Kalam cosmological argument

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I'm guessing he was looking for an elaboration of some sorts.

Originally posted by sonship
Nothing right now. Thanks for your reply.

Looks like you guessed wrong.

Originally posted by sonship
Nothing right now. Thanks for your reply.

Watch the whole thing ?
Or just dip your toe in the water to test the temperature ?

I will watch the whole of [b]any rebuttal you think is effective, of comparable length from start to end, if you watch that video completely to the end. No cheating.

Deal ?[/b]

For arguments, I prefer something I can read.

Originally posted by sonship
Anyone claiming to have watched this whole video should be able to tell us what the acronym [b] S U R G E stands for.

If you cannot tell me what S U R G E stands for and why each letter is important, I doubt that you watched the video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQwLbDN7amo[/b]

Stop
Using
Ridiculous,
Googled,
Evidence.

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
For arguments, I prefer something I can read.

Damn.
We're all in trouble.
I don't think anyone here thought you could actually read.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Damn.
We're all in trouble.
I don't think anyone here thought you could actually read.

Actually, I stand behind RBHILL at public Bible readings and tell him what to say next.

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
Stop
Using
Ridiculous,
Googled,
Evidence.

Nope.

Now you can tell me WHICH letter in the acronym you considered stood for "Ridiculous Evidence".

And Stop Using Raging Goonish Egotism

Originally posted by sonship
Now you can tell me WHICH letter in the acronym you considered stood for "Ridiculous Evidence".

That would be "R" and "E". 🙂

Originally posted by sonship
I will watch the whole of any rebuttal you think is effective, of comparable length from start to end, if you watch that video completely to the end. No cheating.

Deal ?

I have to point out that the last video of yours I watched in full and made a few comments and asked you some questions, at which point you promptly disappeared from the thread.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I have to point out that the last video of yours I watched in full and made a few comments and asked you some questions, at which point you promptly disappeared from the thread.

See, you should become a Raging Goonish Egotist like me. It would save so much time. 🙂

Originally posted by twhitehead
I have to point out that the last video of yours I watched in full and made a few comments and asked you some questions, at which point you promptly disappeared from the thread.

You also said two things. One to me and one to, I believe, Grampy.

1.) Science can explain everything.

2.) As a Naturalist you do not have to explain anything.

Now that is a strange combination. All things can be explained by science but the naturalist isn't obligated to do so.

Anyone who says that he does not have to explain anything but in every post has lots of questions for the other guy ... well, I don't consider that much of a discussion.

Yes, I hear you say something like " If I watch the video, will you discuss it?"

But in the end it is not much of a discussion if you postulate that you do not have to explain anything but can just pepper the other guy with question marks placing the entire burden of all explaining on him.

"Everything can be explained but I don't have to explain anything" is too one sided a proposition for a "discussion" to me.

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
That would be "R" and "E". 🙂

Two out of five is not terribly disappointing.

So out of -

Second Law of Thermodynamics
Uverse is expanding
Rdiation afterglow
Great galaxy seeds
Eintein General Theory of Relativty.

(Now everybody knows. They probably won't view it)

You are not impressed with Turek's appeal to the Radiation afterglow and the Einstein's corrected theory (minus the fudge factor he said was his mistake).

I assume that the other three discussions you didn't see or you felt had some validity in establishing the reasonableness of the Kalaam Cosmological Argument.

Two out of five major points isn't too bad. I'll watch those portions (R and E) again for my own edification.

Originally posted by sonship
Two out of five is not terribly disappointing.

So out of -

[b]Second Law of Thermodynamics
Uverse is expanding
Rdiation afterglow
Great galaxy seeds
Eintein General Theory of Relativty.

(Now everybody knows. They probably won't view it)

You are not impressed with Turek's appeal to the Radiation aftergl ...[text shortened]... r points isn't too bad. I'll watch those portions (R and E) again for my own edification.[/b]

No, I still have not watched the video. So I have no specific agreements or disagreements yet.

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
The question was answered. What do you want from me?

How could you disagree if you haven't watched it?
And you wish to declare your position an objective one?

You guys are rich.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
How could you disagree if you haven't watched it?
And you wish to declare your position an objective one?

You guys are rich.

I disagree with the statement, "the Kalam cosmological argument succeeds." This I did based on the successful arguments against it already given in this thread. If new evidence is introduced, it should be offered in context with the thread. Something like, Dr Turek refutes point X with counter point Y (see video link @ 3:22).

Giving the counter claim in that matter shows respect for the audience. They are not required to sit through the entire video in order to dredge out the counter point for themselves. They can follow the link and view the entire video if they are interested in exploring further. Or, they can go directly to the specific part of the video where the counter point is made.

This way it feels less like a homework assignment and more like a constructive debate in which both sides are willing to do the leg work to make their case.

Originally posted by sonship
You also said two things. One to me and one to, I believe, Grampy.

1.) Science can explain everything.

Can you quote me on that? It doesn't sound like something I would say, and you have a bad habit of attributing to me things I never said.

Now that is a strange combination. All things can be explained by science but the naturalist isn't obligated to do so.
What is so strange about it? Why would a naturalist be obligated to explain all things. Its simply ridiculous to expect anyone to be obligated to explain everything.

Anyone who says that he does not have to explain anything
What? Now you have changed from 'not obligated to explain everything, to 'not obligated to explain anything'.
If you can't see the difference then that explains why you keep misrepresenting my position.

but in every post has lots of questions for the other guy ... well, I don't consider that much of a discussion.
Of course, but then as usual, you are going for the strawman ie claim I took a position I didn't take. I do not refuse to answer you questions. I do refuse to be obligated to explain things to which I do not have the answers.

But in the end it is not much of a discussion if you postulate that you do not have to explain anything but can just pepper the other guy with question marks placing the entire burden of all explaining on him.
Again, this is simply not what I said. I said that being a naturalist does not automatically obligate me to have answers to certain questions that you dictate.

I would really like to know, do you really misunderstand just about every post I make, or do you deliberately misconstrue what I say in nearly every post you make? If its the latter, why do you do it?