|  New Posts
 
ReasonableFaith.org > Forums > Choose Your Own Topic > Expelled-No Intelligence Allowed full version
 
 


Reply
 
Author Comment
 
itsallgood
Posted 05/27/12 Reply with quote  #46 

The Anti-Defamation League issued the following statement condemning the film's use of the Holocaust:

The film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed misappropriates the Holocaust and its imagery as a part of its political effort to discredit the scientific community which rejects so-called intelligent design theory. Hitler did not need Darwin to devise his heinous plan to exterminate the Jewish people and Darwin and evolutionary theory cannot explain Hitler's genocidal madness. Using the Holocaust in order to tarnish those who promote the theory of evolution is outrageous and trivializes the complex factors that led to the mass extermination of European Jewry.[40]

In an April interview about the film, Stein had said that science had led to the Nazi murder of children, and stated that "Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place. Science leads you to killing people."[30] When Vancouver Sun writer Peter McKnight asked for Stein to comment on the Anti-Defamation League's statement, Stein replied, "It's none of their f---ing business."[41]

After watching the film, one Jewish viewer wrote an angry letter to interviewee Michael Shermer, which Shermer forwarded to fellow interviewee Richard Dawkins. This prompted Dawkins to write, as a response, "Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda".[42]
CrashTestAuto
Posted 05/27/12 Reply with quote  #47 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lawlessone777
Again, crash, with the misrepresentation. I covered the actual statement made by TB in clarification of his arguments in the very first post I did on this thread. I know he's saying that one cannot operate causally upon a non-existent thing to bring it into existence, what you're still not facing is that that is not how efficient causality works. One does not operate causally upon a non-existent effect ever, not even when there is a pre-existing material cause. One brings the effect into being, that's it. And your statement that the things I'm mentioning have material causes is flatly incorrect. America has a material cause? What is the material cause of America? The landmass?

If America is nothing more than the landmass than what chemical or physical change was gone about to change its composition into America? If the material cause of America is the landmass then what happens between the border of America and Canada? There's a 1 meter line between the two. If you cross the line are you entering into a new material realm? What's the material difference between the America side and Canada side of the border since there's barely a few feet between them? Is the land different?

Also when you have an ambassadorial house in another country that land is considered to be, legally, America. So how did the cause of that land alter the land physically for it to constitute the same material properties as the USA? What about Hawaii and Alaska? Are they composed of the same material as the main land mass?

You see by the logic of P1 America could never begin to exist. America has no material cause, it's an abstract concept, a country, and do by P1 it cannot exist. There's no misrepresentation of the argument here, the problem is that the argument does away with large chunks of reality, much like many of the New Atheist arguments.

Youre saying i just asserted the fact that Ohilosophers dont take it seriously? Crash the dinner than Craig was speaking at was Talbot, and the people in the Chrono were students and teachers of theology, philosophy, and scripture. And they were all laughing at how bad these arguments are. There's no ad hom, that's simply factual. I know I've said this many times, Crash, but I really have to stress this to you. YouTube atheists like TB, Amazingatheist, Thunderfoot, or others are nothing more than laymen in this field. They really don't know the subject matter, and yes their arguments are actually laughed at by people with multiple doctorates in the subject. Seriously, if you want to cling to an argument made by an atheist stick to those who are studied and respected in their field, not just angry twenty something armchair philosophers. Austin Dacey, Neitzche, Hume, or Stephen Law, any of those guys.

Lawless, if you honestly don't see the difference between America 'beginning to exist' and the universe beginning to exist, then this is utterly pointless.  You're rejecting a perfectly legitimate understanding of causation, based on extremely simple principle that you already agreed to.  Causes can not act on non-existent things, so they can't just bring things into being by acting upon then.  America is a conception that exists in people's minds.  If everyone died, then America would cease to exist, it is a completely different sense of the word 'exist', if it evens makes sense to use the word at all.

Also, I've watched the '10 worst' video, and the people laughing either don't understand the actual arguments, or don't realise Craig is willing to lie to them, or are drunk.  I'm happy to go through point by point on that.
Lawlessone777
Posted 05/27/12 Reply with quote  #48 
lol Seriously? Dude, seriously? You're staying that a room full of theologians and philosophers don't understand the philosophical argument created by a laymen in philosophy? Don't you find it a bit odd that you're accusing a room full of philosophers of being either liars, ignorant of philosophy, or drunk in order to avoid the fact that a philosophical argument created by an angry YouTube atheist with no formal training in philosophy is completely incorrect?

And yes, Crash, there is a clear difference between the universe beginning to exist and America. The problem is, the argument makes absolutely no distinction. America is an abstract concept, which means by P1 America cannot begin to exist. This is blatantly obvious.

I mean seriously dude, you're actually saying a room filled with philosophers and theologians who have degrees in and teach at a school of theology and philosophy know less about theology and philosophy than an angry YT atheist with no formal schooling in the subject. Seriously. Did you ever consider that maybe everyone else in the discussion isn't lying, or misrepresenting TB, maybe TB's argument is actually just that bad?
CrashTestAuto
Posted 05/27/12 Reply with quote  #49 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lawlessone777
lol Seriously? Dude, seriously? You're staying that a room full of theologians and philosophers don't understand the philosophical argument created by a laymen in philosophy? Don't you find it a bit odd that you're accusing a room full of philosophers of being either liars, ignorant of philosophy, or drunk in order to avoid the fact that a philosophical argument created by an angry YouTube atheist with no formal training in philosophy is completely incorrect?

And yes, Crash, there is a clear difference between the universe beginning to exist and America. The problem is, the argument makes absolutely no distinction. America is an abstract concept, which means by P1 America cannot begin to exist. This is blatantly obvious.

I mean seriously dude, you're actually saying a room filled with philosophers and theologians who have degrees in and teach at a school of theology and philosophy know less about theology and philosophy than an angry YT atheist with no formal schooling in the subject. Seriously. Did you ever consider that maybe everyone else in the discussion isn't lying, or misrepresenting TB, maybe TB's argument is actually just that bad?

The premise doesn't stop America being caused to exist, it stops America being causally acted upon prior to its existence.  Huge difference.  The fact that you keep appealing to this despite the clear distinction between the type of existence and the fact it is irrelevant is baffling.

Also, Craig spends a portion of the '10 worst' lecture explaining (badly) the nature of a deductive argument to the audience.  If the room was full of professional philosophers this seems a very odd move.

I'm also not making this conclusion based on the idea that TB knows more than a room full of philosophers.  I'm basing it on having watched the video, knowing the arguments he is referring to (and what they actually say), and not being utterly biased against the intellectual capacities of atheists.
jbiemans
Posted 05/28/12 Reply with quote  #50 
Lawless, I finally listened to #6 on the objections video, but he is not addressing TSB's comment, he is addressing another comment:

IE:  Nothing 'begins to exist'.  

Even in his refutation to this 'worst' objection he only goes after the worst possible formulation of it.  The formulation that I would use is this:

"Nothing in our everyday experience 'begins to exist' in the same manor that the universe began to exist, if the universe began to exist ex nihlo".

What this does is remove the inductive support that we have for the first premise.  To illustrate its effect you would reform the Kalam like this:

1) Every material thing that begins to exist has a material cause. 
2) The universe is a material thing that began to exist. 
3) Therefore the universe has a material cause.

This in on way addresses the argument put forth by TBS though.  In his argument, he is not saying that nothing ever begins to exist, nor that things that begin to exist cannot, or do not have a cause. 


Have you ever actually watched the original video where he presents the argument ?
CrashTestAuto
Posted 05/28/12 Reply with quote  #51 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbiemans
Lawless, I finally listened to #6 on the objections video, but he is not addressing TSB's comment, he is addressing another comment:

IE:  Nothing 'begins to exist'.  

Even in his refutation to this 'worst' objection he only goes after the worst possible formulation of it.  The formulation that I would use is this:

"Nothing in our everyday experience 'begins to exist' in the same manor that the universe began to exist, if the universe began to exist ex nihlo".

What this does is remove the inductive support that we have for the first premise.  To illustrate its effect you would reform the Kalam like this:

1) Every material thing that begins to exist has a material cause. 
2) The universe is a material thing that began to exist. 
3) Therefore the universe has a material cause.

