Question 1: Kalam Cosmological Argument

[Nyarlathotep]

@studentfinalpaper

An argument gaining in force…

more metaphor!

[Cognostic]

@studentfinalpaper

Objective evidence for God.

NOTE: None Given

@studentfinalpaper

Planck time

Poster has no idea of the limits of human knowledge, what a universe is or how to distinguish it from the cosmoses, (What you should do is RESEARCH the "God of the Gaps Fallacy.).

@studentfinalpaper

I’m still not convinced that the KCA has been debunked

Then you are an idiot. From it’s first premise to the conclusion it is fallacious. (You have no understanding of Planck Time at all. It is not just a unit of measurement. It is that point at which physics breaks down. Causal relationships become ‘spooky.’ 'Time, no longer applies,;

@studentfinalpaper

We are at a major impasse,

No, we are not at a major impasse. You are refusing to look at facts and insisting on myth. You are insisting on a magical “Who done it.” when even if the universe had a cause, you have no fucking way at all of ever getting to a ‘WHO.’ You have not ruled out all possible natural causes. You have not established that a “Who” is even possible. And you have not demonstrated what you mean by “Beginning.” When scientists assert “Beginning” they mean that moment in time when the universe began to expand. They are not talking about some magical moment of something popping into existence from nothing. WHAT IN THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

@studentfinalpaper

What (single) objective evidence (meaning that it conclusively proves without holes or room for doubt) do you have to prove there is NOT a God.

This is the classic “Shifting of the Burden of Proof.” No one has to prove there is not a God. We no more need to refute your God claim than you need to refute every God claim that came before your God claim. That which is asserted without evidence can be rejected without evidence. This IS the null hypothesis. There is no reason to believe a claim until it can be demonstrated to be true, or at least a possible option. You have done nothing in either case.

@studentfinalpaper

Is Cumulative Case Argumentation a good way of establishing weight for truth claims?

A cumulative case of bullshit is bullshit piled on bullshit. NO! Your cumulative case is exactly the case for atheism. There is not a religious claim out there in the world today that has not been completely debunked (Like the worn out KCA) or that ends up with absolutely (NO EXPLANATION WHAT SO EVER) and ends up as an argument from personal incredulity or a god of the gaps. (I can’t explain it, therefore God.)

[studentfinalpaper]

Also, I think I should clarify:
Is Cumulative Case Argumentation not a good way of establishing weight for truth claims?

I didn’t say establishing truth, but rather weight in truth claims. By WEIGHT, I mean what is more likely to be true.

Now that what I meant is clarified. We can discuss it better.

[Nyarlathotep]

@studentfinalpaper

By WEIGHT, I mean what is more likely to be true.

Can one argument have more weight than other?

[Whitefire13]

@studentfinalpaper

An argument gaining in force by increase of evidence and of reasons as it advances, each new point having additional testimony for the conclusion. Its strength does not lie in the connection of the points with each other, but simply in their sum.

Listen . READ THIS if you have any intention of honesty, integrity and a desire for what is true…

I have a horse . Horses come in all colors. Colors are a result of the light spectrum producing red, blue and yellow. Some horses have been found to have small bony growths on the front of their skull. Since some horses have these specific colors and color is “light”, they are capable of flight. My horse had horns and could fly. It was a bright rainbow color.

[Whitefire13]

@studentfinalpaper

I didn’t say establishing truth, but rather weight in truth claims. By WEIGHT, I mean what is more likely to be true.

@studentfinalpaper

Is Cumulative Case Argumentation not a good way of establishing weight for truth claims?

Is Cumulative Case Argument not a good way of establishing what is more likely to be true for truth claims

Get rid of “not” and you may have a semblance of a question.

[studentfinalpaper]

@Cognostic

@studentfinalpaper

Objective evidence for God.

NOTE: None Given

@studentfinalpaper

Planck time

Poster has no idea of the limits of human knowledge, what a universe is or how to distinguish it from the cosmoses, (What you should do is RESEARCH the "God of the Gaps Fallacy.).

@studentfinalpaper

I’m still not convinced that the KCA has been debunked

Then you are an idiot. From it’s first premise to the conclusion it is fallacious. (You have no understanding of Planck Time at all. It is not just a unit of measurement. It is that point at which physics breaks down. Causal relationships become ‘spooky.’ 'Time, no longer applies,;

@studentfinalpaper

We are at a major impasse,

No, we are not at a major impasse. You are refusing to look at facts and insisting on myth. You are insisting on a magical “Who done it.” when even if the universe had a cause, you have no fucking way at all of ever getting to a ‘WHO.’ You have not ruled out all possible natural causes. You have not established that a “Who” is even possible. And you have not demonstrated what you mean by “Beginning.” When scientists assert “Beginning” they mean that moment in time when the universe began to expand. They are not talking about some magical moment of something popping into existence from nothing. WHAT IN THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

@studentfinalpaper

What (single) objective evidence (meaning that it conclusively proves without holes or room for doubt) do you have to prove there is NOT a God.

