The apologia of the cosmos. Evidence of God

Archaeopteryx said:

Rely is surely a euphemism. Your arguments are entirely derivative of Craig's. Paradoxum isn't debating with you, she is debating with Craig.

Click to expand...

And if she uses Oppy, Grunbaum, Dennet, Smith etc etc, I would be debating them instead of her. Something I recommend she use if I decide to use Craig's work.

If you think I am going to use some elementary argument just so you or her can have an easy debate you are wrong. I will use the best. I expect her to do the same. She has internet access. She can use it.

You want me to use some sorry silly argument so the atheist's sorry silly arguments don't look so sorry or silly. Debates do not work that way. A persons position stands or falls on the merits of that posituon. Nothing else.

Archaeopteryx said:

Debate formats are seen as superior by internet apologists whose arguments fall apart when they are forced off script. In this case, however, the script isn't even yours, it's Craig's.

Click to expand...

This "falling apart" of the apologist's arguments is conspicuously unattested to except by your words.

If we were debating, I would kindly ask you to justify this patently unsubstantiated opinion.

But I digress....we are not debating...and you can say whatever you wish without backing it up.

Archaeopteryx said:

Craig has admitted that there is nothing anyone could say that could ever convince him to reconsider his views. That is hardly exemplary of someone who desires truth.

Click to expand...

Reference for this quote?

Elioenai26 said:

And if she uses Oppy, Grunbaum, Dennet, Smith etc etc, I would be debating them instead of her. Something I recommend she use if I decide to use Craig's work.

If you think I am going to use some elementary argument just so you or her can have an easy debate you are wrong. I will use the best. I expect her to do the same. She has internet access. She can use it.

Click to expand...

If Craig is the best you've got then you're in trouble...

To reiterate, my point was that you are relying on Craig to do your research and reasoning for you and that you do not respect your opponents enough to allow them to form their own views and arguments. Instead you try to pin them down to a certain set of positions which, in your mind, can be demolished with a single copy-and-paste from Reasonable Faith. That is the crux of why people will not debate with you.

You want me to use some sorry silly argument so the atheist's sorry silly arguments don't look so sorry or silly. Debates do not work that way. A persons position stands or falls on the merits of that posituon. Nothing else.

Click to expand...

So the only way for you to avoid using some "sorry silly argument" is to rely on Craig for content? You seem to take a poor view of your own ability to reason in a debate.

This "falling apart" of the apologist's arguments is conspicuously unattested to except by your words.

If we were debating, I would kindly ask you to justify this patently unsubstantiated opinion.

But I digress....we are not debating...and you can say whatever you wish without backing it up.

Click to expand...

Why would the burden of proof apply only in the context of a debate?

Reference for this quote?

Click to expand...

The Witless of the Holy Spirit - YouTube

Archaeopteryx said:

If Craig is the best you've got then you're in trouble...

Click to expand...

And yet you claim Paradoxum is at a disadvantage if I use his research???

If he is indeed so lousy as you claim, she should have no problem showing he is lousy in a debate.

But I digress....

Archaeopteryx said:

To reiterate, my point was that you are relying on Craig to do your research and reasoning for you and that you do not respect your opponents enough to allow them to form their own views and arguments. Instead you try to pin them down to a certain set of positions which, in your mind, can be demolished with a single copy-and-paste from Reasonable Faith. That is the crux of why people will not debate with you.

Click to expand...

I ask people to support their claims. The same thing I am asked to do. It is not my fault that various apologists have answered the few worn out objections offered by atheists.

Archaeopteryx said:

So the only way for you to avoid using some "sorry silly argument" is to rely on Craig for content?

Click to expand...

I never said I used Craig to avoid anything.

Archaeopteryx said:

You seem to take a poor view of your own ability to reason in a debate.

Click to expand...

I recognize there are those who are better equipped to deal with these questions than I myself am.

Elioenai26 said:

And yet you claim Paradoxum is at a disadvantage if I use his research???

If he is indeed so lousy as you claim, she should have no problem showing he is lousy in a debate.

But I digress....

Click to expand...

You do digress, because that was not my point.

I ask people to support their claims. The same thing I am asked to do. It is not my fault that various apologists have answered the few worn out objections offered by atheists.

Click to expand...

