tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post9140185260685479965..comments2023-09-24T07:53:50.826-05:00Comments on The Atheist Experience™: Atheist evangelism and the problem of infrastructureUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger78125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-61909522536370649172009-02-08T12:30:00.000-06:002009-02-08T12:30:00.000-06:00Here's an interesting podcast that relates to this...Here's an <A HREF="http://doubtreligion.blogspot.com/2008/08/new-bonus-episode-responding-to-ravi.html" REL="nofollow">interesting podcast</A> that relates to this topic. A guy from a podcast called "Reasonable Doubts" goes on the "Reason Driven Podcast" and they dissect a debate they'd had with a Christian the week before. There's a lot of discussion about the tactics and rhetoric used by the Christian debater.shiinahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01035812048405149863noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-71764855488576668122009-02-08T02:00:00.000-06:002009-02-08T02:00:00.000-06:00he still had to understand that1)It is widely acce...<B>he still had to understand that<BR/>1)It is widely accepted by logicians</B><BR/><BR/>And this is relevant how? Whether or not logicians accept something has no bearing on whether or not that thing is true or applicable to the real world. <BR/><BR/><B>2)Akusai has no arguments against it</B><BR/><BR/>Except, you know, the argument he presented against it. The reductio ad absurdum? Where he demonstrated that it has no bearing whatsoever on reality? That argument?<BR/><BR/><B>So he has to at least acknowledge a decent possibility of it being true.</B><BR/><BR/>Why? You've provided no evidence to suggest that it's true, only that a bunch of nameless logicians supposedly accept it as an aspect of a particular logical system. I wonder, do those same logicians all assign it the power to create reality that you seem to be assigning? I'm sure there are plenty of great, valid ontological arguments, but I can say with certainty that not a single one of them is sound unless its assumptions are backed up by real-world evidence. Since, you know, that's the whole point about soundness. So, where's the evidence for the assumptions underlying the ontological arguments? <BR/><BR/><B>I think it can.</B><BR/><BR/>You think wrong. Logical arguments can prove <I>nothing</I> about reality unless the axioms and assumptions are based in reality. They may be able to prove all sorts of things <I>conceptually</I>, but they have no bearing on the real world. <BR/><BR/><B>Statements like "Married bachelors do not exist" can be proven because the negative implies a contradiction with pure logic.</B><BR/><BR/>So pure logic can be used to prove that oxymorons are oxymorons. That's quite the power there. I mean, it allows us to determine whether or not two conceptual labels with specific definitions contradict one another. That's some amazing ability right there, and certainly it implies that pure logic is therefore able to prove things about the real world that aren't based on semantics. <BR/><BR/>Here's a trick: use pure logic to prove the existence or nonexistence of <I>bachelors</I>. Go ahead, I'm interested to see the results.Tom Fosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13796424725228769265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-74886886532405152322009-02-07T22:45:00.000-06:002009-02-07T22:45:00.000-06:001)It is widely accepted by logiciansOf course it b...<B>1)It is widely accepted by logicians</B><BR/>Of course it bloody well is. It's a necessary assumption for the logical system. To throw it out is to throw out the system, but that's silly because it is assumed for the purposes of creating the system. It doesn't make the system internally inconsistent, so it is accepted.<BR/><BR/><B>2)Akusai has no arguments against it<BR/>So he has to at least acknowledge a decent possibility of it being true.</B><BR/><BR/><I>It is an axiom. An assumption. A claim posited with no argument mad for it because it is necessary for the function of the logical system in which it exists</I> Given its context in the system of modal logic, of course I cannot argue against it. It does not even make sense to argue against an axiom that is assumed for the sake of argument.<BR/><BR/>From outside the system, though, in a different context, I am under no duress whatsoever to admit that it has to have any probability of being true. S5 is intuitively false. The idea that simply <I>maybe</I> being necessary makes something necessary is silly on its face.