Why Something Rather Than Nothing?

[bennyboy]

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.

It absolutely does matter how he reaches his ideas, when that method infects his every idea with inexcusable bias. Presuppositionalism turns every argument into mere pretense on the part of the arguer; we are no longer getting a full account of all the facts, and a conclusion based upon them, but instead a collection of either facts or misrepresentations that lead exclusively to a predrawn conclusion, regardless of accuracy.

You keep using this fancy word: presuppositionalism. But to me, it sounds a lot like "the unkown accords with the world view I already have." Do you know exactly how the mind comes into being? No. Do you assume (and vehemently argue) that it must come only from matter? Is that presuppositionalism? Would you argue that all the rational and logical arguments in support of the brain creating mind are invalid if the debater says, "No matter what happens, I'll be arguing that mind is created by matter" ? No. That's that guy's world view, and you naturally expect him to strongly argue for its validity.

Doesn't the fact that a given position makes its holder stop actually debating seem kinda relevant, in an argument?

Not if you get to be the judge of whether they're still debating or not. If that were allowed, every debate in the world would last for exactly one sentence.

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?

Gee, I don't know: if a guy started off his argument with the statement "everything I'm about to say is a lie," would that level of metacommentary be germane to the argument he's about to make? Why should a slightly slimier version of precisely that sentiment be any less relevant?

If Craig said that, I will eat my keyboard.

---

Accepting as tentatively true while recognizing it might be otherwise....is essentially an assertion in my opinion.

An assertion is the couching of an idea as though it is fact-- i.e. that you are so confident about your idea that you have concluded that it represents reality.

So, if I say, "God created the Universe, and he loves us all," that is an assertion. I didn't say "what if," or "it seems to me," or "Hey, I have this interesting way of thinking about life, what do you think?"