tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8676538176679335464.post3346940863327178519..comments2023-10-26T09:46:52.936-04:00Comments on Nathan Barontini's Blog: Another Atheist Takes a Swing at Kalam (spoiler alert, this atheist's arguments are worse than the last one's)Nathan Barontinihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05149641876919091106noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8676538176679335464.post-75702272270113596552015-03-23T11:40:22.645-04:002015-03-23T11:40:22.645-04:00"As far as (you) can tell" might be the ..."As far as (you) can tell" might be the key phrase here.Nathan Barontinihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149641876919091106noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8676538176679335464.post-43377543061660501522015-03-23T01:51:49.929-04:002015-03-23T01:51:49.929-04:00Sorry but as far as I can tell you didn't adeq...Sorry but as far as I can tell you didn't adequately address my response. Nice try though.tjaarthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05265265802117530999noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8676538176679335464.post-89550522297953282612015-03-21T10:25:24.004-04:002015-03-21T10:25:24.004-04:00I agree, James, the confusion surrounding the conc...I agree, James, the confusion surrounding the concept of eternal (i.e. extra-temporal) existence is the most jarring. His second post is no better. He manages to admit that time is finite (thus in need of an "extra-temporal" [eternal] cause) but fails to be able to draw the conclusion for himself that if such a cause is necessary for time to be finite and time is, in fact finite, then such a cause must exist. Nathan Barontinihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149641876919091106noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8676538176679335464.post-17754982099294627142015-03-21T10:22:38.933-04:002015-03-21T10:22:38.933-04:00Your response doesn’t warrant a lengthy examinatio...Your response doesn’t warrant a lengthy examination this time, as it more or less reiterates what you said the first time without coming to grips with anything I said. I’ll merely respond here in a few short points for your edification:<br /><br />1) Any argument that addresses the person making the argument rather than the argument itself is an ad hominem. You need not explicitly conclude that my argument is wrong through the ad hominem attack to commit this fallacy. It can also be used to “poison the well.” Most of your response here is ad hominem (literally “to the man”) rather than ad rem (literally “to the thing”). Questions about my motives, for example, or my confidence, or my ability to “conduct intellectual discourse” are all ad hominem tactics. Abandon them, they don’t touch the Kalam argument or its conclusion which remains intact despite the amount of mud you’ve slung at me.<br /><br />2) Leaving aside most of your post, which is ad hominem, leaves us with only a few points to consider. First, your arguments about YHWH. These are immediately dismissed as entirely irrelevant to the discussion. I never claimed kalam proved that YHWH is the God proven in the argument, thus saying it doesn’t is a red herring. Do try to stay on topic.<br /><br />3) Your argument that no epistemic system can provide certainty itself claims certainty, and is self-referentially incoherent.<br /><br />4)You entirely misunderstand the concept of “eternal” (literally “outside of time”). Your paragraph on eternality admits that time is finite (and therefore caused) which requires a non-temporal (i.e. eternal cause). IOW, you’ve shot yourself in the foot.<br /><br />5) Your appeal to the Hartle-Hawking’s proposal fails to address the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem which shows any such universe must itself have an absolute beginning. It also fails to address the philosophical problems of an infinitely old universe. That plus some more ad hom’s does not a coherent argument make. I’d suggest you read Vilenkin’s book.<br /><br />6) To redefine material to accommodate spacelessness and timelessness is just to call an immaterial being material. As the original post shows this being must have a will (under common objection three), ergo you have God proven by another name.<br /><br />7) Your point about “intuition” fails entirely as I never appeal to intuition. If you want to attack the first premise, you’ll have to do better than set up a straw man (hey, at least it isn’t an ad hom fallacy this time!)<br /><br />Nice try though.Nathan Barontinihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149641876919091106noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8676538176679335464.post-59211382898709272962015-03-21T10:21:07.996-04:002015-03-21T10:21:07.996-04:00Please read my response. I linked it in a comment ...Please read my response. I linked it in a comment above. I realise that if Im only referred to as "another atheist" it may not be obvious that it was me. tjaarthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05265265802117530999noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8676538176679335464.post-1973063803571657892015-03-21T09:40:17.546-04:002015-03-21T09:40:17.546-04:00Wow. Some of those objections were awful, especial...Wow. Some of those objections were awful, especially the one about eternity. I'm amazed that he thought existing outside time means existing at no time or not existing at all. I don't understand how he came to that conclusion. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06482405994324097605noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8676538176679335464.post-29748365698499542202015-03-21T07:56:53.755-04:002015-03-21T07:56:53.755-04:00Puppy? You've lost me.Puppy? You've lost me.Nathan Barontinihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149641876919091106noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8676538176679335464.post-14011290635051145472015-03-21T05:34:42.382-04:002015-03-21T05:34:42.382-04:00My response: http://massiveactivity.tjaartblignaut...My response: http://massiveactivity.tjaartblignaut.co.za/2015/03/baronthini-responds.html<br /><br />Do you think you can be a little less rude? Think of the puppy!tjaarthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05265265802117530999noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8676538176679335464.post-40771591139929932102015-03-21T04:30:59.295-04:002015-03-21T04:30:59.295-04:00I'm not going to respond on your post here. I ...I'm not going to respond on your post here. I will respond with another post. Thanks for the response, despite the obvious attempts at insulting me, which I obviously don't appreciate. tjaarthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05265265802117530999noreply@blogger.com