This in on way addresses the argument put forth by TBS though.  In his argument, he is not saying that nothing ever begins to exist, nor that things that begin to exist cannot, or do not have a cause. 


Have you ever actually watched the original video where he presents the argument ?

Exactly, and just to clarify, TB is not saying that everything that begins to exist has a material cause.
jbiemans
Posted 05/28/12 Reply with quote  #52 
Does this make sense Crash ?

The sculptor is the cause [noun] of the sculpture beginning to exist (since the sculptor is the reason that the statue exists rather then a lump of clay existing), howver, the sculptor did not cause [verb] the sculpture to begin to exist (since the sculpture did not exist before it began to exist, there was no sculpture to act upon)  The sculpture caused [verb] the clay to change into a new form, thus creating the effect of a sculpture beginning to exist.
Lawlessone777
Posted 05/28/12 Reply with quote  #53 
*facepalm*

Alright let's walk through this step by step. In his argument TBS makes the statement, "Something which exists cannot cause something which does not exist to begin existing." Now as I've clearly spelled out in my posts in the past I know exactly what TBS means to say, however have stated over and over again that the way he has it written as is means that efficient causation is not possible. Something does not act causally upon a thing in order to bring that effect into being, one merely brings an effect into being if one is an efficient cause.

JB in your example of the sculptor causing the sculpture to begin to exist by the technical language of P1 that is impossible. The sculptor is someone who exists which is causing something which does not exist (the sculpture) to begin existing. The methodology of how this efficient cause plays out is not specified in the argument. Both of you are arguing for what you believe the spirit of the argument to be, what I'm talking about is the very technical language of what precisely the argument is spelling out.

If P1 is meant to say, "Something cannot create matter from nothing" then it should say as P1 "Something cannot cause something which has a material cause to begin to exist without pre-existing matter." What you're suggesting the argument is saying is not what the argument is saying, it's language is presenting a completely different premise than the one you're posting here. I've spelled this out repeatedly in my previous posts, but let me spell it out one more time.

TBS's argument is completely broken as it is written. In order for it to even get off the ground P1 must be completely rewritten. When one makes a philosophical argument you don't present something which is utterly fallacious and then later change the definition of it into what is the "spirit" of the argument. When Dr. Craig was offering a rebuttal of the argument he was offering a rebuttal to the argument as it is written, which in it's language does away with efficient causation completely. JB what you and Crash have agreed to it saying is something completely different. That's not what the argument is saying.

But let's talk about what you and Crash have decided the argument is saying. The problem with saying that anything which has a material cause is composed of pre-existing matter is that it commits the composition fallacy. You assume that because the matter which exists within this universe can be reformed into new shapes, that must mean that the entire universe must have been a reformatino of pre-existing matter. The problem with this is that all current scientific cosmological models actually argue against this. The quantum vacuum fluctuation model itself predicts a universe composed of matter springing forth from a quantum vacuum state with only minute traces of energy.

The argument as it is currently written is completely bonkers. What you two have opted to say it is actually saying is flatly incorrect. It would entail that the matter the universe is composed of must be eternal, which speaks completely against the problem of entropy and heat death.
vmancha
Posted 05/28/12 Reply with quote  #54 
Quote:
Originally Posted by itsallgood

The film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed misappropriates the Holocaust and its imagery as a part of its political effort to discredit the scientific community

Stein clearly showed the Nazis used science to justify Eugenics. At the hospital he quesitoned the curator to this point and she clearly said the "Ubermench" concept was in mind when they were trying to get rid of the "useless eaters".
Do you feel Stein staged and told the curator to say the Nazi doctors believed in Social Darwin principles and justifies their actions accordingly?
In fact she defended them as not being crazy rather she said "they had heir purposes".
It is this lack of moral absolutes in the modern day German due to loss of christian morality that makes them even more susceptible for another future disaster like Nazism.  They were a brilliant people and yet were willing to fall for the Nazi doctrine due to a synthesis of many ideas one of the central one being Darwinism and its implication of the weak.
Utube is full of Nazi propaganda reals showing the exploration of the social Darwin concept.  To fail to recognize this connection is to stick ones head in the historical sand indeed.
jbiemans
Posted 05/28/12 Reply with quote  #55 
Lawless, if you look at what Crash and I agreed to it was in relation to what Dr Craig was arguing against in #6 of his video.  You said that #6 was in relation to TBS's argument, when in reality, after watching #6, it is not addressing TSB at all, but rather the argument "nothing begins to exist".  I agree with Dr. Craig that the premise "nothing begins to exist" is a faulty one and that is why I offered up the stronger version of it that I have seen.  

