William Lane Craig continues to desperately defend the indefensible.

[GrandizerII]

Esquilax fairly represented WLC's arguments. All you have to do is look up WLC on YouTube.

Like WLC you can dismiss challenges with smug indifference, but this in no way refute the argument. "Just stop it" is not an argument.

I've watched WLC's debates and hence i know the OP has grossly misrepresented him. "Just stop it", is not an argument, its a request.

Honestly, from what I've seen, all the standard arguments for God employed by WLC are arguments from ignorance or God of the gaps.

He's still an entertaining debater regardless.

[Cyberman]

"Just stop it", is not an argument, its a request.

No, it's a demand and one which reveals a lot about your attitude to discussion. Why not try stamping your foot?

[Esquilax]

1: I wasn't quoting the Kalam, i was summarising the direction of Craigs argument. You are the one who quoted WLC as saying "things have a cause, and the only cause for all things is god,", which you know is absolutely wrong as you are aware of the actual argument yourself. You have knowingly misrepresented your opponent.

Again, it's mockery, not misrepresentation. Despite the additional premises, WLC's Kalam is really so ineffective that it deserves to be teased; like I said, I've gone through the actual argument so many times it's become repetitive, but I'll do it again for you.

2: Its a deductive argument; the conclusion follows from the premises.
Everything that begins to exist has a cause. You object?

Yes, in that the premise merely asserts the existence of a second category (things that didn't begin to exist) without demonstrating it.

The universe began to exist. You object?

Yes, in that it's just an assertion, and one that the current science isn't willing to make. We don't know whether the universe began to exist or not, beyond its expansion into its current state. This is why I find Kalam so laughable; it bumbles through a bunch of official sounding premises, when each one is nothing more than a codified "take my god seriously!" with no attempt at justification. That slick suit and ten dollar vocabulary might impress ol' Willie Craig's intended audience, but not me.

The universe has a cause. You object?

Yes, given that it follows on from two unproven premises, and carries with it yet another assertion, which is that the cause of things that begin to exist need to be external from the thing itself, something that virtual particles put the lie to, and is again, simply fiat declaration.

That cause exists outside of time, is incredibly powerful, there is good reason to believe it is intelligent, etc.. You object??

Yes, in that there's no reason to assume time began with the universe, in that "power" is so vaguely worded as to be useless, in that there is simply no justification in the argument or out of it for the notion that the cause is even conscious, let alone intelligent... and of course, all that is window dressing around the central problem, which is that all of the previous premises are unjustified in the extreme.

It's an argument where every individual quadrant of it is wrong; tell me again why it's not deserving of mockery?

3/4: I know exactly what you are talking about, and again you are intentionally misrepresenting him. He says on the very page you provided:

"What I claim is that for the person who attends to it the witness of the Holy Spirit overwhelms the putative defeaters brought against the truths to which He bears witness."

Which amounts to: "I trust what i experience and witness first hand, before general consensus."

He also doesn't trust what he experiences when it conflicts with his religious beliefs; that "what if you went back in time and saw the resurrection was a lie?" hypothetical wasn't something I just pulled out of my ass, it's an actual thing Craig discusses in one of his books. The simple fact is that your objection doesn't cover everything Craig has said; he won't trust his own experiences where those experiences conflict with his interpretation of christianity. You have a problem with that, take it up with Craig.

Of course, even your own objection also begs the question; this blanket claim that all evidence against christianity is "putative" is itself a presupposition that christianity is true in spite of whatever evidence there may be, no matter how strong it may seem, even if it's irrefutable, which is also part of the language Craig uses. You may harp on single words, but in essence even your objection is the same thing as what I was saying, just tarted up in second hand verbiage to try and disguise that fact.

You're wrong coming and going.

This is a perfectly reasonable position to take. Actually experiencing something should be considered extremely strong evidence, and is a defeater to lesser evidence grounded in majority opinion.

Tell that to the adherents of every other religion who experience their gods, or alien abductees who experience that. Experience is not strong evidence when it's contradicted by objective evidence elsewhere. And that's just discounting Craig's whole "I'll distrust my experience when it goes against christianity," bit.

