Galt's Gulch

D'Souza vs. Bernstein: Is Either Good for Mankind?

Posted by TheChristianEgoist 10 years, 11 months ago to Philosophy
8 comments | Share | Flag

The above is a review of the debate between Theist, Dinesh D'Souza and Atheist, Andrew Bernstein on whether or not Christianity is good for mankind. It was hosted by The Objective Standard at The University of Texas in Austin: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gy5OajO7...
SOURCE URL: http://thechristianegoist.wordpress.com/2013/02/18/dsouza-vs-bernstein-is-either-good-for-mankind/

Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

    -
  • Posted by khalling 10 years, 11 months ago
    Your whole basis comes back to this prime mover argument. In Science, conservation of matter and energy shows that there is no necessity for a prime mover, which is the basis of your argument. This has been tested to death. Never has it had logical inconsistency. No need for God.
    It was an interesting review and I enjoyed the article.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
      -
    • Posted by TheChristianEgoist 10 years, 11 months ago
      Interesting. Could you elaborate on what you mean about conservation of matter and energy meaning no necessity for a prime mover..?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        -
      • Posted by khalling 10 years, 11 months ago
        This is physics. Conservation of matter and energy has been a key part of physics since at least Newton. In any closed system the amount of matter and energy does not change. Logically, it means there is no beginning and no end. Matter and energy were always there, even through changes, the amounts stay the same.
        The prime mover argument all comes from the theory that something cannot come from nothing. Conservation of matter and energy dispels the argument that there was nothing. Science shows us that there is no need for a prime mover, if matter and energy have always existed in the same amount. To suggest that, would be totally inconsistent with all of Physics and Chemistry.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          -
        • Posted by TheChristianEgoist 10 years, 11 months ago
          Yes, I knew it was physics. The "interesting" part which I was referring to was your inference that physics somehow precludes a prime mover.

          The prime mover argument is not so much about accounting for existence (as you seem to imply), but for action / movement among existents. Even if matter and energy existed eternally, the laws of cause and effect regarding their interplay would still be true -- and therefore the prime mover argument would still be very relevant.

          I would also remind you that your theory assumes that the physical universe (this "closed system") is the sum total of existence -- an assumption which 1) Begs the question, and 2) could hardly be justified by any rational epistemology.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by Signofthedollar 10 years, 11 months ago
            There is only one thing that is required in a cosmological theory. The observer, meaning us. A=A and we or at least I exist. So any cosmological theory or rational epistemology must not preclude the existence of an observer. It the one thing that as individual we know must be true. Of course you are free to argue that if you want to.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            -
          • Posted by khalling 10 years, 11 months ago
            your prime mover argument has no logic, evidence, inconsistent with logic, inconsistent with science. You cannot understand that things can go on forever. Making up a fairy tale does not explain anything. where is your proof? You are asserting a point of view. where is your proof? All the evidence suggests there is no prime mover
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              -
            • Posted by TheChristianEgoist 10 years, 11 months ago
              My argument has "no logic" - Have you read it?

              "no evidence" - What do you mean by "evidence"? (Hint: this is why I've posted a lot about epistemology)

              "Inconsistent with logic" - please tell me how so.

              "Inconsistent with science" - the only "scientific" aspect to my argument is that there is currently action taking place. Are you saying that science would deny this? The rest of my argument is not scientific, but philosophic.

              Where is my proof? Again, what do you mean by "proof"? What epistemological assumptions are you smuggling in by asserting that I have presented no "proof"?
              The argument IS the proof.

              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by khalling 10 years, 11 months ago
                you cannot ignore science even though you want to stay in the philosophical realm. Because reality exists and your argument wants to disregard all of this body of knowledge. Your premises must be consistent with Science. If your argument is that Science is wrong or irrelevant, then we're back into the mystic.. which is one of my favorite songs btw, and since it is Friday I will meander a bit.
                http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVAnlke_x...
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo