Recently, I made comments on the Christian blogger, JW Wartick's blog concerning the debate between William Lane Craig and Lawrence Krauss-- he refused to post my last comment which illustrated that my argument against Craig was successful, and that he had not provided any counter argument to that point otherwise. JW Wartick also read my blog posting on The Existence of Contingent Beings. and referred to my post on his blog. I kept a record of the entire conversation. JW Wartick resorted to ad hominem, by asking for my credentials, and claiming that I am not a professor of philosophy and religion--which is neither here nor there, as it is the arguments that count--not whether or not I have a diploma on the wall. When I consider an argument, I judge it by whether it is valid and sound. In the course of our discussion, JW Wartick would not stick to the argument at hand, so I continued to call him out on it, and asked him for his counter arguments, but all he did was circumvent the issue. Instead of sticking to my arguments, and offering counter arguments, he merely continued to say "You cannot say that"--without providing any arguments to back it up.
"You cannot say that"--is NOT an argument!! For example, you will see in the discussion at one point he says my explanation addresses the physical possibilities, but does not address the ontological possibilities. Note, in such a case, the person should cite what ontological possibilities they are talking about! In fact, my explanation for the universe's existence being " in its own nature" provides an explanation for both physical and ontological possibilities as they relate to the argument. If there are possibilities that undermine my explanation, they should be stated. As another example, JW Wartick said: " I see no reason to actually believe circular causation is possible." But you will see on my blog posting and my comments to him, that my explanation provides reasons for the plausibility and possibility for circular causation. By sticking to the dialectical process and the arguments at hand, we do not resort to ad hominem and/or a red herring. I hope this conversation will help others by setting an example for how to stick to the arguments, and respecting the dialectical process. If you have a critique of my explanations and arguments on my refutation of William Lane Craig's The Existence of Contingent Beings. argument, I welcome them and will respond.
The following is my last post to JW Wartick, which I sent him, but he did not post it along with my other comments to his blog. I will be posting the entire conversation in Conversations with Christians as well.
"My explanation addresses both the physical and the ontological possibilities. You claim the concept I set out is contradictory--your claim is not an argument. You further say: "...you’ve yet to circumvent this argument."--as if you have presented me with an argument to that point; unless I missed it in the post, you have not given any such argument. If so, restate it, or point out which post it came from. An argument must be stated before it can be circumvented. For example, I could claim that god as an explanation does not work, as I claim it does not satisfy the ontological possibility.--see how pointless it is to try and argue that way without presenting an argument.
I have already provided an explanation as to how the universe could be finite and infinite. Please read my blog post, and my replies to you on your blog. I will, however, provide you with another example to help you. Let's assume that the universe is infinite. Now consider our calendar. Take the month of January, which has 31 days. It would be finite, and infinite, and eternally recurring. Take the year 2010, January lasted for 31 days, and ended. However, January did not end, as it eternally recurs. Revisit my argument, and the references, some of which have diagrams as to how the universe can be explained by the Conservation of Energy and Quantum Mechanics. Note, that quanta would be indivisible, inside and outside of space and time, as I have already explained in my explanation of the existence of the universe. If this explanation is correct, the universe would be outside of space and time, and inside of space and time, as I have already pointed out to you on several occasions. As I recall, you merely said this was inconsistent with science, at which point, I provided you with links to show you that it was not inconsistent with science, the Laws of Conservation of Energy and Quantum Mechanics at all. I do not expect anyone to believe it because one person said it. I expect them to look at the arguments and explanations, and to familiarize themselves with science and the new developments in science--in particular, Quantum Mechanics. The sites I made reference to set out the working of Quantum Mechanics, and its implications. Now, remember, my argument is a refutation of WL Craig's argument. I do not have to show that my explanation of the universe is an absolute known fact. I only need to show that it is a plausible, and viable explanation. In fact, given science and quantum mechanics, it is as likely, if not more plausible than Craig's explanation that "goddidit" And as Craig points out, the best explanation of an explanation does not need to be explained!
When I said: "...if anything, it would be ad hoc to say that god is metaphysically necessary. I see no reason to accept this fallacious reasoning. "-- this was to point out to you that this kind of mere assertion does not work. I also pointed out to you that one of the respondents, "hume" on my blog addressed this issue of necessity--again you avoid the arguments.
You say: "Fifth, circular causation is highly contentious..." Again, this is not an argument. Think about it. We could say that everything you say about god being the explanation, or that anything to do with god is contentious--now where does that get you?--nowhere. I did not provide just one reference, I provided many, but the key is the ARGUMENTS and the EXPLANATIONS, both of which show that Craig's P1 and P3 do not work, and therefore, Craig's argument for Contingent Beings fails.
You said: "Seventh, saying “I have already refuted twice [sic]” does not mean you have. My argument is that a past infinite is impossible to cross. Your response is “it is possible, circular causation!” That doesn’t rebut my assertion. I’m saying we cannot cross an actually infinite series of events to get to the present moment. You have yet to respond to this argument, other than to say “I have already refuted twice”.
Quite the contrary. I provided arguments and explanations which you failed to address. You tell on yourself in the statement I just cited. STATE YOUR ARGUMENT. What is your argument? Where is your argument?--you just SAY "we cannot cross an actually infinite series of events to get to the present moment."--why not? I can explain this, and have explained it in my explanation of the existence of the universe being "in its own nature" which involves circular causality--which is supported by science, Laws of Conservation of Energy, and Quantum Mechanics--in particular the Transactional Interpretation. You 'SAYING WE CANNOT'--is NOT an argument. If you disagree with my explanation, provide an argument, a counter example, or some other proof against it--and not just "SAY WE CANNOT."
Again, I stated my points, arguments, and my explanations on my blog and on your blog. However, you did not address my arguments and explanations, other than to SAY they are inconsistent with science. At which point, I gave you references to show that it is not inconsistent with science or quantum mechanics. If you do not like the arguments and explanations, you need to provide counter arguments, better explanations, and so forth--not just "SAY."
Ok, let's assume that I do not have a PhD, have never been to college, or high school, and never even graduated from elementary school. Let's say, that I never went to school at all. Now that we have that out of the way, why don't you go back and address the ARGUMENTS and EXPLANATIONS with real arguments, counter arguments, and/or counter examples. Otherwise, I have shown that Craig's P1 and P3 fails, and therefore, his argument fails."