(August 9, 2015 at 11:07 am)Esquilax Wrote: The most illustrative thing about Craig's debate scripts, for me, is that they don't change even when the evidence does. The man is still using the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem as evidence for Kalam, even after being caught on tape being told by one of the writers of the theorem that he's using it inappropriately. He's content to keep throwing out that reference, knowing that very few of his fans will check up on it, and fewer still will be familiar with the debate where that happened; the veneer of respectability that having a scientific reference brings is more important to him than accurately representing the truth.Kalam is Craig's baby. He wouldn't let a little thing like facts get in the way of that.
WLC isn't a debater at all, because a debate implies some exchange of ideas between parties. Craig doesn't exchange ideas; he projects his own and ignores everything else. I'm watching a debate of him and Hitchens on and off while I write lately, and his closing argument is seriously "we haven't heard any evidence tonight for why god doesn't exist, so ha!" The man's just kindergarten styles dressed up in fifty dollar words and an expensive suit.
More on Craig, his cumulative case for Christian theism is moot, since he never really puts forward a clear idea of what a personal god is. Like a person how? Given the vastness, complexity, and mysteriousness of the universe, the cause of everything likely can't be anything like a human mind or that can be honestly called "a personal mind (Craig's words)."
It is very important not to mistake hemlock for parsley, but to believe or not believe in God is not important at all. - Denis Diderot
We are the United States of Amnesia, we learn nothing because we remember nothing. - Gore Vidal
We are the United States of Amnesia, we learn nothing because we remember nothing. - Gore Vidal