<BR/><BR/>And you're shifting the burden of proof. Again. Like all of you douchebags. If you want someone to accept S5 outside of its proper context as an assumed axiom of modal logic, then "There are no arguments against it" <I>is not enough</I>. There have to be arguments <I>in favor of it</I>. But there are none. <I>Because it is an axiom</I>.<BR/><BR/>If you want to assume it for the purposes of the logical system, fine. That's what logic is: an internally consistent axiomatic system. But don't pretend that the system and reality are the same. That is, don't use the fact that it is assumed without proof <I>inside</I> the system to mean that it has any relevance without proof <I>outside</I> the system. It's like ontological equivocation.Donhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06661441668625677468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-1211353395457356802009-02-07T00:16:00.000-06:002009-02-07T00:16:00.000-06:00Proposition 5 doesn't say ANYTHING about what prob...<I>Proposition 5 doesn't say ANYTHING about what probability you should assign to the existence of God.</I><BR/>I know. I was saying that even if Akusai rejected Axiom S5, he still had to understand that <BR/>1)It is widely accepted by logicians<BR/>2)Akusai has no arguments against it<BR/>So he has to at least acknowledge a decent possibility of it being true.<BR/><BR/><I>Pure math and pure logic don't make propositions true or likely in a vacuum. Do you understand?</I><BR/>I think it can. Logic can prove something if the negation implies a contradiction. Statements like "Married bachelors do not exist" can be proven because the negative implies a contradiction with pure logic.MrFreeThinkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12778096949945818236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-62619117024821367292009-02-06T20:14:00.001-06:002009-02-06T20:14:00.001-06:00Please learn about modal logic and the possibility...<I>Please learn about modal logic and the possibility premise. Axiom S5 is widely accepted by logicians.<BR/>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-modal/<BR/>Unless you are willing to go disprove modal logic now I think you should accept that there is at least a decent chance that God exists.</I><BR/><BR/>Dude, stop it. It's embarrassing. I have a master's degree in software engineering. I've studied logic, okay? Proposition 5 doesn't say ANYTHING about what probability you should assign to the existence of God.<BR/><BR/>Logic teaches you how to deduce facts or probabilities once you already know the truth-value or probability of other known quantities. Logic doesn't make stuff appear out of thin air. It doesn't tell you the probability that today is Thursday, or it's raining outside, or my cat is hungry, or God exists. To deduce things about specific propositions in the real world, you have to actually gather data. Pure math and pure logic don't make propositions true or likely in a vacuum. Do you understand?<BR/><BR/><I>Anyway my point was that Dawkins mocked the argument without addressing it.</I><BR/><BR/>Well, some arguments really aren't worth much more than that.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05324968314168283095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-77037115001297630602009-02-06T20:14:00.000-06:002009-02-06T20:14:00.000-06:00Unless you are willing to go disprove modal logic ...<I>Unless you are willing to go disprove modal logic now I think you should accept that there is at least a decent chance that God exists.</I><BR/><BR/>Or Shmorkle?<BR/><BR/>This is why I think the whole focus on logic is a big fat red herring. Logic is <B>not</B> evidence. Logic is simply a set of rules and tools to help a person formulate arguments. But there is no guarantee that the thing you are arguing logically in favor of is actually <I>true</I>. "All cats die. George Washington is dead. George Washington was a cat." That's bulletproof logic. It's also false.<BR/><BR/>If I were debating, I start with the point that the focus on logic and mathematical formulae in theistic arguments is, as Kazim has pointed out, pure obfuscation. Dazzle 'em with bullshit, as the saying goes. You may be able to use modal logic and Bayesian mathematics to construct an unassailable argument for <I>anything</I>. When it comes down to whether or not there's an invisible magic man running the universe, just give me the hard evidence. Bullshit talks, but evidence walks.Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17933545393470431585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-55806792103998124492009-02-06T17:20:00.000-06:002009-02-06T17:20:00.000-06:00No. Don't ever fall into the ever too common 50/50...No. Don't ever fall into the ever too common 50/50 debate. Put philosophy to one side and consider the facts. There are hundreds if not thousands of gods out there in popular belief, not one. If you ever feel perhaps your god maybe real, pitch him against the other 5000 and suddenly you'll see there's a 5000:1 chance your god is real, crappy odds you'll agree. Pitch childish logic against 5000 other arguments from childish logic and guess what you've got, more childish logic.<BR/>When people recognise the sheer magnitude of gods out there, ontology become utterely pointless. Precisely Dawkin's point.Kerusohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00145610587274807909noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-27252347644059168962009-02-06T16:56:00.000-06:002009-02-06T16:56:00.000-06:00But let's assume that only "transcendent," "spirit...<I>But let's assume that only "transcendent," "spiritual" objects can be used in an ontological argument. I think that's a crock, but fine. </I><BR/>It would be incoherent to claim sort of necessary physical subject.<BR/><BR/><I>I posit that Shmorkle is the most excellent possible being, and I urge that you accept at least a 70/30 possibility that Shmorkle exists. Shmorkle is more excellent than God; you can claim otherwise, but it simply isn't true.</I><BR/>If you define Schmorkle as a maximally great being, then we would have to admit we are talking about the same being. So would I say you would be rational.<BR/><BR/>Please learn about modal logic and the possibility premise. Axiom S5 is widely accepted by logicians.<BR/>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-modal/<BR/>Unless you are willing to go disprove modal logic now I think you should accept that there is at least a decent chance that God exists.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Anyway my point was that Dawkins mocked the argument without addressing it.MrFreeThinkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12778096949945818236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-79939204025205078552009-02-06T15:30:00.000-06:002009-02-06T15:30:00.000-06:00I was speaking to Akusai about the possibility pre...I was speaking to Akusai about the possibility premise. If we are generous and say there is a 50-50 chance it is true , there is at least a 50-50 chance that God exists, which is what Plantiga's final point is.MrFreeThinkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12778096949945818236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-32549070912056345402009-02-06T15:22:00.000-06:002009-02-06T15:22:00.000-06:00I reject the idea of a "maximally great" body part...<B>I reject the idea of a "maximally great" body part. If you say yours id=s maximally great I can conceive of a much larger one, and a larger one that,..ad infinitum. The idea is not coherent.<BR/>Plus your penis is a physical object and would require necessary space and time to exit, which is a problem too.</B><BR/><BR/>Translation: God is different. Special pleading.<BR/><BR/>If you say your God is maximally excellent, I can say that I can conceive of something greater, too. Therefore your claim is also incoherent.<BR/><BR/>Besides, I'm defining my penis as maximally great. There is nothing there to argue about. You can't conceive of a better penis because mine is, by definition, as great as one can be. I reject your idea that any penis can possibly be better than mine.<BR/><BR/>But let's assume that only "transcendent," "spiritual" objects can be used in an ontological argument. I think that's a crock, but fine. I posit that Shmorkle is the most excellent possible being, and I urge that you accept at least a 70/30 possibility that Shmorkle exists. Shmorkle is more excellent than God; you can claim otherwise, but it simply isn't true.<BR/><BR/>Am I rational in my belief in Shmorkle?<BR/><BR/><B>Plantiga says that no-one has provided evidence against the possibility premise while there was evidence for it.</B><BR/><BR/>Nobody needs to provide evidence against it, and there is no evidence for it. You claim there is? Fine. Where is it? Go ahead and bring it on. Yours is the burden of proof.<BR/><BR/><B>Even if we accept a 50-50 chance of the premise being true you have to admit that the theist is at least rational for believing in God and that there is a decent probability that God exists.</B><BR/><BR/>I don't have to accept the 50/50 split here any more than I have to in Pascal's Wager. It's an ass-pull of a figure that is used when there is no reason to suppose it is true to make it <I>appear</I> that it is somewhat rational to believe in God.Donhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06661441668625677468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-1801122871606197432009-02-06T14:49:00.000-06:002009-02-06T14:49:00.000-06:00I don't know about anyone else, but I'm not willin...I don't know about anyone else, but I'm not willing to accept a 50/50 probability that God exists. That seems ridiculously and unnecessarily large.