User Tag List

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 72

Thread: Walton vs. axiom-tech discussion

  1. #31
    Trainee
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    5
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Aww man, Frank needs to get his act together! His last debate was a complete debacle as well. I was I staunch supporter and yet he seems to turn every encounter with others to garbage. Yeah, he's not worth dealing with. ** EDITED by Knight** Frank
    Last edited by Knight; April 30th, 2007 at 07:44 PM.

  2. #32
    Rookie axiom-tech's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    29
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    123
    REBUTTAL #2

    AT has already assumed that nature is uniform when it’s the very thing he must be proving! He is begging the question!
    Frank, as condescending as this may sound, you really need to take a philosophy 101 class, or read a book. It's embarrassing enough that you've been banned for being a jerk, but your rebuttals are just bleeding with your ignorance. I am only continuing this debate out of respect.

    For example:

    You accusing me of committing the fallacy of 'begging the question' - I don't know if you're familiar with what this means, but its when a premise in an argument presupposes the conclusion in some way.

    Example:

    God exists because the Bible says so. The Bible was written by God.
    The conclusion is 'god exists' and his premise 'because the bible says so' assumes the conclusion. Since my conclusion is *not* that nature is uniform, but rather, that all explanations therefore must be naturalistic, and I have nowhere in my premise(s) the conclusion, this is not 'begging the question.'

    Here's what it would look like to beg the question in respect to induction.

    Since nature has always been uniform in the past, tomorrow it will be uniform.
    How, AT, can you account for the uniformity of nature?
    Frank, please answer my question

    Frank, does god have a nature? Is it not in god's nature to be good? What reason does god have to expect that tomorrow his nature will change to evil, or suddenly he becomes not all-powerful? The truth is, you most likely believe that gods nature is eternal and unchanging (uniform). Please explain what accounts for the uniformity of god's nature. Sure, god may control this world, but that presupposes he does so based on his will or nature which is unchanging.

    If you answer "His eternal nature just is" - then my reply to the problem of induction is 'The cosmos reflects eternal laws which govern all that is'
    Currently, I'm quite skeptical a justification is possible or even needed for induction. All apparent justifications have been circular. As of now I simply presuppose the uniformity of nature, as somewhat of an axiom. All things aside, I'm guessing you think you do have a justification for induction, if that's true frank then can you please address my *argument* - If you think we're justified in using induction, then address my inductive argument!

    Well, as far as I can tell the uniformity of nature assumes a super naturalistic explanation. I’d like to see how AT deals with that argument.
    Please explain this. Answer my questions above.


    AT believes that the physical brain is the mind. And the mind is the physical brain.
    The mind is what the brain does. Just as digestion is what a stomach does. This also is not what "I believe" but rather the conclusion that the scientific community has made.

    It’s just physical. And if our “minds” are nothing but physical entities do we label our “thinking” false or true? That would be as meaningful as saying your chair is false.
    Huh? 'thinking' is not true or false, statements are. Truth is the status of a statement. Even if our minds were nonphysical, or made of water they would not be 'true' - What on earth are you smoking my friend, holy cow.

    If the world were only made of matter, our subjective consciousness would not exist. But they do exist!
    Oh brother. I recommend "How the Mind Works by Steven Pinker" - "The Mind's I: Fantasies and Reflections on Self & Soul by Douglas R. Hofstadter, Daniel C. Dennett"

    However, even if we grant his premise (via induction) it doesn’t necessarily follow that God doesn’t exist because we can give evidence for immaterial minds
    Finally. This is your only example in this debate where you actually address my arguments. 25/990 words of your entire reubuttle. Provide one example of a mind with out a physical machine.

    Does a machine like a car feel a mental sensation like pain though? Sadly, AT describes our minds as “machines” too.
    No, not like a car, but yes machines can, in principle feel pain. Please read the MINDS-I.

    God is by definition not physical like us. In fact, my opponent agreed with me. In his opening, he states that God is “Transcendent (above nature / beyond)” and “Disembodied (no physical body).” If God has no physical body then obviously he would have no physical brain.
    Frank, that's my point. My argument supports the conclusion that such a being can't exist!

    AT’s argument for naturalism and the mind-body via induction is filled with logical fallacies, and he has yet to deal with the problem of induction as well as refute my evolutionary argument against naturalism and then some.
    1) You only listed one logical fallacy, which ended up not even being a fallacy
    2) You have not given an account for the problem of induction
    3) You have not even mentioned why my refutation is the EVAAN fails

  3. #33
    Your powers are weak, old man. Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    26,545
    Thanks
    199
    Thanked 1,217 Times in 646 Posts

    Blog Entries
    6
    Mentioned
    61 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    951532
    Quote Originally Posted by Turbo View Post
    I guess by "I'm willing to let this slide," Frank meant: I am ready to go down in flames over this.
    Also be sure to.... Join TOL on Facebook | Follow TOL on Twitter
    TOL Newbies CLICK HERE or....upgrade your TOL today!

