Ditto. Although this person has demonstrated a command of the English language, it can not deal with concepts and think for itself. It has casually rejected every valid argument against the propositions, thus completely wasting everyone’s time.
Once again, we see a “student” appear to be willing to learn, but departs having proven otherwise.
Yup - in one of life’s greatest lessons. The value of learning.
He’s also made the unevidenced assertion his deity is beginningless.
Which is also a begging the question fallacy, when an argument contains unevidenced assumptions about the very thing he’s arguing for.
Your first post cited the KC argument, I and several others pointed out the several known logical fallacies it contains, that meaning is irrational.
Since then you have evade, spun, and waffled, but not addressed those.
I asked you already, do you acknowledge the nown logical fallacies pointed out in your opening argument, YES or NO?
Can you demonstrate any objective evidence for any deity, YES or NO?
Until you address your opening errors I’ve no interest in letting you railroad the debate on and on with pointless questions that fail to even acknowledge this, let alone give a candid response. [quote=“studentfinalpaper, post:129, topic:847”]
Please answer Yes/No
[/quote]
You first please. Show some integrity and might get some respect.
How likely is an irrational argument to be true? And your OP cites an irrational argument.
If you’re claiming yes, then please do so, and stop wasting time with irrational arguments, and useless metaphors.
After reading your posts, I found many comments on points but few addressing the very question I mentioned I would be focusing on first. Thus far, I have one affirmative to my question and the following no’s with counter arguments/reasons as to why we can’t use CCA to establish weight for truth claims:
THE YES
THE NO’S
Because CCA do not contain proofs.
@Nyarlathotep “Because cumulative case arguments are not proofs? I assume we are talking about logic, not legal matters; right?”
CCA isn’t the same as logic
@Nyarlathotep "But that isn’t logic at all. Logic is a very different animal. "
Because CCA cannot determine (in most/some cases) the a truth claim.
@Whitefire13 “This method by no means gets you to “truth”. It can establish claims of innocence or guilt - legal terms, but cannot determine (in most or some cases) the truth of the event…“Guilty” proved innocent via DNA…[etc].”
CCA is rather faulty in the court (implicit argument) it is therefore faulty always.
@Whitefire13 “Guilty” proved innocent via DNA…[etc]."
Question with implication: no argument can have more weight than another.
@Nyarlathotep “Can one argument have more weight than other?”
Here’s my response:
To The YES
@David_Killens since you said “…it establishes weight. But it does not establish whether it is true…” would you say then that CCA is therefore unreliable? If so I can move you to the No’s side.
To the NO’s
OVERALL REBUTTAL:
FOR ALL OF THOSE ARGUING NO… YOU ARE USING MULTIPLE ARGUMENTS TO ESTABLISH THE WEIGHT OF YOUR CLAIM THAT CCA SHOULD NOT BE USED FOR TRUTH CLAIMS. ESSENTIALLY YOUR USING CCA (OR A VARIATION OF IT) TO ARGUE AGAINST CCA. THIS IS SELF REFUTATION. If CCA is untenable then why did you just use it? IF YOU DISAGREE PLEASE PROVE WHY YOUR CLAIM THAT CCA IS WRONG IS CORRECT.
MINOR REBUTTALS:
1) Because CCA do not contain proofs.
@Nyarlathotep "Because cumulative case arguments are not proofs? I assume we are talking about logic, not legal matters; right?"
I said establishing weight for truth claims. Also, are you saying that Courts are not founded upon nor heavily use Logic for their cases?
2) CCA isn’t the same as logic
@Nyarlathotep "But that isn’t logic at all. Logic is a very different animal. "
What is the difference between CCA and Logic. Please explain in such a way that proves that CCA isn’t logic nor can be compared to it.
3) Because CCA cannot determine (in most/some cases) the a truth claim.
@Whitefire13 "This method by no means gets you to “truth”. It can establish claims of innocence or guilt - legal terms, but cannot determine (in most or some cases) the truth of the event."
**4) CCA is rather faulty in the court (implicit argument) it is therefore faulty always. **
@Whitefire13 “Guilty” proved innocent via DNA…[etc]."
If its always faulty in court then you would say that you DO NOT SUPPORT our justice system correct and that most/ over 50% prisoners in jail right now are innocent?
4) Question with implication: no argument can have more weight than another.
@Nyarlathotep "Can one argument have more weight than other?"
Please offer proof that all arguments have the same weight. I’m seeing this as unfruitful as whatever you argue will have the same weight as my counter arguments according to your view and it will end up being self-refuting.
I’ll be back (probably in a week to see your posts and respond). But overall. I’m ruling the arguments given against CCA here as self refuting and there still hasn’t been a solid case against it. You awesome people have a Merry Christmas!
There is no contemporary evidence for the historicity of Jesus. His existence has never been demonstrated. (see Dr Richard Carrier on the historicity of Jesus) Nor is there a consensus among biblical scholars.
Seems you have not quite grasped the notion of objective evidence. Look it up.
I’ve already said once, the bible is not an accepted source of evidence. It’s mythology.
Try this test: get hold of 4 bibles, same translation. Open each one at the account of the resurrection. The gospel writers can’t even agree of the details of the resurrection.
