|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,908 Year: 4,165/9,624 Month: 1,036/974 Week: 363/286 Day: 6/13 Hour: 1/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Ultimate Question - Why is there something rather than nothing? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3742 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
ZenMonkey writes:
This wins my vote. Besides, if I remember correctly, there's so little matter in the universe and so much empty space that effectively, the universe doesn't exist. Q: Why is there something rather than nothing?A: There isn't.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3742 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Black Cat writes:
Could you please link to the page where he says this, and not to a page where he mis-quote-mines Richard Dawkins.
William Lane Craig provides a concise answer to the above assertion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3742 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Black Cat writes:
Wow. Where does he "mis-quote-mine" Dawkins? You can't even respond to a whole sentence. The Mis-Quote-Mining is the part that Dr. Craig claims is summarised by Richard Dawkins.All of it. But this is off topic. Edited by Panda, : typo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3742 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Black Cat writes:
I have The God Delusion in front of me. If you're going to say he mis-quote-mined Dawkins, don't you have to show how he did so?Which part would you like me to show you? {abe}
The God Delusion It also looks like Dr. Craig ripped most of the post from R.C. Metcalf.So he is also a plagiarist. It makes you proud to be a christian, doesn't it. {abe}
Dr. Craig says that Richard Dawkins writes:
The most ingenious and powerful explanation is Darwinian evolution by natural selection.Richard Dawkins actually writes:
The part written by Richard Dawkins makes sense when it hasn't been quoted out of context. The most ingenious and powerful crane so far discovered is Darwinian evolution by natural selection. Edited by Panda, : No reason given. Edited by Panda, : No reason given. Edited by Panda, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3742 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
IamJoseph writes:
These are the answers to the questions: "Who are you?" and: "Have you changed?". 'I AM THE LORD I HAVE NOT CHANGED'. Now try answering: "Why was there something rather than nothing?".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3742 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
IamJoseph writes:
I am sure that you are unique in knowing what the fuck you are talking about. The buck stops at the second alphabet when we backtrack; the A is barred and elusive and represents the forbidden apple metaphor. What is the second alphabet?What are we backtracking along? What A are you referring to? What is barring the A? What is barred from the A? How is the A elusive? What is the A eluding? What is the forbidden apple metaphor? Edited by Panda, : No reason given. Edited by Panda, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3742 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
IamJoseph writes:
I thought I made it clear with the questions I provided. Which part was confusing?If you answer them, it will go a long way to ending my confusion. What is the second alphabet?What are we backtracking along? What A are you referring to? What is barring the A? What is barred from the A? How is the A elusive? What is the A eluding? What is the forbidden apple metaphor?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3742 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
IamJoseph writes:
Alphabet does not mean what you think it means. The seond alphabet refers to the Hebrew, namely Bet, beta in Greek, B in english.What is your native language? IamJoseph writes:
I do not think you understand half of the words you use. The verse begins with the second alphabet, and says IN THE BEGINNING GOD, namely the A refers to what is to do with origin and barred from our mind's knowing, this B alphabet being a square with only one side left open - that of going forward and whatever is behind or before being out of our mind's grasp. This is vindicated today. Talking to you is pointless - you do not speak English.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3742 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Chuck77 writes:
If you had actually clicked on Frako's link rather than going off the deep end, then you could have avoided looking quite so stupid.
Have you ever asked God? How do you know he's dodgy? You listen to too much george carlin frako.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3742 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
IamJoseph writes:
I gave your post a rating of 5. I found the best efforts of my imagination cannot imagine a pre-universe scenario.All of it made sense - most of it I agreed with. Please continue to produce such clear and cogent arguments.(No sarcasm intended.) Edited by Panda, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3742 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Black Cat writes:
Doctor Craig was not summarising Dawkins. It doesn't appear to me that W.L.C mis-represented Dawkins. He was summarizing Dawkins' arguments not quoting him directly.Doctor Craig claims he was quoting directly: quote:That was a lie. Black Cat writes:
It distorted what Dawkins had written by claiming it was what Dawkins had written, while it was in fact not what Dawkins had written. Can you please explain to me how how Craig's summarization sentence affected or distorted what Dawkins actually wrote?This should not be difficult to understand. If you claim that someone said something that they didn't say - then that is mis-quoting. It is lying. Black Cat writes:
No. It is because he included the words "On pages 157-8 of his book, Dawkins summarizes" - and then proceeds to make up what Dawkins had actually written.
