Help me make sence of William Lane Craigs nonsense (page 5)

leavingwt

BTW. . .

Lane is on record saying that even if he were to travel back in time, and verify that Christ did NOT rise from the dead, he would remain a believing Christian.

Given this, how can one actually debate him?

eric356

I have no idea. He's a huge tool. This is revealed by the Craig / Robert M. Price debate in which Price calls Craig on all of his BS.

bohm

hardcore stuff.. the man truly deserve a pet lion.

The more i listen to him the more i feel symphathic for him. He is really good at arguing. I have noticed one thing though: His arguments seem to follow this form:

"Abstract term is (only) explained by God"
"Abstract term exist"
"Therefore God exist!"

so he does two things that are questionable:

he does not himself ever prove existence -- he leave it to the atheist to disprove existence. He choose his terms so the atheist make himself look stupid, unemotional and otherwise very "atheistic". the terms allways refer to common-day experience.
he never really explain how "is explained by god" is a truly better explanation than: "We dont know".

I need to listen more closely to him, but it seem to be the "god did it" over again. his arguments seem all to be open to an ethyphro-like attack simply by asking the right "why".

Secondly, a very smart thing he does is that he allways argue more things -- so if he get in trouble on one account, he can retreat a bit and say: "I have allready shown God exist therefore...". His opponent must therefore chance focus and say he did not proove God is there (which get Craig off the hook), or continue his argument on the premise that God does indeed exist -- which often completely undermine his argument. (Craig will keep introducing God from this point till he collapse).

very very smart cookie...

and boy can he say many different things in 3 minutes! by now he would have proven Moses had eggs for breakfast on the 5689th day in the desert!

BurnTheShips

I think this is a weak argument. Craig has much stronger ones, however. Also, "nonsense" is a bit of flame bait on a thread that I would think was for civil discussion Bohm.

because we would ultimately have to argue human life have no value -- and i say it have, i find that self-evident.

How is it self-evident in this case? Sounds like a dodge.

BTS

bohm

BTS -- but i will play the ball over in your court: How does God explain objective morals? Eric point out an excellent logical problem -- how do they become objective if they depend on the whim of God -- but if we leave that aside, how does God really explain them? Is it just that we follow his nature, which could be anything? Or could his nature only be the morals? if so why?

I see no way we get anything out from God i would not get by schrugging my shoulder and stamping in the ground (which i readily admit i eventually do).

But if I stamp in the ground, thats a simpler explanation than having God stamp in the ground! and we end up the same place...

hence no argument for God.

Do you see what i mean?

bohm

BTS, as to the flame bait -- true, but in light of everything, we should count yourself lucky the term "mighty <genitals>" was not part of the title or thread in any way!

BurnTheShips

Eric point out an excellent logical problem -- how do they become objective if they depend on the whim of God

Depends on how you define God. If you define God as as Truth itself (truth is its inviolable nature) and of an entirely different set or class from all other things, it is not a problem. However, as I said, Craig's argument is relatively weak. I won't defend it here.

I smelled a tasty issuing from the poster that started the thread. I asked a question. In his response, it appears that he has dropped it as being too hot.

BTS

bohm

Lets drop Craig. Lets say God == Truth. Then i argue: Why does this lead to a firm basis for objective moral values?

(ps. should i think of Truth as a set of "true statements", or should i think of it as just "truth", the boolean value).

waffles? where? did i drop anything?

BurnTheShips

because we would ultimately have to argue human life have no value -- and i say it have, i find that self-evident.

How is it self-evident in this case? Sounds like a dodge.

BTS

bohm

BTS, In a sence i will give you that i have very little explanation for my case. I think its obvious one should not rape like its obvious for me 2+2 = 4. Its my experience of the world, and you can ask me "why" and i can only say: "I think its so", and make vague references to evolutionary game theory and how the victim is a loving creature and such things.

I dont claim its a strong position, or a desirable one, but i have taken it for the sake of this debate and knowing there may be better systems of morality out there. but i will ignore that for the moment.

But you must agree that so far we have not proven God in any way.

you have an argument for God only when you can come up with some better explanation for whatever i could not explain. So thats basically where you should take over: Tell me what i did not explain and what you explain better, making any theological argument. The burden of proof must be on you.

I believe by playing the ignorant-card i have given you a much more level playing field than a moral philosopher would have!.

Help me make sence of William Lane Craigs nonsense

Share this