    Download the new TOL app for iPhone, iPad, and Android...


  4. #34
    Your powers are weak, old man. Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    26,545
    Thanks
    199
    Thanked 1,217 Times in 646 Posts

    Blog Entries
    6
    Mentioned
    61 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    951532
    Quote Originally Posted by axiom-tech View Post
    Ok, I want to respond to his last post, is it ok if I posted it here? Will i be banned for that?
    No. Go for it.

    It wasn't your fault your opponent wasn't prepared for battle.
    Also be sure to.... Join TOL on Facebook | Follow TOL on Twitter
    TOL Newbies CLICK HERE or....upgrade your TOL today!

    Download the new TOL app for iPhone, iPad, and Android...


  5. #35
    Over 3000 post club PKevman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Indianapolis, IN.
    Posts
    3,630
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 71 Times in 71 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    2148
    How truly sad that Frank acted that way. I sure hope he sees that what he did is wrong and repents of it. If he had just stayed on topic he could have destroyed Axiom's arguments with the light of truth REGARDLESS of how many words Axiom used. I for one know firsthand the feeling of having someone attempt to bend the rules in a debate, but at least these were Axiom's own words and it didn't SEEM to be intentional!

  6. #36
    Over 3000 post club PKevman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Indianapolis, IN.
    Posts
    3,630
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 71 Times in 71 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    2148
    Frank if you read this, you brought shame to the name of Christ and gave legitimacy to the atheists on this board and their positions. I have a feeling we will be hearing about this for a long time. You should be ashamed of yourself. God's truth will always prevail, you should know that!

    Further, I don't appreciate your treatment of Knight, is a friend and a brother in Christ to me. You don't even know the man, and you made some very serious accusations against his character. I find that behavior to be utterly inexcusable! I have always found Knight to be reasonable and he always attempts to do the right thing. Your banning comes well-deserved in my opinion!

  7. #37
    Your powers are weak, old man. Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    26,545
    Thanks
    199
    Thanked 1,217 Times in 646 Posts

    Blog Entries
    6
    Mentioned
    61 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    951532
    Quote Originally Posted by PastorKevin View Post
    How truly sad that Frank acted that way. I sure hope he sees that what he did is wrong and repents of it. If he had just stayed on topic he could have destroyed Axiom's arguments with the light of truth REGARDLESS of how many words Axiom used. I for one know firsthand the feeling of having someone attempt to bend the rules in a debate, but at least these were Axiom's own words and it didn't SEEM to be intentional!
    That's a great point, and that's pretty much what I tried to tell Frank in my email (the one before he told me I "suck").

    In PastorKevin's case his opponent did what I would call a MAJOR infraction but PastorKevin stayed the course and knew what was most important which was getting the truth out and making his point.

    One final note....

    Frank accuses us of not moderating the debate but that is a lie. Turbo made the judgment on Sunday that we should let the minor infraction "slide" which Frank said himself he would stand by. That wasn't good enough for Frank. Ultimately Frank didn't want us to moderate the debate.... he wanted to moderate it himself and he was hoping to win on a technicality.
    Also be sure to.... Join TOL on Facebook | Follow TOL on Twitter
    TOL Newbies CLICK HERE or....upgrade your TOL today!

    Download the new TOL app for iPhone, iPad, and Android...


  8. #38
    Rookie axiom-tech's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    29
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    123
    If then

    ~

    Therefore:

  9. #39
    Journeyman macguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    California
    Posts
    148
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    129
    Quote Originally Posted by axiom-tech View Post
    REBUTTAL #2
    Frank, please answer my question
    You do realize that these debates go in this order correct?


    Opening Statement (A) > Rebuttal #1 (F) > Rebuttal #2 (A) > Conclusion (F)

    Opening Statement (F) > Rebuttal #1 (A) > Rebuttal #2 (F) > Conclusion (A)


    So in his second rebuttal, he has answered your arguments in regards to your first rebuttal. You'll notice that he essentially starts his 1st rebuttal like this:

    Axiom-Tech (AT) first starts off by stating my God is no more meaningful than any other gods and would be on “equal terms” with them. Practically speaking not all gods are the same.

    In this case he was obviously replying to your open statement. In which case his second rebuttal should address your arguments. In regards to your mind argument, he hasn't replied because those observations that you speak of is using the inductive method correct? So why should he solve something when you haven't addressed the other issue that is purported to support your proposition?
    The voiceless, the wasted...You soaked your hearts in gasoline. Now light it up and burn.

  10. #40
    Rookie axiom-tech's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    29
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    123
    Conclusion

    Unfortunately Frank decided to tighten the screws in the debate at the end. I can not possibly respond and clean up the huge mess Frank left in his last rebuttal. Such an orgy of out-of-context, misquotes, fallacies, etc etc. I shal try.

    I doubt that AT even understood the point of my argument as I read his “Wal-Mart” example which is a clear false analogy to what I’m suggesting.