What Dr. Craig did in the vid was literally offer up the worst version of the argument (which in fairness is what he set out to do), but deliberately failed to expand on the better version of it, thus painting every version in the same light.  Apparently, you agree with him and see any argument that is similar to this one as exactly the same.  I am trying to show the subtle nuance of the language here is important.

Another thing to note Lawless is that matter is energy.  So I am not advocating for some preexisting 'matter' necessarily, but more like a preexisting energy (or some other form of energy that is unknown still).  This is all besides the point though, since this was addressing the #6 video and not TSB's argument (they are 2 different things).

Again, in your last sentence you are putting assumptions into my mouth.  I never once said that I thought that the 'matter' in the universe is eternal.  What I advocate for is more like an eternal 'energy', or an eternal 'potential', but that is another topic.

To go back to TSB's premise:

Quote:
P1: Nothing which exists can cause something which does not exist to begin existing. 

If I were to simplify it, I would say:

"X cannot cause Y to begin to exist"

1) If X causes(verb) Y to begin to exist, then X is affecting Y.
2) X can only affect Y if Y exists before X affects it, otherwise X cannot by definition affect Y.
3) Therefore if X causes(verb) Y to begin to exist, then Y must exist before X affects it, otherwise X cannot by definition affect Y.
4) Therefore Y must exist before if X can cause it to begin to exist.
5) Therefore X cannot cause Y to begin to exist.

Do you see the absurdity yet ?  OIW; The sculptor cannot cause the sculpture to begin to exist, because the for that to be possible, the sculptor must exist before it beginnings to exist.
Lawlessone777
Posted 05/28/12 Reply with quote  #56 
*facepalm* Omg...seriously I cannot believe this is still a discussion. You just changed the argument back to the actual argument that WLC was openly mocking. No one is showing a "worse side" of the argument here, what we're talking about is basic metaphysics 101. You guys seem fully capable of presenting the argument, but for some reason you get to the presentation and just can't seem to comprehend the problem with what it entails and what is also disproves in the process. JB I'm going to break down your presentation of the argument point by point to see if I can get you to understand why a room full of students and teachers of philosophy and theology spent an evening laughing at this argument.

Quote:
To go back to TSB's premise:

Quote:
P1: Nothing which exists can cause something which does not exist to begin existing. 

If I were to simplify it, I would say:

"X cannot cause Y to begin to exist"

1) If X causes(verb) Y to begin to exist, then X is affecting Y.
2) X can only affect Y if Y exists before X affects it, otherwise X cannot by definition affect Y.
3) Therefore if X causes(verb) Y to begin to exist, then Y must exist before X affects it, otherwise X cannot by definition affect Y.
4) Therefore Y must exist before if X can cause it to begin to exist.
5) Therefore X cannot cause Y to begin to exist.

Do you see the absurdity yet ?  OIW; The sculptor cannot cause the sculpture to begin to exist, because the for that to be possible, the sculptor must exist before it beginnings to exist.

I'm going to repeat this again. I've said this probably a dozen times in this thread, and yet once more I'm going to repeat it. When something causes something else to begin to exist it is not operating causally upon the non-existent effect, it is merely bringing that effect into being. I'm going to repeat this again: When something causes something else to begin to exist it is not operating causally upon the non-existent effect, it is merely bringing that effect into being.

Seriously, JB, this is the most basic and fundamental truth behind efficient causality in metaphysics. In the event of any efficient cause that efficient cause does not operate via any mechanism, or series of actions, upon a non-existent object which causes that object to begin exist. An efficient cause merely brings an effect into being. The Kalam argument is talking about efficient causality. Everything which begins to exist must have an efficient cause which brings that effect into being.