Is it because he didn't include the words "so far"?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3742 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Black Cat writes:
You can't have it both ways. No, he didn't claim Dawkins had written that. From the introductory sentence it doesn't seem clear whther his intention was to quote directly or to summarize. W.L.C does not explicitly say that he intended to quote directly. That's something you're assuming based on your reading of the sentence. Either the list is a direct quote from Dawkins' book or Dr. Craig is attacking a straw-man argument which he fabricated himself. {abe}
quote:This shows the level of deceit. Dr. Craig is criticising his own mis-quotes as if they are Dawkins' own words. Edited by Panda, : No reason given. Edited by Panda, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3742 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined:
|
Black Cat writes:
Is that all he did? All he did was replace "crane so far" with "explanation"Really? Let us compare and contrast, shall we? Then we will see if all he did was replace 3 words... Dr Craig writes:
The temptation is a false one because the designer hypothesis immediately raises the larger problem of who designed the designer.Richard Dawkins writes:
Seems that you might have been wrong about what Dr. Craig replaced. The temptation is a false one, because the designer hypothesis immediately raises the larger problem of who designed the designer. The whole problem we started out with was the problem of explaining statistical improbability. It is obviously no solution to postulate something even more improbable. We need a 'crane', not a 'skyhook', for only a crane can do the business of working up gradually and plausibly from simplicity to otherwise improbable complexity.Let's look at another... Dr Craig writes:
We don't have an equivalent explanation for physics.Richard Dawkins writes:
Wow! Dr. Craig has replaced and removed dozens of words. We don't yet have an equivalent crane for physics. Some kind of multiverse theory could in principle do for physics the same explanatory work as Darwinism does for biology. This kind of explanation is superficially less satisfying than the biological version of Darwinism, because it makes heavier demands on luck. But the anthropic principle entitles us to postulate far more luck than our limited human intuition is comfortable with.How did you not know this? I am starting to think that you have no knowledge of what Dawkins actually wrote.Or maybe you support mis-quoting people out of context? Edited by Panda, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3742 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Black Cat writes:
I didn't claim that he did intend to quote Dawkins diectly. Again, there's no clear evidence that he intended to quote Dawkins directly.In fact, I strongly suspect that he had every intention of mis-quoting Dawkins. But, if he was going to argue against the summary then he should have quoted it directly. Black Cat writes:
His summary of Dawkin's summary is not accurate. That can easily be seen from the quotes I provided.
Second, his summation of Dawkins' main points is accurate, that can easily be seen from the quotes you provided. Black Cat writes:
Correct. Craig is not obligated to quote whole paragraphs based on what you feel he should inlude and not include.But he is obligated to not mis-quote and not quote-mine. So, to summarise:Dr. Craig has an ambiguous and misleading opening sentence. He takes single sentences out of context. He changes the wording of those sentences. He argues against those sentences as if they are actually what Richard Dawkins had written. If he was being honest he would have simply posted the complete summary - there is no reason not to.I think he is simply lying for god. Edited by Panda, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3742 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Panda writes:
This is a statement about the intentions of Dr. Craig. You can see this from the use of the word 'intend'.
I didn't claim that he did intend to quote Dawkins directly. Panda writes:
This is a statement about what Dr. Craig actually did. Doctor Craig claims he was quoting directly. - It is no surprise that you think that Dr. Craig's summary of Dawkin's list is accurate: your grasp of English is not good enough to know any better. I also notice that you have been unable to argue against Dr. A's detailed description of some of Dr. Craig's deceit (Message 161). Edited by Panda, : No reason given. Edited by Panda, : No reason given. Edited by Panda, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024