Why Something Rather Than Nothing?

[bennyboy]

There's no doubt that Craig is a philosopher, and given the task he's set for himself, I think he's done a better job than almost any other Christian. That he's so smart, and made so little progress, does much to support the idea that the Christian God-idea is wrong.

[Surgenator]

Please don't ask me again to read W.L. Craig. He distorts physics.

This will be an oversimplification, but it drives the main points. What limits the amount of matter in the universe is the total energy of the universe, which is effectively 0. If space-time is infinite, you will sum up over an infinite volume and need an infinite amount of matter to maintain a total energy of 0. If space-time is finite, then the amount of matter is finite.

[Chas]

There's no doubt that Craig is a philosopher, and given the task he's set for himself, I think he's done a better job than almost any other Christian. That he's so smart, and made so little progress, does much to support the idea that the Christian God-idea is wrong.

Smart? That's an interesting opinion.

[Esquilax]

There's no doubt that Craig is a philosopher, and given the task he's set for himself, I think he's done a better job than almost any other Christian. That he's so smart, and made so little progress, does much to support the idea that the Christian God-idea is wrong.

Smart? That's an interesting opinion.

Yeah, I wouldn't say smart, I would say slick. Polish can easily take the place of skill if, as Craig's audience- and one could argue the entire audience for christian apologetics- are, willing to eat up whatever is doled out, so long as it matches their prejudices.

However, lately you can see he's being pushed into a corner, as the actual showmanship of his work is being eroded, leaving behind just the nice words and familiar ideas for the christian audience, bereft of content. Hence the "self authenticating witness" crap, and the barest of lip service he pays to science. He's having to retreat further into his base, because it's getting increasingly obvious his shit won't fly to anyone who doesn't already believe it.

[Heywood]

In short, why the hell should I care what Craig thinks about anything, when he's already demonstrated his lack of respect for facts?

@Esquilax, You are rejecting an argument that you haven't even heard....because you don't like the man who made it. Do you know what fallacy this is?

@datc, telling us to simply go read a book is not good argumentation either. Maybe you can re-tell in your own words this argument from Craig which you claim backs your position that there can not be a infinite number of real things. Doing so would help us to judge this argument on the soundness of its logic and premises instead of on the authority of WLC.

[Esquilax]

In short, why the hell should I care what Craig thinks about anything, when he's already demonstrated his lack of respect for facts?

@Esquilax, You are rejecting an argument that you haven't even heard....because you don't like the man who made it. Do you know what fallacy this is?

I'm rejecting the argument both because the man who made it has no relevant qualifications that would lead him to know anything about the subject, and because he has proclaimed loudly and proudly, through both word and deed, that he will twist or reject any evidence that doesn't match the presupposition he already has.

You can sling accusations of fallacy all day long, but when you're strawmanning so blatantly- and deleting the bulk of my post to do it, I might add!- it kinda just rings out as projection.

[Heywood]

I'm rejecting the argument both because the man who made it has no relevant qualifications that would lead him to know anything about the subject, and because he has proclaimed loudly and proudly, through both word and deed, that he will twist or reject any evidence that doesn't match the presupposition he already has.

You can sling accusations of fallacy all day long, but when you're strawmanning so blatantly- and deleting the bulk of my post to do it, I might add!- it kinda just rings out as projection.

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.

[Alex K]

There's no doubt that Craig is a philosopher, and given the task he's set for himself, I think he's done a better job than almost any other Christian. That he's so smart,

Sorry, he's got a few debate parlour tricks, but I have yet to hear something intelligent come from his mouth. Can you listen to him for more than 5 minutes without wanting to hit your head against the wall for his dishonesty and little lies? Kalaam argument? Nonsense from the start. One could debate him by simply saying "No" on repeat.

He's not a philosopher. Philosophers, by name, love knowledge.

[bennyboy]

There's no doubt that Craig is a philosopher, and given the task he's set for himself, I think he's done a better job than almost any other Christian. That he's so smart,

Sorry, he's got a few debate parlour tricks, but I have yet to hear something intelligent come from his mouth. Can you listen to him for more than 5 minutes without wanting to hit your head against the wall for his dishonesty and little lies? Kalaam argument? Nonsense from the start. One could debate him by simply saying "No" on repeat.

He's not a philosopher. Philosophers, by name, love knowledge.

But who among Christians would do better? The reason he uses the arguments that he does is not that he's an idiot-- it's because there are no better arguments to be made. It's like a defense lawyer pulling every little legal trick he can to get his guy off. I think Craig is making the best religious arguments it is possible for him to make. And they are not good enough for an educated jury-- and they are above an uneducated jury.

In the end, I think his existence is a boon for atheism, because smart people will eventually come to say, "This is the best argument for Christianity, and it has obvious holes." As many here have.

[Esquilax]

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."?