When the Soap Opera Star beat WLC in debate

[boatsnguitars]

What do you think? Did Scott win the day? Kinda like Rocky, he didn't need to win, just make a good show of it. Personally, I think he won, but i'd like to know your impression.

[JoeyKnothead]

There's a reason we no longer sacrifice virgins to the volcanoes.

Not enough volcanoes or not enough virgins?

I was not expecting that hilarious response.

That said, the data clearly shows there's a bunch of volcanoes;)

[Wootah]

There's a reason we no longer sacrifice virgins to the volcanoes.

Not enough volcanoes or not enough virgins?

Actually a hilarious joke. Possibly stand-up worthy. Seriously.

[Wootah]

There's a reason we no longer sacrifice virgins to the volcanoes.

Not enough volcanoes or not enough virgins?

I was not expecting that hilarious response.

That said, the data clearly shows there's a bunch of volcanoes;)

I didn't see your response when I wrote mine. Question: my PC recommended I use the word hilarious instead of 'very funny'. Did you write hilarious yourself or did you get prompted to change to hilarious?

[Wootah]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #50]

No I am just trying to highlight the point WLC made. Which I think we have.

We are well aware of the point and that his attempt to shove a god in there as an answer to the puzzle fails ,as it just raises further problems. And, as keeps being said and keeps being ignored, even if there is a case for a god, it doesn't tell us which one.

I have said this before that what makes so much of Theist apologetics invalid from the get -go is they begin with a belief that there is a god and that this god is the one in the Bible. Thus, their arguments are flawed by assuming what is claimed as true (the leap of Faith) and WLC does this, as does Plantinga and all the other smart guys. I wonder if anyone has ever explained it to them?

You are jumping ahead of the argument which is what you guys have been doing with me as well. No one is claiming at this stage that the first cause is God. You guys have pointed out that even if there is a first cause it might not be the Christian God. I really think this is preventing clarity on your side on thinking about the issue.

My only point that I am trying to make or get you to focus on to refute is the one I have been saying:

We live as if first causes exist. There is no evidence of nothing causing anything. Therefore proposing a first cause is rational. Proposing nothing or infinite causation is not.

^ That is the best summary of what I think WLC was saying and what I am trying to say.

[Wootah]

So you live as if things you see and touch just popped into existence.

Good grief.

Wrong. I live as if I don't know how the universe came to be, the same way I live as if nobody can show a god's involvement in it either.

Save the Charlie Brown quotes for your theist friends.

If the universe can't just "pop into existence", how can a god just pop into existence?

Neither is the point.

My point centers around this question...

If something can't come from nothing, from what then, comes God?

We live as if first causes exist.

I live as if the theist wishes to place a god in every gap in our knowledge.

If something can't come from nothing, from what then, comes God?

There is no evidence of nothing causing anything.

If something must cause everything, what caused God?

Therefore proposing a first cause is rational.

Then the best we can say is that something caused the universe. We have no means to confirm that cause is a sentient entity.

I can propose a magic teapot is the "first cause" and declare my claim "rational".

Proposing nothing or infinite causation is not.

When the rhetorical you propose a magic, sentient entity as a cause, I ask for more evidence than the nothing of a claim you present.

The best we can do here is to say "beats me". We don't need to propose magical, sentient entities just because we can't figure something out. There's a reason we no longer sacrifice virgins to the volcanoes.

Please see my post #64 viewtopic.php?p=1122006#p1122006

I am not arguing for what the first cause is ... yet.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #50]

No I am just trying to highlight the point WLC made. Which I think we have.

We are well aware of the point and that his attempt to shove a god in there as an answer to the puzzle fails ,as it just raises further problems. And, as keeps being said and keeps being ignored, even if there is a case for a god, it doesn't tell us which one.

I have said this before that what makes so much of Theist apologetics invalid from the get -go is they begin with a belief that there is a god and that this god is the one in the Bible. Thus, their arguments are flawed by assuming what is claimed as true (the leap of Faith) and WLC does this, as does Plantinga and all the other smart guys. I wonder if anyone has ever explained it to them?

You are jumping ahead of the argument which is what you guys have been doing with me as well. No one is claiming at this stage that the first cause is God. You guys have pointed out that even if there is a first cause it might not be the Christian God. I really think this is preventing clarity on your side on thinking about the issue.

My only point that I am trying to make or get you to focus on to refute is the one I have been saying:

We live as if first causes exist. There is no evidence of nothing causing anything. Therefore proposing a first cause is rational. Proposing nothing or infinite causation is not.

^ That is the best summary of what I think WLC was saying and what I am trying to say.

I'm not sure he is, but it's what you are arguing, and I say it is not rational now,not in view of how much we know about the crazy stuff the Cosmos throws at us.

At one time we thought the world was flat and we still live as though it was. Unless we are travelling by airline, then we need to think global.

At one time it was thought we were specially, created but we know better know (or half of us do at least) and we live not giving much thought to it.

And nothing coming from nothing - it's how our normal lives go, but we can't take that as a cosmic law right now. We have to say 'we can't be sure', especially in view of the puzzle of cosmic origins.

That's giving the fairest answer I can, and I'm sorry if it doesn't sign up to an earthbound limitation as though it applied throughout all space and time, but I can't do that and neither rationally, can you.

[JoeyKnothead]

I didn't see your response when I wrote mine. Question: my PC recommended I use the word hilarious instead of 'very funny'. Did you write hilarious yourself or did you get prompted to change to hilarious?

