Wanted: posters to talk on intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts.

  • Thread starter Thread starter KingCoil
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ThinkingSapien said:
…]
Originally Posted by Here we go again
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingCoil View Post
, for example, that the universe has a beginning, science tells us, that is the fact.
Click to expand...
ThinkingS, you want me to mention the name of the theory on which is stated that the universe has a beginning?

Did you not read my mention of the standard model of the beginning of the universe in previous posts earlier?

And also about how scientists working on the facts in astronomical space and in sub-atomic space, namely, empirical evidence obtained with exacting detection technology, from which facts or empirical data they infer to the existence of a beginning of the universe some 13.8 billion years ago?

Let me read your reaction to this post, and please do not anymore resort to sniping, just tell me whether you have read in my previous posts on:

Did you not read my mention of the standard model of the beginning of the universe in previous posts earlier?

And also about how scientists working on the facts in astronomical space and in sub-atomic space, namely, empirical evidence obtained with exacting detection technology from which facts or empirical data they infer to the existence of a beginning of the universe some 13.8 billion years ago?

I am very keen to read your reaction, but please no sniping, just keep to the issue here, about scientists working on empirical evidence in astronomical space and in sub-atomic space inferred to the existence of the event of the beginning of the universe.

KingCoil
Click to expand...
 
Skeptic92 said:
Fake scholarly sheen? I’m a published Philosopher and Theologian; I assure you I am faking nothing. You are simply unwilling, or incapable, of participating in a rational discussion
Click to expand...
Glad you are still around.

Let us get down to productive busy-ness, on the fact of the beginning of the universe.

KingCoil
 
KingCoil said:
Glad you are still around.

Let us get down to productive busy-ness, on the fact of the beginning of the universe.

KingCoil
Click to expand...
I’ll engage when you start displaying some intellectual honesty. I have evaluated your argument and found it to be non-demonstrative, and without citation. Until you cite sources and provide an argument that is definitely sound I see no reason to accept it. I have provided you with a demonstrative argument for the Existence of God; based on Aquinas’ first 3 ways (cf; Summa Theologicae), Avicennas Argument from Necessary Existent (cf; Metaphysics of Healing), and Fr Robert Spitzers Metaphysical Argument for the Existence of God (cf; New Proofs for the Existence of God). I am ready to defend it when you are willing to actually provide me something to engage with, instead of lazy rhetoric and sophistry.
 
Skeptic92 said:
I’ll engage when you start displaying some intellectual honesty. I have evaluated your argument and found it to be non-demonstrative, and without citation. Until you cite sources and provide an argument that is definitely sound I see no reason to accept it. I have provided you with a demonstrative argument for the Existence of God; based on Aquinas’ first 3 ways (cf; Summa Theologicae), Avicennas Argument from Necessary Existent (cf; Metaphysics of Healing), and Fr Robert Spitzers Metaphysical Argument for the Existence of God (cf; New Proofs for the Existence of God). I am ready to defend it when you are willing to actually provide me something to engage with, instead of lazy rhetoric and sophistry.
Click to expand...
Did you not read what I said about posters here who are into demand for me to unneccessarily invest in time and labor to produce sources?

What I say about universe having a beginning is common stock knowledge of literate folks who follow developments in science.

What about the nose in our face, you want also sources?

Tell you what, you look up these words in the net, universe has a beginning.

The whole idea of bringing in sources is for insecure writers who cannot convince readers of their ideas, cannot with their stock knowledge common to all literate folks possessed of developments in science, in particular scientific cosmology; such insecure writers hope that then they can do away with intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts, by bringing in sources.

ThnkingS is no longer online, guess he has gone to celebrate July 4th; my land used to have that date as our independence day, then eventually from a sense of nationalism decided to do away with it, and got another day which is an important date in the revolution, that is June 12, corresponding to June 12, 1898, the date on which folks here the revolutionaries declared the land independent from Spain, but then the US bought this land from Spain for $20 millions.

Dear Skeptic, you of all people being a skeptic should give little worth to citing sources, if you analyze an issue on intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts, and also consulting the stock knowledge of everyone in a particular discipline, say, astronomy and astrophysics, and you come to the fact, then no amount of voluminous references will be of any value, except to others who are like yourself, insecure with their own thinking, thus having to bank on authorities.

KingCol
 
KingCoil said:
Did you not read what I said about posters here who are into demand for me to unneccessarily invest in time and labor to produce sources?

What I say about universe having a beginning is common stock knowledge of literate folks who follow developments in science.

What about the nose in our face, you want also sources?

Tell you what, you look up these words in the net, universe has a beginning.

The whole idea of bringing in sources is for insecure writers who cannot convince readers of their ideas, cannot with their stock knowledge common to all literate folks possessed of developments in science, in particular scientific cosmology; such insecure writers hope that then they can do away with intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts, by bringing in sources.

ThnkingS is no longer online, guess he has gone to celebrate July 4th; my land used to have that date as our independence day, then eventually from a sense of nationalism decided to do away with it, and got another day which is an important date in the revolution, that is June 12, corresponding to June 12, 1898, the date on which folks here the revolutionaries declared the land independent from Spain, but then the US bought this land from Spain for $20 millions.

