Forums

Reasons for Joy; In Gentleness, and Respect.

Profile of Atheist in Louisiana

Show Posts

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Atheist in Louisiana

1
Choose Your Own Topic / Re: Watch
« on: November 25, 2016, 10:39:01 pm »
We aren't your hypothetical cavemen Rostos.  I know this is a surprise to you, but it's true.  We have more information than your caveman.  Go study some genetics, and you might see that we've figured out that everything DNA does, it does naturally and doesn't need any assistance from some divine intervention or design parameters.  DNA can be explained naturally.  Basically, it came from RNA, and was more stable and better at keeping things straight so it won the DNA/RNA war. RNA is a bit harder to explain.  If you're going to talk about biological things that we don't understand and point to design, try using RNA instead of DNA.  We're pretty darn sure about DNA.  I don't know where we stand on figuring out where RNA came from, so that might be a better avenue for you.  Abiogenesis would be a better thing to use to point to your god also.  I'm not saying either of those would be good, but they are better than DNA.

Right, so when do you claim your Nobel prize for figuring out the origins of life?

Soon as I figure out the origins of life.  Did you read anything in that post?  None of it says that I've figured out the origin of life.  In fact, it even says that I don't know where we stand on figuring out RNA's origins, and though I didn't say it in that post, it seems kinda obvious that I don't know how to solve the problem of abiogenesis.

You know DNA isn't the same thing as life right?  Abiogenesis would be the origin of life on this planet, not DNA.

So let me ask you, if God did indeed design it, what would you expect to see in DNA? A signature on each cell "God"?

Tell what would it look like if DNA was designed and we started studying DNA, what would you expect to see to confirm indeed it was God who designed it?

If DNA was designed, we expect to not figure out that it can easily arise from natural processes like evolution, and we would expect to not figure out that RNA was its predecessor that just didn't work as well so was selected against making DNA much more prevalent. How many times do I have to tell you that DNA is the wrong thing to ask about. At least ask about something we haven't figured out yet, like RNA. Did you read my posts to you?

2
Kalam Cosmological Argument / Re: The Big Bang theory doesn't support KCA
« on: November 25, 2016, 10:29:24 pm »
I guess it's a good thing that I'm not saying that. Thanks for clearing up the fact that you actually don't understand what I've been saying.

3
I'm on my phone so my reply won't be easy, but I'm going to give it a try anyway. Please excuse any autocorrect stupid mistakes. Siri isn't too smart sometimes.

How on Earth did you read the insulting assumption that I presume Craigs infallibility into my responses?

No, what I say is that Craigs position on time is not stymied by your purported defeater, because that defeater itself makes a problematic and unexamined view on time. Even then, on that view, I can still see ways an advocate could defend himself from your allegation.

I'm surprised that you would refer to B-theory as a problematic and unexamined view of time.

Quote
Your argument isn't necessarily wrong. Just that it makes a presumption necessary for your argument to even possibly succeed--one Craig does not make. Whether his own position is the right one is another issue. I think it is. Craig thinks it is. He devotes a whole book to it. My point is this--your argument assumes a position about the nature of time. We are free to reject it and adopt another one.

This is nothing more than you complaining that Craig has a different view of time. That doesn't impact my argument in any way. Obviously Craig sees things differently than I. Do you honestly think that I'm going to agree with what Craig thinks in order to argue against him?  Yes you can reject whatever it is that you think my view is but that doesn't impact my argument in any way.

Quote
If he gives his argument the best shot, and doesn't succeed in proving p2, then this is at most an undercutting defeater for p2. Not a rebutting defeater based on equivocation. If the universe cannot satisfy the analysans , then its insufficient--not equivocal.

Yes I know that. I even pointed that out in my original post about the KCA. If his premises are true, he is equivocating. To not equivocate would render either P1 or P2 false. That doesn't mean that I'm not really charging him with an equivocation. I am charging him with equivocation, and have shown that even if he changes the meaning of his phrases that he can only succeed in rendering one of his premises false. As written, he equivocates. As corrected for the equivocation, his premises are false.

4
Well, you've yet to respond to the equivocation I brought up.  You did refer me to one of Craig's videos, which doesn't address the equivocation I brought up.  The other two points I made were not addressed in the video either, despite your repeated claims that it does.

It does not appear that you understand my objections, but I would be happy to be proven wrong about that.  Perhaps you could summarize them.  What are my objections, and what details about them can you provide?

