Total Posts:19|Showing Posts:1-19
Jump to topic:

The Kalam Cosmological Argument Challenge

Kairos
Posts: 54
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2013 2:53:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/29/2013 1:59:11 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
http://www.debate.org...

It is official; I am addicted to debating this argument. Any theist who wants to put the KCA to the test, feel free to accept this debate!

I'll accept if we change the conditions.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2013 3:46:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/29/2013 2:53:25 PM, Kairos wrote:
At 6/29/2013 1:59:11 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
http://www.debate.org...

It is official; I am addicted to debating this argument. Any theist who wants to put the KCA to the test, feel free to accept this debate!

I'll accept if we change the conditions.

No because that wouldn't be fair to me. You should have the burden of proof, as it would not be fair if it was shared, because the KCA is a theistic argument, not an Atheistic argument.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2013 3:47:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/29/2013 2:53:25 PM, Kairos wrote:
At 6/29/2013 1:59:11 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
http://www.debate.org...

It is official; I am addicted to debating this argument. Any theist who wants to put the KCA to the test, feel free to accept this debate!

I'll accept if we change the conditions.

Look at my debate history, this is how debates on the Kalam are done. The burden of proof is always on the theist. If you want burden of proof shared then that is just absurd.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2013 3:50:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/29/2013 2:53:25 PM, Kairos wrote:
At 6/29/2013 1:59:11 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
http://www.debate.org...

It is official; I am addicted to debating this argument. Any theist who wants to put the KCA to the test, feel free to accept this debate!

I'll accept if we change the conditions.

Every debate I have done on the Kalam, the theist has the BoP. The theist does not contest this, because this is how it works. If you have an argument, you have to prove it true, I don't have to prove it false. That is switching the burden of proof, and is fallacious.
Kairos
Posts: 54
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2013 3:52:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/29/2013 3:46:47 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/29/2013 2:53:25 PM, Kairos wrote:
At 6/29/2013 1:59:11 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
http://www.debate.org...

It is official; I am addicted to debating this argument. Any theist who wants to put the KCA to the test, feel free to accept this debate!

I'll accept if we change the conditions.

No because that wouldn't be fair to me. You should have the burden of proof, as it would not be fair if it was shared, because the KCA is a theistic argument, not an Atheistic argument.

But I'm not arguing the whole KCA. I'm putting forth the notion that one of it's premises are true, you're saying it's not.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2013 3:54:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/29/2013 3:52:47 PM, Kairos wrote:
At 6/29/2013 3:46:47 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/29/2013 2:53:25 PM, Kairos wrote:
At 6/29/2013 1:59:11 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
http://www.debate.org...

It is official; I am addicted to debating this argument. Any theist who wants to put the KCA to the test, feel free to accept this debate!

I'll accept if we change the conditions.

No because that wouldn't be fair to me. You should have the burden of proof, as it would not be fair if it was shared, because the KCA is a theistic argument, not an Atheistic argument.

But I'm not arguing the whole KCA. I'm putting forth the notion that one of it's premises are true, you're saying it's not.

I am not saying it is not true. I am saying that there is not enough support to accept the premise is true. My "uncaused fluctuations" depends on the standard interpretation, that interpretation could be wrong. What I am arguing is that there is doubt on the first premise, and we do not have good enough reasons to believe it is true. I am not saying it is necessarily false. This is why a shared burden is not fair.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2013 3:55:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/29/2013 3:52:47 PM, Kairos wrote:
At 6/29/2013 3:46:47 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/29/2013 2:53:25 PM, Kairos wrote:
At 6/29/2013 1:59:11 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
http://www.debate.org...

It is official; I am addicted to debating this argument. Any theist who wants to put the KCA to the test, feel free to accept this debate!

I'll accept if we change the conditions.

No because that wouldn't be fair to me. You should have the burden of proof, as it would not be fair if it was shared, because the KCA is a theistic argument, not an Atheistic argument.

But I'm not arguing the whole KCA. I'm putting forth the notion that one of it's premises are true, you're saying it's not.

Also, I have more problems with the second premise than the first. I would like to do a full debate on the Kalam.
Kairos
Posts: 54
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2013 3:56:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/29/2013 3:47:44 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/29/2013 2:53:25 PM, Kairos wrote:
At 6/29/2013 1:59:11 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
http://www.debate.org...