<BR/><BR/>Are you willing to grant a 50/50 probability that Odin exists?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05324968314168283095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-10809987647893356402009-02-06T14:33:00.000-06:002009-02-06T14:33:00.000-06:00@AkusaiPlantiga says that no-one has provided evid...@Akusai<BR/><BR/>Plantiga says that no-one has provided evidence against the possibility premise while there was evidence for it.<BR/>Even if we accept a 50-50 chance of the premise being true you have to admit that the theist is at least rational for believing in God and that there is a decent probability that God exists.MrFreeThinkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12778096949945818236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-6659046526149585382009-02-06T14:30:00.000-06:002009-02-06T14:30:00.000-06:00Modal logic is no more ontologically binding than ...<I> Modal logic is no more ontologically binding than any other kind of logic. "Proving" that something is "necessary" about the world using words strung together into sentences put into arguments that accord with the rules of an axiomatic system generated by humans is futile and ridiculous. Unless and until there is evidence of a deity, those words are worthless.</I><BR/><BR/>Akusai,<BR/><BR/>That's a good observation. As I read back over my own notes on Kirk Durston, and also try to follow the debates by William Lane Craig, I see that as a major pattern. It's the same thing I observed years ago when I read Behe's "Darwin's Black Box."<BR/><BR/>Basically, apologists really like to pile on abstruse mathematical equations in front of an audience who is probably not going to understand them. They never choose to say things in a simple, accessible way when a more convoluted way is available. I'm trying to contemplate how to counter this effectively, and I'll say more in an upcoming post.<BR/><BR/>But basically, it always boils down to using pure math to "prove" the existence of God in a vacuum. No evidence. No observation. No experiments. Just equations purporting to show that the god must exist.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05324968314168283095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-69899439994603002462009-02-06T14:29:00.000-06:002009-02-06T14:29:00.000-06:00@AksuaiI reject the idea of a "maximally great" bo...@Aksuai<BR/>I reject the idea of a "maximally great" body part. If you say yours id=s maximally great I can conceive of a much larger one, and a larger one that,..ad infinitum. The idea is not coherent.<BR/>Plus your penis is a physical object and would require necessary space and time to exit, which is a problem too.MrFreeThinkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12778096949945818236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-52981510827807859412009-02-06T13:51:00.000-06:002009-02-06T13:51:00.000-06:00Keruso:Glad I could be of service.Kazim:I've been ...Keruso:<BR/><BR/>Glad I could be of service.<BR/><BR/>Kazim:<BR/><BR/>I've been thinking, and I suppose that monstrosity is what you get for praising the first formulation of the ontological argument for my giant wang. I apparently respond well to positive reinforcement.Donhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06661441668625677468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-88242060061346876282009-02-06T13:38:00.000-06:002009-02-06T13:38:00.000-06:00Akusai, I have literally brought myself to tears w...Akusai, I have literally brought myself to tears with laughter !! Absolutely priceless !! awesome !! <BR/>Let's try to define something into existence ! never works for me either.Kerusohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00145610587274807909noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-40934638313399574002009-02-06T13:18:00.000-06:002009-02-06T13:18:00.000-06:00MrFreeThinker:From Wikipedia:"Interestingly, Plant...MrFreeThinker:<BR/><BR/>From <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument#Plantinga.27s_modal_form_and_contemporary_discussion" REL="nofollow">Wikipedia</A>:<BR/><BR/>"Interestingly, Plantinga himself does not think the modal ontological argument is always a good proof of the existence of God. It depends on what his interlocutor thinks of the possibility premise."