|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Ultimate Question - Why is there something rather than nothing? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3713 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Black Cat writes:
Your question is nonsensical. I'm waiting for you to answer my question. Let me know when you're prepared to do so.I was hoping that you would have discovered that while attempting to answer my 2nd 'ball' question. Edited by Panda, : typo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Black Cat Junior Member (Idle past 4614 days) Posts: 28 From: Canada Joined: |
It's nonsensical to ask how you draw support for your claim from a specific statement? It's not clearly evident from the sentence that he intended to quote directly. You claim it is. I'm asking you to explain your reasoning.
Edited by Black Cat, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3713 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Black Cat writes:
The reason that I think that his opening statement indicated that Dr. Craig was quoting directly is because that is what it says. It's nonsensical to ask how you draw support for your claim from a specific statement? It's not clearly evident from the sentence that he intended to quote directly. You claim it is. I'm asking you to explain your reasoning. That is how English works. You read individual words and you draw meaning from their combination and from their context. The combination of words and the context in which they were used clearly indicated that Dr. Craig was quoting verbatim.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Skyhooks and cranes are terms coined by philosopher Dan Dennett
Dennett uses the term "skyhook" to describe a source of design complexity that does not build on lower, simpler layersin simple terms, a miracle. Dennett contrasts theories of complexity that require such miracles with those based on "cranes", structures which permit the construction of entities of greater complexity but which are themselves founded solidly "on the ground" of physical science.
Link BC writes: I don't see how W.L.C damaged the accuracy or intent of his statement. If you could explain this to me I would appreciate it. He completely misses the central theme of the argument that some explanations are exceptionally well founded where others are not. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Black Cat Junior Member (Idle past 4614 days) Posts: 28 From: Canada Joined: |
Yet you are unable to to show how. All you can do is repeat the same thing over and over again.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3713 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Black Cat writes:
So, you want me to explain how to read and comprehend written English? Yet you are unable to to show how. Ok - if it's so easy: you try. Explain how Dr. Craig's opening statement is not saying that he is quoting Dawkin's verbatim.Show me how those words, used in that particular order and that specific context do not clearly indicate that Dr. Craig was quoting Dawkins directly.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Black Cat Junior Member (Idle past 4614 days) Posts: 28 From: Canada Joined: |
I can comprehend English well enough. The sentence doesn't indicate that he intends to quote directly. It doesn't include any lead in that would suggest he was quoting directly. Such things as: Dawkins writes, As said by Dawkins, and so on.
Straggler also mentioned that Dr. Craig intended to summarize. Looks like you're on your own with the direct quoting nonsense.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3713 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Black Cat writes:
Not that well, else you would realise I was not commenting on your comprehension of English, but on the impossibility of the task you were demanding of me.
I can comprehend English well enough. . Let's have a look at your explanation of how Dr. Craig's opening statement is not saying that he is quoting Dawkin's verbatim.
Black Cat writes:
The sentence does indicate that he intends to quote directly.
The sentence doesn't indicate that he intends to quote directly. Black Cat writes:
It does include a lead in that would suggest he was quoting directly.
It doesn't include any lead in that would suggest he was quoting directly. Black Cat writes:
It does have such things as: Dawkins writes, As said by Dawkins, and so on. Such things as: Dawkins writes, As said by Dawkins, and so on. As I expected, you are unable to explain how Dr. Craig's opening statement is not saying that he is quoting Dawkin's verbatim.I also noticed that you avoided all mention of context. I suspect that context is not your strong point, judging by your opening sentence and by your general avoidance of the subject. . Black Cat writes:
That is a rather obvious argumentum ad populum.
Looks like you're on your own with the direct quoting nonsense.*looks around and sees no-one supporting Black Cat* Looks like you're on your own with the not direct quoting nonsense. Edited by Panda, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Black Cat Junior Member (Idle past 4614 days) Posts: 28 From: Canada Joined: |
Panda writes: The sentence does indicate that he intends to quote directly. How so?
Panda writes: It does include a lead in that would suggest he was quoting directly. Where?
Panda writes: It does have such things as: Dawkins writes, As said by Dawkins, and so on. Where?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3713 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Black Cat writes:
Here:
How so?Where? Where? Dr. Craig writes:
On pages 157-8 of his book, Dawkins summarizes what he calls "the central argument of my book." It goes as follows:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: If "reality" exists when no concrete objects exist, then reality must be an abstract entity. Unless you intended your position to be self-contradictory, in which case you have a more serious problem than my making a charitable assumption.
quote: Seems to me that you are assuming a contradiction here, rather than actually finding a genuine problem. If reality isn't a thing then I don't see how it's states can be things either.
quote: ANd you're back to assuming that nothing is a thing. It seems that all you are doing is playing semantic games (which I find rather worrying in someone who wants to claim that existence is a property, since that enables all sorts of semantic games).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
BC writes: Straggler also mentioned that Dr. Craig intended to summarize. Summarize - Yes. But he gives the distinct impression that he is repeating Dawkins own summary rather than presenting his own straw man version.
Dr Craig writes: On pages 157-8 of his book, Dawkins summarizes what he calls "the central argument of my book." It goes as follows: But it doesn't go as follows at all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2477 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
PaulK writes: Seems to me that you are assuming a contradiction here, rather than actually finding a genuine problem. If reality isn't a thing then I don't see how it's states can be things either. This may be why we seem to be talking at cross purposes. Reality is definitely a thing, and so are states. The first definition in my O.E.D.: thing - a material or non-material entity, idea, action etc., that is or may be thought about or perceived. "Nothing" is the only concept excluded from that (by its own definition).
PaulK writes: bluegenes writes: The idea that nothing (rather than something) could have been an alternative reality doesn't work. The absence of everything can't be anything. ANd you're back to assuming that nothing is a thing. No. I pointed out in the last post that you are. The nothing state of reality turns nothing into something; hence my second sentence.
PaulK writes: It seems that all you are doing is playing semantic games (which I find rather worrying in someone who wants to claim that existence is a property, since that enables all sorts of semantic games). Did I say property or state? No semantic games, really. I think that the problem is that you're including lots of things in nothing, which should be the absence of everything.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: Then obviously you are using definitions that cause problems. Maybe you should refine your definitions to come up with a coherent viewpoint.
quote: And you were wrong then, and you are still wrong now.
quote: I could look but it doesn't matter. Either produces the same problem.
quote: No, the problem is that you are playing semantic games to put words into my mouth.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2477 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
PaulK writes: And you were wrong then, and you are still wrong now. Don't be shy about explaining why.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024