It is official; I am addicted to debating this argument. Any theist who wants to put the KCA to the test, feel free to accept this debate!

I'll accept if we change the conditions.

Look at my debate history, this is how debates on the Kalam are done. The burden of proof is always on the theist. If you want burden of proof shared then that is just absurd.

But my friend, just because you have a history of debating like this, doesn't mean it's correct or even proper debate etiquette!

I would like to debate this, indeed I trust that I'd win, but I'd much rather do it correctly.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2013 3:59:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/29/2013 3:56:15 PM, Kairos wrote:
At 6/29/2013 3:47:44 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/29/2013 2:53:25 PM, Kairos wrote:
At 6/29/2013 1:59:11 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
http://www.debate.org...

It is official; I am addicted to debating this argument. Any theist who wants to put the KCA to the test, feel free to accept this debate!

I'll accept if we change the conditions.

Look at my debate history, this is how debates on the Kalam are done. The burden of proof is always on the theist. If you want burden of proof shared then that is just absurd.

But my friend, just because you have a history of debating like this, doesn't mean it's correct or even proper debate etiquette!

I would like to debate this, indeed I trust that I'd win, but I'd much rather do it correctly.

I trust that I would win. Regardless, it is being done correctly, you are the one who wants to do it incorrectly. I am not saying the KCA is false, just that you cannot bring forward good reasons to believe it is true. If you have an argument you believe is good, you should be able to defend it. Asking me to prove it false, makes no sense.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2013 4:01:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
My claim:

(i) I can tear down your reasons to for believing the KCA succeeds

It is not:

(ii) I can prove the premises of the argument are false

These are two different logical spheres.
Kairos
Posts: 54
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2013 4:07:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/29/2013 3:59:47 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/29/2013 3:56:15 PM, Kairos wrote:
At 6/29/2013 3:47:44 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/29/2013 2:53:25 PM, Kairos wrote:
At 6/29/2013 1:59:11 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
http://www.debate.org...

It is official; I am addicted to debating this argument. Any theist who wants to put the KCA to the test, feel free to accept this debate!

I'll accept if we change the conditions.

Look at my debate history, this is how debates on the Kalam are done. The burden of proof is always on the theist. If you want burden of proof shared then that is just absurd.

But my friend, just because you have a history of debating like this, doesn't mean it's correct or even proper debate etiquette!

I would like to debate this, indeed I trust that I'd win, but I'd much rather do it correctly.

I trust that I would win. Regardless, it is being done correctly, you are the one who wants to do it incorrectly. I am not saying the KCA is false, just that you cannot bring forward good reasons to believe it is true. If you have an argument you believe is good, you should be able to defend it. Asking me to prove it false, makes no sense.

Well then I guess we just don't agree on what counts as fair conditions.
Kairos
Posts: 54
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2013 4:11:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/29/2013 4:01:31 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
My claim:

*(i) I can tear down your reasons for believing the KCA succeeds

That's not where our discussion revolved around though, we were discussing the initial causal premise, not the whole KCA.

It is not:

(ii) I can prove the premises of the argument are false

These are two different logical spheres.

Cool rhetoric, we were interested in the causal principle. Do you want to bear your burden and debate me? Or do you seek still to pretend that it doesn't exist?
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2013 4:14:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/29/2013 4:11:04 PM, Kairos wrote:
At 6/29/2013 4:01:31 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
My claim:

*(i) I can tear down your reasons for believing the KCA succeeds

That's not where our discussion revolved around though, we were discussing the initial causal premise, not the whole KCA.

It is not:

(ii) I can prove the premises of the argument are false

These are two different logical spheres.

Cool rhetoric, we were interested in the causal principle. Do you want to bear your burden and debate me? Or do you seek still to pretend that it doesn't exist?

My position is that:

(i) I can tear down your reasons for believing that the first premise of the KCA succeeds

Not:

(ii) I can prove that the first premise of the KCA is false.

This is more than reasonable. You are expecting me to carry a bigger burden than I should. If you think the first premise is true, then you have to defend it.
Kairos
Posts: 54
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2013 4:53:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/29/2013 4:14:41 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/29/2013 4:11:04 PM, Kairos wrote:
At 6/29/2013 4:01:31 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
My claim:

*(i) I can tear down your reasons for believing the KCA succeeds

That's not where our discussion revolved around though, we were discussing the initial causal premise, not the whole KCA.

It is not:

(ii) I can prove the premises of the argument are false

These are two different logical spheres.