While we're on the subject of objections, should I list the questions that you have yet to respond to? Presumably you couldn't find a stock Craig reply on Reasonable Faith to address those "worn out" objections, but now I digress...

I never said I used Craig to avoid anything. I recognize there are those who are better equipped to deal with these questions than I myself am.

Click to expand...

Then perhaps you should leave it to them.

Archaeopteryx said:

You do digress, because that was not my point.



While we're on the subject of objections, should I list the questions that you have yet to respond to? Presumably you couldn't find a stock Craig reply on Reasonable Faith to address those "worn out" objections, but now I digress...



Then perhaps you should leave it to them.

Click to expand...

Perhaps...perhaps not....

Personally I enjoy apologetics and will continue studying and learning.

There is much to learn and I enjoy every moment of it.

With regards to the faithless here, my posts from here on out will be far more pointed, specific, and directed to only certain people.

So you no longer have to worry about me addressing you any further.

Elioenai26 said:

Perhaps...perhaps not....

Personally I enjoy apologetics and will continue studying and learning.

There is much to learn and I enjoy every moment of it.

With regards to the faithless here, my posts from here on out will be far more pointed, specific, and directed to only certain people.

So you no longer have to worry about me addressing you any further.

Click to expand...

What exactly are you learning from it? An organic free-flowing discussion allows room for intellectual growth as well. Yet you would prefer to restrain the discourse within a rigid debate structure that allows you to emulate Craig. As I've shown you before, Craig isn't interested in learning. He admits to disregarding any information that countervails his position as circumstantial or, to borrow his words, the product of "historically contingent circumstances". If you are here to learn then you would be well advised not to emulate Craig, whose purpose it is to evangelise, not to learn.

Elioenai26 said:

Perhaps...perhaps not....

Personally I enjoy apologetics and will continue studying and learning.

There is much to learn and I enjoy every moment of it.

With regards to the faithless here, my posts from here on out will be far more pointed, specific, and directed to only certain people.

So you no longer have to worry about me addressing you any further.

Click to expand...

Declare victory and run away? That's a sign of someone who has a strong argument, fo sho!

But if you were looking for examples of posters falling apart when their internet apologetics are forced off script, here's a good one to "learn" from.

KCfromNC said:

Declare victory and run away? That's a sign of someone who has a strong argument, fo sho!

But if you were looking for examples of posters falling apart when their internet apologetics are forced off script, here's a good one to "learn" from.

Click to expand...

This, for me, is not a war or fight or battle. Therefore I have not now nor will every declare "victory".

One thing I have learned here is that some are open to the light of truth and some are not. Either way, everyone in the end has their own desires that they strive to fulfill.

My desire is to be pleasing in the sight of my Lord and my desire is measured by what I am willing to sacrifice for Him..

Elioenai26 said:

This, for me, is not a war or fight or battle. Therefore I have not now nor will every declare "victory".

One thing I have learned here is that some are open to the light of truth and some are not. Either way, everyone in the end has their own desires that they strive to fulfill.

My desire is to be pleasing in the sight of my Lord and my desire is measured by what I am willing to sacrifice for Him..

Click to expand...

I definitely agree with you "that some are open to the light of truth, and some are not."

*bump* No reply to me, E?

Wiccan_Child said:

*bump* No reply to me, E?

Click to expand...

My reply to you is that if you are prepared, in order to avoid the conclusion of a syllogism, to assert that the Big Bang Model of the beginning of the universe is "erroneous", then that is your choice.

I feel that for such a one as yourself, the argument, at this point in time, will be of no use to you.

Best wishes to you.

Elioenai26 said:

This, for me, is not a war or fight or battle. Therefore I have not now nor will every declare "victory".

One thing I have learned here is that some are open to the light of truth and some are not. Either way, everyone in the end has their own desires that they strive to fulfill.

My desire is to be pleasing in the sight of my Lord and my desire is measured by what I am willing to sacrifice for Him..

Click to expand...

I would expect that everyone here is open to finding truth. That said, some insist that they have already found the truth and they aren't open to information that would countervail their position.

Elioenai26 said:

My reply to you is that if you are prepared, in order to avoid the conclusion of a syllogism, to assert that the Big Bang Model of the beginning of the universe is "erroneous", then that is your choice.

I feel that for such a one as yourself, the argument, at this point in time, will be of no use to you.

Best wishes to you.

Click to expand...

