| Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Why I refuse to debate with William Craig Lane | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Oct 27 2011, 01:01 PM (855 Views) | |
| Moonbat | Oct 29 2011, 07:40 AM Post #51 |
![]()
Pisa-Carp
|
I wrote more about what Craig Lane said than about what Stephen Law did. As it happens as a debating performance I didn't think either side were particularly strong. Craig Lane has got good form but what he actually says is poor, Stephen Law's form was poor and he only made one argument which Craig Lane handled reasonably well. You speak as if I thought Craig Lane's response to it was bad but I don't, his response to it made sense given his position, much more sense than his own arguments and it meant he essentially avoided the only argument his opponent made. |
| Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem | |
![]() |
|
| Renauda | Oct 29 2011, 08:17 AM Post #52 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
I also thought of it Doog, short for Dougal. Clearly a Scots connection to the divine. |
![]() |
|
| Moonbat | Oct 29 2011, 08:28 AM Post #53 |
![]()
Pisa-Carp
|
Here, you can listen to it yourself LD. I warn you though, I'm generally interested in such things, and I found this one quite dull: http://www.premierradio.org.uk/listen/ondemand.aspx?mediaid=%7BD0EA6EB1-86E3-41FB-8CA9-F78B126F6416%7D |
| Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem | |
![]() |
|
| Luke's Dad | Oct 29 2011, 08:37 AM Post #54 |
![]()
Emperor Pengin
|
Thanks! I'll listen to it tonight. |
| The problem with having an open mind is that people keep trying to put things in it. | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Oct 29 2011, 09:52 AM Post #55 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
Statements about good and evil are empirical statements based on and predictive of empirical observations. You can even test them scientifically. Go take a homeless man to lunch and talk to him -- treat him like a human being -- do a "good" act -- see how he responds. Ask him how it makes him feel. Ask yourself how it makes you feel. Record your results. Next go take a homeless man into an alleyway and beat the crap out of him -- treat him like a subhuman -- do an "evil" act -- see how he responds. Ask him how it makes him feel. Ask yourself how it makes you feel. Record your results. OK, so you don't understand. I can respect that. Nevertheless, try to do good and avoid evil. Whatever that means to you. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| Moonbat | Oct 29 2011, 10:10 AM Post #56 |
![]()
Pisa-Carp
|
These are the statements that I have suggested are not empirical: "there is good and there is evil" vs. "there is just good and evil is merely the lack of good" vs. "there is just evil and good is the lack evil". If you think they are and they predict different things, then state those predictions. |
| Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Oct 29 2011, 11:07 AM Post #57 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
Those are not statements that I even recognize as coherent. What I said was "terms like "good" and "evil" [are grounded] in reason and observation" I already discarded the view that "Goodness is ... an absence of evil, but rather [goodness is] a [positive] presence." Good things/ acts are conducive to the well being of a thing. [good is a positive condition related to the perfection or well being of something ] Do you not think that is empirically verifiable? I already noted that my position is NOT "evil is simply the absence of good, or that good is simply the absence of evil". So it makes no sense to ask me to assume as empirical statements that I have already rejected, or to ask me what they might predict. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| Moonbat | Oct 29 2011, 11:49 AM Post #58 |
![]()
Pisa-Carp
|
|
| Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Oct 29 2011, 12:18 PM Post #59 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
So you are agreeing with me that I found your statements to be incoherent? Good. So we can move on. (just in case you missed it, I did not really mean by that post to accept your statements -- I was pointing out the problematic nature of them) |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| « Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic » |










4:16 PM Jul 10