Cool rhetoric, we were interested in the causal principle. Do you want to bear your burden and debate me? Or do you seek still to pretend that it doesn't exist?

My position is that:

(i) I can tear down your reasons for believing that the first premise of the KCA succeeds

Not:

(ii) I can prove that the first premise of the KCA is false.

This is more than reasonable. You are expecting me to carry a bigger burden than I should. If you think the first premise is true, then you have to defend it.

Doesn't really seem like your style to, "tear down" reasons, more like play the skeptic and not give an argument for why the causal premise is wrong.

I gave my reasons for why you ought to carry your rightful burden, other than that I believe we don't need to further the issue since you're getting a bit disrespectful in your other posts.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2013 4:59:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/29/2013 4:53:02 PM, Kairos wrote:
At 6/29/2013 4:14:41 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/29/2013 4:11:04 PM, Kairos wrote:
At 6/29/2013 4:01:31 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
My claim:

*(i) I can tear down your reasons for believing the KCA succeeds

That's not where our discussion revolved around though, we were discussing the initial causal premise, not the whole KCA.

It is not:

(ii) I can prove the premises of the argument are false

These are two different logical spheres.

Cool rhetoric, we were interested in the causal principle. Do you want to bear your burden and debate me? Or do you seek still to pretend that it doesn't exist?

My position is that:

(i) I can tear down your reasons for believing that the first premise of the KCA succeeds

Not:

(ii) I can prove that the first premise of the KCA is false.

This is more than reasonable. You are expecting me to carry a bigger burden than I should. If you think the first premise is true, then you have to defend it.

Doesn't really seem like your style to, "tear down" reasons, more like play the skeptic and not give an argument for why the causal premise is wrong.

My claim is not that the causal premise is false. Do you have a problem with reading?


I gave my reasons for why you ought to carry your rightful burden, other than that I believe we don't need to further the issue since you're getting a bit disrespectful in your other posts.

I am not getting disrespectful, you are. I never called you any names, you called me stupid and psychotic. Get out of there with that nonsense.
Kairos
Posts: 54
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2013 5:48:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/29/2013 4:59:36 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:


Doesn't really seem like your style to, "tear down" reasons, more like play the skeptic and not give an argument for why the causal premise is wrong.

My claim is not that the causal premise is false. Do you have a problem with reading?

This is what I mean with the disrespect thing haha. Now if you're not claiming the premise is false, what are you claiming? Ignorance on the matter? Why? What is it that makes you think the relationship between cause and effect ought to be restricted to only things in the universe but not of it?


I gave my reasons for why you ought to carry your rightful burden, other than that I believe we don't need to further the issue since you're getting a bit disrespectful in your other posts.

I am not getting disrespectful, you are.

How so? lol, I just gave an example of your disrespect above, meanwhile I've called you friend.

I never called you any names, you called me stupid and psychotic. Get out of there with that nonsense.

You're misunderstanding what I said there, I said that I wasn't calling folks who fail to accept the CP irrational as in the sense that they're stupid or psychotic, but rather that their view is irrational, that the CP isn't true of the universe.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2013 5:57:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/29/2013 5:48:45 PM, Kairos wrote:
At 6/29/2013 4:59:36 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:


Doesn't really seem like your style to, "tear down" reasons, more like play the skeptic and not give an argument for why the causal premise is wrong.

My claim is not that the causal premise is false. Do you have a problem with reading?

This is what I mean with the disrespect thing haha. Now if you're not claiming the premise is false, what are you claiming? Ignorance on the matter? Why? What is it that makes you think the relationship between cause and effect ought to be restricted to only things in the universe but not of it?

I never said it ought to be restricted to only things in the universe. I only said that is all we have evidence for, and stretching causality past that is a leap of faith.



I gave my reasons for why you ought to carry your rightful burden, other than that I believe we don't need to further the issue since you're getting a bit disrespectful in your other posts.

I am not getting disrespectful, you are.

How so? lol, I just gave an example of your disrespect above, meanwhile I've called you friend.

I never called you any names, you called me stupid and psychotic. Get out of there with that nonsense.

You're misunderstanding what I said there, I said that I wasn't calling folks who fail to accept the CP irrational as in the sense that they're stupid or psychotic, but rather that their view is irrational, that the CP isn't true of the universe.

Well one can just call your view irrational. Name calling gets us nowhere.