(April 9, 2016 at 3:43 am)udhammam Wrote:

(April 4, 2016 at 9:42 pm)Jehanne Wrote: He has stated in several of his debates that the "Argument of Evil" is a "dead argument," abandoned by "philosophers everywhere."  I used to believe his shit; no more:

http://www.closertotruth.com/series/does...sprove-god

You're find several distinguished philosophers in the above list (such as Tooley & Smith) who explicitly invoke the argument of evil against the existence of god.

Don't believe Criag; he is a conscious liar.

...Ok.

Here's his lie:

Quote:In summary, the atheist who champions the logical version of the problem of evil, bears the burden of proof to show that there is no possible world in which “A” and “B” are true. That is an enormously heavy burden which has proved to be unsustainable. After centuries of discussion, contemporary philosophers including, uh, virtually all atheists and agnostics have come to admit that the logical problem of evil has been solved. In the words of the prominent philosopher William Alsten, “It is now acknowledged, on almost all sides, that the logical argument from evil is bankrupt”.

And, AC Grayling's response:

Quote:Professor Craig says that there are three shortcomings to the probabilistic version of the argument from evil. And, by the way, I should just mention that, er, Professor Craig says that the “current authorities” in the field say that “nobody now takes the Logical Problem of Evil seriously”. Well, long before that happened, people had stopped taking seriously the Argument from Authority, which is - as you know - a logical fallacy. So the fact that people - that the theologians - are not taking arguments seriously, doesn’t seem to me a refutation of it.

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/belief-in...ing-debate

This is Craig at his "lying best"; I have heard several atheistic philosophers feature the Argument from Evil as being a refutation of the existence of a theistic god, even "logically" so.  I would encourage you to listen to Craig's debate with Stephen Law:

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/does-god-...law-debate

Professor Law makes the excellent point that the existence of evil can support the notion of an "evil deity" as much as a "good deity." Craig loves to twist things, building straw-man upon straw-man.

(April 8, 2016 at 2:25 pm)Simon Moon Wrote:

(April 8, 2016 at 11:00 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

Quote:I have always found it interesting that some people go to great effort to have an issue with the cosmological argument.

It's because the CA is considered, by a great many theists and apologists, to be such powerful argument for the existence of a god, yet it is so obviously flawed.

---

Why shouldn't people care about correcting bad information and refuting fallacious arguments? Especially if the beliefs that come out of the bad information and fallacious arguments lead to bad or dangerous actions. 

The  main reason why there are outspoken atheists in the first place, is because they/we think the world would be a much better place to live if the vast majority of humanity held as many true beliefs as possible, and as few false beliefs as possible, and if critical thinking and skepticism were considered virtues, instead of faith being considered a virtue.

---

Thanks for being honest.... this has normally been by my assumption.  However; I haven't seen where the argument is obviously flawed or fallacious.  In my experience, those refuting it,

Quote:Thanks for being honest.... this has normally been by my assumption.  However; I haven't seen where the argument is obviously flawed or fallacious.  In my experience, those refuting it,

The argument has several fallacies. 

Fallacy of composition.
Equivocation.

Just to start...

And depending on the version, it also can affirm the consequent.

Maybe you should open a new thread with the version you believe is the best, and we'll point out the flaws.

(April 9, 2016 at 3:49 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: The argument has several fallacies. 

Fallacy of composition...

That isn't truly a fallacy; but rather, more of a guide toward the best solution, like parsimony. For example, snowflakes are water. A snowman, made of snowflakes, is also water and as such snowflakes and snowmen share the same essential properties.

(April 9, 2016 at 6:19 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:

(April 9, 2016 at 3:49 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: The argument has several fallacies. 

Fallacy of composition...

That isn't truly a fallacy; but rather, more of a guide toward the best solution, like parsimony. For example, snowflakes are water. A snowman, made of snowflakes, is also water and as such snowflakes and snowmen share the same essential properties.

Sure it is:

A is part of B
A has property X
Therefore, B has property X

Hydrogen and oxygen are not wet.
Therefore water is not wet.

Your snowman example only works because of have chosen a particular property that they both have. Congratulations for creating a non fallacious example!

If you were to say, I can hold a snowflake on my tongue, therefore I can hold a snowman on my tongue, then it would be fallacious.

(April 9, 2016 at 6:36 pm)Simon Moon Wrote:

(April 9, 2016 at 6:19 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: That isn't truly a fallacy; but rather, more of a guide toward the best solution, like parsimony. For example, snowflakes are water. A snowman, made of snowflakes, is also water and as such snowflakes and snowmen share the same essential properties.

Sure it is:

A is part of B
A has property X
Therefore, B has property X

Hydrogen and oxygen are not wet.
Therefore water is not wet.

Your snowman example only works because of have chosen a particular property that they both have. Congratulations for creating a non fallacious example!

If you were to say, I can hold a snowflake on my tongue, therefore I can hold a snowman on my tongue, then it would be fallacious.

It is only fallacious with respect to accidental properties. Only essential properties are preserved. So for example, mass is an essential property of both hydrogen and oxygen. Subsequently mass is an essential property of water. In your example size is an accidental property of a snowflake so that property doesn't transfer to a snowman. That is why it is only a guide. The logical form does not distinguish between essential and accidental properties.

(April 9, 2016 at 9:14 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:

(April 9, 2016 at 6:36 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: Sure it is:

A is part of B
A has property X
Therefore, B has property X

Hydrogen and oxygen are not wet.
Therefore water is not wet.

Your snowman example only works because of have chosen a particular property that they both have. Congratulations for creating a non fallacious example!

If you were to say, I can hold a snowflake on my tongue, therefore I can hold a snowman on my tongue, then it would be fallacious.