<BR/><BR/>So the most celebrated modern modal logic version, put together by one of the most celebrated modern theological wankers, is admitted by said wanker to not actually prove anything unless you accept one of its questionable premises (note: more than one of its premises are questionable).<BR/><BR/>Modal logic is no more ontologically binding than any other kind of logic. "Proving" that something is "necessary" about the world using words strung together into sentences put into arguments that accord with the rules of an axiomatic system generated by humans is futile and ridiculous. Unless and until there is <I>evidence</I> of a deity, those words are worthless.<BR/><BR/>One of the assumed axioms of modal logic (one that is necessary for Plantinga's ontological argument) is axiom S5 that says that "possibly necessary" implies "necessary." As an axiom, it cannot be proven. It is simply asserted and assumed. I see no reason to believe this axiom is true outside the confines and constructed rules of modal logic. Under this axiom, I can say "It is possibly necessary that the moon is made of green cheese, therefore it is necessary that the moon is made of green cheese." Given that just about <I>anything</I> is <I>possibly</I> necessary, this axiom allows me to prove anything is necessary.<BR/><BR/>This is what happens when you assign too much power to an axiomatic system.<BR/><BR/>Again, let me use Plantinga's modal logic formulation to prove something else (this is his formulation with a few key words replaced):<BR/><BR/>1. It is proposed that my penis has maximal excellence in a given possible world W if and only if it is very wide, very long, wholly able to satisfy women, and possessed by me in W; and<BR/>2. It is proposed that my penis has maximal greatness if it has maximal excellence in every possible world.<BR/>3. Maximal greatness is possibly exemplified. That is, it is possible that there be a penis that has maximal greatness. (Premise)<BR/>4. Therefore, possibly it is necessarily true that a very wide, very long and perfectly satisfactory penis that belongs to me exists.<BR/>5. Therefore, it is necessarily true that a very wide, very long and perfectly satisfactory penis that belongs to me exists. (By S5)<BR/> 6. Therefore, a very wide, very long and perfectly satisfactory penis that belongs to me exists.<BR/><BR/>Let me check my pants...<BR/><BR/>Nope. Just the same as before.Donhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06661441668625677468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-42215946357782709902009-02-06T08:24:00.000-06:002009-02-06T08:24:00.000-06:00I wasn't really supporting Durston. I never really...<I>I wasn't really supporting Durston. I never really heard of him before PZ's debte. But it was clear that PZ was caught off guard. It reminds me of Religulous where Francis Collins expected to talk about evolution but was caught off guard with questions on New testament history.</I><BR/><BR/>I've read some more background on PZ Myers' debate. I haven't seen it, but from what I've read it sounds like PZ did poorly. My thesis in this series of posts is that atheists and professional scientists have an inclination to be bad at the "performance art" aspect of debating, and need improvement and coaching. I don't mind accepting PZ as another illustration.<BR/><BR/>I know Bayes' theorem really well, it's central to some aspects of computer logic and data mining. I'll read the transcript and get back to you on that. I've heard some of my own fellow presenters misuse statistics badly, so I'm not going to assume that you're wrong about Ehrman until I've read it all.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05324968314168283095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-72192109930782191672009-02-06T06:50:00.000-06:002009-02-06T06:50:00.000-06:00Quick reply to one of your points, since I have ac...Quick reply to one of your points, since I have access to Dawkins' book here but I won't when I get to work:<BR/><BR/><I>It was about the problem of Evil. Dawkins was talking aout the problem of evil and suffering. He quoted Swinburne's statement that sometimes suffering brought people closer to God and let them show courage. Dawkins never really counters Swinburne and put out some appeals to emotion about suffering.</I><BR/><BR/>Oh, I see. Swinburne is trying to deflect the problem of evil by saying that sometimes suffering brings us closer to God, and Dawkins ridicules and dismisses it by bringing up the holocaust. He doesn't elaborate on this obviously weak excuse, so you feel that he didn't address it.