Mere coincide. I've never known you to steal words.

Mine wasn't prompted, I use hilarious when I've found a response a league or two above plain ol' funny.

[Wootah]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #50]

No I am just trying to highlight the point WLC made. Which I think we have.

We are well aware of the point and that his attempt to shove a god in there as an answer to the puzzle fails ,as it just raises further problems. And, as keeps being said and keeps being ignored, even if there is a case for a god, it doesn't tell us which one.

I have said this before that what makes so much of Theist apologetics invalid from the get -go is they begin with a belief that there is a god and that this god is the one in the Bible. Thus, their arguments are flawed by assuming what is claimed as true (the leap of Faith) and WLC does this, as does Plantinga and all the other smart guys. I wonder if anyone has ever explained it to them?

You are jumping ahead of the argument which is what you guys have been doing with me as well. No one is claiming at this stage that the first cause is God. You guys have pointed out that even if there is a first cause it might not be the Christian God. I really think this is preventing clarity on your side on thinking about the issue.

My only point that I am trying to make or get you to focus on to refute is the one I have been saying:

We live as if first causes exist. There is no evidence of nothing causing anything. Therefore proposing a first cause is rational. Proposing nothing or infinite causation is not.

^ That is the best summary of what I think WLC was saying and what I am trying to say.

I'm not sure he is, but it's what you are arguing, and I say it is not rational now,not in view of how much we know about the crazy stuff the Cosmos throws at us.

At one time we thought the world was flat and we still live as though it was. Unless we are travelling by airline, then we need to think global.

At one time it was thought we were specially, created but we know better know (or half of us do at least) and we live not giving much thought to it.

And nothing coming from nothing - it's how our normal lives go, but we can't take that as a cosmic law right now. We have to say 'we can't be sure', especially in view of the puzzle of cosmic origins.

That's giving the fairest answer I can, and I'm sorry if it doesn't sign up to an earthbound limitation as though it applied throughout all space and time, but I can't do that and neither rationally, can you.

But you don't live that way. You don't spend a single moment presuming something came from nothing and nor do you extrapolate causes back to the big bang, we settle on first causes all the time.

[JoeyKnothead]

You are jumping ahead of the argument which is what you guys have been doing with me as well. No one is claiming at this stage that the first cause is God. You guys have pointed out that even if there is a first cause it might not be the Christian God. I really think this is preventing clarity on your side on thinking about the issue.

Given the nature of this site, jumping ahead might well just cut out the middleman.

My only point that I am trying to make or get you to focus on to refute is the one I have been saying:

We live as if first causes exist. There is no evidence of nothing causing anything. Therefore proposing a first cause is rational. Proposing nothing or infinite causation is not.

To live "as if a first cause exists" is too limiting in scope. I live as if many things are true, and many things are false, and many things are unproven.

^ That is the best summary of what I think WLC was saying and what I am trying to say.

I don't reckon I can say you're wrong, but I'd caution against drawing conclusions about it.

If I live as if there must be a first cause, what I see as the first cause is the universe existing, then a big bang occurred and there we go.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #50]

No I am just trying to highlight the point WLC made. Which I think we have.

We are well aware of the point and that his attempt to shove a god in there as an answer to the puzzle fails ,as it just raises further problems. And, as keeps being said and keeps being ignored, even if there is a case for a god, it doesn't tell us which one.

I have said this before that what makes so much of Theist apologetics invalid from the get -go is they begin with a belief that there is a god and that this god is the one in the Bible. Thus, their arguments are flawed by assuming what is claimed as true (the leap of Faith) and WLC does this, as does Plantinga and all the other smart guys. I wonder if anyone has ever explained it to them?

You are jumping ahead of the argument which is what you guys have been doing with me as well. No one is claiming at this stage that the first cause is God. You guys have pointed out that even if there is a first cause it might not be the Christian God. I really think this is preventing clarity on your side on thinking about the issue.

My only point that I am trying to make or get you to focus on to refute is the one I have been saying:

We live as if first causes exist. There is no evidence of nothing causing anything. Therefore proposing a first cause is rational. Proposing nothing or infinite causation is not.

^ That is the best summary of what I think WLC was saying and what I am trying to say.

I'm not sure he is, but it's what you are arguing, and I say it is not rational now,not in view of how much we know about the crazy stuff the Cosmos throws at us.

At one time we thought the world was flat and we still live as though it was. Unless we are travelling by airline, then we need to think global.

At one time it was thought we were specially, created but we know better know (or half of us do at least) and we live not giving much thought to it.

And nothing coming from nothing - it's how our normal lives go, but we can't take that as a cosmic law right now. We have to say 'we can't be sure', especially in view of the puzzle of cosmic origins.

That's giving the fairest answer I can, and I'm sorry if it doesn't sign up to an earthbound limitation as though it applied throughout all space and time, but I can't do that and neither rationally, can you.

But you don't live that way. You don't spend a single moment presuming something came from nothing and nor do you extrapolate causes back to the big bang, we settle on first causes all the time.

I don't live as though everything is pretty much made of nothing; nobody does, but that's the evidence.Atoms are as near nothing as makes no difference. How you or I live here on earth makes no difference to what happens on the Cosmic scale or at sub atomic level. The short -sighted way we all live on earth is no argument about how everything really works. You cannot get anywhere by trying to force your 'nothing from nothing'mantra on us.

That might be universally true. It's certainly rationally appealing, but we don't actually know.