He goes on to say: "Now this is importantly different from speculating about what I would do in such circumstances as you describe. I have no idea what, given the weakness of my flesh, I actually would do; but I know what I should do. "

"If it were proven that morality were merely a socio-evolutionary tool, then theism would be false and there would then be no witness of the Holy Spirit, since God would not exist. For theism entails that objective moral values and duties exist. So if they didn't, theism would obviously be false. "

"Again, if Jesus' bones were actually found, then the doctrine of his resurrection would be false and so Christianity would not be true and there would be no witness of the Holy Spirit. So if Jesus' bones were found, no one should be a Christian. Fortunately, there is a witness of the Holy Spirit, and so it follows logically that Jesus' bones will not be found."

Clearly there is a degree of flexibility, his witness to the holy spirit he feels is strong enough to override putative objections. But if it could be proven that something such as morality were socio evolutionary in origin, or Jesus bones were found, then he would have to give up the faith.

So he's either contradicting himself, or merely confident in the idea that he won't have to cover for his presuppositions in future. Speculative nothings about Jesus' bones mean little, when Craig is so proud of his "defeater-defeater" position.

But it is cute, how Craig thinks "I feel that I know the Holy Spirit, therefore they'll never find Jesus' bones," is a logical conclusion.

[KevinM1]

---

1: I wasn't quoting the Kalam, i was summarising the direction of Craigs argument. You are the one who quoted WLC as saying "things have a cause, and the only cause for all things is god,", which you know is absolutely wrong as you are aware of the actual argument yourself. You have knowingly misrepresented your opponent.

Again, it's mockery, not misrepresentation. Despite the additional premises, WLC's Kalam is really so ineffective that it deserves to be teased; like I said, I've gone through the actual argument so many times it's become repetitive, but I'll do it again for you.

2: Its a deductive argument; the conclusion follows from the premises.
Everything that begins to exist has a cause. You object?

Yes, in that the premise merely asserts the existence of a second category (things that didn't begin to exist) without demonstrating it.

The universe began to exist. You object?

Yes, in that it's just an assertion, and one that the current science isn't willing to make. We don't know whether the universe began to exist or not, beyond its expansion into its current state. This is why I find Kalam so laughable; it bumbles through a bunch of official sounding premises, when each one is nothing more than a codified "take my god seriously!" with no attempt at justification. That slick suit and ten dollar vocabulary might impress ol' Willie Craig's intended audience, but not me.

The universe has a cause. You object?

Yes, given that it follows on from two unproven premises, and carries with it yet another assertion, which is that the cause of things that begin to exist need to be external from the thing itself, something that virtual particles put the lie to, and is again, simply fiat declaration.

That cause exists outside of time, is incredibly powerful, there is good reason to believe it is intelligent, etc.. You object??

Yes, in that there's no reason to assume time began with the universe, in that "power" is so vaguely worded as to be useless, in that there is simply no justification in the argument or out of it for the notion that the cause is even conscious, let alone intelligent... and of course, all that is window dressing around the central problem, which is that all of the previous premises are unjustified in the extreme.

It's an argument where every individual quadrant of it is wrong; tell me again why it's not deserving of mockery?

3/4: I know exactly what you are talking about, and again you are intentionally misrepresenting him. He says on the very page you provided:

"What I claim is that for the person who attends to it the witness of the Holy Spirit overwhelms the putative defeaters brought against the truths to which He bears witness."

Which amounts to: "I trust what i experience and witness first hand, before general consensus."

He also doesn't trust what he experiences when it conflicts with his religious beliefs; that "what if you went back in time and saw the resurrection was a lie?" hypothetical wasn't something I just pulled out of my ass, it's an actual thing Craig discusses in one of his books. The simple fact is that your objection doesn't cover everything Craig has said; he won't trust his own experiences where those experiences conflict with his interpretation of christianity. You have a problem with that, take it up with Craig.

Of course, even your own objection also begs the question; this blanket claim that all evidence against christianity is "putative" is itself a presupposition that christianity is true in spite of whatever evidence there may be, no matter how strong it may seem, even if it's irrefutable, which is also part of the language Craig uses. You may harp on single words, but in essence even your objection is the same thing as what I was saying, just tarted up in second hand verbiage to try and disguise that fact.

