Darth Dawkins Unanswered Questions

 

     

SHARE 

List of questions from 10 years ago on Paltalk that Darth Dawkins still has not answered.till has not answered

1. how can the claim that "God is good” not be a mere tautology if the “good” is defined in terms of God’s nature?
2. how is the Euthyphro dilemma a "false dichotomy"?
3. what is the (magical) barrier that demarcates “micro-evolution” from “macro-evolution”?
4. how can skeptical theism be an adequate response to the evidential argument from evil since skeptical theism logically entails a commitment to global skepticism?
5. what is an example of an observation that could falsify the hypotheses of an Intelligent Designer, a Special Creator, a Fine-Tuner of the cosmological constants, or of God?
6. if these hypotheses cannot be falsified, how can there be evidence for them?
7. what is the formal argument constituting the “design inference” to the existence of God?
8. what hypothesis is a better explanation for the apparently structured diversity of terrestrial life than the hypothesis of a universal common ancestor?
9. is the hypothesis of a universal common ancestor an unfalsifiable hypothesis?
10. is the hypothesis of a universal common ancestor a falsified hypothesis? what observation has falsified it?
11. is the hypothesis of a universal common ancestor an ad hoc hypothesis?
12. Is the hypothesis of a universal common ancestor a logically incoherent hypothesis?
13. What way is there to discredit an explanatory hypothesis other than to show that it is unfalsifiable, that it has been falsified, that it is ad hoc, that it is logically incoherent or that there is an alternative hypothesis that has greater explanatory virtues?
14. If “atemporal change” is an “oxymoron” because it is is equivalent to the concept of “no-change change”, how can change not “presuppose” or “require” time?
15. What mathematicians or philosophers have shown that “actual infinities” are impossible and by what argument(s) have they shown this?
16. How is the regularity of nature an explanatory hypothesis “that explains the way things are”? If predictions are derivable from the mere assumption of the regularity of nature, how is it the thesis is not falsified if what is predicted fails to come true? if the thesis can be falsified then it’s falsifiable, so how can the regularity of nature be falsifiable and unfalsifiable, simultaneously?

This is a list of questions that have been presented to Darth Dawkins repeatedly but he has refused to answer. These questions could be presented to any creationist in a debate.

stupidcreationists.com

This Section has been reserved for Darth to respond to the questions presented on this site. So far the only response we have gotten is that he has answered these questions many times in the chat rooms. He refuses to put his "responses" into a written statement and no one seems to have witnessed him actually responding on mic.

STILL BLANK...what a shock!

DARTH DAWKINS FACEBOOK GROUP
https://www.facebook.com/groups/DarthDawkins

DARTH DAWKINS FACEBOOK GROUP

DARTH QUESTIONS SAVED ON ON ARCHIVE.COM

TJump Destroyed In Philosophy Debate About Platonism

Tjump gets destroyed in philosophy debate with Godless. Tjump gets exposed for being confused about what Platonism is and says language does not exist. Godless has to teach Tom Jump that Platonism holds that abstract objects exist.

Modern Day Debate Full video: https://youtu.be/vHaKlPDxElI

What Is Platonism? Video: https://youtu.be/NkgfBCmAXMo

Platonism in Metaphysics:
Platonism is the view that there exist such things as abstract objects — where an abstract object is an object that does not exist in space or time and which is therefore entirely non-physical and non-mental.



Tjump Wiki Page



Godless Discord Server

Matt Dillahunty Dodge

 

The Dillahunty dodge is a term invented by Matt Slick in order to describe dishonest tactics for evading questions weilded by Matt Dillahunty.

Dillahunty exposes his inconsistency by appealing to Hume’s problem of induction when denying arguments for God, but subjectively dismisses the problem when supporting naturalism, evolution, etc. He thereby routinely commits the fallacy of special pleading…

His ultimate objection to virtually all arguments for the Biblical worldview is ‘the third option appeal’ (aka ‘The Dillahunty Dodge’), which goes something like this: ‘There could be another explanation we’re not aware of; I don’t know’. Thus, he will deny everything we do know and jump to nonsensical appeals to the unknown. This is a self defeating approach to knowledge as a whole, as it can just as easily be applied to virtually everything that Dillahunty himself claims to know. E.g., if and when Dillahunty asserts that ‘evolution is true’ we can dismiss all (supposed) evidence for it, not with rational arguments, but instead with the third option appeal: ‘There could be another explanation for what you believe is explained by evolution that we’re not aware of; I don’t know’. We could (ultimately) postulate a third option for virtually any truth claim, ad infinitum. If and when Dillahunty objects by stating that we know of nothing else that is better supported by the evidence, we can call his objection an ‘argument from ignorance’ (vs. an argument based upon what he does claim knowledge of) — just as he objects to the statement that we know of no other means by which logic could be derived apart from mind. If Dillahunty appeals to inductive inference to support naturalism and evolution, then in the interest of consistency and rationality he must agree that inductive inference points to conceptual laws of thought.
Thus, the irrationality, hypocrisy (special pleading) and indeed impossibility of Matt Dillahunty’s atheistic worldview is reasonably demonstrated.
Dillahunty Hang Up Tactic
Often while taking calls on the Atheist Experience rather than exert the effort to do the Dillahunty Dodge Matt will just get angry and hang up on callers.

Godless Debate Community Wiki