McMohammed (PBUH (Processed Beef Upon Him))- Face not shown, as it's hidden by clown make-up!
All nuggets slaughtered as cruelly and hallallallly as possible.
Click on image to supersize it! You know the drill.
Wednesday, December 19, 2012
McMohammed
McMohammed (PBUH (Processed Beef Upon Him))- Face not shown, as it's hidden by clown make-up!
All nuggets slaughtered as cruelly and hallallallly as possible.
Click on image to supersize it! You know the drill.
Thursday, December 6, 2012
-Ables 13: Smoreables
Not real Graham Crackers, no. Truth in advertisement compels them to the qualifier- Graham Style Crackers. In other words, polygraham-dextrocrackrulate. Although, to be perfectly nazi-grammatical, it should be Graham-style, not Graham Style, as the latter could be said to further modify 'Crackers' in it's own right, rendering a very stylish Cracker which also happens to be Graham.
It also amuses me, that the brand name, "kinnikinnick" is a corruption of an Unami word that often referred to tobacco.
With all the things this treat is FREE from, it's a wonder why they even bother.
-Ables 19: Woofables
You know we had to have one for the pets creeping about betwixt our feet. Apparently dogs, in particular. And don't shutter to notice that it is also quite gourmet. Not just any ball-lickin', leg-humpin', turd chewin', cat-puke slurpin' puppy would appreciate the finer points of this delicacy.. whatever it is.
So many of our -ables have been gourmet. It must be a case of tandem trait propagation. And, what other than being able to woof something would our canine companions request of us, and of retail? How does one woof something? Ask a dog. It sounds to me like a variation on certain forms of inhaled chemical abuse. I'm hoping I'm wrong, dogs' noses being so sensitive and all, but there is a possible clever secondary interpretation of the term bakery.
One thing's for sure, it is demonstrably evident that this item is made by dogs, for dogs. Seeing the customary chef's chapeau perched above the mascot's tilted visage must indicate that fact. However, said mascot's eyes appear to indicate that aforementioned secondary meaning for bakery.
-Ables 17: Toastables
Tired of chafing your fingertips twist-twist-twisting the bread bag tie, in order to ferret a couple slices out for your morning toastings? Which way is it twisted? Am I wringing it more tightly closed, or am I making progress toward my goal? It's often too laborious to ascertain. Worn ragged by the concentration and dexterity it requires to precisely struggle the slices, with very little margin of error, into the toaster slots, once you convey them all the way over to the appliance? Fatigued by the shear brute force it takes to both depress and lock into place the lowering lever? Bored to desiccation by having to loiter over the heat of the device, anticipating what might emerge as nothing but charred flagstone?
Well, fret no more! Now your toast is toastable!.. well, your bread was always toastable, to be accurate, but now your toast is microwaveable!.. or something. (note to product development devision concerning name).
Simply start by nimbly ferreting a couple slices out of the handy resealable box. Which end is the resealable opening tab on? You'll have very little problem checking all six sides to figure it out! Then effortlessly lug the selected slices the short distance all the way over to the microwave oven, open the door, place the already toasted, but cold as dirt, slices of delectable (note to product development devision concerning possible name change).. toastable slices onto your favourite toast-sized plate (note to customer: Do not place toast directly onto interior floor or rotating surface of microwave, as it is most likely quite unsanitary.) Proceed to program the mechanism to the desired heating time and temperature, and voila! Out jumps toast. Perfect every time (no variation in toasting hue possible, as toast is already toasted). It's simply toastable!.. err, you know.
Cleverly marketed to seniors, who are most likely more fatigued by the chore of making toast. Indication of this being, the bite mark on the product packaging illustrates no application of teeth, but instead clearly exhibits a gummed incising.
Wednesday, December 5, 2012
-Ables 16: Steamables
What do we have here? Whatever it is, it's most certainly Deluxe. The pedestrian model either must not be Asian, or perhaps contain only run-of-the-mill peas. I'm not settling for that. My vegetables have to be pictSweet.. all the way. So.. does that mean they are as sweet as the long lost Picts, only the ghosts of whom may yet wander the British Isles? How can they substantiate this claim? Is there archeological or anthropological evidence that the Picts could be described thusly? Were they actually of a sugary nature, or could they have been simply pleasant folk? It's all academic at this point, I suppose.
However, do take note that an apostrophe has been employed here. Always a sign that something, something, has been omitted. It could have been anything from Steam Locomotive-ables, to Steaming Pile of Shit-ables. Beware the apostrophe.
-Ables 15: Spreadables
There must be a parade of vile imitators seeking to undercut the enormous profit potential of this fine product, as its creators make sure we know decisively that it is "THE ORIGINAL". Accept no imitations folks, no matter how temptingly similar they may appear at first. Can a pretender confidently assert its status as gourmet?.. Maybe so, but can it truthfully tout an edgy yet brilliant mixture of bacon, cheddar and horseradish?.. They may perhaps get away with a paltry swill of ham, Gouda and daikon, .. ooh, actually, that sounds kind of good... Anyways... most important of all, is it spreadable?
-Ables 14: Snackables
I'm also quite relieved they chose to assure us that the cheese was actually NATURAL, and not monstrous or freakish. However, given the little mascot character to the left, I'm not so sure it isn't.
Remember, kids, the package says that this product is snackable, so don't be binding yourself up internally by downing the full contents in one go, under the mistaken notion of it being mealable. You've been warned.
Thursday, November 15, 2012
-Ables 12: Shakeables
From our good buddy, Orville! Were you under the impression that once you popped your popcorn, or even perhaps before, that you were unable or not allowed to shake it.. shake it, baby, shake it? Has this been an ongoing concern for you, your family, or friends? Venture out from under that misconception, Orville beckons us. His product is undeniably shakable! "Real"* and shakeable! New and gourmet!
Notice all the assurances that the buttermilk and "Ranch" are real. I think Orville doth protest too much. 0 transfat and real buttermilk? Yeah, right.
-Ables 11: Noticeables
Oh, Febreze, I should think that if you're going to bring a deodorizer to market, that it certainly and expectedly would be, at a minimum, noticeable. Money back otherwise. That's not to say you wouldn't still sell them successfully if you were to go so far as to put "Absolutely and Completely NOT Noticeable" on the label, as is evidenced by the propensity of some people to fall for homeopathy nonsense.
The meme is continued with the appearance of our old friend, pluralising 's'.
Aside from that, let's take a look at the aromas you've chosen here. 'Vanilla', alright, understandable. 'Refresh'... You've lost me. Now that's ripe with descriptive clarity, isn't it(?) If jumping on the meme wagon was too strenuous for your creative noggins, Febreze, you could have just said so.
-Ables 10: Munchables
Not to be outdone by Oscar Mayer and their wienery bologna and bologny wieners, Nabisco shows us it can play along. Munchables was an easy one. Just take the 'L' off of Lunchables and put an 'M' in its place! Take that, Oscar!
And for all those marginally challenged among us, the recipe of the item is right on the front- picture of pretzel + picture of cracker.
I'm not acknowledging you again, 'Crunchables'. You had to replace 2 whole letters.
-Ables 9: Lunchables
It was if to say, "these items, which you would usually only label as 'snack food' (Addition of 'food' is acknowledged as arguable.), can, in fact and in practice, be consumed as a lunch, kids*.
And just so there's no question, take note that this particular selection is "deluxe".
*Lunchables is a part of a complete lunch, which should necessarily include another, actually complete lunch.
-Ables 8: Lickables
Although 'lickable' isn't in every dictionary, I can certainly get behind it. It should be. However, the nominalising plural 's' throws it back in our meme pot.
Also, what's up with the hyphen? It's reminiscent of 'to-day', 'web-site', and 'back-ground'.
How retro.
-Ables 7: Grapeables
Shall we not even attempt a pretense at style, Fountain Hill's wine? I guess not, after first having conjured an image of a fountain of wine, might as well go for the -Ables meme. On top of that, and I suppose appropriately enough, your location is a 'spot' on the 'lakeside'. Could very well be a cabana bar. Does it come in a box? I'm guessing, yes.
Am I too harsh?
-Ables 2: Crunchables
You are hereby notified that the product can be "crunched". Not only are you apprised of this, but you are also instructed peripherally, to get the noun form of that verb "on". Whether this is like getting your trousers on or getting your brat on the next train to summer camp, we may never ascertain. But whatever it may mean, rest assured by the product's appellation, that the action is entirely conceivable within the realm of endeavors.
-Ables 3: Dunkables
Dunkables are here to quiet your guilt for plunging your little brothers head under the water at the ol' swimming hole, despite the inconvenience of his not having been able to swim.. or breathe under water for that matter. It's alright now. In fact, it's designed directly into the retail commodity for your enjoyment, without consequence.
But shall we dunk an unnamed item into the product, such as perhaps our baby brother, or are we meant to dunk the product into some unidentified object or substance? Perhaps there are further directions inside the box.
-Ables 4: Friendlyable
Disneyland has the capability to be friendly, we see, but this doesn't guarantee that it actually will be.
This specimen lacks the expected plural ending, letting the expression remain adjectival. It makes up for that failing, however, by attaching our star suffix to an as equally inappropriate adverb. Not only that, but we're notified that it is described thusly to quite a protracted extent, by the "so" submodifier, as well as the exclamation point, subtly separated from the interjection by a friendly captain's hat.
We'll give the ad a pass on its unpolished form, as it's easily the oldest of the collection.
-Ables 5: Fruitables
What might it mean exactly "to fruit"? This is the first example we have where an actual noun is violated with our suffix of note. But is it really?.. Aha! We may have tumbled right into the ploy if not for the clarifying subtext, which reveals the product's moniker having originated with the combination of 'fruit' and 'vegetable', wherein the vegetables had to give considerable ground to the domineering fruit- a clever illustration of a physical blending of the two, as well as a lexical one.
The "Berry Berry" variety (pictured 2nd), is most probably rich in thiamine, as it appears to be a remedy for the nervous system ailment of the same name.
-Ables 6: Funable
Observe another ancient entry from Disney. The noun, 'fun' -yes, noun- may have donned the mantel of adjective in our modern, jetpack, iTelephoned society, but it's never been a verb, folks. And as usual, our favourite adjectival suffix is inappropriately pressing itself against an unsuspecting part of speech for which it is not intended. Oh the humanity!
-Ables 1: Bakeables
Embark with me, if you will, on a voyage not only of probability, but of possibility and capability, a voyage of -ABLES.
Certain products would hope to convey their versatility by incorporating, strangely enough, their single preparation, use or consumption method within the name. Others then jump on the bandwagon, and exploit the resulting apparent cool factor... to a fault. Isn't that always how the market goes? From television & movie themes to toys & snacks. Let's milk the gimmick cow for all it's worth folks, it won't be palatable forever.
This series will explore the variety of products that want you, the consumer, to know that they actually function how they are intended to, and not how they might not intend to. They accomplish this by not only slamming a noun, adjective or other part of speech with an adjectival suffix, but then continuing on the morpho-syntactical roller-coaster ride, wrenching the product name back into the nominal, using the plural 's' or 'es'.
How clever.
First up, Bakeables.. or rather, Bake Ables. The tiny space and ever so slight capitalisation of the second part of the name seems to indicate an incomplete commitment to the "ables" concept. Unfortunately, this also renders a confusing twist for the preparation of a small European river fish, otherwise known as the Common Bleak.
Certain products would hope to convey their versatility by incorporating, strangely enough, their single preparation, use or consumption method within the name. Others then jump on the bandwagon, and exploit the resulting apparent cool factor... to a fault. Isn't that always how the market goes? From television & movie themes to toys & snacks. Let's milk the gimmick cow for all it's worth folks, it won't be palatable forever.
This series will explore the variety of products that want you, the consumer, to know that they actually function how they are intended to, and not how they might not intend to. They accomplish this by not only slamming a noun, adjective or other part of speech with an adjectival suffix, but then continuing on the morpho-syntactical roller-coaster ride, wrenching the product name back into the nominal, using the plural 's' or 'es'.
How clever.
First up, Bakeables.. or rather, Bake Ables. The tiny space and ever so slight capitalisation of the second part of the name seems to indicate an incomplete commitment to the "ables" concept. Unfortunately, this also renders a confusing twist for the preparation of a small European river fish, otherwise known as the Common Bleak.
Snickers! (no bacon.. yet)
The giant Reese's needed a playmate. Unfortunately, there isn't a 'with bacon' version yet.
Saturday, November 10, 2012
Giant Reese's Are Back!
I guess 10 bucks ain't bad for such a prize. I saw that they also have giant Snickers, giant York Peppermint Patties, and giant Hershey Bars. Each of them weigh 1lb. I'm tempted to get one of each of them, but that would add up quickly.
Sadly, the 1lb Hershey Bars used to be a regular thing for about $2.
It's cute how they have "to: from:" on there, as if I would share this with any scrounging soul, much less give it away!
Monday, September 24, 2012
Défense de Flip Flops
My response to THIS
For every footprints in the sandals cross-a-ma-jigs that I see, I'll be right behind 'em walking with these on.
For every footprints in the sandals cross-a-ma-jigs that I see, I'll be right behind 'em walking with these on.
Saturday, September 1, 2012
Ode to Sandwich Meats
A wiener is a floppy thing with meat inside its casing./
And if you place it in a bun it's never worth replacing./
For when you reach the end of it, you're always left with bread./
And putting one more wiener in will just leave meat instead.
Baloney is a flatter version, round and fit for snacking./
And even if you pile it up the roundness keeps on stacking./
Bread is flat. I'll give you that. But it is also square./
So if you use it for a base, four corners will be there.
weskos 100500
And if you place it in a bun it's never worth replacing./
For when you reach the end of it, you're always left with bread./
And putting one more wiener in will just leave meat instead.
Baloney is a flatter version, round and fit for snacking./
And even if you pile it up the roundness keeps on stacking./
Bread is flat. I'll give you that. But it is also square./
So if you use it for a base, four corners will be there.
weskos 100500
Wednesday, August 8, 2012
Skandinaviske Flaggana með Mjolnir
So, Christianity never permeated Scandinavia, and Thor´s Mjolnir is depicted on their flags instead of the Nordic Cross.
Wednesday, July 18, 2012
Limericks for No Religion
Of this I am sore well aware.
There's nothing that fails like prayer.
The "good" Lord could afford
to see one limb restored.
Either that, or he just doesn't care.
By a Christian man I was once told
"Just pray, and your wish you'll behold!"
When it failed to work,
I replied with a smirk,
It appears I've been left in the cold.
Don't think me aloof or unfair,
To ask for some proof that He's there.
Wanting me to believe,
Without means to perceive,
Some invisible dude in the air.
They say cover your bets, and believe,
Or end up in a place you can't leave.
But which faith to choose?
The odds are you'll lose.
Think a god won't see what's up your sleeve?
"All are welcome! Come join us!" They cry.
In fact, you had better, or fry!
God's love accepts all
Whether fat, short or tall.
But GAY, then you need not apply.
©Wesley J Koster 2012
There's nothing that fails like prayer.
The "good" Lord could afford
to see one limb restored.
Either that, or he just doesn't care.
By a Christian man I was once told
"Just pray, and your wish you'll behold!"
When it failed to work,
I replied with a smirk,
It appears I've been left in the cold.
Don't think me aloof or unfair,
To ask for some proof that He's there.
Wanting me to believe,
Without means to perceive,
Some invisible dude in the air.
They say cover your bets, and believe,
Or end up in a place you can't leave.
But which faith to choose?
The odds are you'll lose.
Think a god won't see what's up your sleeve?
"All are welcome! Come join us!" They cry.
In fact, you had better, or fry!
God's love accepts all
Whether fat, short or tall.
But GAY, then you need not apply.
©Wesley J Koster 2012
Friday, July 13, 2012
Tuesday, July 3, 2012
Only In America
You'd think this would go without saying. That's right, here in the good U.S. of A., it has to be stipulated.
..Also, No Raping of Children, No Poisoning of the Elderly and No Stabbing of the Mentally Disabled.
Monday, July 2, 2012
The Loving Jesus: Fig Tree Hater
Tweet: I often wonder how #Christians tout a loving #Jesus in light of these verses: Matt 10:34, Luke 14:26, Luke 19:27, Mark 11:12-14. #atheism
For those apologists, -and you know they'll jump- here is clarification. No amount of "context", "hidden meaning", or "revelation" alleviates the clarity of the non-love message.
'But but, There are other verses where Jesus talks about peace! (Mark 9:50, John 14:27, John 16:33 etc.).'
You may notice that the character always wishes or bestows peace on his followers, but never claims to bring peace to the world. His aim is to disrupt, not to promote understanding or quell conflict.
Matt 10:34
Jesus is not just referencing division and strife, or referencing the OT. He is ascribing that strife to himself, as cause with intent.
It cannot be claimed that it was not his "wish" to do so, as an omnipotent god, he can do whatever he wishes, and if he brings war and strife, then that's what he obviously wishes. Quite typical of his supposed alter-ego, the war god Yahweh.
Luke 14:26
The Greek word 'misou' cannot be claimed used in the same ordinal/prioritising sense as the Hebrew word /shin/-/nun/-/alef/.
The authors of the NT gospels show themselves not to really understand the Hebrew of the OT when referencing it. This is also the cause for the mistaken translation of Isaiah, which gave rise to the "virgin birth" concept.
Luke 19:27
Though within a parable, this is no excuse. The words of the Jesus character clearly depict a greedy, unforgiving, graceless in-story tyrant, who not only "reaps what he doesn't sow", but pronounces reward for the "haves" over the "have nots", and calls for the execution of those who deny his reign. That tyrant is also clearly an analogy for himself/God.
That's not a parable of love in the slightest sense.
Mark 11:12-14
Jesus doesn't know that the fig tree, having leaves on it, will not have figs yet. It's not in season. He should not expect figs. Yet he does. His omniscience is on the fritz, it would seem, the entire time he's on Earth as his own son. A hole in omniscience would, by definition, counter the entire notion.
Though a fig tree cannot possibly bear fault, or benefit from punishment, Jesus curses the fig tree, that it would bear no fruit/ edible fruit/ or that its fruit would not be eaten. This is a clear over-reaction on his part. An infinite punishment for a finite disappointment, that was not the tree's fault in the first place.
What kind of loving god does such impetuously human things?
There are sooooo many "deeper meaning","mysterious ways","context", "reference" apologetics excuses for this one, they number as figs on a tree.. until Jesus gets ahold of it. After all the rationalisation, the question is left. Why would a god character do such a thing, then leave it so unclear, and so as to make it appear he's just an unreasonable hot-head?
For those apologists, -and you know they'll jump- here is clarification. No amount of "context", "hidden meaning", or "revelation" alleviates the clarity of the non-love message.
'But but, There are other verses where Jesus talks about peace! (Mark 9:50, John 14:27, John 16:33 etc.).'
You may notice that the character always wishes or bestows peace on his followers, but never claims to bring peace to the world. His aim is to disrupt, not to promote understanding or quell conflict.
Matt 10:34
Jesus is not just referencing division and strife, or referencing the OT. He is ascribing that strife to himself, as cause with intent.
It cannot be claimed that it was not his "wish" to do so, as an omnipotent god, he can do whatever he wishes, and if he brings war and strife, then that's what he obviously wishes. Quite typical of his supposed alter-ego, the war god Yahweh.
Luke 14:26
The Greek word 'misou' cannot be claimed used in the same ordinal/prioritising sense as the Hebrew word /shin/-/nun/-/alef/.
The authors of the NT gospels show themselves not to really understand the Hebrew of the OT when referencing it. This is also the cause for the mistaken translation of Isaiah, which gave rise to the "virgin birth" concept.
Luke 19:27
Though within a parable, this is no excuse. The words of the Jesus character clearly depict a greedy, unforgiving, graceless in-story tyrant, who not only "reaps what he doesn't sow", but pronounces reward for the "haves" over the "have nots", and calls for the execution of those who deny his reign. That tyrant is also clearly an analogy for himself/God.
That's not a parable of love in the slightest sense.
Mark 11:12-14
Jesus doesn't know that the fig tree, having leaves on it, will not have figs yet. It's not in season. He should not expect figs. Yet he does. His omniscience is on the fritz, it would seem, the entire time he's on Earth as his own son. A hole in omniscience would, by definition, counter the entire notion.
Though a fig tree cannot possibly bear fault, or benefit from punishment, Jesus curses the fig tree, that it would bear no fruit/ edible fruit/ or that its fruit would not be eaten. This is a clear over-reaction on his part. An infinite punishment for a finite disappointment, that was not the tree's fault in the first place.