    What's analogous is the reasoning.

    “Perhaps Paul very much likes the idea of being eaten, but when he sees a tiger, always runs off looking for a better prospect, because he thinks it unlikely that the tiger he sees will eat him. This will get his body parts in the right place so far as survival is concerned, without involving much by way of true belief.” [1]


    Frank, I'd love to respond to the EAAN, but with a 600 word limit I simply can't.

    a belief has warrant for someone if and only if that belief was formed by cognitive faculties that are functioning properly in accordance with a design plan in an environment appropriate for the way those faculties were designed and when the design plan for our faculties is aimed at obtaining truth.


    By this reasoning, god is not justified in believing his cogfactulites are reliable since he was not designed, and therefore are not functioning in accordance with a design plan.

    AT asks me to explain a “chance universe.” A chance universe is that which is random and unpredictable.


    I don't believe in a chance universe. So your earlier accusation fails.

    AT asks how don’t we know that God will change in the future. It’s quite easy really. The God of Christianity is a covenant keeping God.


    What does this mean? That he keeps his promises? That begs the question Frank, since I asked how you justify the belief that god's nature is uniform. Saying he keeps his promises assumes his nature is uniform - notice the word 'keeps' ? Same game.

    You make assumptions, as do I. Give the induction stuff up.

    AT says his reply to the problem of induction is “The cosmos reflects eternal laws which govern all that is.”


    False. I said that would by my hypothetical response *IF* you answered my question in a certain way, which you did.

    --

    I'd continue trying to hose down the fallacious vomit Frank has smeared all over this debate, but I simply do not have enough water.

    In conclusion:

    This debate was over whether or not a god exists. I provided positive arguments which suggested such a being could not, and therefore does not. All we heard from Frank's side was a poorly executed presuppositional argument fails since it's conclusion can be said to fall into the same problem. Even if we pretend such an argument works, it at best only concludes at sometime in the past there was a being that made the universe a certain way. Nothing more, no Jesus, no angels, no bible.

    His second argument was a huge logical fallacy, he contradicted himself, used oxymoron's to justify his already fallacious argument. If I were to print Franks opening statement out and turn it in as homework for a philosophy class, the teacher would fail me.

    I of course, am willing to debate Frank, or anyone else for that matter (including childish bigots like Rook, and perverted losers like Sapient), any time. Formal or informal.

    - Thank you

  11. #41
    Your powers are weak, old man. Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    26,545
    Thanks
    199
    Thanked 1,217 Times in 646 Posts

    Blog Entries
    6
    Mentioned
    61 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    951532
    The real "Does God Exist?" debate is located here.
    Also be sure to.... Join TOL on Facebook | Follow TOL on Twitter
    TOL Newbies CLICK HERE or....upgrade your TOL today!

    Download the new TOL app for iPhone, iPad, and Android...


  12. #42
    Over 3000 post club PKevman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Indianapolis, IN.
    Posts
    3,630
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 71 Times in 71 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    2148
    Quote Originally Posted by Knight View Post
    The real "Does God Exist?" debate is located here.
    In which the atheist was utterly WAXED by the truth!

  13. #43
    Over 4000 post club fool's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    4,609
    Thanks
    110
    Thanked 426 Times in 280 Posts

    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    157348
    Quote Originally Posted by PastorKevin View Post
    In which the atheist was utterly WAXED by the truth!
    OR,
    bored to within an inch of his life by the trite appeal to consequence and sickened by the TAG regurgitated for the millionth time.
    Everyman is a voice in the dark.
    I II III IV

  14. #44
    Silver Member The Berean's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Wacky California
    Posts
    4,221
    Thanks
    12
    Thanked 387 Times in 256 Posts

    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    266393
    Quote Originally Posted by Nomad View Post
    So...can we provide our own refutations of their arguments? Is there something our comments should be limited to?

    Knight, you sound like Hugo from Lost.
    "Like, dude...."
    Your problem is not technology. The problem is YOU. You lack the will to change...You treat this planet as you treat each other. - Klaatu

    What are you talking about? There is no such thing as the "Mafia"......it doesn't exist. Just a bunch of lies told to defame honest hardworking Italians like myself. - TomO

    I will do you, let's see, goofy, wacky, and to the left side of the bell curve
    . -Ktoyou

    I'm white. I'm not black. I can't convert to being black. It doesn't matter how much I want to become black. I could listen to rap and date fat white women all day; for all that, I'll still remain white.- Traditio

  15. #45
    Journeyman macguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    California
    Posts
    148
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    129
    Quote Originally Posted by Knight View Post
    The real "Does God Exist?" debate is located here.
    Thanks for sharing Knight! I am curious, has there ever been a successful creationist who won a debate? If not, I guess when I am 16 then I'll try a one-one someday. Or is there a age limit guideline for this? :P
    The voiceless, the wasted...You soaked your hearts in gasoline. Now light it up and burn.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us