Dear Skeptic, you of all people being a skeptic should give little worth to citing sources, if you analyze an issue on intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts, and also consulting the stock knowledge of everyone in a particular discipline, say, astronomy and astrophysics, and you come to the fact, then no amount of voluminous references will be of any value, except to others who are like yourself, insecure with their own thinking, thus having to bank on authorities.

KingCol
Click to expand...
I do follow the advancements in Modern Physics; and an absolute beginning in a finite past-time is anything but a uncontroversial premise. This is why the Kalam Argument is not universally accepted. I can think of a way you could make it demonstrative, but you have failed to do so.

Also if you want to talk “Logic”; the principles of Logic dictate that if challenged to produce sources for your argument that you must. I actually done this for you, it seems however you are completely unaware of the book. Which makes me think that your argument is begging the question.
 
Skeptic92 said:
I do follow the advancements in Modern Physics; and an absolute beginning in a finite past-time is anything but a uncontroversial premise. This is why the Kalam Argument is not universally accepted. I can think of a way you could make it demonstrative, but you have failed to do so.

Also if you want to talk “Logic”; the principles of Logic dictate that if challenged to produce sources for your argument that you must. I actually done this for you, it seems however you are completely unaware of the book. Which makes me think that your argument is begging the question.
Click to expand...
First, I never use the term kalam argument.

I always say from intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts.

You say: “the principles of Logic dictate that if challenged to produce sources for your argument that you must.”

Now, where did you get that idea?

From what authorities, namely, experts in the discipline of logic?

Logic broadly is thinking according to reason, like the part is smaller than the whole of which it is a part.

This is one occasion, namely, your statement, “the principles of Logic dictate that if challenged to produce sources for your argument that you must,” when you must produce an authority, namely, someone who has written texts accepted by everyone into logical thinking and writingm as to be binding upon themselves, because the writer has written so well and beyond challenge on what is logical and what is not logical.

Now, bringing in sources is not a part of logic.

Perhaps you are talking about the burden of proof is on the part of the one making a claim.

And that is not logic either, that is a rule in debate, a rule commonly accepted by all people who are into debate, but it is not all the time that one asserting something must prove it, for example, there is a nose in our face, does any human have to prove that by logical discourse? What about just each one touching the nose in the other one’s face; that is not proof by logic but by touching, and the logic there is that contra factum non est argumentum, namely, against the fact there is no argument.

KingCoi
 
Hi All, God conveyed to Moses His name, I AM That I AM.{ I exist I have always existed. A reasonable ,logical answer from God Himself. Folks I don’t know much scientific argumentation, this I do know, all things we do in life requires faith. This is I believe the bottom line.

God Bless
onenow1:pizza:
 
KingCoil said:
First, I never use the term kalam argument.

I always say from intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts.

You say: “the principles of Logic dictate that if challenged to produce sources for your argument that you must.”

Now, where did you get that idea?

From what authorities, namely, experts in the discipline of logic?

Logic broadly is thinking according to reason, like the part is smaller than the whole of which it is a part.

This is one occasion, namely, your statement, “the principles of Logic dictate that if challenged to produce sources for your argument that you must,” when you must produce an authority, namely, someone who has written texts accepted by everyone into logical thinking and writingm as to be binding upon themselves, because the writer has written so well and beyond challenge on what is logical and what is not logical.

Now, bringing in sources is not a part of logic.

Perhaps you are talking about the burden of proof is on the part of the one making a claim.

And that is not logic either, that is a rule in debate, a rule commonly accepted by all people who are into debate, but it is not all the time that one asserting something must prove it, for example, there is a nose in our face, does any human have to prove that by logical discourse? What about just each one touching the nose in the other one’s face; that is not proof by logic but by touching, and the logic there is that contra factum non est argumentum, namely, against the fact there is no argument.

KingCoi
Click to expand...
No shifting the burden of proof is a logical fallacy- therefore the principles of the burden of proof are a part of logic, not a rule of debate. My main sources on Logic are Aristotles Organon, Peter Coffey The Science of Logic Vol 1 and 2, Peter Kreeft Socratic Logic. I also have studied modern Symbolic Logic, however I do not consider it all that useful Philosophically.

You are employing the Kalam Cosmological Argument; it is however being employed in the manner of William Lane Craig, whose presentation I hold suspect due to it being non-demonstrative. If you can provide an argument based on the Ontology of Time that demonstrates that it can not, even in principle, infinitely regress- please do. Until then your argument is inherently probabilistic and I would therefore see it as worthless compared to Metaphysical Demonstration.
 
onenow1 said:
Hi All, God conveyed to Moses His name, I AM That I AM.{ I exist I have always existed. A reasonable ,logical answer from God Himself. Folks I don’t know much scientific argumentation, this I do know, all things we do in life requires faith. This is I believe the bottom line.

God Bless
onenow1:pizza:
Click to expand...
That is all right, still the Catholic Churches teaches that man can come to know God creator of the universe without the divine revelation which is accepted on faith.