What kind of loving god does such impetuously human things?
There are sooooo many "deeper meaning","mysterious ways","context", "reference" apologetics excuses for this one, they number as figs on a tree.. until Jesus gets ahold of it. After all the rationalisation, the question is left. Why would a god character do such a thing, then leave it so unclear, and so as to make it appear he's just an unreasonable hot-head?
Saturday, June 30, 2012
WLC on Infidel Website
William Lane Craig condescends to list the top 10 "worst of the worst" objections to his Kalam cosmological argument, and answers them.. or does he?
This is not a well structured response, by any means. I just wanted to vent, because smarmy academic elitism, especially religious based, chafes my waddles. I refer to the cad sometimes in the second person, sometimes in the third. So pardon the poor form, if you would.
SCHOLARLY VIDEO ON INFIDEL WEBSITE
Craig answers objections, as he sees them, formulated to easily refute. He has plenty of straw to pack in the gaps, while simultaneously switching the load bearing to that straw.
He starts off by intimating that he's wasting his time. This is just an attempt to disparage any criticism that he deems not worth his station. After all, he's a scholarly professional. This is the sense I got from his opening remarks-
~Firstly, I'm a professional. I'm wasting my time~I was sooo surprised by objections I hadn't considered~I lower myself to address these objections, because the merit of an objection is judged not by the quality of the counter-assertion against the lack of account for it in the premise it objects to, but by the station of the medium on which a person happens to bring the objection. "Popular" websites! Not journals. Youtube! Not "scholarly"! Oh the "infidel websites"! My argument should stand, because I'm a professional, and I am presenting it! What? You're not even going to accept the premises of the argument?! But I'm a professional! You're supposed to just swallow what I say as sound! How dare you actually consider the elements of the argument, instead of evaluating them, these premises, put forth by me, a professional? Otherwise, if you don't "presuppose" with me, how is my Presuppositional Apologetics shaped nonsense pill supposed to slip down your throat and allow the encapsulated incoherent contents of the argument to pretend to stand? Oh the infidel websites.~
"I've never given this talk before!"
Goes on to rehash, without actually addressing the more serious objections to Kalam or its premises. ~If I say the objections are *bad*, *squirrelly* (irony), *misguided*, and *off the wall*, a sufficient number of times, all objections become bad, and I don't actually have to address them.~ But hoh, I shall appear to address them, when actually addressing sidecar strawmen that I imagine the objections to be! Or even better, easy marks that are easily answered~
"The crucial second premise of the argument is supported by both philosophical arguments against the infinitude of the past.."
Certainly, no one is claiming infinity, either in a spacial or temporal sense, since these are qualities observed of an expanding universe, and not, in any sense, attributable to a non-relative singularity. Objection not addressed.
"..and by scientific evidence for a beginning of the universe.."
This is simply not true. Science, i.e. the "Big Bang" theory, describes the expansion of the universe from a singularity. It does not describe the "beginning", or inception of that singularity, nor can it, so far as we know, describe anything beyond that singularity. Craig is making an unfounded assertion.
"Having arrived at the conclusion that the universe has a cause..."
Yeah No. We haven't arrived there by any stretch of the imagination. Craig even jumped completely over premise one, and started with two.
"..one may then do a conceptual analysis of what it means to be a cause of the universe."
Aside from having unfound premises, his analysis is hilarious. So many unconnected dots.
Hey, let's start ascribing and attributing all sorts of *universe-dependent properties and characteristics to our 'cause'! Why, you may ask? So that we can try and stretch a tenuous to untenable bridge between this concept and a character of our pet religious delusion!
".. And one discovers that one is thereby brought to.."
How one is "brought to" the following, he never describes. And why should he? It is, after all, to his advantage to simply state this as the obvious result, without going into how, when in fact, they do certainly NOT follow.
"..an uncaused.."
What about serial causation? (one thing causes another thing, causes another thing, and so on.) Yeah. As long as we're being unreasonably hypothetical, and ascribing universe dependent concepts outside where they might be applicable, let's continue to extrapolate, on the same grounds that WLC does.
Causation interaction in the form of serial causation is observed in the universe.
Causation interaction has been reasoned (at least according to WLC) between an extra-universal concept and the universe.
Now what's to prevent an extrapolation of that serial causation, rendering your universal cause one simple link in a who-knows-how-long chain of causers and causees? Would that perhaps be, that such an idea would go against an attempt to rationalise your pet deity? Bottom line. How do you know that this is where the buck stops? How do you know that this cause is uncaused? Is it because you can't ascribe universe-dependent concepts, like serial causation, outside the universe? Well then, why ascribe any of the other characteristics to it?
"..beginning-less.."
Same objection as above. If your cause is outside the universe, then by all current knowledge, it would indeed be unsubstantiated of a timespace dependent concept such as "beginning". However, we've already jumped the fence on unreasonable hypothetical ascription of characteristics to your cause, so why do you then think this is the place to draw the line? Perhaps your cause resides (another timespace dependent concept) in a superverse, structured of its own timespace.
"..change-less.."
Same objection as above.
"..time-less.."
Same objection as above.
"..space-less.."
"..immaterial.."
Same objection as above.
"..enormously powerful.."
OK. Here's where you really jump on the loony train. Power, as a function of work/energy and rate, is a conceptual product of multiple universe-dependent elements. Even if all those elements could be shown to exist in a superverse, or outside our own universe, how the hell are you going to suppose to know the proportion of their interaction across a universal boundary. Yeah, this is just another thorn in the side of the elephant in the room. The mechanism of the cause across the apparent universal boundary has not been shown. We can show how one thing causes another "thing" inside the universe. Postulating cause from outside the universe, without a described mechanism for such causation, is nothing more than imagination.
"..personal.."
Did I say you were just on the loony train. I'm sorry, like the superverse, I failed to see the super loony train onto which that loony train was capable of jumping. How the flying fuck do you come by "personal" at this stage. You show yourself to be doing nothing more than stretching unwarranted apron strings between your "cause" and your pet deity now, WLC. If I wasn't familiar with you, or your silly Kalam argument before, this is where I would most certainly abandon any possible respect for you or that argument.
"..creator.."
The word "creator" ascribes unwarranted, undemonstrated intent, where the word "cause" does not. Such fail. Where did that intent suddenly come from?
Objections to the General Form
1) Reference to WLC's Even if no Kalam/holy spirt in heart slip-
This is not an objection to Kalam. Yes. It's an objection to WLC. Addressing it here is a Red Herring on top of a Red Herring, as well as a bit of a homeless straw man. Craig's citation of it within this list, to refute objections to Kalam does not consequently strengthen the standing of Kalam in some sort of default sense, nor does it impede other objections to Kalam by its inclusion here, as he wishes it to.
Indeed, because it's included here as an objection to Kalam, without being directed by anyone as such, shows Craig to be hand-waving. Who said they were using this against Kalam, and not specifically against WLC himself? Who is it that states the paragraph shown in the slide, including the assertion, "This is blatant hypocrisy on Craig's part."? WLC's concentration of this "objection" to himself, and not to Kalam, as an Ad Hominem, instead of the simple Red Herring that it might be, if in fact it was directed by some unknown person as an objection to Kalam, instead of to himself, shows him also simply to be playing the victim card. WLC, you do not equal Kalam, so why are you including it here, without referencing who directed this objection as one for Kalam? The paragraph you show as Objection #1 doesn't state that Kalam is wrong because you don't base your belief on it. It simply states that you don't base your belief on it. This is not an objection to the General Form of the argument.
"So, what does make for a sound, deductive argument? The answer is, true premises, and valid logic."
Well, there you go. The premises are not sound.
"The argument was, after all, defended by the Medieval Muslim theologian Al-Khazali 1000 years before I was born. If the argument is sound, it was sound then. If the argument is sound, it was sound during the Jurassic period, before anyone had propounded it."
Yeah. If it were sound. But given our increased knowledge, through science, about the universe, it can be shown not to be sound, or at the very least, not accepted without questions based on that knowledge.
WLC goes on to expound on the necessity of evidence and plausibility above and beyond the soundness of an argument. Good point. This is him shooting himself.. or rather Kalam, in the foot. The evidence simply doesn't support it, as I clarified earlier by detailing our knowledge and lack of knowledge about the singularity.
2) Kalam is question-begging, circular reasoning.
The presupposition for question-begging is that the "cause" is the Christian God, not that the logic is not sound for concluding a "cause".
This isn't a principle on which I need to object to the basic argument. However, Craig is missing the point. From what I understand, people who object to the argument on the basis of question-begging are doing so because of the presupposition by WLC, and Christian Kalam proponents that the "cause" is exactly equatable with their God. The conclusion is for a "cause", alone. The unsupported extrapolation to the Christian God, is ridiculous. Given the supposed nature and characteristics of their god, it is more than far-reaching, and the gap is not bridged. They are invalidly applied to the "cause" on the basis of that list of "thereby brought-to's", above.
Craig goes on to spend quite some time arguing against what he sets up to be objection #2.
3) Equivocation of the term "cause".
This objection is still valid. Craig's argument for efficient cause does fail to account for material cause. Even if there is efficient cause, you need mechanism and material described to substantiate the causation of a product.
My objection is in his definition of "thing", examples of which we only have within the universe, which invalidates the application of premise one to the universe as a whole. This, therefore demolishes premise two.
"The charge of equivocation immediately evaporates."
No, it doesn't. Just because you narrow your definition for one component of causation, doesn't mean that you've accounted for the other constituent elements.
Objections to the Premises
Premise One
4) The fallacy of composition
Craig admits that to argue the fallacy of composition for the universe would be "manifestly fallacious", and says he's never done so, but then fails to alleviate this objection by actually doing so, and delineating a further list of invalid reasons for premise one, leaving him in the bed he's made by his admission.
Reasons he believes premise one true:
1) Something cannot come from nothing
What an interesting claim. Please show me any examples of "nothing" we have ever had the pleasure of evaluating? And then go on to show how you know what can and cannot "come out of" it.
"To claim that something can come into being out of nothing is worse than magic."
No one made that claim. You're the one who brought up "nothing". Ever so much straw. And fancy you should bring up "magic". What again was the mechanism by which your "Go..".. I mean "cause" "created" the universe? Oh, it didn't need a mechanism/ material cause? Well, later on in your talk you show yourself to be the purveyour of magic.