And no, "Craig addressed that", and "Craig didn't say that" aren't responding to anything.  In both cases, you'd have to explain what it is that Craig actually said, or how Craig addressed the issue.

What Craig does in his video, is outline the analysans and show how it is sufficient to be used in both premises. This is what he would need to do to avoid the charge of equivocation.

What else could you do, to rebut a charge of equivocation?

If that's the meaning he is using, then P2 is false as the analysans (why do you keep italicizing that?) has no meaning when X is time.  It literally is meaningless when concerning the universe.  I've pointed that out to you on numerous occasions and you ignore it every time.  Craig defends P2 using the BGV theorem, of which Vilenkin has told Craig that the only way in which the universe could be said to exist, is that it is past incomplete.  You're so familiar with Craig's works, so I'm sure you know the video I'm talking about.

Craig, in fact, doesn't use P2 in the way he claims to use it in that analysis.  He must use it in the one way in which Vilenkin has already confirmed to him that he must use it in order for P2 to make sense.  P2 must mean "The universe is past incomplete", because otherwise, it is false and not backed up by the BGV theorem.


No, I did not ignore it. I responded to this by showing how it is adequate, and only causes an issue if you deviate from Craigs positions on these key metaphysical issues.

Oh, I see.  You're simply going to ignore an argument from someone who doesn't agree with Craig's positions on metaphysical issues.  I understand now.  Craig is right, at every possible level and because my argument doesn't make the same assumptions he makes, mine must be wrong.  That gives me valuable insight into your position.  Thank you for clarifying that.

Quote
"has no meaning when X is time.  It literally is meaningless when concerning the universe."

There is no argument or reasoning here. Did you expound upon this somewhere else? If you didn't, as it stands, this is a mere assertion and can be safely ignored sans an actual argument for why this is so. If the universe, in whatever extension, fails to satisfy the analysans, then this does not mean he is necessarily equivocating--just that P2 is false. I also italicize analysans because it's a proper technical term. I thought I was just doing right by proper analytical writing. If you were better read you would already have encountered this term and know of it.

I do know of the term.  I just didn't know why you continually italicize it.  Lots of things are "proper technical terms" but that doesn't mean they should be italicized.  Whatever though.  You do you.

Prior is temporal.  Temporal doesn't have meaning in an a-temporal existence (one without time).  "no time prior to T at which X does not exist" is utterly meaningless when X is time, which I've pointed out to you before.  The word "prior" is identical to the word "abslatracy" when X is time.  Craig just claims that his analysis applies to time as well, but it doesn't.  He's simply wrong for making that claim.  His analysis is meaningless (devoid of meaning) when talking about the universe.

Now you're right, under his analysis, assuming no equivocation, P2 is false.  That's fatal to his argument, so giving his argument its best shot would mean that P2 must not be false.  That results in the equivocation, also fatal to his argument.

Quote
I've also made an entire thread about the BGV theorem. Craig presents it accurately, but it does not constitute the entirety of his case. I made that abundantly clear. There is also, an additional supplementary metaphysical dimension to the analysans, not entirely adjudicated by cosmological theory. Noone denied this.

Craig doesn't present it accurately because he claims it justifies P2.  It does not, and subsequently, Craig does not.  If there is more to his analysis, then that additional dimension must apply to P1 and P2 equally, or he would be guilty of another equivocation.  If they don't apply to P1 and P2, then P1 and P2 are false because of it.  Craig can't have his cake and eat it too.

Now, I must head to bed.  I'm getting up early in the morning to head over to Houston for the weekend.  We will have to pick up this conversation Sunday evening, or Monday.  Until then, enjoy your time.

5
Well, you've yet to respond to the equivocation I brought up.  You did refer me to one of Craig's videos, which doesn't address the equivocation I brought up.  The other two points I made were not addressed in the video either, despite your repeated claims that it does.

It does not appear that you understand my objections, but I would be happy to be proven wrong about that.  Perhaps you could summarize them.  What are my objections, and what details about them can you provide?

And no, "Craig addressed that", and "Craig didn't say that" aren't responding to anything.  In both cases, you'd have to explain what it is that Craig actually said, or how Craig addressed the issue.

What Craig does in his video, is outline the analysans and show how it is sufficient to be used in both premises. This is what he would need to do to avoid the charge of equivocation.

What else could you do, to rebut a charge of equivocation?

If that's the meaning he is using, then P2 is false as the analysans (why do you keep italicizing that?) has no meaning when X is time.  It literally is meaningless when concerning the universe.  I've pointed that out to you on numerous occasions and you ignore it every time.  Craig defends P2 using the BGV theorem, of which Vilenkin has told Craig that the only way in which the universe could be said to exist, is that it is past incomplete.  You're so familiar with Craig's works, so I'm sure you know the video I'm talking about.

Craig, in fact, doesn't use P2 in the way he claims to use it in that analysis.  He must use it in the one way in which Vilenkin has already confirmed to him that he must use it in order for P2 to make sense.  P2 must mean "The universe is past incomplete", because otherwise, it is false and not backed up by the BGV theorem.

6
Leibnizian Cosmological Argument / Re: Why can't the universe be necessary?
« on: November 25, 2016, 01:15:03 am »
Now that's interesting lucious.  If that's true, then there isn't anything about the universe which can be said to exist.  You're denying that the universe exists, which would deny that the universe began to exist, since it doesn't exist.  How can a non-entity with no substantive existence in its own right, be said to exist?  If it has no substantive existence and isn't an entity, then how can you also claim that it exists?

I'm not denying the universe exists, lol. I may, at this point, have to borrow from your book and play the "you don't understand me" card.

So the universe is not an entity and doesn't have a substantive existence in its own right, but exists?  Perhaps I do fail to understand you.  Can you explain what it means for something that isn't an entity and has no substantive existence, to exist?

7
Well, you've yet to respond to the equivocation I brought up.  You did refer me to one of Craig's videos, which doesn't address the equivocation I brought up.  The other two points I made were not addressed in the video either, despite your repeated claims that it does.

It does not appear that you understand my objections, but I would be happy to be proven wrong about that.  Perhaps you could summarize them.  What are my objections, and what details about them can you provide?

And no, "Craig addressed that", and "Craig didn't say that" aren't responding to anything.  In both cases, you'd have to explain what it is that Craig actually said, or how Craig addressed the issue.

8
Leibnizian Cosmological Argument / Re: Why can't the universe be necessary?
« on: November 24, 2016, 11:14:27 pm »
Now that's interesting lucious.  If that's true, then there isn't anything about the universe which can be said to exist.  You're denying that the universe exists, which would deny that the universe began to exist, since it doesn't exist.  How can a non-entity with no substantive existence in its own right, be said to exist?  If it has no substantive existence and isn't an entity, then how can you also claim that it exists? 

9
Choose Your Own Topic / Re: Watch
« on: November 24, 2016, 11:02:11 pm »
We aren't your hypothetical cavemen Rostos.  I know this is a surprise to you, but it's true.  We have more information than your caveman.  Go study some genetics, and you might see that we've figured out that everything DNA does, it does naturally and doesn't need any assistance from some divine intervention or design parameters.  DNA can be explained naturally.  Basically, it came from RNA, and was more stable and better at keeping things straight so it won the DNA/RNA war. RNA is a bit harder to explain.  If you're going to talk about biological things that we don't understand and point to design, try using RNA instead of DNA.  We're pretty darn sure about DNA.  I don't know where we stand on figuring out where RNA came from, so that might be a better avenue for you.  Abiogenesis would be a better thing to use to point to your god also.  I'm not saying either of those would be good, but they are better than DNA.

Right, so when do you claim your Nobel prize for figuring out the origins of life?

Soon as I figure out the origins of life.  Did you read anything in that post?  None of it says that I've figured out the origin of life.  In fact, it even says that I don't know where we stand on figuring out RNA's origins, and though I didn't say it in that post, it seems kinda obvious that I don't know how to solve the problem of abiogenesis.

You know DNA isn't the same thing as life right?  Abiogenesis would be the origin of life on this planet, not DNA.

10
Which issue would you like a comprehensive reply to?

Since you're offering, I'm going to take advantage of this situation.  Nobody has yet to address my charge of Craig equivocating between two different meanings of "began to exist" in the Kalam.  Perhaps you could give me a comprehensive reply to that.  I'll phrase it in a way I think you'll understand.

Craig uses only part of his analysans when considering if the universe began or not, as opposed to the entirety of it.  He then uses the other parts of his analysans when using the phrase in P1.  Yes, his analysans fully encompasses both meanings, but in order to not equivocate, Craig would have to use both meanings in both of the premises.  He doesn't do that.  He uses his special time related meaning in order to justify P2, but uses the rest in order to justify P1.