You're wrong coming and going.

This is a perfectly reasonable position to take. Actually experiencing something should be considered extremely strong evidence, and is a defeater to lesser evidence grounded in majority opinion.

Tell that to the adherents of every other religion who experience their gods, or alien abductees who experience that. Experience is not strong evidence when it's contradicted by objective evidence elsewhere. And that's just discounting Craig's whole "I'll distrust my experience when it goes against christianity," bit.

He goes on to say: "Now this is importantly different from speculating about what I would do in such circumstances as you describe. I have no idea what, given the weakness of my flesh, I actually would do; but I know what I should do. "

"If it were proven that morality were merely a socio-evolutionary tool, then theism would be false and there would then be no witness of the Holy Spirit, since God would not exist. For theism entails that objective moral values and duties exist. So if they didn't, theism would obviously be false. "

"Again, if Jesus' bones were actually found, then the doctrine of his resurrection would be false and so Christianity would not be true and there would be no witness of the Holy Spirit. So if Jesus' bones were found, no one should be a Christian. Fortunately, there is a witness of the Holy Spirit, and so it follows logically that Jesus' bones will not be found."

Clearly there is a degree of flexibility, his witness to the holy spirit he feels is strong enough to override putative objections. But if it could be proven that something such as morality were socio evolutionary in origin, or Jesus bones were found, then he would have to give up the faith.

So he's either contradicting himself, or merely confident in the idea that he won't have to cover for his presuppositions in future. Speculative nothings about Jesus' bones mean little, when Craig is so proud of his "defeater-defeater" position.

But it is cute, how Craig thinks "I feel that I know the Holy Spirit, therefore they'll never find Jesus' bones," is a logical conclusion.

---

Amen!

[Thumpalumpacus]

Everything that begins to exist has a cause. You object?
The universe began to exist. You object?
The universe has a cause. You object?
That cause exists outside of time, is incredibly powerful, there is good reason to believe it is intelligent, etc.. You object??

Uhhh, yeah.

Demonstrate each of these four claims. Bring physical evidence.

Especially for claim #4. Don't fuck around, don't bring semantical dissertations -- bring evidence.

Or, alternatively, be hush.

[robvalue]

I don't understand the compulsion for christians to have to defend other christians, no matter how arse bendingingy stupid they are being. It promotes a very us vs. them mentality on the forum, instead of looking at what an individual has done and discussing/satirising it.

It astounds me that the christians spend no time argueing with each other here too, even though their beliefs flatly contradict each other most of the time, instead just teaming up against the common enemy.

Just some observations. I'm so persecuted :o

[Neo-Scholastic]

Yes, in that the premise merely asserts the existence of a second category (things that didn't begin to exist) without demonstrating it.

Esq. cannot grasp the idea that some things about reality are fundamental, as opposed to contingent. It's an absurdist and nihilistic position that he refuses to acknowledge.

[Esquilax]

Yes, in that the premise merely asserts the existence of a second category (things that didn't begin to exist) without demonstrating it.

Esq. cannot grasp the idea that some things about reality are fundamental, as opposed to contingent. It's an absurdist and nihilistic position that he refuses to acknowledge.

And Chad can't grasp the idea that assertions require evidence to be justified. Basic epistemology eludes him, and yet he sees fit to condescendingly lord the fact that other people won't automatically join him in his fiat declarations over them, as though not leaping headfirst into his delusions is a weakness of intellect.

[robvalue]

Is Chad trying to defend WLC? I don't even know what's going on.

If you want to defend him, you're crawling under the bus with him.

[Esquilax]

Is Chad trying to defend WLC? I don't even know what's going on.

No, I think he just doesn't like it when people call him on the fact that he's never once justified a single claim he's ever made on the forum, like I did earlier in this thread. So he resorts to slinging mud, as though scoffing like I'm obviously too simple and nihilistic to comprehend the obvious truth of his fiat demands is a replacement for proper argumentation.