"If you deny premise one, you've got to think that the whole universe just appeared, at some point in the past, for no reason whatsoever."
What?! So, WLC is saying, 'if you deny premise one, you've got to [accept premise two]'? And then adds the entirely unrelated concept of necessity of reason, as if it somehow strengthens the contention that premise one is true. That's ridiculous. It is unwarranted to assume that everything has a reason, much less the universe. This also begs the question that the universe is to be classified as a "thing". Craig shows himself to be inextricably bound to his notion of intent and a personal nature for his "cause". He conflates the terms "cause" with "reason", and extrapolates intent. Tut tut.
"But nobody sincerely believes..."
Argument from incredulity, blah blah blah. Argument from ignorance, blah blah blah. Gives examples of universe-dependent subsets, i.e. things, and tries to use the unreasonableness of their "pop[ping] into being" as grounds that, supposedly, a singularity could not possibly do so.
2) If something can come into being from nothing, then why doesn't everything
Incredulity, Ignorance. Therefore God. Gives examples of universe-dependent and human defined concepts of "things", and tries to leverage incredulity to apply their characteristics to the universe as a whole.
Continues to reference the unfounded and undefined concept of "Nothing".
"Nothingness doesn't have any properties!"
Great observation, WLC! Then why are you assigning properties to it?
3) Common experience and scientific evidence confirm the truth of premise one.
No, they don't. Firstly, common experience as presupposed to mean human sensory experience is one of the most flawed and inaccurate of systems for confirming truth. That's why the scientific method and independent verification with objective substantiation has been so valuable to us. Science. And science, does most certainly NOT go so far as to confirm premise one. You, WLC, are either mistaken, or a liar.
"Premise one is constantly verified and never falsified."
Sun comes up, Sun goes down. Never a miscommunication. How about, WLC, you don't extrapolate beyond what is reasonable. Just because all whales in the ocean were birthed, doesn't mean the ocean was birthed. We live in such a small portion of the universe, and have knowledge of so little. How do you know everything that begins to exist has a cause? How can you pretend to extrapolate that from the speck of existence the entire human race has experienced, to the universe as a whole?
Craig goes on to totally gaff inductive reasoning as applied to classes. He assumes the class of "thing" for the universe, without warrant.
5) If the universe began to exist, then it must have come from nothing.
I've never heard anyone claim this. What again, WLC, is this "nothing" you speak of? This appears to be an obese strawman.
Craig goes on to try and define his use of the word. Goes into a stand-up routine that would make Abbott and Costello proud, but fails to give any practical examples of "nothing". We have, in this universe, seen examples of things, and other things, but never of nothing. Why is he applying this concept? It certainly hasn't been advanced in science. Straw.
"Metaphysically absurd.."
Sure, why not. After all, isn't everything claimed metaphysical, absurd? Since there has never been any examples of the "metaphysical" either, this measure has no meaning.
"..truths of metaphysics"
That concept is just as meaningful as "the flavour of magic".
Craig cites Plato and expounds on how old and wise premise one is. Just because something is old, doesn't make it true, or wise. Plato asks a question, and is premature with an answer, just as Craig is.
Premise two
6) Nothing ever begins to exist.. So it's not true that universe began to exist.
Again, putting words into the mouth of the objector. The objection stands, for the first part, but you misrepresent the second part. it should read, "..So, it cannot be claimed that a beginning is substantiated for the universe." We, or at least I, don't claim that the universe began to exist or not, that it is true or not true that it did so. I simply state that there is insufficient grounds to accept a definitive claim that it did.
Craig claims this is his favourite, as it's "patently ridiculous". He then goes on to show himself to be ridiculous. He completely misunderstands the concept of classification and the dependent nature of the definition of the word 'thing'.
He goes on to ask questions in the same vein as "If Earth is round, then why don't we fall off?"
"Did I exist before I was conceived?! If so, where was I?"
Your constituent parts existed, and the parts which make up those parts existed, in combination and recombination for the existence of the universe. Matter is of energy and energy of space, and space of the expansion of the universe. Trying to mine incredulity again is simply disingenuous.
He summarises in the completely back-assward position of stating, "Just because the stuff of which something was made has always existed, doesn't imply that the thing itself has always existed." No one is claiming that it does. The reasonable conclusion is the other way around, however. Just because you define a thing as a thing, at some point, and assign meaning to it, doesn't mean that the entirety of the material that comprise all things was "caused" to exist, much less "made".
"The objector could save himself the embarrassment of claiming that he has always existed..."
You really want to suck as much juice as possible out of that strawman, don't you, WLC. No one claims they always existed. You could do well to save yourself embarrassment, but I know that's not going to happen.
Craig continues and goes down the tangential path of mereological nihilism, because he'd rather not address the actual objection, and he imagines nihilism to be the only other option, if we don't accept his worldview of intrinsic meaning.
Finishing up, WLC dishonestly conflates conceptual existence with practical existence, to obfuscate the position of a straw objector. Time well-spent(!)
I had lunch.
"There's no sort of metaphysical absurdity involved in something's having an efficient cause, but no material cause.."
Did you really just say that, WLC?! So something can come from whatever you mean by nothing, after all? Great, so a magic man (efficient cause) can magic stuff (object) without material cause (source material). This is what I was referring to before, where you would bring out your own pimp-bag of magic. Oh, Craig, what hurts more, your stomach from digesting your brain, or your brain from being digested by your stomach?
7) Equivocation of "begins" in relation to material and non-material states.
A side note: It's interesting to see, at this point, how Craig has surreptitiously switched the term "cause" out for the proper noun, "God". Blatantly dishonest.
"By 'begins to exist', all I mean is, 'comes into being'."
Yeah, that doesn't help at all. You haven't defined it at all, univocally or otherwise, We're back in the same boat we started in. What do you mean by "being"? You haven't addressed the difference between a universe-dependent "thing's" coming into being from previous material, and the coming into being of a universe from something you haven't even bothered to define yet.
Seven is a convenient extension of WLC's conflation of conceptual existence with practical/empirical existence.
Instead of addressing the actual objection, again, he chooses to redefine and talk about what he wants the objection to entail. The objection hinges on the absurdity of a claim for a "non-material" state, not an the equivocation of one verses the other, as if both concepts were valid. What do you mean by non-material state? "nothing"? What is that?
He also doesn't address the temporally dependent nature of the term "begin". He simply states that there's no problem with it, without really saying why.
"..It would allow even time itself to begin to exist."
It would even allow Bugs Bunny to pick himself up by the ears. Craig so horribly FAILS in his understanding of the concept of 'time'. It's as if he thinks it's an independent "thing" or "stuff".
When WLC confronts himself with the problem of an intercession by his "God" making his god time-dependent, instead of doing the honest thing (because that would be "wrong-headed"), and contemplating the possibility of a temporal-spacial cause, he changes his analysis to allow for the characteristics that he already fancies for his god. This is, therefore, not an "analysis", as he's been calling it.
"..if He enters into time from a moment of timelessness.."
Holy flying fuck! He doesn't even realise how stupid that sounds. This is why I call him a clown. Clown's would be funny if they weren't so tragic. Moment of timelessness indeed.
Objections to the Conclusion
8) Kalam is logically self-contradictory. Everything has a cause, but concludes a first uncaused cause.
"Man, how do people think these things up?!"
This clearly shows that Craig has opted for the low-hanging fruit to respond to, as far as objections are concerned. He obviously includes this only to try and make himself look better from his tower of condescension, and objectors to look foolish. Cheap tactic. Yeah. I'll just sit back and watch you play with all the cheat codes turned on.
"The atheist has typically said that the universe itself is eternal and uncaused..The problem is, that supposition has now been rendered dubious in light of the strong arguments in support of premise two.."
What part of 'only extrapolated back to the singularity' doesn't Craig understand? Evidently, the entirety of it. Premise two lies as floppy as it always has.
..Oh, we're done with the eternal universe concept? Nothing else to offer except your assertion for "strong arguments"? Well, that was disappointing.
9) "Cause" might as well be nothingness, because of the characteristics shared with Nothingness, of time-, change-, space-lessness.
Let me guess. He's going to try to shimmy in the "enormously powerful" quality he imagined before. Yep, that was it. He doesn't even see the problem that power for cause needs a mode of transfer. And that mechanism is not shown to be possible, much less defined and described. Even more damagingly, all of the -lessnesses that he postulates for his Go.. mmmm 'cause', would, by definition, preclude "power".
In his rant against negative predicates he wholly misses the fact that his 'efficient cause' without 'material cause', falls exactly into that category. Something from nothing. It's just tweaked to 'Something from nothing, by someone.'
"The attribution of negative predicates.. to this entity.. is enormously informative, and metaphysically significant. From [these attributions].. we can deduce its personhood."
Let me guess again. It has the exact attributes that you fancy for your god. Skipping over what the hell "metaphysically significant" might mean, The idea that 'timelessness' and 'immateriality' can be used to deduce personhood, is feverish. What kind of person ever, anywhere, could possibly be conceived of as being timeless and immaterial? The very nature of personality is defied by those qualities. WLC, can you deduce the personality of my pet rock?
10)
WLC makes sure, right out of the gate on this one, to mention that Dawkins doesn't dispute either premise of Kalam. He would be more honest in saying that he doesn't need to. Or simply hasn't. That doesn't mean that Dawkins accepts the premises, or the argument. In fact, we've most of us heard Dawkins make humorous quips about it.
Because Dawkins goes so far as to construct a hypothetical, WLC, dishonestly jumps to claim that Dawkins concedes that Kalam proves a first cause, replete with all the bells and whistles that Craig would fancy to endow it with; to prop it up as his god.
Craig points out that Dawkins' quote doesn't address Kalam specifically. But again, Craig misses the point. Dawkins is simply not playing WLC's little game. He sees the whole spiel for what it is. An attempt by a Christian apologist to dishonestly wedge his god in the door of a more general argument. Dawkins just addresses the ultimate unwarranted conclusion that desperate christians are hoping to make. So, Dr. Dr. Spacecaptain Craig. You wouldn't have any trouble at all conceding that the primal cause in your Kalam argument might be something akin to Satan?
"A being, as described, must exist."
Oh, now it's a "being". Now there's a loaded term.
"These represent the level of discourse that pervades the internet and YouTube. I hope you can see how worthless they are."
"I think the culture's always been kinda dumb."
"It's just that we need to help a lot of these infidel types to realize that they haven't mastered the literature."
I guess my paltry 3 decades of religious study and degree in comparative religion just doesn't cut it. I'm sorry to have visited any discomfort upon your Lordship. We're not worthy to find fault with his Grace's pronouncements! It's easy, when you pick out the worst, isn't it? That's the nature of the internet. It has everything. And it has some pretty good shit too. Shit of a higher quality than what you're excreting. And so, the internet, and YouTube are worthless. Hmmm. I guess I didn't just watch this video on YouTube. I guess you'll be going to live in Western Siberia now, so as to rid yourself of this pesky internet, and the unwashed masses who dare to question your professional scholarlyness. Well, good luck with that.
This is not a well structured response, by any means. I just wanted to vent, because smarmy academic elitism, especially religious based, chafes my waddles. I refer to the cad sometimes in the second person, sometimes in the third. So pardon the poor form, if you would.
SCHOLARLY VIDEO ON INFIDEL WEBSITE
Craig answers objections, as he sees them, formulated to easily refute. He has plenty of straw to pack in the gaps, while simultaneously switching the load bearing to that straw.
He starts off by intimating that he's wasting his time. This is just an attempt to disparage any criticism that he deems not worth his station. After all, he's a scholarly professional. This is the sense I got from his opening remarks-
~Firstly, I'm a professional. I'm wasting my time~I was sooo surprised by objections I hadn't considered~I lower myself to address these objections, because the merit of an objection is judged not by the quality of the counter-assertion against the lack of account for it in the premise it objects to, but by the station of the medium on which a person happens to bring the objection. "Popular" websites! Not journals. Youtube! Not "scholarly"! Oh the "infidel websites"! My argument should stand, because I'm a professional, and I am presenting it! What? You're not even going to accept the premises of the argument?! But I'm a professional! You're supposed to just swallow what I say as sound! How dare you actually consider the elements of the argument, instead of evaluating them, these premises, put forth by me, a professional? Otherwise, if you don't "presuppose" with me, how is my Presuppositional Apologetics shaped nonsense pill supposed to slip down your throat and allow the encapsulated incoherent contents of the argument to pretend to stand? Oh the infidel websites.~
"I've never given this talk before!"
Goes on to rehash, without actually addressing the more serious objections to Kalam or its premises. ~If I say the objections are *bad*, *squirrelly* (irony), *misguided*, and *off the wall*, a sufficient number of times, all objections become bad, and I don't actually have to address them.~ But hoh, I shall appear to address them, when actually addressing sidecar strawmen that I imagine the objections to be! Or even better, easy marks that are easily answered~
"The crucial second premise of the argument is supported by both philosophical arguments against the infinitude of the past.."
Certainly, no one is claiming infinity, either in a spacial or temporal sense, since these are qualities observed of an expanding universe, and not, in any sense, attributable to a non-relative singularity. Objection not addressed.
"..and by scientific evidence for a beginning of the universe.."
This is simply not true. Science, i.e. the "Big Bang" theory, describes the expansion of the universe from a singularity. It does not describe the "beginning", or inception of that singularity, nor can it, so far as we know, describe anything beyond that singularity. Craig is making an unfounded assertion.
"Having arrived at the conclusion that the universe has a cause..."
Yeah No. We haven't arrived there by any stretch of the imagination. Craig even jumped completely over premise one, and started with two.
"..one may then do a conceptual analysis of what it means to be a cause of the universe."
Aside from having unfound premises, his analysis is hilarious. So many unconnected dots.
Hey, let's start ascribing and attributing all sorts of *universe-dependent properties and characteristics to our 'cause'! Why, you may ask? So that we can try and stretch a tenuous to untenable bridge between this concept and a character of our pet religious delusion!
".. And one discovers that one is thereby brought to.."
How one is "brought to" the following, he never describes. And why should he? It is, after all, to his advantage to simply state this as the obvious result, without going into how, when in fact, they do certainly NOT follow.
"..an uncaused.."
What about serial causation? (one thing causes another thing, causes another thing, and so on.) Yeah. As long as we're being unreasonably hypothetical, and ascribing universe dependent concepts outside where they might be applicable, let's continue to extrapolate, on the same grounds that WLC does.
Causation interaction in the form of serial causation is observed in the universe.
Causation interaction has been reasoned (at least according to WLC) between an extra-universal concept and the universe.
Now what's to prevent an extrapolation of that serial causation, rendering your universal cause one simple link in a who-knows-how-long chain of causers and causees? Would that perhaps be, that such an idea would go against an attempt to rationalise your pet deity? Bottom line. How do you know that this is where the buck stops? How do you know that this cause is uncaused? Is it because you can't ascribe universe-dependent concepts, like serial causation, outside the universe? Well then, why ascribe any of the other characteristics to it?
"..beginning-less.."
Same objection as above. If your cause is outside the universe, then by all current knowledge, it would indeed be unsubstantiated of a timespace dependent concept such as "beginning". However, we've already jumped the fence on unreasonable hypothetical ascription of characteristics to your cause, so why do you then think this is the place to draw the line? Perhaps your cause resides (another timespace dependent concept) in a superverse, structured of its own timespace.
"..change-less.."
Same objection as above.
"..time-less.."
Same objection as above.
"..space-less.."
"..immaterial.."
Same objection as above.
"..enormously powerful.."
OK. Here's where you really jump on the loony train. Power, as a function of work/energy and rate, is a conceptual product of multiple universe-dependent elements. Even if all those elements could be shown to exist in a superverse, or outside our own universe, how the hell are you going to suppose to know the proportion of their interaction across a universal boundary. Yeah, this is just another thorn in the side of the elephant in the room. The mechanism of the cause across the apparent universal boundary has not been shown. We can show how one thing causes another "thing" inside the universe. Postulating cause from outside the universe, without a described mechanism for such causation, is nothing more than imagination.
"..personal.."
Did I say you were just on the loony train. I'm sorry, like the superverse, I failed to see the super loony train onto which that loony train was capable of jumping. How the flying fuck do you come by "personal" at this stage. You show yourself to be doing nothing more than stretching unwarranted apron strings between your "cause" and your pet deity now, WLC. If I wasn't familiar with you, or your silly Kalam argument before, this is where I would most certainly abandon any possible respect for you or that argument.
"..creator.."
The word "creator" ascribes unwarranted, undemonstrated intent, where the word "cause" does not. Such fail. Where did that intent suddenly come from?
Objections to the General Form
1) Reference to WLC's Even if no Kalam/holy spirt in heart slip-
This is not an objection to Kalam. Yes. It's an objection to WLC. Addressing it here is a Red Herring on top of a Red Herring, as well as a bit of a homeless straw man. Craig's citation of it within this list, to refute objections to Kalam does not consequently strengthen the standing of Kalam in some sort of default sense, nor does it impede other objections to Kalam by its inclusion here, as he wishes it to.
Indeed, because it's included here as an objection to Kalam, without being directed by anyone as such, shows Craig to be hand-waving. Who said they were using this against Kalam, and not specifically against WLC himself? Who is it that states the paragraph shown in the slide, including the assertion, "This is blatant hypocrisy on Craig's part."? WLC's concentration of this "objection" to himself, and not to Kalam, as an Ad Hominem, instead of the simple Red Herring that it might be, if in fact it was directed by some unknown person as an objection to Kalam, instead of to himself, shows him also simply to be playing the victim card. WLC, you do not equal Kalam, so why are you including it here, without referencing who directed this objection as one for Kalam? The paragraph you show as Objection #1 doesn't state that Kalam is wrong because you don't base your belief on it. It simply states that you don't base your belief on it. This is not an objection to the General Form of the argument.
"So, what does make for a sound, deductive argument? The answer is, true premises, and valid logic."
Well, there you go. The premises are not sound.
"The argument was, after all, defended by the Medieval Muslim theologian Al-Khazali 1000 years before I was born. If the argument is sound, it was sound then. If the argument is sound, it was sound during the Jurassic period, before anyone had propounded it."
Yeah. If it were sound. But given our increased knowledge, through science, about the universe, it can be shown not to be sound, or at the very least, not accepted without questions based on that knowledge.
WLC goes on to expound on the necessity of evidence and plausibility above and beyond the soundness of an argument. Good point. This is him shooting himself.. or rather Kalam, in the foot. The evidence simply doesn't support it, as I clarified earlier by detailing our knowledge and lack of knowledge about the singularity.
2) Kalam is question-begging, circular reasoning.
The presupposition for question-begging is that the "cause" is the Christian God, not that the logic is not sound for concluding a "cause".
This isn't a principle on which I need to object to the basic argument. However, Craig is missing the point. From what I understand, people who object to the argument on the basis of question-begging are doing so because of the presupposition by WLC, and Christian Kalam proponents that the "cause" is exactly equatable with their God. The conclusion is for a "cause", alone. The unsupported extrapolation to the Christian God, is ridiculous. Given the supposed nature and characteristics of their god, it is more than far-reaching, and the gap is not bridged. They are invalidly applied to the "cause" on the basis of that list of "thereby brought-to's", above.
Craig goes on to spend quite some time arguing against what he sets up to be objection #2.
3) Equivocation of the term "cause".
This objection is still valid. Craig's argument for efficient cause does fail to account for material cause. Even if there is efficient cause, you need mechanism and material described to substantiate the causation of a product.
My objection is in his definition of "thing", examples of which we only have within the universe, which invalidates the application of premise one to the universe as a whole. This, therefore demolishes premise two.
"The charge of equivocation immediately evaporates."
No, it doesn't. Just because you narrow your definition for one component of causation, doesn't mean that you've accounted for the other constituent elements.
Objections to the Premises
Premise One
4) The fallacy of composition
Craig admits that to argue the fallacy of composition for the universe would be "manifestly fallacious", and says he's never done so, but then fails to alleviate this objection by actually doing so, and delineating a further list of invalid reasons for premise one, leaving him in the bed he's made by his admission.
Reasons he believes premise one true:
1) Something cannot come from nothing
What an interesting claim. Please show me any examples of "nothing" we have ever had the pleasure of evaluating? And then go on to show how you know what can and cannot "come out of" it.
"To claim that something can come into being out of nothing is worse than magic."
No one made that claim. You're the one who brought up "nothing". Ever so much straw. And fancy you should bring up "magic". What again was the mechanism by which your "Go..".. I mean "cause" "created" the universe? Oh, it didn't need a mechanism/ material cause? Well, later on in your talk you show yourself to be the purveyour of magic.