My purpose is to get folks to concur with me that the universe having a beginning is the evidence that God creator of the universe exists, and that is founded on intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts.

KingCoil
 
Skeptic92 said:
No shifting the burden of proof is a logical fallacy- therefore the principles of the burden of proof are a part of logic, not a rule of debate. My main sources on Logic are Aristotles Organon, Peter Coffey The Science of Logic Vol 1 and 2, Peter Kreeft Socratic Logic. I also have studied modern Symbolic Logic, however I do not consider it all that useful Philosophically.

You are employing the Kalam Cosmological Argument; it is however being employed in the manner of William Lane Craig, whose presentation I hold suspect due to it being non-demonstrative. If you can provide an argument based on the Ontology of Time that demonstrates that it can not, even in principle, infinitely regress- please do. Until then your argument is inherently probabilistic and I would therefore see it as worthless compared to Metaphysical Demonstration.
Click to expand...
Okay, I will not argue with you about sources, but only about intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts.

Now, tell me, do you know that majority of scientists adhere to the idea that the universe has a beginning?

KingCoil
 
KingCoil said:
Okay, I will not argue with you about sources, but only about intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts.

Now, tell me, do you know that majority of scientists adhere to the idea that the universe has a beginning?

KingCoil
Click to expand...
Yes; are you going to tell me why? or you going to keep question begging? You realise you keep committing logical fallacies, which means that you are not thinking grounded on “logic” but empty rhetoric.
 
Skeptic92 said:
Yes; are you going to tell me why? or you going to keep question begging? You realise you keep committing logical fallacies, which means that you are not thinking grounded on “logic” but empty rhetoric.
Click to expand...
Please, tell me if you know that majority of scientists adhere to the idea that the universe has a beginning.

That is a component of the argument founded on intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts, that God exists as creator of the universe.

Do you want me to repeat again my argument founded on intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts?

Or you prefer to give me your argument in concise and precise wording, whatever kind of argument, to what purpose, that there is no God creator of the universe, or there is God creator of the universe?

KingCoil
 
KingCoil said:
Please, tell me if you know that majority of scientists adhere to the idea that the universe has a beginning.

That is a component of the argument founded on intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts, that God exists as creator of the universe.

Do you want me to repeat again my argument founded on intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts?

Or you prefer to give me your argument in concise and precise wording, whatever kind of argument, to what purpose, that there is no God creator of the universe, or there is God creator of the universe?

KingCoil
Click to expand...
I have; you are acting illogically and irrationally. We’re done here.
 
Skeptic92 said:
I have; you are acting illogically and irrationally. We’re done here.
Click to expand...
That is not the way to argue, by repeating that I am into fallacies, into rhetoric, etc., suppose I ask you to prove that I am into fallacies, rhetoric. illogical, irrational utterances.

I ask you to tell me whether you know majority of scientists, etc.

You do not tell me.

I ask you to present your argument whatever for, and whatever kind of, you do not.

Now you declare you are what, your are done here; but you have not produced any argument, and have not told me whether you know majority of scientists adhere to the idea that the universe has a beginning.

Tell you what, you want to bring up what, a metaphysical argument for God existing or God not existing, please do; and I will see whether we can do something about that, from the exercise of intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts, to concur on something and move on and on until we concur that God does not exist or God exists.

That is the way to argue, not with telling yourself all the time that I am into fallacies, rhetoric, illogical, irrational utterances.

KingCoil
 
Wait, wait, sorry, you say you have.

What have you done, produce an argument, in precise and concise words? Or you have looked up the net on these words, universe has a beginning?

Please forgive me, but I get distracted by your mantra of telling yourself and me also that I am into fallacies, rhetoric, illogical, irrational utterances.

And with ThinkingS, he congratulates himself that has made it impossible for himself to see my screenshots, which are often resorted to, to convey a whole post, to save me character space which are in this forum limited to 6000 characters per post.

I will say to myself with sadness, all this kind of behavior from your part is indicative of no intelligent thinking and acting, due to lack of logic and lack of adherence to facts.

KingCoil
 
I am also done for today, happy July 4th to guys in the US.

KingCoil
 
Dear readers here, as the author of this thread it is my competence to make sure that posters here are not into sabotaging the thread by endless irrelevant nitpicking and other unprofitable postings
ThinkingSapien said:
Originally Posted by KingCoil View Post
Did you not read my mention of the standard model of the beginning of the universe in previous posts earlier?
Click to expand...
That is an allegation.

The common stock knowledge of people who follow on developments in science are cognizant of the idea from majority of scientists today that there is the fact of the universe having started some 13.8 billion years ago.

Dear ThinkingS, is it your intention to go on and on and on with irrelevant nitpicking, like asking about or alleging something that is against already common knowledge?

Please don’t.

May I just ask you whether you are going to engage me with the fact of the universe having a beginning some 13.8 billion years ago, or not?

You can say that it is not the fact that the universe has a beginning.

That is one way of being profitable in this thread.

Or think up other ways by which you can be profitable to readers who want to find out how the universe having a beginning is the evidence from intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts that God is the creator of the universe, or is not the creator of the universe…

KingCoil
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top