly or indirectly, intentionally or unintentionally used someone else's work here and claimed that it was my own.

Well, you didn't exactly say it was your work, sure, but neither did you cite the source, until much later in this thread.

I never have and I never will.

Good one!

I have no reason to do so, nor do I need to.

If you don't need to, then why did you do it?

I have never questioned anyone's integrity or motives regarding their soruces and references when they counter the arguments I have used.

True. You just flat-out ignored the counter-arguments.

I could care less what anyone uses to formulate and compile their argument!

I do care, because I want to actually talk to the person I am talking to, not to a professor of philosophy who doesn't even know this forum exists. By the way, you actually suggested I do this.

I have never sought to censor, or limit an atheist or anyone else in their attempts at arguing against me.

Again, you just ignored them.

Now ToddNotTodd has referred to a renowned apologist as an "idiot with a thesaurus", and you yourself have repeatedly belittled Dr. Craig, a man whose credentials and track record in academic debate are above reproach. You have made a mockery of him and you mock me because I use his work.

So?

So let any talk of honesty and dishonesty be laid to the side, and let us focus on the matter at hand, which is the cosmological argument.

That's not the matter at hand anymore. Not after twenty pages of derailment.

I thank you in advance for your cooperation.

And I thank you for addressing the fact that you ignored every counter-arguments we presented.

Oh, wait, you didn't address this. Nevermind.

 

[Davian]

Well, since this thread is regarding the cosmological argument, it is only proper to discuss the cosmological argument.

If I make a statement such as: "I know the truth", then it must be understood according to the context in which it was used. I spoke of knowing the truth regarding the cause of the universe and the origin of life in this world.

We have established in the apologia that truth exists, and that it is knowable.

No, this was not established. It was only asserted.

How would we know if the 'big bang' was an 'event', where the rules of space-time might apply? In your (WLC's) apologetics you are simply working back from a conclusion that you wish to be true.

Objective assimilation and understanding of the available evidence places one in a good position to make a judgment regarding the claims of Christianity, specifically those of Jesus Christ. Knowing the truth regarding the topic of discussion is acquired via what is termed a "properly basic" belief. I have a personal relationship with the Creator of the cosmos, and therefore, I know the truth.

Stated that way, you contradict your claim of knowing the truth. You only *believe* that you know the truth. After all, does this 'personal relationship' rise above confirmation bias and chance?

You too, and anyone else who desires to, can know the truth.

Back to prosthelytizing, are we?

Also, how do you reconcile the cosmological argument with the Genesis stories of the bible?

 

[Elioenai26]

No problem. Dishonesty would be your style of argumentation: Plagiarize content, ignore answers, claim the answers you ignored never existed in the first place, shout BACK TO TOPIC! after 30 pages after you helped derail the thread... yeah, that's dishonesty, I guess.


Well, you didn't exactly say it was your work, sure, but neither did you cite the source, until much later in this thread.


Good one!


If you don't need to, then why did you do it?


True. You just flat-out ignored the counter-arguments.


I do care, because I want to actually talk to the person I am talking to, not to a professor of philosophy who doesn't even know this forum exists. By the way, you actually suggested I do this.


Again, you just ignored them.


So?


That's not the matter at hand anymore. Not after twenty pages of derailment.


And I thank you for addressing the fact that you ignored every counter-arguments we presented.

Oh, wait, you didn't address this. Nevermind.

You have been posting here for a few days. You are no doubt eager to be a part of the discussions here, as is evidenced by your sincere words and comments.

If you have not already, I suggest you peruse the posts in this thread, starting from the beginning, and develop an understanding of what this thread is about.

After doing this, you will then be able to make accurate statements about the goings on here.

I understand you are zealous for your cause and therefore I want to encourage you to channel that zealousness and eagerness into your efforts at trying to discover what truth is.

You have my best wishes.