RE: William Lane Craig continues to desperately defend the indefensible.
February 12, 2015 at 12:26 am
(February 11, 2015 at 8:41 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:(February 11, 2015 at 5:41 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: Furthermore, WLC equivocates on the meaning of "begins to exist". Sure, things that we observe to begin to exist ex materia have a cause, but that's not the kind of existence he's talking about when he's referring to first cause, that would be ex nihilo.Not necessarily. Its a bit ambiguous because of how he presents it, which is why I don't like his version. People start thinking about the big bang and origin of the physical universe, etc.
It's not ambiguous at all - put yourself in his shoes, according to what he believes, there is exactly one thing in the set of things that began to exist ex nihilo, and the set of things he's comparing that to are all ex materia. Not only is he equivocating, he's committing the fallacy of composition, as noted by another poster before me.
Even if we grant WLC a fair amount of latitude, the argument is wholly fallacious.
It's a shitty argument.
