That was the nail in the coffin for me.
When so many present well founded and researched examples to counter the Kalam, and he just flat-out rejects them, his mind is closed.
Why bother spending so much time and effort composing posts when he will just reject it no matter what the content?
And why does he continually seek a “yes” instead of a “no” answer for his questions?
Exactly, and he is desperate for any “yes”.
I can’t be alone in wondering what they hope to gain?
Yessssss, I’ve convinced myself that my arguments for an unevidenced deity, from an archaic superstition, are compelling, and though atheists I’ve spoken to have pointed out rational flaws and fallacies, I just kept shifting to new arguments and assumptions to avoid addressing those, so I could claim a “win”, with a nonsense argument that adding irrational and flawed arguments together provides a cumulative weight to my core superstion.
A pretty hollow victory to any rational individual.
Ah, I see what I did there at the end…
Merry Christmas to all!
I’ll read and respond soon. Hope you guys have a great holiday season.
@boomer47, thanks for your post. There is a lot in your post that I already mentioned I will not be responding to yet to ensure efficient and effective conversation. Until we get there please refer to that post.
Great so you are a “yes”. I will add that to the Yes pile. I don’t have an argument further on this point since you’ve said yes. I will attempt to see if more people are on the same page as you and then move on the next question.
@Sheldon thanks for your post. I think this is the second time I’ve given an answer to that question of “objective evidence demonstration” in an earlier post. Please look at that. Secondly, there is a lot in your post that I already mentioned I will not be responding to yet to ensure efficient and effective conversation. Until we get there please refer to that post to know the current focus of our conversation.
For the first point. thanks for your correction on guilty and not guilty in a later post.
Second, the terms “guilty” and “innocence” are truth claims sir/ma’am (someone did/didn’t do something immoral). So your position as stated is untenable (perhaps there’s a different wording that would clarify your thoughts). You hold to the position, No: CCA cannot establish weight in truth claims. But then you said that it CAN establish claims of innocence/guilt which are truth claims. There for it’s contradicting. Q2: Please explain before I respond.
Finally here’s the main question and what I’ll focus on for now: **Q3: 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. because as of now the argument stands and I have not seen a argument against it before this post. (If you have please list the argument(s) and post links to them.)
Please respond to the main question which lead to that statement: Q3: 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. because as of now the argument stands and I have not seen a argument against it before this post. (If you have please list the argument(s) and post links to them.)
@Nyarlathotep,
Thanks for your post! And yes, you are correct with your assessment of what kind of logic I was referring to. Also, I’m excited to talk to a professional logician! Here’s my response.
Q1: Please prove how courts do not use formal logic if premise 1. is correct.
Q2: Secondly, prove how a person can prove a person innocent/guilty without formal logic such as this.
Lastly, please respond to this main question mentioned in my prior post: Q3: 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. Because as of now the argument stands and I have not seen a argument against it before this post. (If you have please list the argument(s) and post links to them.)
I have not run across this term. Please educate me on what it means and how you see it answering my current main question the thread of " Is Cumulative Case Argumentation a good way of establishing weight for truth claims? Yes/No and then please state why." as you have not yet answered that question and I’ve assessed that it’s critical for us to clear up before moving forward.
@Sheldon thanks for your post. I think this is the THIRD time I’ve mentioned that I’ve already given an answer to that question of “objective evidence demonstration” in an earlier post. Please look at that. Secondly, there is a lot in your post that I already mentioned I will not be responding to yet to ensure efficient and effective conversation. Until we get there please refer to that post to know the current focus of our conversation as you have not answered this question: Is Cumulative Case Argumentation a good way of establishing weight for truth claims? Yes/No and then please state why.
@Sheldon, thanks for your post. There is a lot in your post that I already mentioned I will not be responding to YET to ensure efficient and effective conversation. Until we get there please refer to that post to know the current focus of our conversation as you have not answered this question: Is Cumulative Case Argumentation a good way of establishing weight for truth claims? Yes/No and then please state why.
@David_Killens, I’d love to discuss these! Honestly, I would. After we get through CCA I’m down to make the necessary steps to get there! Until then, please refer to the follow up question to your position of a Yes for CCA. "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."
The balance of probability standard means that a court is satisfied an event occurred if the court considers that, on the evidence, the occurrence of the event was more likely than not.
For instance Bart Ehrmann considers that the existence if a non divine, fully human jesus figure in the first 40 years of the 1st century CE likely on the “balance of probabilities” based on his historiography . Not from direct historical evidence. That verdict would not be available in a criminal trial.
“Beyond reasonable doubt” is the standard in Criminal cases, “Balance of Probabilities” in the Industrial and civil courts.
That does NOT mean “cumulative evidence” which is just not a formal, legal, thing anywhere except in your fevered and overwrought imagination.
There is a third verdict available in Scottish Courts that of “Not Proven”.
As far as I am aware there has never been a court judgement in ANY criminal court that relies solely on formal logic which is a tool of philosophers not legal professionals, nor for that matter professional historians. .
@Nyarlathotep and @David_Killens. Thanks for your question. I’ll clarify this one and stop there. Yes/No helps me to know your position quickly and clearly. The “why” provides space to expand the nuances of your position to be fair so I can understand your position better. If you have a better format please let me know but until this I’m going with this. =D.
Thanks so much for your time in explaining this! I didn’t know that term. =] I’ve only been on juries in criminal cases so that’s helpful.
Please clarify how you see “balance of probabilities” answering my current main question the thread of " Is Cumulative Case Argumentation a good way of establishing weight for truth claims? Yes/No and then please state why." as you have not yet answered that question and I’ve assessed that it’s critical for us to clear up before moving forward.
To All,
Have a Merry Christmas! I’ve responded to all posts with arguments addressing the current main question! I’ll respond to any new ones soon!
NO NO NO
In a court of law this is circumstantial evidence, and will never cross the finish line into a definite determination of guilt.
And the same applies to your dishonest representation in here by attempting to reverse the burden of proof. No matter how many “yes” you accumulate in this forum, that does not cross the finish line and establishes anything.
You are like a virgin. No matter how close your penis comes to penetration, until it actually does, you are still a virgin. Moving closer does not do that.
@studentfinalpaper You should hang your head in shame attempting such a dishonest approach and strategy. The Kalam has been debunked many times, those arguments have been presented in here, yet you casually discard them.
This is despicable and shameful conduct by one posing as a student and person of integrity.
As I already stated:
Therefore your insistence on a yes/no answer to its non existent validity is dishonest.
As has been stated, ad nauseum, in this thread the Kalam, its Cosmological brothers and any other attempt by word play to establish the existence of a Creator/ God is and has been comprehensively debunked both here and in the wider community.