TBS's argument makes absolutely no distinction between cause and effect which either has, or does not have, a material cause. And so to say that:

Quote:
"X cannot cause Y to begin to exist"

In the language of basic metaphysics and ontology means that nothing begins to exist, everything is merely a recombination or change of pre-existing matter into a new form. I'm going to again underline this: The language that TBS uses when presenting his argument entails mereological nihilism.

Seriously, guys, this is one of the most basic tenants of metaphysical ontology, the nature of being and what it means to begin to exist. You seriously cannot be still not getting this. If we take the argument on face value then nothing begins to exist, if we take your attempt at explanation for the argument it shows TBS's complete lack of even the most basic understanding of philosophy by asserting that efficient causes somehow operate upon a non-existent effect, if we take your reformation of the argument by saying that nothing can create something which has within it's framework a material cause to begin to exist without a pre-existing material cause then we have the problem of an eternal universe to contend with.

No matter how you try and fix the argument it fails on all angles. Honestly, guys, TBS lacks even the most basic understanding of metaphysics, do not parrot his arguments, they are terrible. I'm not trying to suppress any kind of truth here by trying to dissuade you from using the arguments, I'm trying to explain to you why no professional atheist has ever gotten on stage and repeated this argument, and why a group of philosophers and theologians used it as a standup comedy routine.

I'm going to even break this down and repeat it once more to see if I can help you understand why this is a God awful argument:

1, Causes do not operate upon a non-existent effect ever, when an efficient cause causes something to begin to exist it merely brings the effect into being.

2, To argue that something which exists cannot cause something which does not exist to begin to exist, in terms of metaphysical ontology means that nothing begins to exist ever.

3, Arguing that all material effects must have pre-existing material causes, and as such the universe must have a pre-existing material effect is committing the fallacy of composition by asserting that because the pre-existing matter of the universe can be rearranged into new forms, the whole universe must also have had a pre-existing material cause.

Do I need to draw charts now or something?
jbiemans
Posted 05/28/12 Reply with quote  #57 
I am going to say this again, #6 that Dr Craig was addressing did not resemble the argument that we are discussing from TBS, so to keep saying that a room full of philosophers was laughing at his argument is patently false.

Quote:
1, Causes do not operate upon a non-existent effect ever, when an efficient cause causes something to begin to exist it merely brings the effect into being.

I know that you may think this is implied, but:

X caused Y to begin to exist.
&
X brought Y into existence.

Are two different statements.  

If I apply this to the first premise of the Kalam, I now get:

1) Everything that is brought into existence has something that brings it into existence.

This language then makes the second premise:

2) The universe was brought into existence.  

I am curious how you defend this premise ?

Quote:
2, To argue that something which exists cannot cause something which does not exist to begin to exist, in terms of metaphysical ontology means that nothing begins to exist ever.

This is using your definitions and not the ones that he, nor I was using.  Again, you are using the language differently.  Did you even watch the vid I linked to so that you could see his actual argument and defense of it ?

Quote:
3, Arguing that all material effects must have pre-existing material causes, and as such the universe must have a pre-existing material effect is committing the fallacy of composition by asserting that because the pre-existing matter of the universe can be rearranged into new forms, the whole universe must also have had a pre-existing material cause.

This is not actually the fallacy of composition though, if it were, then we could apply the same criticism to the actual Kalam and say:

Arguing that all effects must have causes, and as such the universe must have a cause is committing the fallacy of composition by asserting that because the rearrangement of pre-existing matter within the universe requires a cause, the whole universe must also have had a cause.

It seems clear to me that you and I are using language differently and you are reading into the language saying that it implies things that are not necessarily implied.  From now on I will use your definitions to try to avoid future confusion.
Lawlessone777
Posted 05/28/12 Reply with quote  #58 
Dear God JB you can't possibly still be arguing this point. Let me deal with your first point:
Quote:
I am going to say this again, #6 that Dr Craig was addressing did not resemble the argument that we are discussing from TBS, so to keep saying that a room full of philosophers was laughing at his argument is patently false.

