(August 20, 2023 at 10:25 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Let's step back and wonder whether we really want to claim that we've made an a-rational objection to a rational argument. If there's no logic to your objection, then there's nothing to respond to. It's just something you say.
I strongly suspect that he used modal logic because it's generally recognized as valid and he realized that with the right premises he could engineer a godly conclusion? It's motivated reasoning, for sure...but if that's a fallacy it's an informal one. I mean, he's an academic theologian...it's expected....that's what they (try) to do.
Maybe modal logic used to be recognized years ago, Sean Carroll asked WL Craig the same question I'm asking at least 10 years ago, and never got an answer.
The opponents of Einstein (Relativity), Heisenberg (Uncertainty) and Dirac (some of his matrixes) said they were wrong and a-rational.
They turned out to be true.
Every religion is true one way or another. It is true when understood metaphorically. But when it gets stuck in its own metaphors, interpreting them as facts, then you are in trouble. - Joseph Campbell
Militant Atheist Commie Evolutionist
Militant Atheist Commie Evolutionist