It is only fallacious with respect to accidental properties. Only essential properties are preserved. So for example, mass is an essential property of both hydrogen and oxygen. Subsequently mass is an essential property of water. In your example size is an accidental property of a snowflake so that property doesn't transfer to a snowman. That is why it is only a guide. The logical form does not distinguish between essential and accidental properties.

Craig talks about atheists having a "burden of  proof" with respect to god, but if god(s) does not exist, what "burden of proof" could atheists have with respect to a non-existent entity, which, necessarily, would have non-existent attributes?

(April 7, 2016 at 7:55 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: Just listened to this last night.

Scott Clifton pretty much destroys William Lane Craig's cosmological argument.

I was pretty good at refuting this argument before this, but I never heard the approach he uses when he talks about "sufficient causes" and "material causes".

https://youtu.be/vjtWLU9t0gs

Not even close.

WLC's formulation is 

(1) Everthing that begins to exist has a cause. 

As to the charge of being vague, it leaves the question of efficient or material causes to the arguments in support of the premises (which he has literally written books on).

Clifton claims that our experience tells us: 

(1*) Every physical thing that begins to exist has a material cause.

In his published and peer reviewed work, WLC outlines 3 arguments for (1):

(i) Something cannot come from nothing.
(ii) If something can come into being from nothing, then it becomes inexplicable why just anything or everything doesn’t come into being from nothing. 
(iii) Common experience and scientific evidence confirm the truth of premise (1).

He goes on to point out that only the third is an inductive reason so the main grounds in support of the premise are metaphysical. Clifton's support for (1*) seems to be (iii), but if all the eggs are in that basket though, that might even be on shaky ground because of current cosmological theories (most don't allow for "stuff" to be available for use in creating a universe)

Premise (2) The universe began to exist, does not seem to be challenged by Clifton.

So how about the cause?

(3) The universe had a cause. 

(3*) The universe had a material cause (stuff from which it was made). 

You will get an infinite regress of events if the cause of the universe was a material object. In addition, the scientific evidence supports an absolute beginning of all matter and energy, space and time a finite time ago. WLC concludes: 

"So we have really good grounds for affirming the immateriality of the First Cause. The origin of the universe requires, then, an efficient cause of enormous power which created physical time, space, matter, and energy. It is an instance of efficient but not material causation. If this is thought to be metaphysically impossible, then some compelling, overriding argument needs to be given for that conclusion. I have yet to encounter such an argument."

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/must-ever...z45XfsH9uk

Even if the logic worked (it doesn't) it is still speculation without any evidence to confirm it.

It relies entirely on the premises being absolutely 100% accurate and exhaustive. "Close enough" and "from what we observe" aren't anywhere near sufficient. Since no method of checking this is built in at any point, we're left with no idea whether the conclusion has any relation to reality or not. WLC is exploring a heavily simplified version of reality in his imagination. That's why stuff like this never returns anything at all useful, ever.

It is nothing but a pat on the back to make believers feel better about what they already believe.

http://youtu.be/inw1fNItjdU

(April 11, 2016 at 2:38 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(April 7, 2016 at 7:55 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: Just listened to this last night.

Scott Clifton pretty much destroys William Lane Craig's cosmological argument.

I was pretty good at refuting this argument before this, but I never heard the approach he uses when he talks about "sufficient causes" and "material causes".

https://youtu.be/vjtWLU9t0gs

Not even close.

WLC's formulation is 

(1) Everthing that begins to exist has a cause. 

As to the charge of being vague, it leaves the question of efficient or material causes to the arguments in support of the premises (which he has literally written books on).

Says who?  Dr. Craig?  A communications major from Wheaton College who studied Biblical history in graduate school?  Does Craig have a single paper in any physics journal?

Clifton claims that our experience tells us: 

That the Earth is motionless at the center of the Universe...

(1*) Every physical thing that begins to exist has a material cause.

And, that heavier objects fall faster than do lighter ones.

In his published and peer reviewed work, WLC outlines 3 arguments for (1):

(i) Something cannot come from nothing.

Says who?  The "infallible" William Lane Craig???

(ii) If something can come into being from nothing, then it becomes inexplicable why just anything or everything doesn’t come into being from nothing. 

Probably, because only complex things can be formed by simpler things, such as oxygen being created in a supernova explosion.

(iii) Common experience and scientific evidence confirm the truth of premise (1).

Common experience, yes; scientific evidence, uh, no.

He goes on to point out that only the third is an inductive reason so the main grounds in support of the premise are metaphysical. Clifton's support for (1*) seems to be (iii), but if all the eggs are in that basket though, that might even be on shaky ground because of current cosmological theories (most don't allow for "stuff" to be available for use in creating a universe)

Premise (2) The universe began to exist, does not seem to be challenged by Clifton.

So how about the cause?

(3) The universe had a cause. 

Says who?  The "infallible" Craig?  Gee, where is his Nobel Prize?

(3*) The universe had a material cause (stuff from which it was made). 

You will get an infinite regress of events if the cause of the universe was a material object. In addition, the scientific evidence supports an absolute beginning of all matter and energy, space and time a finite time ago. WLC concludes: 

"So we have really good grounds for affirming the immateriality of the First Cause. The origin of the universe requires, then, an efficient cause of enormous power which created physical time, space, matter, and energy. It is an instance of efficient but not material causation. If this is thought to be metaphysically impossible, then some compelling, overriding argument needs to be given for that conclusion. I have yet to encounter such an argument."

Yeah, well, who created god, then?  Oh, wait, god is a "necessary being" who needs no "creator", even though he/she/it is an "enormous power"?!

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/must-ever...z45XfsH9uk