Yes he was laughing specifically at the premises which are supported by TBA's argument. You seem to be completely unable to see where TBA's argument logically leads us if we actually take it to be factual, you're literally distorting what it means to begin to exist. If P1 is true then nothing begins to exist. If nothing which exists can cause something which does not exist to begin existing then nothing exists. This is where WLC starts out in his discussion. Your accusation that it was not this argument that they were talking about is simply because WLC didn't start out the conversation with giving the specifics that it was TBA's argument.

I'm going to break this down to make it even more clear, I seriously am astounded that this is still confusing. Now when I said that when TBA's argument uses metaphysical language this is what I meant:

1. Metaphysics is the philosophy concerning being.
2. Metaphysics uses language to communicate certain states of affairs which are commonly held between philosophers.
3. The language used by TBA in his argument is the language of metaphysics.
4. The language used by TBA in his argument means something very specific in metaphysics.
5. What the language that TBA is using means is that no existing contingent being can be an efficient cause which brings about an effect.
6. WLC knows the language of metaphysics.
7. WLC responded to the argument assuming it was intentionally using the language of metaphysics.
8. The rebuttal that WLC provided was directed towards the language of metaphysics used by TBA.

Now is there any possible way I can make this more clear?

Quote:
Let me address this on your second concern:
I know that you may think this is implied, but:

X caused Y to begin to exist.
&
X brought Y into existence.

Are two different statements.  

If I apply this to the first premise of the Kalam, I now get:

1) Everything that is brought into existence has something that brings it into existence.

This language then makes the second premise:

2) The universe was brought into existence.  

I am curious how you defend this premise ?

Seriously, JB, you're now confusing what causality means. This is efficient causality, metaphysics 101. An efficient cause brings an effect into being, that is to say, the efficient cause is the reason and explanation as to why the effect exists. The efficient cause of an effect is the state of affairs which comes logically and causally prior to the effect, and is the explanation for the beginning of the existence of that effect.

Under no circumstance, in any possible word, does an efficient cause ever operate upon a non-existent effect in order to bring that effect into being. An efficient cause is the reason and explanation for an effect which comes into existence.

How can this possibly be that confusing?

Quote:
This is using your definitions and not the ones that he, nor I was using.  Again, you are using the language differently.  Did you even watch the vid I linked to so that you could see his actual argument and defense of it ?

No the definitions I'm using are the actual philosophical definitions. Please see my step by step explanation of this above. TBA is using language which is used in metaphysics. If any philosopher were to read what he said it would clearly spell out the fact that nothing begins to exist.


Quote:
This is not actually the fallacy of composition though, if it were, then we could apply the same criticism to the actual Kalam and say:

Arguing that all effects must have causes, and as such the universe must have a cause is committing the fallacy of composition by asserting that because the rearrangement of pre-existing matter within the universe requires a cause, the whole universe must also have had a cause.

This argument is also in the "arguments so bad I couldn't make them up". It's number 4. To say that causality is to commit the fallacy of equivocation is to misunderstand the difference between metaphysical reality which is based upon experience and material causality which is based on the physical world. I suggest you check out the vid and Craig's response to it.

Quote:
It seems clear to me that you and I are using language differently and you are reading into the language saying that it implies things that are not necessarily implied.  From now on I will use your definitions to try to avoid future confusion.

No, JB, it's not that I'm using a "different definition" than you are, it's that I'm actually using the proper definitions as put forth by metaphysics and philosophy. As is Craig, that's why this is an absolutely terrible argument, and why I am simply dumbstruck that there is still a discussion on this. It should be abundantly clear that TBS has absolutely no idea what he's talking about when you consider that the language he's using basically entails that nothing in the universe ever begins to exist, efficient causality is done away with, and material causality is all there is.

This isn't a misunderstanding on the part of the philosopher, Craig presented this argument in his statement as it was read from the actual philosophical language of metaphysics, the language TBS was clearly using when he made it. It's the same language I'm holding it to. Remember that thread a while back where I bemoaned the fact that atheists seem to enjoy changing the definition of things off handedly? This is another perfect example of this kind of behaviour. There aren't multiple definitions to words that you can change and switch out whenever you want. You're talking philosophy to philosophers, they've been using this language for thousands of years, you can't simply assert that we alter our language to suit your new need for philosophy. That's not how this works.

