Why Something Rather Than Nothing?

[bennyboy]

Heywood, someone being utterly intellectually dishonest and beign called out for it is not an ad hominem. The fact that he's so dishonest and uninterested in actual debate is a relevant factor to how we should regard his claims.

No, this is wrong. One argument against Craig was that his background doesn't qualify him to establish a credible argument. That is in fact ad hominem.

Just because few here believe in his arguments doesn't mean that it's no longer worth arguing properly.

---

Unless the basis of WLC argument is his own authority.....you are committing the ad hominem fallacy by outright rejecting it. You may have good reason to not like WLC but that alone isn't sufficient reason to say a particular argument WLC makes must be bad.....so when you do so....it is you who loses credibility....not WLC.

Yeah, doubling down on the same bad argument isn't going to help you. As I said in the last post, and the original post, so you have no reason not to get this and are either terrible at reading comprehension or outright lying, I'm not rejecting the argument because WLC said it. I'm rejecting the argument because I have good reason to; aside from the man's long history of distorting science to fit his views, not to mention his lack of any relevant credentials, WLC has stated numerous times in print and speech that he will disregard anything that does not outright confirm his views about god, that when the evidence might contradict scripture, it is scripture that takes precedence.

The reason I reject the argument isn't because I don't like Craig, and I trust anyone willing to go back one page will be able to see your dishonest oversimplification of my position for what it is. The reason I reject it is because Craig is a presuppositionalist conman; he's ill educated, demonstrably dishonest, and states from the outset he refuses to come to the discussion honestly. Why should anyone trust the word of a man whose position is "I'm not going to consider anything that doesn't confirm what I already believe."?

I'm sorry, this is still textbook ad hominem. It doesn't matter if he's a conman. It doesn't matter what he stated about his way of reaching his ideas, and it doesn't matter if he's dishonest. What matters is the content of the ideas he's gone on record with, preferably in his very many formal debates.

The reason to reject an argument is, and only can be, because the argument is demonstrably false or poorly supported. And that's an easy enough claim to make about Craig's arguments-- why bother with the biographical metacommentary?