"If you deny premise one, you've got to think that the whole universe just appeared, at some point in the past, for no reason whatsoever."
What?! So, WLC is saying, 'if you deny premise one, you've got to [accept premise two]'? And then adds the entirely unrelated concept of necessity of reason, as if it somehow strengthens the contention that premise one is true. That's ridiculous. It is unwarranted to assume that everything has a reason, much less the universe. This also begs the question that the universe is to be classified as a "thing". Craig shows himself to be inextricably bound to his notion of intent and a personal nature for his "cause". He conflates the terms "cause" with "reason", and extrapolates intent. Tut tut.
"But nobody sincerely believes..."
Argument from incredulity, blah blah blah. Argument from ignorance, blah blah blah. Gives examples of universe-dependent subsets, i.e. things, and tries to use the unreasonableness of their "pop[ping] into being" as grounds that, supposedly, a singularity could not possibly do so.
2) If something can come into being from nothing, then why doesn't everything
Incredulity, Ignorance. Therefore God. Gives examples of universe-dependent and human defined concepts of "things", and tries to leverage incredulity to apply their characteristics to the universe as a whole.
Continues to reference the unfounded and undefined concept of "Nothing".
"Nothingness doesn't have any properties!"
Great observation, WLC! Then why are you assigning properties to it?
3) Common experience and scientific evidence confirm the truth of premise one.
No, they don't. Firstly, common experience as presupposed to mean human sensory experience is one of the most flawed and inaccurate of systems for confirming truth. That's why the scientific method and independent verification with objective substantiation has been so valuable to us. Science. And science, does most certainly NOT go so far as to confirm premise one. You, WLC, are either mistaken, or a liar.
"Premise one is constantly verified and never falsified."
Sun comes up, Sun goes down. Never a miscommunication. How about, WLC, you don't extrapolate beyond what is reasonable. Just because all whales in the ocean were birthed, doesn't mean the ocean was birthed. We live in such a small portion of the universe, and have knowledge of so little. How do you know everything that begins to exist has a cause? How can you pretend to extrapolate that from the speck of existence the entire human race has experienced, to the universe as a whole?
Craig goes on to totally gaff inductive reasoning as applied to classes. He assumes the class of "thing" for the universe, without warrant.
5) If the universe began to exist, then it must have come from nothing.
I've never heard anyone claim this. What again, WLC, is this "nothing" you speak of? This appears to be an obese strawman.
Craig goes on to try and define his use of the word. Goes into a stand-up routine that would make Abbott and Costello proud, but fails to give any practical examples of "nothing". We have, in this universe, seen examples of things, and other things, but never of nothing. Why is he applying this concept? It certainly hasn't been advanced in science. Straw.
"Metaphysically absurd.."
Sure, why not. After all, isn't everything claimed metaphysical, absurd? Since there has never been any examples of the "metaphysical" either, this measure has no meaning.
"..truths of metaphysics"
That concept is just as meaningful as "the flavour of magic".
Craig cites Plato and expounds on how old and wise premise one is. Just because something is old, doesn't make it true, or wise. Plato asks a question, and is premature with an answer, just as Craig is.
Premise two
6) Nothing ever begins to exist.. So it's not true that universe began to exist.
Again, putting words into the mouth of the objector. The objection stands, for the first part, but you misrepresent the second part. it should read, "..So, it cannot be claimed that a beginning is substantiated for the universe." We, or at least I, don't claim that the universe began to exist or not, that it is true or not true that it did so. I simply state that there is insufficient grounds to accept a definitive claim that it did.
Craig claims this is his favourite, as it's "patently ridiculous". He then goes on to show himself to be ridiculous. He completely misunderstands the concept of classification and the dependent nature of the definition of the word 'thing'.
He goes on to ask questions in the same vein as "If Earth is round, then why don't we fall off?"
"Did I exist before I was conceived?! If so, where was I?"
Your constituent parts existed, and the parts which make up those parts existed, in combination and recombination for the existence of the universe. Matter is of energy and energy of space, and space of the expansion of the universe. Trying to mine incredulity again is simply disingenuous.
He summarises in the completely back-assward position of stating, "Just because the stuff of which something was made has always existed, doesn't imply that the thing itself has always existed." No one is claiming that it does. The reasonable conclusion is the other way around, however. Just because you define a thing as a thing, at some point, and assign meaning to it, doesn't mean that the entirety of the material that comprise all things was "caused" to exist, much less "made".
"The objector could save himself the embarrassment of claiming that he has always existed..."
You really want to suck as much juice as possible out of that strawman, don't you, WLC. No one claims they always existed. You could do well to save yourself embarrassment, but I know that's not going to happen.
Craig continues and goes down the tangential path of mereological nihilism, because he'd rather not address the actual objection, and he imagines nihilism to be the only other option, if we don't accept his worldview of intrinsic meaning.
Finishing up, WLC dishonestly conflates conceptual existence with practical existence, to obfuscate the position of a straw objector. Time well-spent(!)
I had lunch.
"There's no sort of metaphysical absurdity involved in something's having an efficient cause, but no material cause.."
Did you really just say that, WLC?! So something can come from whatever you mean by nothing, after all? Great, so a magic man (efficient cause) can magic stuff (object) without material cause (source material). This is what I was referring to before, where you would bring out your own pimp-bag of magic. Oh, Craig, what hurts more, your stomach from digesting your brain, or your brain from being digested by your stomach?
7) Equivocation of "begins" in relation to material and non-material states.
A side note: It's interesting to see, at this point, how Craig has surreptitiously switched the term "cause" out for the proper noun, "God". Blatantly dishonest.
"By 'begins to exist', all I mean is, 'comes into being'."
Yeah, that doesn't help at all. You haven't defined it at all, univocally or otherwise, We're back in the same boat we started in. What do you mean by "being"? You haven't addressed the difference between a universe-dependent "thing's" coming into being from previous material, and the coming into being of a universe from something you haven't even bothered to define yet.
Seven is a convenient extension of WLC's conflation of conceptual existence with practical/empirical existence.
Instead of addressing the actual objection, again, he chooses to redefine and talk about what he wants the objection to entail. The objection hinges on the absurdity of a claim for a "non-material" state, not an the equivocation of one verses the other, as if both concepts were valid. What do you mean by non-material state? "nothing"? What is that?
He also doesn't address the temporally dependent nature of the term "begin". He simply states that there's no problem with it, without really saying why.
"..It would allow even time itself to begin to exist."
It would even allow Bugs Bunny to pick himself up by the ears. Craig so horribly FAILS in his understanding of the concept of 'time'. It's as if he thinks it's an independent "thing" or "stuff".
When WLC confronts himself with the problem of an intercession by his "God" making his god time-dependent, instead of doing the honest thing (because that would be "wrong-headed"), and contemplating the possibility of a temporal-spacial cause, he changes his analysis to allow for the characteristics that he already fancies for his god. This is, therefore, not an "analysis", as he's been calling it.
"..if He enters into time from a moment of timelessness.."
Holy flying fuck! He doesn't even realise how stupid that sounds. This is why I call him a clown. Clown's would be funny if they weren't so tragic. Moment of timelessness indeed.
Objections to the Conclusion
8) Kalam is logically self-contradictory. Everything has a cause, but concludes a first uncaused cause.
"Man, how do people think these things up?!"
This clearly shows that Craig has opted for the low-hanging fruit to respond to, as far as objections are concerned. He obviously includes this only to try and make himself look better from his tower of condescension, and objectors to look foolish. Cheap tactic. Yeah. I'll just sit back and watch you play with all the cheat codes turned on.
"The atheist has typically said that the universe itself is eternal and uncaused..The problem is, that supposition has now been rendered dubious in light of the strong arguments in support of premise two.."
What part of 'only extrapolated back to the singularity' doesn't Craig understand? Evidently, the entirety of it. Premise two lies as floppy as it always has.
..Oh, we're done with the eternal universe concept? Nothing else to offer except your assertion for "strong arguments"? Well, that was disappointing.
9) "Cause" might as well be nothingness, because of the characteristics shared with Nothingness, of time-, change-, space-lessness.
Let me guess. He's going to try to shimmy in the "enormously powerful" quality he imagined before. Yep, that was it. He doesn't even see the problem that power for cause needs a mode of transfer. And that mechanism is not shown to be possible, much less defined and described. Even more damagingly, all of the -lessnesses that he postulates for his Go.. mmmm 'cause', would, by definition, preclude "power".
In his rant against negative predicates he wholly misses the fact that his 'efficient cause' without 'material cause', falls exactly into that category. Something from nothing. It's just tweaked to 'Something from nothing, by someone.'
"The attribution of negative predicates.. to this entity.. is enormously informative, and metaphysically significant. From [these attributions].. we can deduce its personhood."
Let me guess again. It has the exact attributes that you fancy for your god. Skipping over what the hell "metaphysically significant" might mean, The idea that 'timelessness' and 'immateriality' can be used to deduce personhood, is feverish. What kind of person ever, anywhere, could possibly be conceived of as being timeless and immaterial? The very nature of personality is defied by those qualities. WLC, can you deduce the personality of my pet rock?
10)
Richard Dawkins- "Even if we allow the dubious luxury of arbitrarily conjuring up a terminator to an infinite regress and giving it a name, there is absolutely no reason to endow that terminator with any of the properties normally ascribed to God.."
WLC makes sure, right out of the gate on this one, to mention that Dawkins doesn't dispute either premise of Kalam. He would be more honest in saying that he doesn't need to. Or simply hasn't. That doesn't mean that Dawkins accepts the premises, or the argument. In fact, we've most of us heard Dawkins make humorous quips about it.
Because Dawkins goes so far as to construct a hypothetical, WLC, dishonestly jumps to claim that Dawkins concedes that Kalam proves a first cause, replete with all the bells and whistles that Craig would fancy to endow it with; to prop it up as his god.
Craig points out that Dawkins' quote doesn't address Kalam specifically. But again, Craig misses the point. Dawkins is simply not playing WLC's little game. He sees the whole spiel for what it is. An attempt by a Christian apologist to dishonestly wedge his god in the door of a more general argument. Dawkins just addresses the ultimate unwarranted conclusion that desperate christians are hoping to make. So, Dr. Dr. Spacecaptain Craig. You wouldn't have any trouble at all conceding that the primal cause in your Kalam argument might be something akin to Satan?
"A being, as described, must exist."
Oh, now it's a "being". Now there's a loaded term.
"These represent the level of discourse that pervades the internet and YouTube. I hope you can see how worthless they are."
"I think the culture's always been kinda dumb."
"It's just that we need to help a lot of these infidel types to realize that they haven't mastered the literature."
I guess my paltry 3 decades of religious study and degree in comparative religion just doesn't cut it. I'm sorry to have visited any discomfort upon your Lordship. We're not worthy to find fault with his Grace's pronouncements! It's easy, when you pick out the worst, isn't it? That's the nature of the internet. It has everything. And it has some pretty good shit too. Shit of a higher quality than what you're excreting. And so, the internet, and YouTube are worthless. Hmmm. I guess I didn't just watch this video on YouTube. I guess you'll be going to live in Western Siberia now, so as to rid yourself of this pesky internet, and the unwashed masses who dare to question your professional scholarlyness. Well, good luck with that.
Wednesday, May 2, 2012
Star Trek Lobster
Remember the guys from the Original Star Trek episode, "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield"? You know, Bele and Lokai, the ones who were black on one side and white on the other -or- white on one side and black on the other; muleheaded bigots, hell-bent on destroying each other.
Pretty far fetched concept, right?
Maybe not so much. This does happen in nature!
Isn't nature amazing?!
Now all we need to do is find a lobster who is green on the right side and red on the left, and we'll have ourselves a bigoted doomsday duo.
Monday, April 2, 2012
World's Largest Reese's Peanut Butter Cups
I'm a hog. I know. So sue me. (Is that a stale expression yet?) But, around xmas 2011 I came across a particularly delectable novelty confection at my local Target store. I'm a fan of Reese's peanut butter cups, and hereabouts, you'll find them in all sizes and shapes.
This find consisted of the 'World's Largest Reese's Peanut Butter Cups'.
They were incredibly hefty. 10" (25.4cm) long package, with the regulation two (2) per. Each cup was 8oz. (227g), for a one pound total gorging.
The package cost $5 at that time, but have apparently, since then, skyrocketed in price and rarity.
On the Hershey's site, their planet of origin, they are "down" to either $14.95 or $12.95 (as of this posting), depending on how you interpret their confusing description.. down from $17.95
At this Amazon listing, they are hilariously seeking $28 and up for them.
Now I am spoiled and will not pay over $10 total for the thing, but still me want! I actually had to cut them into pieces like a cake.
Good idea, Reese's! True to fashion, Fall-of-the-Roman-Empire style hedonism for the Fall-of-the-American-Empire.
This find consisted of the 'World's Largest Reese's Peanut Butter Cups'.
They were incredibly hefty. 10" (25.4cm) long package, with the regulation two (2) per. Each cup was 8oz. (227g), for a one pound total gorging.
The package cost $5 at that time, but have apparently, since then, skyrocketed in price and rarity.
On the Hershey's site, their planet of origin, they are "down" to either $14.95 or $12.95 (as of this posting), depending on how you interpret their confusing description.. down from $17.95
At this Amazon listing, they are hilariously seeking $28 and up for them.
Now I am spoiled and will not pay over $10 total for the thing, but still me want! I actually had to cut them into pieces like a cake.
Good idea, Reese's! True to fashion, Fall-of-the-Roman-Empire style hedonism for the Fall-of-the-American-Empire.
Saturday, February 18, 2012
Nice Little Mess
Recently I made the mistake.. again.. of responding to a religionist (TheKin6767) online. This time, in Arabic, to a Muslim on YouTube. At this video. There was just too much religious fuckwittery going on. It was insufferable. I had to step in it.
Now I'll waste my time banging my head against the wall of ignorance known as Islam (the religion of "peace" (Irony's nose is bleeding.)) When will I ever learn?
Here's the badly translated Google page translation, for the majority of you who don't read spilled ramen noodles.
So I thought I'd share the conversation so far..
Me, stirring the hornets' nest:
اشهد ان لا الله أو إله أو آلهة واشهد ان وكان محمد إلا رجل.
هراء. أن الأدلة لا تدعم الاستنتاج. لا يظهر الله. أين هو الله؟ انه ليس في أي مكان
TheKin6767 's disingenuous smiley-tweeked response:
:) عجباً للملحدين يريدون ان يثبتون الله رؤيه وتحقيقا
فهل تستطيع ان تثبت لي اين هي روح الميت ؟
مع ان الميت جسده باقي , ولكن روحه ذهبت
فإن كنت رجلاً ملحداً اثبت لي اين تذهب هذه الروح
الى خالقها وبارئها ام الى حضن أمها
:) انت الذي تأتي بالهراء وليس قرآن رب العالمين
Me:
"فهل تستطيع ان تثبت لي اين هي روح الميت ؟"
فهل تستطيع ان تثبت لي أن روح موجود؟
أنت تفترض أن روح موجودا، دون وجود أدلة دون دليل
ليس هناك ما يدعو إلى الاعتقاد بأن مثل هذه الأمور موجودة كما الآلهة أو الأرواح، أو الجني من المصباح
هذا هراء
Him:
يا غباءك تريد ان اثبت لك ان الروح موجوده , انت تنكر روحك الان
قال تعالى " سنريهم آياتنا في الأفاق وفي أنفسهم حتى يتبين لهم أنه الحق أولم يكف بربك أنه على كل شيء شهيد " حسبنا
وهذه ايه في نفسك تهدم اعتقادك الالحادي لانكم فقدتم عقولكم قبل ان تفقدوا الايمان بالله
وانت الذي تعيش به ماذا ؟ جسدك ام روحك ؟ الروح تذهب والجسد يبقى ثم يدفن اما الله باقي
قال تعالى " كل من عليها فان ويبقى وجه ربك ذو الجلال والاكرام " حسبنا انا شفت غباء بس مثل غباء الملحدين لم ارى ورب الكعبة
Me:
":)" < .هذا هو الخداع. عليك ارتداء الابتسامة من ثعبان
كنت اقتبس لي كتابك القديم من الخرافات
هذا ليس دليلا على أن روح أو الآلهة وجود لها
تأكيدكم فشل لأنه لم تختبر
يجب عليك أن تثبت وجودها
أنا لا يجب أن يثبتوا أنهم لا وجود لها
عبء الإثبات لا يعمل بهذه الطريقة
لديك أي دليل. لم يكن لديك دليل على ذلك
هذا ليس واقع
أنت غير المتعلمين واضح
أنت لا تفهم منطق
قيل غباءك. تنظر في المرآة
المجتمع الإسلامي هو بدائي. إنه لأمر محزن جدا.
لا يوجد لديك تفسير لذلك. فشلتم.
Update:
And now the poster, QuranLogicScience, of the ridiculous Science in the Koran video jumps in, and suggests I watch another one of his goofy videos. But hmmm, he blocks me before I can respond. Typical censorship. But that doesn't mean I'm not going to post my response with someone else's account! Gotta love friends who are willing to risk getting blocked by nobodies.
QuranLogicScience:
لا احترم ولا اناقش الغير محترمين الذين لا يعرفون اصول الحوار ولم يتطور و بعد الى مرتبة انسان شاهد مقطعي وحاول ان تتطور
ذبابة تهزم الملحدين ـ نظرية التطور المحمدية
watch?v=PCSm-5IRwqk
Me:
يجب أن تكسب احترام. الدين لا يستحق الاحترام.
عجباً، ومسلم يصرخ "يوجد علم في القرآن"، ولكن فقط بعد أن علم العلمانية العلم يعمل
أبدا سلفا. وهو عذر بعد وقوعها. ومن غامضة للغاية.
يتم فرض أي علاقة واهية. فمن التظاهر. فمن غير شريفة.
هو القرآن قادر على أن تظهر لي حقيقة علمية، والتي علم علماني لا يعرف هذه الحقيقة حتى الآن؟
لا، لا يمكنك القيام بذلك
(@weskos) 1/3
هو القرآن قادرا على إضافة إلى المعرفة العلمية في وقت سابق للعلوم علمانية؟
على سبيل المثال، طاقة الانصهار، وعلاج السرطان؟
لا، لا يمكنك القيام بذلك
"فقط بعد ذلك قمت بالإشارة والقول "ها تناسبها
الفيديو الأخرى هي أيضا غير مقنعة
هذا ليس من العلم. كتابك البدائية فشل.
ومسلم يدعي انهم فهموا سلفا. هذا لا يستحق الاحترام. هو سخيف
(@weskos) 2/3
الآن، وقد منعت أنت لي على موقع يوتيوب. هذا هو اسلوب شائع من قبل مسلم. الرجل الذي يعرف انه من الخطأ، وقال انه يخشى دائما انتقاد. وهو دليل على كذب. والشيء التالي، سوف حذف تعليقاتي. أنت قمع الحقيقة، ويفضل الراحة من الوهم. ومع ذلك، والآن سوف أذهب. لقد قلت ما أردت. يا رفاق هي الهمجية ميؤوس منها
(@weskos) 3/3
And now I'm done. ... I hope.
NOPE, not done, I guess :/
Update 2:
TheKin6767 seemed not to have noticed that I had been blocked, and continued to respond with his own gibberish. I respond from the other account.. at least until QLS blocks that account as well.
QLS also responded, in English this time, to the other account with another video link.
TheKin6767:
:) هههههه روح موت , وبعدها اذا لقيت في جسمك حراره بوس كوعك
بعد ما تطور العلم وكشف وجود الروح
من عبر الاندفاعات الحراريه وخروجها عبر الجسم
مات قهراً الملحدون , روح شوف لك اي شي ثقافي عالاقل تصير ملحد عقلاني
مو ملحد غبي تمشي وتحرك راسك الخفيف يمين يسار وتسأل زي الاطفال لا انتوا فالحين في علم ولا في اسأله
بترتاحوا من عبادة رب العالمين فأشغلكم الله بالسؤال عنه
الله يزيدك انشغال يا شيخ ودماغك تاكلك ههههههههه
Me: to TheKin6767
ضحك عصبي. هل تجاهل هذه المسألة؟ أين هو الدليل. لديك سوى التصريحات الخاصة بك
التوكيد الخاص بك هو مضحك. العلم لم يجد روح. كانت الحرارة الحرارة فقط. الكهرباء هي الكهرباء فقط
انها تبدد بعد الموت. ليس هناك شيء أكثر من ذلك. العقل البشري يتكون من الدماغ وكذلك الكهرباء. وكلاهما تتحلل
لا يوجد أي قياس الطاقة المتبقية. هو التحلل. ليس هناك شيء أكثر من ذلك
كنت ترغب في أكثر من حياة واحدة. رغبتكم لا يخلق واقع
ومع ذلك، منعت لي الآن. ويسمح لك بالبقاء في الوهم الخاص بك.
