Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
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:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 3
Why I refuse to debate with William Craig Lane
Topic Started: Oct 27 2011, 01:01 PM (855 Views)
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Quote:
 

In essence, that's what you just did. You related a debate you observed anecdotally, consolidating the argument of one side down to a dismissive 4-5 word sentence, and giving full credit to the argument you agree with, and but still relating it from your recollection. Now color me skeptical, but I believe your recollection may possibly be a littled skewed in one direction...


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
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Renauda
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
John D'Oh
Oct 29 2011, 05:18 AM
Also, 'Good' written backwards is suspiciously close to Dood, a common mis-spelling of dude, although admittedly that one's a bit more complex and you guys might struggle with the concept.
I also thought of it Doog, short for Dougal. Clearly a Scots connection to the divine.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
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
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Luke's Dad
Member Avatar
Emperor Pengin
Moonbat
Oct 29 2011, 08:28 AM
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
Thanks!

I'll listen to it tonight.
The problem with having an open mind is that people keep trying to put things in it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Moonbat
Oct 29 2011, 03:43 AM
Quote:
 

No, I really don't have to do that since you are not able to produce anything verifiable or knowable or even coherent.


Well you have to if you want to demonstrate that the equivalent statements about "good" and "evil" are empirical statements. That's what it means to say something is an empirical statement; the statement predicts empirical observations.

Only one of the statements about light fits our observations, the point was to demonstrate the opposing statements were not meaningless by showing they predicted different observations. (Whether they fit in with other theories about how the world works is irrelevant to this point)
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.
Quote:
 

Quote:
 

Then what is your position?


That Stephen Law is right; super evil god is ridiculous because the world is nothing like what we would expect if a super evil god were responsible for it and super good god is ridiculous for the equivalent reason. (Of course both gods are ridiculous for many other reasons too but this is one reason).

As for the stuff about "good" and "evil", I don't think statements like "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" have any meaning.
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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Quote:
 

Statements about good and evil are empirical statements based on and predictive of empirical observations.


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
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Moonbat
Oct 29 2011, 10:10 AM
Quote:
 

Statements about good and evil are empirical statements based on and predictive of empirical observations.


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.
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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
IvoryThumper
 

Moonbat
 

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.

Those are not statements that I even recognize as coherent.


IvoryThumper
 

Moonbat
 

One can proclaim that there is good and there is evil, one can proclaim that there is just good and evil is merely the lack of good or one can proclaim there is just evil and good is the lack evil.

It's just semantics, it says nothing, there can be no observations favouring one over the other for the statements are not empirical claims at all.


That would be like saying:

One can proclaim that there is light and there is dark, one can proclaim that there is just light and dark is merely the lack of light or one can proclaim there is just dark and light is the lack dark.

or

One can proclaim that there is heat and there is cold, one can proclaim that there is just heat and cold is merely the lack of heat or one can proclaim there is just cold and heat is the lack cold.

It's just semantics, it says nothing, there can be no observations favouring one over the other for the statements are not empirical claims at all.
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Moonbat
Oct 29 2011, 11:49 AM
IvoryThumper
 

Moonbat
 

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.

Those are not statements that I even recognize as coherent.


IvoryThumper
 

Moonbat
 

One can proclaim that there is good and there is evil, one can proclaim that there is just good and evil is merely the lack of good or one can proclaim there is just evil and good is the lack evil.

It's just semantics, it says nothing, there can be no observations favouring one over the other for the statements are not empirical claims at all.


That would be like saying:

One can proclaim that there is light and there is dark, one can proclaim that there is just light and dark is merely the lack of light or one can proclaim there is just dark and light is the lack dark.

or

One can proclaim that there is heat and there is cold, one can proclaim that there is just heat and cold is merely the lack of heat or one can proclaim there is just cold and heat is the lack cold.

It's just semantics, it says nothing, there can be no observations favouring one over the other for the statements are not empirical claims at all.
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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums. Reliable service with over 8 years of experience.
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 3