tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7741808702329609286.post4946371988155439886..comments2021-09-16T12:52:38.573-07:00Comments on I is for Ignostic: Against JW Wartick--Why Arguments are so ImportantA is for Atheisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06707383740611116793noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7741808702329609286.post-72627645627042076202011-05-01T11:10:50.358-07:002011-05-01T11:10:50.358-07:00Re revealing one's professional credentials. I...Re revealing one's professional credentials. I too am a professor (at a large state university in the midwestern U.S., you know, one of those slackers slouching towards a precarious pension). I can TOTALLY understand why someone would want to preserve his/her anonymity--once you give even a couple of details of where you teach and what, it takes about 2 minutes of web research to figure out who you are. People should have the liberty to engage in debate anonymously, while providing information about their occupations (fiercely intimidating as they may be), if they wish. That's part of the joy of the day, to share ideas in the agora. And obviously, only a fool would assume that any professor is expert on anything other than the narrowest smidgen of the universe that comprises his/her specialty. But woe to those who trangress the smidgen! And hopefully a professor will a. be a decent critical thinker; b. recognize the importance of sources; c. err on the side of generosity in debates with mortals.rhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14185150467095274878noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7741808702329609286.post-2323192477338490152011-04-17T15:00:44.986-07:002011-04-17T15:00:44.986-07:00@ Samuel
Please see my recent post on "Willi...@ Samuel<br /><br />Please see my recent post on "William Lane Craig's Best Explanation Move for the Existence of God is Impotent."<br /><br />My argument against WL Craig's "Argument for the Existence of Contingent Beings," stands on its own, and no explanation of the best explanation was required, however, I will be posting my arguments for why the best explanation for the existence of the universe is "in its own nature" is the best explanation. Within this post, I will address some of JW Wartick's concerns about the possibility of the universe being said to be necessarily existent and past-eternal.A is for Atheisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06707383740611116793noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7741808702329609286.post-36739114739428205612011-04-14T18:19:25.209-07:002011-04-14T18:19:25.209-07:00Some interesting comments here. Do u have an answe...Some interesting comments here. Do u have an answer? http://jwwartick.com/2011/04/14/atheist-call-out/#commentsSamuel Lincolnnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7741808702329609286.post-13176000795841882302011-04-14T16:53:33.781-07:002011-04-14T16:53:33.781-07:00Cathy,
I understand what an ad hominem is and tha...Cathy,<br /><br />I understand what an ad hominem is and that is why I decided to reply. My point was simply that it's not an ad hominem because he wasn't using that to undermine/invalidate your argument or say it was false or untrue. We may be on different pages concerning this subject. As I mentioned previously, at best it would be a red herring but even then It was a simple question and him asking something doesn't count as ad hominem; asking with the intent of using that to undermine your argument would be and I did not see that. I honestly didn't think that asking your credentials would erupt into such a big deal. I thought you would have easily responded in telling him what they were and that would be the end of it. There was no need for this ha. Even if you didn't want people to know, you could have simply stated that you don't want to disclose that (Which you finally hinted at when you said, "At this time I wish to remain relatively anonymous") . Hopefully we'll converse some other time in the future.<br /><br />DavidDavidhttp://apologeticalliance.org/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7741808702329609286.post-5817783323172768062011-04-14T12:50:22.864-07:002011-04-14T12:50:22.864-07:00J.W. Wartick is a fortified idiot. I've been s...J.W. Wartick is a fortified idiot. I've been successful at showing how stupid his arguments are. He only approves comments that kiss his ass, or that he thinks he can "pwn". He is logically and scientifically ignorant. He thinks his philosophical arguments could hold up to scientific standards. He is not for freedom, science, or truth. He is for the perseverance of stupidity.An Atheistnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7741808702329609286.post-33632838219081060512011-04-14T12:38:34.282-07:002011-04-14T12:38:34.282-07:00@ David