Reference:
Nup. You may not move the burden of proof. (see Russell’s Teapot below) It is you who have made the claim. It is up to you to provide objective evidence. It is not up to others to disprove your claim.
Well yeah, it’s called inductive logic. It was good enough for Sherlock Holmes. So far, it’s not working for you because you have ye to provide any objective evidence.
If you’re claiming it’s yes the please present it.
Do you accept that the KCA you cited in your OP contains several known logical fallacies YES or NO?
How can infinite regress be impossible and illogical as you claim, if a deity has always existed, as you also claim.
What objective evidence can you demonstrate for your assumption a deity is “beginning-less”?
When the KCA says in its first premise that everything that begins to exist has a cause. How many of those examples can you demonstrate any objective evidence had a supernatural cause, or that started to exist outside of the temporal condition of the physical material universe.
This is a straw man. I never said what you claim…CCA is rather faulty in the court (implicit argument) it is therefore faulty always.
You are arguing against something I did not say. Dishonest tactic.
This is a correct quotation of my position. (#3)
My comments in full context.
Do you need clarification? Some found “guilty” and put on death row were later exonerated via DNA 
…
Some break the laws/harm others and ARE found “not guilty”. (Maybe my use of innocent is what confused you - poor choice of word on my part). Guilty or NOT Guilty.
Beyond a reasonable doubt.
That is the standard for evidence in a Criminal Case (which is where I addressed the method you described).
When presented with a claim - any claim - imagine yourself as a “judge” or perhaps “jury” regarding the validity of what is being presented or claimed.
In a court the Prosecutor presenting a claim DOES not get to ramble on without CHALLENGES to the validity of his arguments or validity of the evidence being presented.
Lol! Insight and thinking ability of shit 
. He was the fucking Prosecutor!
Some people mean common sense when they say logic. If that is what you mean: I don’t give a fuck what your common sense says. Don’t waste our time appealing to that.
If however, you mean formal logic; well that is right up my alley, as I am a professional logician. The problem with this is what you are saying is definitely not this formal logic. This formal logic is not used in courts, and your argument seems to have nothing to do with this logic.
eta: But this formal logic is typically the kind of logic associated with discussion of philosophical arguments such as Kalam Cosmological Argument; the title of this thread. So if you don’t mean this kind of logic, I’m sorry; but it sure seems like this is the kind of logic you meant.
Are you having difficulty with the term “balance of probability”?
Sweetie - old man 
… he set himself up as the judge over who wins the debate lol 
He definitely has some difficulties.
Hasn’t looked up confirmation bias…
Oh yes, that is obvious. That he can get to college(?) and be unaware of the burden of proof in criminal (Beyond reasonable doubt) VS Civil courts (Balance of probabilities) is amazing.
That he does not understand “balance of probabilities” ( even though they will come down decidedly against his point of view) is negligent by his parents and his teachers.
That is the very sad thing.
I have the distinct impression that it’s a bible college rather than a real one.
Which explains the lack of education. Or at least the inability to express oneself in a clear, succinct and logical manner.
Although, going to a real university brings no guarantees. One doesn’t need to be especially bright to earn most undergraduate degrees.
Eg with a few exceptions, historians tend to be dreadful writers. I suspect the same goes to many people with advanced science and professional degrees,.
Having said that, I’m not convinced that’s the case with our little friend.
When you’re done telling everyone what new topic you’ve introduced is now the main topic, to ignore all your previously debunked claims and arguments…
If you’re claiming it’s yes the please present it.
Do you accept that the KCA you cited in your OP contains several known logical fallacies YES or NO?
How can infinite regress be impossible and illogical as you claim, if a deity has always existed, as you also claim.
What objective evidence can you demonstrate for your assumption a deity is “beginning-less”?
When the KCA says in its first premise that everything that begins to exist has a cause. How many of those examples can you demonstrate any objective evidence had a supernatural cause, or that started to exist outside of the temporal condition of the physical material universe.
We seem to have another Breezy on our hands here…
My own thoughts are that this was lie. You clearly have zero interest knowing about the flaws in the KCA, as you’ve ignored them for over 150 posts, and are trying your best to endlessly redefine the purpose of the thread as a smokescreen.
studentfinalpaper,
universe has time, space, and a beginning, then WLC is arguing that The Cause would have to exist “outside”/sans those things. This would get someone logically to a Timeless, spaceless, being with no beginning. That part seems logical to me but perhaps I missed something.How is the first premise false?
Your missing any objective evidence for such a “being” or indeed any rational or scientific argument it has to be a “being”, you’re also missing the fact WLC’s assumption about the nature of the “being” he’s arguing for, in that argument, mean he’s used a begging the question fallacy.
The first premise is irrational because WLC is creating a rule from examples understood within the temporal material universe, worse still, each and every one of those example has a natural cause. Then WLC makes the assumptions that a) this rule would apply to a non temporal condition with no physical universe existing, sans any evidence of course, and b) that the cause is something no one has ever demonstrated any objective evidence for even once, or can even show is possible, a supernatural cause. And from a deity he cannot evidence, else why waste time using this woeful argument, or explain beyond bare assertions about its nature.
He’s also using a special pleading fallacy to exempt that deity from his rule, assuming it transcends time, a begging the question fallacy again, and on and on it goes.
The argument is not logical at all, and has more holes in it that a creationists brain.
