RE: Bill Craig now claiming to have a PhD in Philosophy.
March 18, 2017 at 9:38 am
(This post was last modified: March 18, 2017 at 9:38 am by Edwardo Piet.)
(March 17, 2017 at 12:50 pm)SteveII Wrote:(March 17, 2017 at 4:22 am)Esquilax Wrote: Are you... kidding?
Someone with any intellectual wherewithal would not need to court presuppositionalism as Craig does for the one topic he's made his central area of discussion, with this nonsensical "inner witness of the holy spirit," crap. Intellectual strength also, by the way, precludes the idea that one would continue believing a thing despite evidence to the contrary, as Craig has repeatedly said that he would.
Craig is good at one thing, and that is dressing up already refuted ideas that are bereft of any form of support, in so much philosophical jargon that they no longer seem to be such on cursory examinations. Nobody who was well versed in philosophy would champion the Kalam argument as heavily as Craig does.
I've heard you and others make this claim before. Do you have a link to anything published by a philosopher of any renown that would support your opinion? Of course I am not talking about a respectful difference of opinion on a topic--I'm talking about mirroring your general characterization of him as not being a serious philosopher.
Anyone with more than 2 brain cells who has heard Bill Creg enough in debates and the fallacious arguments he makes knows he's obviously shit at philosophy.
All he's good at is making so many logical fallacies for his opponents to clear up that they don't have much time to make their own counter argument after they've corrected all his stupid bullshit.... as proper formal debates are on a timer.
Fucking ridiculous really. I think obvious logical fallacies should stop the timer and receive a warning from the moderator. If you're gonna engage in a serious debate at least don't spend all your time making your opponent clear up your equivocations and other bullshit. At least have a position worth arguing against.