Now do you see that they will not address...@ David<br /><br />Now do you see that they will not address the argument, and like JW Wartick they make up things "Humpty Dumpty" style, and insist on using ad hominem and red herrings, so as not to address the arguments.A is for Atheisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06707383740611116793noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7741808702329609286.post-82928686477403225392011-04-14T12:36:48.382-07:002011-04-14T12:36:48.382-07:00@Tom
Starting as of now, I will preview comments. ...@Tom<br />Starting as of now, I will preview comments. So, now you can see that prior to this, I had nothing to do with what got posted or what did not get posted.<br /><br />So your "trick" will not work. It is just another ad hominem attack and a red herring. I thank you for this, because you clearly illustrate a tactic which is used by people like you and others when they cannot compete in the dialectical process, and when they cannot defeat their opponents arguments.A is for Atheisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06707383740611116793noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7741808702329609286.post-13849087860770781982011-04-14T12:29:33.007-07:002011-04-14T12:29:33.007-07:00@ Tom--I have not deleted any comment whatsoever. ...@ Tom--I have not deleted any comment whatsoever. <br />I do not preview comments, and I welcome anyone to comment. But perhaps I need to start previewing comments. If you ask something that did not get posted, just repost it.A is for Atheisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06707383740611116793noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7741808702329609286.post-80124482485448601192011-04-14T12:26:22.347-07:002011-04-14T12:26:22.347-07:00@ Luke and Tom
As my credentials are irrelevant t...@ Luke and Tom<br /><br />As my credentials are irrelevant to the argument, I feel no need to prove myself by citing where I teach and my credentials, as my arguments stand on their own merit. At this time I wish to remain relatively anonymous, and I do not wish to be bothered by "Christian enthusiasts" at this time. But if you like, you may assume I am a dumb, ignorant, uneducated fool. Now--go address the arguments.A is for Atheisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06707383740611116793noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7741808702329609286.post-39663232717956103532011-04-14T12:21:32.864-07:002011-04-14T12:21:32.864-07:00@ David
Let us look at the definition of "ad...@ David<br /><br />Let us look at the definition of "ad hominem":<br /><br />"An ad hominem (Latin: "to the man"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to link the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise."<br /><br />And of particular type:<br /><br />"Ad hominem abuse (also called personal abuse or personal attacks) usually involves insulting or belittling one's opponent in order to invalidate his argument, but can also involve pointing out factual but ostensible character flaws or actions which are irrelevant to the opponent's argument. This tactic is logically fallacious because insults and even true negative facts about the opponent's personal character have nothing to do with the logical merits of the opponent's arguments or assertions."<br /><br />I think JW Wartick did commit ad hominen. Most definitely he focused on credentials as a "red herring." Worse than that, he attributed an argument to me that was not part of my refutation of Craig's arguement for contingent beings, suggesting that my mistake was due to me not being a professor of philosophy and religion, and therefore, not knowing what I was talking about (I consider this to be the ad hominem of the type Ad hominem abuse), when in fact, this had nothing to do with my refutation, or any of my arguments. Here is what JW Wartick said:<br /><br />"I don’t honestly see how a philosophy professor would miss that necessary beings do have their explanation in their own existence...Have you been exposed to metaphysics in your studies? I’m not asking to be spiteful, I’m merely curious. Your entire rebuttal to the argument from contingency makes the assumption that even necessary beings are caused, and you conflate the usage of “explanation” with “cause.”<br /><br />I assumed what Craig said was true, and argued this opened the door for an opposing plausible, if not a better explanation for the existence of the universe being "in its own nature" which was also one of Craig's disjuncts in his first premise. I said:<br /><br />"What explanation can be offered to explain god?" The answer would be, "Another god." But that leads to an infinite regress, where the explanation of gods existence is explained by another god, and so on to infinity. Craig wants to use the notion that the explanation of god is "in his own nature" to prevent the infinite regress. However, this move by Craig provides a counter to his own argument. We can use the same explanation for the explanation for the existence of the universe, in that, it is "in its own nature." Let me illustrate this for you."