This is the classic “Shifting of the Burden of Proof.” No one has to prove there is not a God. We no more need to refute your God claim than you need to refute every God claim that came before your God claim. That which is asserted without evidence can be rejected without evidence. This IS the null hypothesis. There is no reason to believe a claim until it can be demonstrated to be true, or at least a possible option. You have done nothing in either case.

@studentfinalpaper

Is Cumulative Case Argumentation a good way of establishing weight for truth claims?

A cumulative case of bullshit is bullshit piled on bullshit. NO! Your cumulative case is exactly the case for atheism. There is not a religious claim out there in the world today that has not been completely debunked (Like the worn out KCA) or that ends up with absolutely (NO EXPLANATION WHAT SO EVER) and ends up as an argument from personal incredulity or a god of the gaps. (I can’t explain it, therefore God.)

Thanks for your response @Cognostic. I do not see here an answer to my question:
Is Cumulative Case Argumentation a good way of establishing weight for truth claims? Yes/No and then please state why.

[Whitefire13]

@studentfinalpaper

here an answer to my question:
Is Cumulative Case Argumentation a good way of establishing weight for truth claims? Yes/No and then please state why.

No you little shit. You arrogant piece of shit! YOU have not address one fucking thing brought to your fucking attention you prick!

GO BACK AND ADDRESS my points!!! Explain HOW THE NIGERIAN letter IS not your method…

[Nyarlathotep]

@studentfinalpaper

Also, I think I should clarify:
Is Cumulative Case Argumentation not a good way of establishing weight for truth claims?

I didn’t say establishing truth, but rather weight in truth claims. By WEIGHT, I mean what is more likely to be true.

OK cool, lets do some composition:

1. Weight - what is more likely to be true

Is Cumulative Case Argumentation not a good way of establishing what is more likely to be true for truth claims?

At best: that is a hot mess.

[Sheldon]

@studentfinalpaper

What objective evidence can you demonstrate for any deity?

You’re still preaching at us, and you are still evading questions, and ignoring the irrational logical fallacies you used in your OP.

Any chance you’ll show some integrity, and give a candid response to the previous objections raised, or answer my question here, which you have now ignored 3 or 4 times?

@studentfinalpaper

A number of you have requested that I give an answer for objective evidence for God. I honestly think that this conversation will not be fruitful for now

I guess we have your answer, and sadly it is the usual rank dishonesty we have come to expect. If you had any objective evidence you’d be shouting it from the rooftops, but like so many others before you, you have the integrity to admit you have none.

@studentfinalpaper

Not because there isn’t evidence for His existence

If you have objective evidence then present it, and stop making asinine assumptions to deflect from the truth.

@studentfinalpaper

I will give you this one piece of objective evidence.

Jesus resurrected from the dead; therefore, the God of the Bible exists

That’s not objective evidence, it’s an unevidenced assertion. You can’t evidence the claim a deity exists with another unevidenced claim it did x y or z.

@studentfinalpaper

I’m down to debate this point but not now

Theres nothing to debate, as all you’ve offersd is a bare unevidenced assertion. And you don’t get to decide what is “frutfull” here. You brought your beliefs here, and the burden of proof is entirely yours. What you find compelling is irrelevant, as you’ve already made up your mind, and are clearly not looking for objective evidence here to support your beliefs.

@studentfinalpaper

I do remember there has only been one major one

Rubbish.

You used multiple logical fallacies and I’ve listed them, and you’ve revised to address them, and you’ve had more than enough time, but now you come back and carry on as if that didn’t happen.

@studentfinalpaper

As a theist, I would assert that the God of my particular religion has the characteristic of being beginning-less

Theres your use of a begging the question fallacy. Which I pointed out in post 41.

@studentfinalpaper

God of my particular religion has the characteristic of being beginning-less (there was not a time where he was not)

To argue an infinite past of any variation leads to an infinite regress which is a logical absurdity

There is a glaring contradiction you used, and again I pointed that out to you 109 posts ago, and you are still ignoring it.

@Sheldon

Any chance you will at any point address any of my posts, that have pointed out how irrational &illogical your plagiarized version of the kalam cosmological argument is?