(@weskos)
QuranLogicScience:
Is God in the Seventh Dimension?
/watch?v=oKKw_QilTcQ
Me: to QuranLogicScience
How shall I answer this when you have blocked me at (@weskos)? You seem not to value the free expression of ideas. If your claims are true, you shouldn't fear criticism, and shouldn't need censorship. Your position will be shown, if you block this account as well.
QLS to second account
انا احترم واناقش اراء الاخرين ولكن لا اضيع وقتي مع الذين لا يعرفون ادب الحوار
"Me": to QLS
يمكنك استبعاد لي. أنه مجرد عذر سهل. واذا كان "أدب الحوار" هو عذرك، ثم الراحة هو أكثر أهمية بالنسبة لك بدلا من الحقيقة
ليس هناك فكرة التي هي معفاة من الانتقاد. الدين ليس استثناء. ويجب تقييم ذلك
التي تبذلونها تأكيدات حول طبيعة وحقيقة واقعة. ويجب تقييم ذلك
إذا كلام يصب عليك، ثم اسأل نفسك لماذا موقفكم ضعيف جدا
جميع الاقتراحات الفيديو الخاص بك لديهم نفس المشكلة. كنت تنوي ربط القرآن مع العلم
يختبئ عنزة في قطيع من الأغنام ونرى فقط ما كنت تريد أن ترى
(@weskos)
Now I'll waste my time banging my head against the wall of ignorance known as Islam (the religion of "peace" (Irony's nose is bleeding.)) When will I ever learn?
Here's the badly translated Google page translation, for the majority of you who don't read spilled ramen noodles.
So I thought I'd share the conversation so far..
Me, stirring the hornets' nest:
اشهد ان لا الله أو إله أو آلهة واشهد ان وكان محمد إلا رجل.
هراء. أن الأدلة لا تدعم الاستنتاج. لا يظهر الله. أين هو الله؟ انه ليس في أي مكان
TheKin6767 's disingenuous smiley-tweeked response:
:) عجباً للملحدين يريدون ان يثبتون الله رؤيه وتحقيقا
فهل تستطيع ان تثبت لي اين هي روح الميت ؟
مع ان الميت جسده باقي , ولكن روحه ذهبت
فإن كنت رجلاً ملحداً اثبت لي اين تذهب هذه الروح
الى خالقها وبارئها ام الى حضن أمها
:) انت الذي تأتي بالهراء وليس قرآن رب العالمين
Me:
"فهل تستطيع ان تثبت لي اين هي روح الميت ؟"
فهل تستطيع ان تثبت لي أن روح موجود؟
أنت تفترض أن روح موجودا، دون وجود أدلة دون دليل
ليس هناك ما يدعو إلى الاعتقاد بأن مثل هذه الأمور موجودة كما الآلهة أو الأرواح، أو الجني من المصباح
هذا هراء
Him:
يا غباءك تريد ان اثبت لك ان الروح موجوده , انت تنكر روحك الان
قال تعالى " سنريهم آياتنا في الأفاق وفي أنفسهم حتى يتبين لهم أنه الحق أولم يكف بربك أنه على كل شيء شهيد " حسبنا
وهذه ايه في نفسك تهدم اعتقادك الالحادي لانكم فقدتم عقولكم قبل ان تفقدوا الايمان بالله
وانت الذي تعيش به ماذا ؟ جسدك ام روحك ؟ الروح تذهب والجسد يبقى ثم يدفن اما الله باقي
قال تعالى " كل من عليها فان ويبقى وجه ربك ذو الجلال والاكرام " حسبنا انا شفت غباء بس مثل غباء الملحدين لم ارى ورب الكعبة
Me:
":)" < .هذا هو الخداع. عليك ارتداء الابتسامة من ثعبان
كنت اقتبس لي كتابك القديم من الخرافات
هذا ليس دليلا على أن روح أو الآلهة وجود لها
تأكيدكم فشل لأنه لم تختبر
يجب عليك أن تثبت وجودها
أنا لا يجب أن يثبتوا أنهم لا وجود لها
عبء الإثبات لا يعمل بهذه الطريقة
لديك أي دليل. لم يكن لديك دليل على ذلك
هذا ليس واقع
أنت غير المتعلمين واضح
أنت لا تفهم منطق
قيل غباءك. تنظر في المرآة
المجتمع الإسلامي هو بدائي. إنه لأمر محزن جدا.
لا يوجد لديك تفسير لذلك. فشلتم.
Update:
And now the poster, QuranLogicScience, of the ridiculous Science in the Koran video jumps in, and suggests I watch another one of his goofy videos. But hmmm, he blocks me before I can respond. Typical censorship. But that doesn't mean I'm not going to post my response with someone else's account! Gotta love friends who are willing to risk getting blocked by nobodies.
QuranLogicScience:
لا احترم ولا اناقش الغير محترمين الذين لا يعرفون اصول الحوار ولم يتطور و بعد الى مرتبة انسان شاهد مقطعي وحاول ان تتطور
ذبابة تهزم الملحدين ـ نظرية التطور المحمدية
watch?v=PCSm-5IRwqk
Me:
يجب أن تكسب احترام. الدين لا يستحق الاحترام.
عجباً، ومسلم يصرخ "يوجد علم في القرآن"، ولكن فقط بعد أن علم العلمانية العلم يعمل
أبدا سلفا. وهو عذر بعد وقوعها. ومن غامضة للغاية.
يتم فرض أي علاقة واهية. فمن التظاهر. فمن غير شريفة.
هو القرآن قادر على أن تظهر لي حقيقة علمية، والتي علم علماني لا يعرف هذه الحقيقة حتى الآن؟
لا، لا يمكنك القيام بذلك
(@weskos) 1/3
هو القرآن قادرا على إضافة إلى المعرفة العلمية في وقت سابق للعلوم علمانية؟
على سبيل المثال، طاقة الانصهار، وعلاج السرطان؟
لا، لا يمكنك القيام بذلك
"فقط بعد ذلك قمت بالإشارة والقول "ها تناسبها
الفيديو الأخرى هي أيضا غير مقنعة
هذا ليس من العلم. كتابك البدائية فشل.
ومسلم يدعي انهم فهموا سلفا. هذا لا يستحق الاحترام. هو سخيف
(@weskos) 2/3
الآن، وقد منعت أنت لي على موقع يوتيوب. هذا هو اسلوب شائع من قبل مسلم. الرجل الذي يعرف انه من الخطأ، وقال انه يخشى دائما انتقاد. وهو دليل على كذب. والشيء التالي، سوف حذف تعليقاتي. أنت قمع الحقيقة، ويفضل الراحة من الوهم. ومع ذلك، والآن سوف أذهب. لقد قلت ما أردت. يا رفاق هي الهمجية ميؤوس منها
(@weskos) 3/3
And now I'm done. ... I hope.
NOPE, not done, I guess :/
Update 2:
TheKin6767 seemed not to have noticed that I had been blocked, and continued to respond with his own gibberish. I respond from the other account.. at least until QLS blocks that account as well.
QLS also responded, in English this time, to the other account with another video link.
TheKin6767:
:) هههههه روح موت , وبعدها اذا لقيت في جسمك حراره بوس كوعك
بعد ما تطور العلم وكشف وجود الروح
من عبر الاندفاعات الحراريه وخروجها عبر الجسم
مات قهراً الملحدون , روح شوف لك اي شي ثقافي عالاقل تصير ملحد عقلاني
مو ملحد غبي تمشي وتحرك راسك الخفيف يمين يسار وتسأل زي الاطفال لا انتوا فالحين في علم ولا في اسأله
بترتاحوا من عبادة رب العالمين فأشغلكم الله بالسؤال عنه
الله يزيدك انشغال يا شيخ ودماغك تاكلك ههههههههه
Me: to TheKin6767
ضحك عصبي. هل تجاهل هذه المسألة؟ أين هو الدليل. لديك سوى التصريحات الخاصة بك
التوكيد الخاص بك هو مضحك. العلم لم يجد روح. كانت الحرارة الحرارة فقط. الكهرباء هي الكهرباء فقط
انها تبدد بعد الموت. ليس هناك شيء أكثر من ذلك. العقل البشري يتكون من الدماغ وكذلك الكهرباء. وكلاهما تتحلل
لا يوجد أي قياس الطاقة المتبقية. هو التحلل. ليس هناك شيء أكثر من ذلك
كنت ترغب في أكثر من حياة واحدة. رغبتكم لا يخلق واقع
ومع ذلك، منعت لي الآن. ويسمح لك بالبقاء في الوهم الخاص بك.
(@weskos)
QuranLogicScience:
Is God in the Seventh Dimension?
/watch?v=oKKw_QilTcQ
Me: to QuranLogicScience
How shall I answer this when you have blocked me at (@weskos)? You seem not to value the free expression of ideas. If your claims are true, you shouldn't fear criticism, and shouldn't need censorship. Your position will be shown, if you block this account as well.
QLS to second account
انا احترم واناقش اراء الاخرين ولكن لا اضيع وقتي مع الذين لا يعرفون ادب الحوار
"Me": to QLS
يمكنك استبعاد لي. أنه مجرد عذر سهل. واذا كان "أدب الحوار" هو عذرك، ثم الراحة هو أكثر أهمية بالنسبة لك بدلا من الحقيقة
ليس هناك فكرة التي هي معفاة من الانتقاد. الدين ليس استثناء. ويجب تقييم ذلك
التي تبذلونها تأكيدات حول طبيعة وحقيقة واقعة. ويجب تقييم ذلك
إذا كلام يصب عليك، ثم اسأل نفسك لماذا موقفكم ضعيف جدا
جميع الاقتراحات الفيديو الخاص بك لديهم نفس المشكلة. كنت تنوي ربط القرآن مع العلم
يختبئ عنزة في قطيع من الأغنام ونرى فقط ما كنت تريد أن ترى
(@weskos)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)