He isn't saying that the Big Bang is an erroneous model of cosmogeny. He is saying that your interpretation of it is erroneous.

Elioenai26 said:

My reply to you is that if you are prepared, in order to avoid the conclusion of a syllogism, to assert that the Big Bang Model of the beginning of the universe is "erroneous", then that is your choice.
...

Click to expand...

Elio, do you accept the Big Bang model as accurate?

Elioenai26 said:

My reply to you is that if you are prepared, in order to avoid the conclusion of a syllogism, to assert that the Big Bang Model of the beginning of the universe is "erroneous", then that is your choice

I feel that for such a one as yourself, the argument, at this point in time, will be of no use to you.

Best wishes to you.

Click to expand...

So you asserted that the Big Bang theory states the universe had a beginning. I, a theoretical physicist, pointed out that the theory says no such thing. You, instead of citing the evidence you claim exists, simply ignore the discussion?

Yeah, this is why people don't debate you. You don't substantiate your claims. Come back to me when you can demonstrate the claim, "The start of the Big Bang was the existential beginning of the universe".

Fundamentally, the Big Bang theory involves running current observations backwards. The galaxies recede, so rewinding this recession means they were closer together in the past, and 'overlapping' 13.5 billion years ago. There is zero evidence that the universe began 13.5 billion years ago, and I challenge you to demonstrate otherwise (and no, quote-mining Hawking doesn't count).

This is why I said the Kalam argument revolves around bogus mathematics - there is no empirical evidence that the universe began with the Big Bang, so Craig devised his specious 'no infinite regress' argument in lieu of actual evidence. If, however, you think there really is evidence, then cite it!

We're all waiting with baited breath.

As I stated earlier, if you would like to take a position that contradicts the empirical evidence for an absolute beginning of the universe which the scientific community reluctantly admits exists as well as the position that an actual infinite number of pasts events is possible, then that is your choice.

If you have to resort to this, then my goal in presenting the argument has been obtained.

Elioenai26 said:

As I stated earlier, if you would like to take a position that contradicts the empirical evidence for an absolute beginning of the universe which the scientific community reluctantly admits exists as well as the position that an actual infinite number of pasts events is possible, then that is your choice.

If you have to resort to this, then my goal in presenting the argument has been obtained.

Click to expand...

If your goal is to try to expose some sort of denial-ism, then you're grabbing at thin air. Contrary to your claim, I do not take a position that contradicts empirical evidence for an absolute beginning of the universe, as no such evidence exists.

I challenged you to prove me wrong, to cite the evidence you insist exists, yet you point-blank refused. Why? If you have evidence that the universe had an absolute beginning, cite it. If you won't, then that demonstrates to everyone that you are a liar.

Cite the evidence you claim exists, or admit defeat.

Elioenai26 said:

One thing I have learned here is that some are open to the light of truth and some are not. Either way, everyone in the end has their own desires that they strive to fulfill.

Click to expand...

That's a lot of rationalization to get around the simpler explanation - that what you're saying simply isn't that convincing to anyone not predisposed to your religious faith.

Elioenai26 said:

As I stated earlier, if you would like to take a position that contradicts the empirical evidence for an absolute beginning of the universe which the scientific community reluctantly admits exists as well as the position that an actual infinite number of pasts events is possible, then that is your choice.

If you have to resort to this, then my goal in presenting the argument has been obtained.

Click to expand...

Just a suggestion, but it would be helpful for the purposes of disputation and debate, that you actually attempt to understand what your opponent is actually saying, rather than project what it is you think their saying. The tack you are taking is frustrating and one often used by the likes of Comfort and Hovind. It's not productive or conducive to meaningful dialogue, and is often a ploy used when you've run out of argument. If you want the respect of your fellow posters, I suggest you abandon this approach ASAP.

2 cents

Wiccan_Child said:

If your goal is to try to expose some sort of denial-ism, then you're grabbing at thin air. Contrary to your claim, I do not take a position that contradicts empirical evidence for an absolute beginning of the universe, as no such evidence exists.

I challenged you to prove me wrong, to cite the evidence you insist exists, yet you point-blank refused. Why? If you have evidence that the universe had an absolute beginning, cite it. If you won't, then that demonstrates to everyone that you are a liar.

Cite the evidence you claim exists, or admit defeat.

Click to expand...

Please refer to my posts numbers four and five of this thread.