That was 99 posts ago, and you are still ignoring them. So just to hammer home your dishonesty, here’s your response in the very next post…

@studentfinalpaper

@Sheldon, yes I will! I haven’t forgotten about you! Trying to get to every post one at a time

That was post 51, almost a hundred posts ago. And you have posted multiple times since then.

@studentfinalpaper

@Sheldon I’ve already gave you an answer your question 3/4 posts ago in my first post today

That’s a lie. You said it wouldn’t be fruitful at this time. Your just being relentlessly dishonest and evasive.

[studentfinalpaper]

@Sheldon I’ve already gave you an answer your question 3/4 posts ago in my first post today.

Now what is your answer to mine:

Is Cumulative case argumentation a good way of establishing weight for truth claims? Yes/No and then please state why.

[studentfinalpaper]

@Whitefire13

@studentfinalpaper

here an answer to my question:
Is Cumulative Case Argumentation a good way of establishing weight for truth claims? Yes/No and then please state why.

No you little shit. You arrogant piece of shit! YOU have not address one fucking thing brought to your fucking attention you prick!

GO BACK AND ADDRESS my points!!! Explain HOW THE NIGERIAN letter IS not your method…

I will address your points after we have cleared up the matter of CCA. If we don’t finish one thing at a time. Nothing will get fully explored. I appreciate your patience!

[Whitefire13]

@studentfinalpaper

Thanks for your reply here @Whitefire13!

However, there isn’t anything here answering my question. My question wasn’t
Is Cumulative Case Argumentation a good way of establishing weight for the existence of God?

Rather it was:
Is Cumulative Case Argumentation not a good way of establishing weight for truth claims?

Please answer Yes/No and then explain why as this will be most clear.

Uh Sheldon and others… BUT I did answer… many times …

@studentfinalpaper

@Whitefire13

Nope. Wrong. So so sadly wrong. Your proposed method would have you sending money to Nigerian Princes. Seriously

So you are claiming that CCA (cumulative case argumentation) is not a good means toward moving toward truth claims. But you have provided no basis upon which this conclusion was made. Please back your claim. Why is **Is Cumulative Case Argumentation not a good way of establishing weight for truth claims?

The WHYS supporting my answers were around these (post) answers.

He’s dishonest.

[David_Killens]

@studentfinalpaper

I wish to address “infinite regress”, and how you have mis-applied this term. I even gave a you tip, but you failed to research what infinite regress is. It deals with propositions, not actual physical events with a time line.

Now to prove that in the physical world, infinite regress is nonsense.

I am sitting in front of my keyboard, preparing to press a key. My finger is 1 cm above the keyboard. In 1/2 second I move 1/2 of the distance towards the keyboard. Then, in half of the previous time, I move one half of the distance again. Then, in half of the previous time, I move one half of the distance again. And so on and so on.

But eventually, my finger does touch the keyboard.

Thus, infinite regress in the real world is not applicable, because I can touch my keyboard.

Young person, you have been led astray by your educators. Infinite regress is an argument that applies only to propositions, it fails at it’s most basic level in the real world.

[Whitefire13]

HEY - I think we’re writing his paper for him.

I’m done. This little shit can write his own paper and think for himself.

[David_Killens]

@studentfinalpaper

Is Cumulative case argumentation a good way of establishing weight for truth claims? Yes/No and then please state why.

Yes, it establishes weight. But it does not establish whether it is true.

Truth is not established by which party can bring the most arguments, truth is established by which party can demonstrate.

The bible is the claim, not the proof.

[studentfinalpaper]

@studentfinalpaper

I will address your points after we have cleared up the matter of CCA. If we don’t finish one thing at a time. Nothing will get fully explored. I appreciate your patience!

Thanks for your post @David_Killens I will address your points after we have cleared up the matter of CCA. If we don’t finish one thing at a time. Nothing will get fully explored. I appreciate your patience!

[studentfinalpaper]

@David_Killens

@studentfinalpaper

Is Cumulative case argumentation a good way of establishing weight for truth claims? Yes/No and then please state why.

Yes, it establishes weight. But it does not establish whether it is true.

Truth is not established by which party can bring the most arguments, truth is established by which party can demonstrate.

The bible is the claim, not the proof.

THANK YOU @David_Killens FOR GIVING A RESPECTFUL AND FULL ANSWER TO MY QUESTION. I SO APPRECIATE THAT! YOU’RE AWESOME!

[Whitefire13]

Selective bias!!! Lol .

David said what he wanted to hear…

Hilarious

And he’s “mining” here because software that looks for plagiarism- well, do they search forums…
(Nah…)

[David_Killens]

@Whitefire13

I’m done. This little shit can write his own paper and think for himself.

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.