<BR/><BR/>I'll elaborate, then. Swinburne's claim that people get ill because "sometimes they need to be ill for their own sake" is just cherry-picking cases of "evil" which fall far short of the more accessible examples. Six million people gassed to death isn't justified because God may have wanted to make the other Jews a tougher people -- it doesn't do a damn thing for the people who are already dead. And, since they were Jewish rather than Christian, probably in hell now, according to the doctrine of faith.<BR/><BR/>Oh sure, I expect that your next step would be to blame Hitler on atheists, or at least the fall of man, but that would miss the point. Dawkins says that SWINBURNE was trying to justify the Holocaust through theodicy. That is simply so stupid that I don't blame him for taking less than a paragraph to respond.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05324968314168283095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-37278925602582311732009-02-06T00:28:00.000-06:002009-02-06T00:28:00.000-06:00With regard to the ontological argument see hereht...With regard to the ontological argument see here<BR/>http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6831<BR/>(From article- I found this oart rather funny)<BR/>"Dawkins chortles, "I've forgotten the details, but I once piqued a gathering of theologians and philosophers by adapting the ontological argument to prove that pigs can fly. They felt the need to resort to Modal Logic to prove that I was wrong" (God Delusion, p. 84). This is just embarrassing. The ontological argument is an exercise in modal logic—the logic of the possible and the necessary. I can just imagine Dawkins making a nuisance of himself at this professional conference with his spurious parody"<BR/><BR/>@C<BR/>And as to Hitchens, he seems rather sarcastic but sometimes I don't follow his arguments. For example I remember once he was ranting about how God could see what we did all the time in our private bedrooms like a dictator and how God cares what you do with your genitalia. <BR/>Was he trying to say that people could have illicit sex if God didn't exist?And this would be a good thing?MrFreeThinkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12778096949945818236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-77599288754571016342009-02-06T00:16:00.000-06:002009-02-06T00:16:00.000-06:00@ KazimI was wondering, Thinker, if you could enli...@ Kazim<BR/><I>I was wondering, Thinker, if you could enlighten us with these arguments that you find so persuasive.</I><BR/>My point wasn't really that arguments were persuasive, but Dawkins brought them up and refuse to address them.<BR/><BR/><I>1. Exactly what was it about Richard Swinburne's theodicy that you think stands as unchallenged evidence for the existence of God?</I><BR/>It was about the problem of Evil. Dawkins was talking aout the problem of evil and suffering. He quoted Swinburne's statement that sometimes suffering brought people closer to God and let them show courage. Dawkins never really counters Swinburne and put out some appeals to emotion about suffering.<BR/><BR/><I>2. On which points do you feel that PZ lost? How is it that Durston's failure to make arguments against biology in front of a trained biologist isn't just an example of Durston chickening out?</I><BR/>I wasn't really supporting Durston. I never really heard of him before PZ's debte. But it was clear that PZ was caught off guard. It reminds me of Religulous where Francis Collins expected to talk about evolution but was caught off guard with questions on New testament history.<BR/><BR/><I>3. I know a fair bit of math myself. Please defend the notion that probability calculus supports the concept of a god.</I><BR/>William Lane Craig was not making an argument for God with probability. Bart Ehrman made some mathematically poor claims where he equivocated between intrinsic probability and specific probability with regard to miracles. W.L. Craig was able to use Baye's theorem to show how his reasoning was mathematically fallacious. Ehrman was unable to counter Crag's claims but made some backhanded ad hominems later on saying that Craig would be laughed at if he tried to bring his calculations on miracles to any secular university. W.L. Craig then pointed out that philosophers such as <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Swinburne" REL="nofollow">Richard Swinburne</A> (a eminent philosopher of science at Oxford University) had also made similar calculations it was a moment of sheer pwnage.<BR/>(On a side note Swinburne's calculations on the probability of Jesus' Resurrection and God's existence are available in his books "The Existence of God" and "Resurrection of God Incarnate")<BR/><BR/><I>4. Got a link to this awesome debate, so we can see just how badly Ehrman was pwned?