That's just like the following argument:

1. Tony is Italian.
2. Italian is a language.
3. Tony is a language.

If "Italian" can have the analysans of i) Being the offspring of those native to Italy, or ii) Being the language of the native speaking persons of Italy, then my analysans of "Italian" fully encompasses "Italian" as it is used in both P1 and P2, but still allows for the equivocation because of the multiple meanings used.  Craig's analysans of "began to exist" in the Kalam is no different than this.  His analysans makes use of two different meanings of "began to exist" and equivocates them between P1 and P2.  If he does not make such an error, then P1 is extremely controversial, and P2 is simply false, and unsupported by the BGV despite his claim otherwise.


Myself, and others, have already replied to this. Your analogy is faulty, in that the usage of the word "italian" is demonstrably equivocal, which could be avoided if whomever gave that argument gave explicit content to the word in the first place.

After all of this, I fail to see how Craig fails to adequately rebut the charge here .

That's your idea of comprehensive?  Three sentences?

The charged equivocation in that clip from his longer, older "Objections so stupid even I can't think of them" video addresses a totally different charge of equivocation.  You do understand that not all charges of equivocation are about the same equivocation, don't you?  Did you just google, "equivocation begins to exist kalam William Lane Craig"?  I even pointed that out in the long post I made about all the things Craig addresses in the video, back in one of those other threads about the Kalam where you made the silly claim that Craig addressed all of my objections in that video.  I guess you didn't read that post either.  Well, try again.

11
Choose Your Own Topic / Re: Watch
« on: November 24, 2016, 08:36:10 pm »
We aren't your hypothetical cavemen Rostos.  I know this is a surprise to you, but it's true.  We have more information than your caveman.  Go study some genetics, and you might see that we've figured out that everything DNA does, it does naturally and doesn't need any assistance from some divine intervention or design parameters.  DNA can be explained naturally.  Basically, it came from RNA, and was more stable and better at keeping things straight so it won the DNA/RNA war. RNA is a bit harder to explain.  If you're going to talk about biological things that we don't understand and point to design, try using RNA instead of DNA.  We're pretty darn sure about DNA.  I don't know where we stand on figuring out where RNA came from, so that might be a better avenue for you.  Abiogenesis would be a better thing to use to point to your god also.  I'm not saying either of those would be good, but they are better than DNA.

12
Which issue would you like a comprehensive reply to?

Since you're offering, I'm going to take advantage of this situation.  Nobody has yet to address my charge of Craig equivocating between two different meanings of "began to exist" in the Kalam.  Perhaps you could give me a comprehensive reply to that.  I'll phrase it in a way I think you'll understand.

Craig uses only part of his analysans when considering if the universe began or not, as opposed to the entirety of it.  He then uses the other parts of his analysans when using the phrase in P1.  Yes, his analysans fully encompasses both meanings, but in order to not equivocate, Craig would have to use both meanings in both of the premises.  He doesn't do that.  He uses his special time related meaning in order to justify P2, but uses the rest in order to justify P1.

That's just like the following argument:

1. Tony is Italian.
2. Italian is a language.
3. Tony is a language.

If "Italian" can have the analysans of i) Being the offspring of those native to Italy, or ii) Being the language of the native speaking persons of Italy, then my analysans of "Italian" fully encompasses "Italian" as it is used in both P1 and P2, but still allows for the equivocation because of the multiple meanings used.  Craig's analysans of "began to exist" in the Kalam is no different than this.  His analysans makes use of two different meanings of "began to exist" and equivocates them between P1 and P2.  If he does not make such an error, then P1 is extremely controversial, and P2 is simply false, and unsupported by the BGV despite his claim otherwise.

13
Kalam Cosmological Argument / Re: The Big Bang theory doesn't support KCA
« on: November 24, 2016, 03:42:27 am »
Just saying "Craig does not equivocate" doesn't alter reality into something in which Craig doesn't equivocate.  Your second sentence doesn't even make sense.  It's clear that we are not making the objection that you think we're making.

14
Choose Your Own Topic / Re: Rasmussen on the KCA, Morriston, and Craig
« on: November 24, 2016, 01:55:20 am »
Yes you have.  I've showed you that his analysans do not justify his premises, resulting in an equivocation between the two premises.

15
Choose Your Own Topic / Re: Watch
« on: November 24, 2016, 01:54:00 am »
Is Caveman (who has never seen sand castles in his life) justified in believing this is the result of intelligence (design) or more justified in believing it is the result of hundreds of millions of years of wind, rain, storms etc etc



Assuming that your caveman has absolutely no experience with either, he would not be justified in believing either of those things. 

Pages : [1] 2 3 ... 176