I'm dead serious, JB, if you really understood the metaphysical absurdity of this argument I genuinely do not believe you would be actually defending it. I honestly have absolutely no idea why you and Crash are resting your hats on TBS. His description about causality is not the philosophical definition of causality, there are not multiple definitions of causality we're talking the philosophy of metaphysics.

Seriously, JB, I cannot possibly believe you're still holding to this utterly asinine argument. You're debating semantics in order to rescue it from it's shallow grave, and I'm strongly advising you just let it rest and abandon it. Yes it really was this argument that all those philosophers were laughing at, and yes it really really is that bad. This is seriously getting as insane as Stan in his own little personal thread arguing against the dictionary, every apologist, and logic and reason itself in order to proclaim that an ad hominem is something completely different than every single philosopher on the planet says it is.
jbiemans
Posted 05/28/12 Reply with quote  #59 
I will get back to the rest of this soon, but do think that a lot of this is coming down to semantics.

I do want to ask you though, other then the universe (if I assume for the sake of argument that the universe did come into existence ex nihlo), do we have any experience of something material coming into existence ex nihlo ?

*Edit, also, if you watch the Vid I linked to (which I doubt you have), TBS clearly outlines how he is using the words and terms he is using, so if someone wants to go and use a different definition of those words even if their definition is the standard one, then it will always result in a failure of communication.
Lawlessone777
Posted 05/28/12 Reply with quote  #60 
Quote:
I will get back to the rest of this soon, but do think that a lot of this is coming down to semantics.


That's exactly my point JB. You're hair splitting semantics to such a fine degree that you're making discussion about the argument impossible. Much the same way I've seen atheists on this board insist we change the definition of atheist, cause, or ad hom and how I've seen those same atheists deny the existence of simultaneous causality, abstract concepts, and now efficient causality itself what you're doing is confusing the language behind these philosophical points. You're attempting to do so in order to rescue this argument from the trash heap, but in reality what you're doing is merely trying to shoehorn the argument into a usable format, which is impossible.

TBA is using philosophical language. The philosophical language he is using when he says, "Nothing which exists can cause something which does not exist to begin existing" is quite literally "There is no such thing as efficient causality". Because in the language of metaphysics and ontology that is literally what an efficient cause is. An efficient cause is something which exists that brings into existence an effect that did not exist prior to the efficient cause bringing it into existence. That's why WLC said, "Nothing begins to exist." That is quite literally what that means.

Seriously, JB, this isn't a winnable debate. Your simply factually and grammatically wrong about this and I will be genuinely dumbstruck if you honestly try to maintain the validity of this absolutely atrocious argument presented by TBS. I'm serious, dude, TBS is an angry armchair philosopher who has no idea what he's talking about. Don't try and salvage his terrible philosophy through debating semantics, I'm using the actual description of what an efficient cause is by the guy who came up with the idea of the four causes, Aristotle.

Quote:
I do want to ask you though, other then the universe (if I assume for the sake of argument that the universe did come into existence ex nihlo), do we have any experience of something material coming into existence ex nihlo ?

Beyond the universe nothing is created ex nihilo, that should be pretty obvious. Please don't tell me you're going to try for the "our experience of causality" and Bayes Theorem bit of logic Crash tried to use to deny the existence of simultaneous causality. Any model which does not presuppose an eternal universe (i.e. all of them) must contend with creation ex nihilo through either natural or supernatural means.

I genuinely am utterly dumbstruck that you guys honestly think this guy, who is a complete layman to philosophy, has somehow defeated the works of a guy with two doctorates in the subject, 30+ books, multiple articles in the Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, and 30+ years experience teaching the subject of Philosophy, Theology and Apologetics. And that you're trying to recover his argument by nit picking points, debating semantics, hair splitting, and confusing the subject matter.
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:



Important: The Reasonable Faith forums have moved to: www.reasonablefaith.org/forums/






Powered by Website Toolbox - Create a Website Forum Hosting, Guestbook Hosting, or Website Chat Room for your website.