<br /><br />In Craig's third premise, he totally ignores the disjunct, the existence of the universe as being "in its own nature"--without any proof. Craig asserts:<br /><br />"If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is god."<br /><br />So note, I did not argue, nor did I need to argue, that necessary beings do not have their explanation in their own existence,--again, as I assumed what Craig said was true so I could show that his P3 failed on the grounds that there is another plausible explanation, and perhaps better explanation that being that the existence of the universe is in "its own nature."<br /><br /><br /><br />JW Wartick focused on the question of my credentials in an effort to belittle me and point out a mistake in an argument that he attributed to me that I never actually gave , all of which <br />are irrelevant to my argument in the first place.<br /><br />So, my refutation of Craig's contingent beings argument is that we have another plausible, if not better explanation for the universe being "in its own nature," which shows that Craig's P3 fails.A is for Atheisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06707383740611116793noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7741808702329609286.post-23567744898447305722011-04-14T12:15:12.879-07:002011-04-14T12:15:12.879-07:00Cathy: I have a PDF of this page saved, with my co...Cathy: I have a PDF of this page saved, with my comments of 11:52 am, 11:54 am, and 12:10 pm successfully displayed.<br /><br />It appears you deleted the 12:10 comment. Unless you have some alternate explanation, this has the strong <i>prima facie</i> appearance of being a continuation of your display of hypocrisy.Tom Gilsonhttp://www.thinkingchristian.net/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7741808702329609286.post-1176465017556239472011-04-14T11:54:38.691-07:002011-04-14T11:54:38.691-07:00Cathy,
Did something go wrong with my first comme...Cathy,<br /><br />Did something go wrong with my first comment here in some technical sense, or did you just display your hypocrisy?Tom Gilsonhttp://www.thinkingchristian.net/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7741808702329609286.post-2817857638372599352011-04-14T11:52:57.400-07:002011-04-14T11:52:57.400-07:00I will offer you this as an alternative to the con...I will offer you this as an alternative to the conclusion I have just posted: you are plausibly a professor of religion and philosophy, and have taken graduate courses in philosophy, but you personally doubt the value of the institutions where you have studied and where you teach so highly that you would be embarrassed to reveal them.<br /><br />Or I could be completely wrong about all of my contentions. I've been wrong before, and it is my consistent practice to own up to it when I am wrong. I'd be glad to admit it and retract everything with my most humble apologies. I would need some better evidence of that than you have displayed before I would do that, though.Tom Gilsonhttp://www.thinkingchristian.net/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7741808702329609286.post-70581366479744905762011-04-14T11:38:49.441-07:002011-04-14T11:38:49.441-07:00Cathy,
"You cannot say that," is your qu...Cathy,<br />"You cannot say that," is your queue to provide support for the premises in your argument. Most likely, JW was just asking you to provide a sound argument for your premises of your larger argument. If the premises in an argument are still under debate, then the argument cannot continue. If he disagrees with a premise, provide him a reason to accept it (another argument). <br /><br />I would consider this an opportunity for you to make your over-all argument more robust. <br /><br />Also, I noticed that you didn't provide any information about your professorship in this post. If you did, then you could cut off JW's request at the knees and move on. If you are a professor, just say where and be done with it.Faithful Thinkershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04089768576413860677noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7741808702329609286.post-75233894972438419092011-04-14T10:13:52.228-07:002011-04-14T10:13:52.228-07:00Cathy, I moved my comment from the other post to h...Cathy, I moved my comment from the other post to here. Once again sorry for the confusion.<br /><br />It's not ad hominem if he asked you where you taught at. At best it may be a red herring, but even then he could have been asking out of curiosity. If you're going to be throwing the fact that you're a "professor" out there you better believe you will get curious questions about your credentials. It's only ad hominem if he some how suggested that your arguments are untrue or false because of your credentials or lack of. But then again, you should have already known that right "professor"?Davidhttp://www.apologeticalliance.org/noreply@blogger.com