</I><BR/>http://atheistmedia.blogspot.com/2008/08/bart-ehrman-vs-william-lane-craig.html<BR/>Transcript<BR/>http://www.holycross.edu/departments/crec/website/resurrection-debate-transcript.pdfMrFreeThinkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12778096949945818236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-34179367682942423522009-02-05T20:23:00.000-06:002009-02-05T20:23:00.000-06:00I've spent a long time watching and listening to t...I've spent a long time watching and listening to the shows (and a shorter time wishing the pre-show stuff made it onto the Podcast recording), and I've frequently made little mental notes of particularly good arguments, take-downs, analogies, references, and so forth. I do the same thing when I'm reading atheist books and blogs. It's incredibly useful (though my experience with face-to-face debate is limited and lousy), and I wonder if it might be useful to folks like PZ and Dawkins as well.<BR/><BR/>Here's my suggestion: we put together a CD or video/audio file with a set of the best arguments, debates, glib take-downs, and so forth, limited to an hour or so (for easy digestion). We send it, along with a very polite letter to the effect of Russell's post here, to folks like PZ and Dawkins, with hopes that they may be able to use some of the tips, tricks, and quotes to improve their debates with theists.<BR/><BR/>It needn't be a matter of presumptiveness, and I agree with Juju that they'd probably like the constructive criticism. The problem is a lack of infrastructure, in that we lack any kind of shared knowledge pool. In twenty years of debates, Dawkins might be as good face-to-face as the AE guys, but he shouldn't have to learn it all through experience when we can just share the knowledge we've already accumulated.Tom Fosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13796424725228769265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-86164752567777377892009-02-05T15:14:00.000-06:002009-02-05T15:14:00.000-06:00I understand. The mere fact of his existence, thou...I understand. The mere fact of his existence, though, depresses me utterly. He's jumping through all of these hoops in order to justify a belief system that, ultimately, abandons billions of human beings -and he doesn't really care, so long as he gets the ontological security blanket for a few brief decades. <BR/><BR/>I can't see how humanity can survive with millions of people like this. It's funny; I suppose I agree with the Calvinists about "inherent depravity" - but it's <I>because</I> of them that I do! I see their belief system as the quintessential expression of it.Jeff Eygeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11967707883565162538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-23080353546499232552009-02-05T14:41:00.000-06:002009-02-05T14:41:00.000-06:00Naw, if I were Lee Strobel I'd talk about this ema...Naw, if I were Lee Strobel I'd talk about this email in story format, like this:<BR/><BR/>"I listened to the former Catholic seminarian, reeling in shock. Of course! I realized. It was all so simple! You WOULD think that a former Catholic seminarian would know about the Bible, but this can't be the case! The piercing insight of his simple words landed on me like a ton of bricks."<BR/><BR/>But seriously, folks. :)<BR/><BR/>When I saw I don't care what JK thinks, I mean it. Whether that one guy changes his mind is irrelevant to me. What you may not realize is that JK does us a favor by presenting his weak arguments and then acting as if he's won something. If you were to pick up a thousand strangers and make them read that post, most of them would come away with the same opinion, but a few would be saying "Gee, I have never heard that argument before but it's TERRIBLE."<BR/><BR/>Not that this would sway a believer in itself, but it's one incident among many.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05324968314168283095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-3278908190330035612009-02-05T14:21:00.000-06:002009-02-05T14:21:00.000-06:00I'm sure that's true. I'm not saying what you're d...I'm sure that's true. I'm not saying what you're doing is a waste of time. Again, as I said above - what you're doing isn't formal debate. But, I did read your post of this morning, so perhaps I'm wrong about that as well. I tend to focus on the negative, like this character J.K. from the other thread. He's doing what he did on Florien's blog - just keeps saying the same things, over and over. It doesn't matter what you say. You can't cut through denial that thick.<BR/><BR/>"The defense rests." Who are you, Strobel? "Case closed!"Jeff Eygeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11967707883565162538noreply@blogger.com