(June 2, 2015 at 8:53 am)nicanica123 Wrote: But I do like WLC. I don't think that he can be excoriated here and also let the everyone else get away with their own logical fallacies. I go back to that dialogue he had with Kraus in Brisbane. Kraus used blatant dishonesty and showed his ignorance multiple times. Krauss is a scientist, not a philosopher or professional debator so I would expect him fault at times. But WLC deserves more credit
Sorry, but WLC is provably intellectually dishonest.
There is no arguing that his brand of debate rhetoric is well done, in that, without looking past the surface, it almost sounds credible.
He did a debate against physicist, Sean Carroll, where Craig just got his ass handed to him. What's really embarrassing is that he'd even attempt his rubbish understanding of physics in a debate against a Cal Tech physicist.
There is one point in the debate where Craig uses a quote by Alan Guth in an attempt to support his flawed cosmological argument , and in response by Carroll, he shows a vid of Guth saying pretty much the opposite of what Craig claims he says.
If I, someone with a basic understanding of logic, can find all the fallacies in Craig's arguments, why should he deserve more credit?
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.