RE: William Lane Craig continues to desperately defend the indefensible.
February 11, 2015 at 2:04 pm
(This post was last modified: February 11, 2015 at 2:11 pm by Faith No More.)
(February 11, 2015 at 11:23 am)Esquilax Wrote: No, I think he just doesn't like it when people call him on the fact that he's never once justified a single claim he's ever made on the forum, like I did earlier in this thread. So he resorts to slinging mud, as though scoffing like I'm obviously too simple and nihilistic to comprehend the obvious truth of his fiat demands is a replacement for proper argumentation.
I think it's more of a "don't piss on our wishful thinking" response. Proponents of metaphysics don't like it when you point out their unjustified assertions, because that's their whole foundation for their arguments.
(February 11, 2015 at 11:26 am)FatAndFaithless Wrote: I, too, can sprinkle philosophical sounding words across a vacuous statement and refuse to back it up.
In Isaac Asimov's Foundation, there is a device that takes informational content like speeches and puts them through a rigorous analysis to strip away the flowery language and determine just what exactly is being said. At one point in the book the device is used to find that one person giving a speech had actually said nothing at all.
I imagine that would be the same result you would get if you used the device on any of these metaphysical arguments for god.
Even if the open windows of science at first make us shiver after the cozy indoor warmth of traditional humanizing myths, in the end the fresh air brings vigor, and the great spaces have a splendor of their own - Bertrand Russell
