(November 7, 2017 at 11:22 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

Quote:That quote wasn't from me, by the way, but I agree with it 100%.

As for Craig, I think that his ideas are "so bad that they are not even wrong"

I’ve been thinking the same thing about the OP.  And frankly I’m a bit surprised that no one has said anything, that I had seen anyway!  It was a necropost, so I was waiting for it to die again... but the bad logic and definitions are driving me nuts.

Oh, it looks like I did say that!

Well, then we disagree.  As I said, reasonable people disagree over religion, unlike science, for with the latter, there is always some smart-ass (to quote Professor Carroll) who will, eventually, come along with some sort of experiment and/or observation that will settle the matter.

(November 7, 2017 at 9:02 pm)MysticKnight Wrote:

(March 30, 2016 at 10:05 pm)Jehanne Wrote: Because, to admit that something is falsifiable means to admit that one is not 100% certain of it being true.  

Seriously? God can be disproven infinite ways but can only be proven one way, really, and that is through beautiful names. Goodness, morality, judgment, witness, perception, etc, all these are pointing to the name of God which reveals him in various degrees depending what is left of our light in the ugly muck of darkness.

Infinite ways to disprove God but there is only one way to know God, and the way to know God is through his name, and the chosen guides are his names.

Don't understand what "disprove" means, huh?  Let alone "prove".  Beautiful names?  You're nuts.

---

(November 7, 2017 at 9:02 pm)MysticKnight Wrote:

(March 30, 2016 at 10:05 pm)Jehanne Wrote: Because, to admit that something is falsifiable means to admit that one is not 100% certain of it being true.  

Seriously? God can be disproven infinite ways but can only be proven one way, really, and that is through beautiful names. Goodness, morality, judgment, witness, perception, etc, all these are pointing to the name of God which reveals him in various degrees depending what is left of our light in the ugly muck of darkness.

William Craig has proven God in so many ways, stop being so stubborn. And the ways he has, all use his name and it is all elephant in the room thing, they are all pointing to the same proof.

Try to keep track.  Geez, they're in the same post.

---

(November 7, 2017 at 9:36 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: Ok you explain what good and evil is.  IT's funny how Atheists work with both paradigms saying you need God for goodness to be objective and evil to be objective, and say God is possible.

If you hold God is possible and you don't know, then you should admit you don't know
If you knew for sure God doesn't exist, then prove it.

You guys say you don't know but then don't want to know anything beyond what you don't know, but just insist we all don't know.

Perhaps not all of us were satisfied with ignorance?

Not only are you satisfied with ignorance, you wallow in it.

YOU don't know and are trying desperately to convince us (and maybe yourself) that you DO know.

Why do you think god is necessary for good and evil, love and value, perception and judgment?
All these things are explainable without your god.

The name of God proves God in many ways, all philosophical arguments proving God (I don't mean first Cause Creator arguments) and his oneness, all make use of his name from one angle or another.

That is why the only way to prove God is through his name, at the same time, there are so many ways of doing that.

The moral argument for example, any argument that uses greatness and life (Aslems solid proof), etc, all make use of his name. Aristotle and beauty all make use of his name.\

Even the argument from logic or the mathematical argument makes use of his name.

(November 8, 2017 at 1:23 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: The name of God proves God in many ways, all philosophical arguments proving God (I don't mean first Cause Creator arguments) and his oneness, all make use of his name from one angle or another.

No.

(November 8, 2017 at 1:23 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: That is why the only way to prove God is through his name, at the same time, there are so many ways of doing that.

The moral argument for example

That argument does not work.

(November 8, 2017 at 1:23 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: any argument that uses greatness and life (Aslems solid proof), etc, all make use of his name.

Anselms argument is just silly. I've explained why elsewhere and I know you've been told.

(November 8, 2017 at 1:23 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: Aristotle and beauty all make use of his name.\

Don't know that one but I bet its silly.

(November 8, 2017 at 1:23 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: Even the argument from logic or the mathematical argument makes use of his name.

I looked at those, they are silly.

(November 7, 2017 at 11:51 am)Cyberman Wrote: They didn't "die for him". They were murdered. Come back once you have learned the difference.

Sure they did. Just the same way those theater goers in Aurora died for Batman.

---

(November 7, 2017 at 9:36 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: Ok you explain what good and evil is. IT's funny how Atheists work with both paradigms saying you need God for goodness to be objective and evil to be objective, and say God is possible.

If you hold God is possible and you don't know, then you should admit you don't know the nature of good and evil, love and value, perception and judgment.

If you knew for sure God doesn't exist, then prove it.

You guys say you don't know but then don't want to know anything beyond what you don't know, but just insist we all don't know.

Perhaps not all of us were satisfied with ignorance?

I'm so glad you're here to tell us what we think and believe.

(November 8, 2017 at 1:23 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: The name of God proves God in many ways...

The Jabberwocky is real then?

(November 8, 2017 at 1:23 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: The name of God proves God in many ways, all philosophical arguments proving God...

Those aren't actual proofs; they're arguments that postulate a hypothetical being.  None of the arguments have ever led to the scientific discovery of an actual god.  You simply cannot define something into existence with philosophical wankery; at best you can use those arguments as a reason for belief.

I've never been even mildly convinced by any one of those so-called "proofs."  Until your alleged deity comes strolling into my office in person, I'm going to continue to think and act as if it's imaginary -- because according to all my perceptions of Life, the Universe and Everything, to me it *is* imaginary.

---

(November 8, 2017 at 3:59 pm)Succubus Wrote:

(November 8, 2017 at 1:23 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: The name of God proves God in many ways...

The Jabberwocky is real then?

Wot, is it brillig already?  Got to pop out and see how the mome raths are doing.

(November 8, 2017 at 1:23 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: The name of God proves God in many ways, all philosophical arguments proving God (I don't mean first Cause Creator arguments) and his oneness, all make use of his name from one angle or another.

That is why the only way to prove God is through his name, at the same time, there are so many ways of doing that.

The moral argument for example, any argument that uses greatness and life (Aslems solid proof), etc, all make use of his name. Aristotle and beauty all make use of his name.\

Even the argument from logic or the mathematical argument makes use of his name.

Your eyes must be brown.

There is not a contradiction in the OP by Dr. Craig, because it does not follow, that one's certainty in a proposition is dictated at all by it's falsifiability.  Falsifiable (I am assuming in the sense of Popper and the demarcation problem given the context) is about the possibility to be able to show the something to be false.  However the focus here is not on leaving open the option to be false, but rather one of having the potential; by the nature of the claim, to nullify it.   Showing a potential falsifier to itself be false, may increase our confidence, but that potential to falsify hasn't decreased.  

Consider the reference previously, to Karl Popper and using falsification for the demarcation of science.  I am willing to state, that I believe there is a 100% probability that Earth orbits around the Sun, along with a number of other planets and satellites.  Did I just make the study and observation of these things not science by this statement?  While a strict falsifiability principle may be out fashion within philosophers of science these days, I don't think this is the reason why.  Not X will still falsify X - Even if we can show that Not X is definitely false. 

Then this reminds me of a conversation I had with someone who came into a Christian forum I used to frequent.  After some time, and not doing very well, he came up with the idea that some claim was unfalsifiable (and therefore imbued with the characteristics that follow such a description).  I had pointed out that until recently, said fellow was indeed trying to falsify these same claims (not very consistent of him).  To which he replied something to the effect... well some people will never believe it is false, no matter what.  Now just because he was failing in an attempt to falsify does not show that it is unfalsifiable.  Quite the opposite in fact, as he was recently trying to show it as false.  But this had me thinking!  Is falsification (which at least causes serious debate as a demarcation of science) so subjective.  Does for Dr. Craig 100% belief, make it unfalsifiable, while another with 50% confidence is falsifiable, but not nearly as falsifiable as the one with only 10% confidence.  It all depends on who you talk too (or what kind of mood they're in today? 

So as I said, I would say that the OP is "so bad that they are not even wrong"  to quote the poster.  I think it is largely definitional  and a misunderstanding, but it also does not logically follow.  I find that many of the criticisms of angry people on the internet concerning Craig, to really be not that good.  Many are out of context, or straw men, some just don't seem that consequential.  And while I'm sure that Dr. Craig is human, and has made plenty of mistakes, has occasionally misspoken,  and probably even changed his mind before.  What get's me, is why this focus on Craig? Why the sniping and scouring in the background over minor things?    Too often, such as here, I don't get the feeling, that it is to discuss the topic, or open up a discussion, but to tear someone down, so you don't have to deal with things of a weightier matter.

While I don't think that RR's "weightier matter" bullshit is in any way meaningful, his comment on certainty and falsifiability, and a misapprehension of both what is being said and what logically follows from what....is spot on.

You can be certain of something that you think is falsifiable.  That it hasn't been falsified, or at least that you believe it hasn't... is probably one of the things that grant such certainty in the first place.

Craig, though, is a piece of shit...and he knows it. I don't know why anyone would waste time trying to prove him wrong or find some contradiction. It's not as if he'd care. He's stated this much explicitly. Ironically, this is probably the most honest break in his usual schtick, even if it drives some atheist or debater nuts.That, though, probably explains why he gets under peoples skin, like assholes often do.