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.
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.
It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. - Alexander Vilenkin
If I am shown my error, I will be the first to throw my books into the fire. - Martin Luther
If I am shown my error, I will be the first to throw my books into the fire. - Martin Luther
