(January 31, 2016 at 5:43 pm)Jehanne Wrote:(January 31, 2016 at 4:18 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Again, all that matters is that within the moment his worldview gives off the appearance not of being correct, but of being sciency and truthy. If it feels right in the moment of presentation, facts be damned, then Craig has accomplished his goal.
If you watch his interview on Closer to Truth, he admits that god, in fact, did change, irrevocably, with the Incarnation:
http://www.closertotruth.com/contributor...ig/profile
If so, his whole "actual infinities" argument goes right out the window. I'm sorry that I don't have the exact time in the interview where Craig makes that statement.
Oh, I've never for a moment doubted you when you described his position there, since it's well within his character to take ownership of two contradictory positions whenever it's convenient. God doesn't change when it's better for Craig that he doesn't, and god does change whenever the reverse is true. That's the trouble with addressing his arguments: you're disagreeing on the basis that the argument is flawed, but Craig didn't make the argument because he believes it to be true, or even that it's a particularly consistent statement of his beliefs. Indeed, he doesn't even believe that argumentation is required, since his belief in god doesn't rest on argument or evidence, but on the presupposition that his god is real (his "inner witness of the holy spirit.") He made the argument because it leads to his preferred conclusion.
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
