Why Something Rather Than Nothing?

[Heywood]

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."?

- bolded by me

Okay I got it. Its not that you don't dislike Craig. Its that there are certain things about Craig you dislike.....namely everything. If you're not rejecting the argument because you find a premise suspect or a fault in logic....and your rejecting it because you find a fault with Craig....you're committing an ad hominem fallacy(the exception being if the argument is one from authority).

Here, watch this video. Maybe you will realize where you are going wrong.

[FatAndFaithless]

Heywood, someone being utterly intellectually dishonest and beign called out for it is not an ad hominem. The fact that he's so dishonest and uninterested in actual debate is a relevant factor to how we should regard his claims.

[Heywood]

Heywood, someone being utterly intellectually dishonest and beign called out for it is not an ad hominem. The fact that he's so dishonest and uninterested in actual debate is a relevant factor to how we should regard his claims.

So if William Lane Craig makes the claim that the earth is not flat....but round....you should reject the claim because William Lane Craig made it?

Your error is conflating Craig with the claim......that's why it is a fallacy.

[Esquilax]

- bolded by me

Okay I got it. Its not that you don't dislike Craig. Its that there are certain things about Craig you dislike.....namely everything. If you're not rejecting the argument because you find a premise suspect or a fault in logic....and your rejecting it because you find a fault with Craig....you're committing an ad hominem fallacy(the exception being if the argument is one from authority).

Here, watch this video. Maybe you will realize where you are going wrong.

It would be an ad hominem fallacy if the reasons I presented were irrelevant to the argument being had. Do you deny that Craig's position, "I will disregard anything that does not already agree with me," in addition to his history of deliberate distortion of science, is relevant to his argument?

[Heywood]

It would be an ad hominem fallacy if the reasons I presented were irrelevant to the argument being had. Do you deny that Craig's position, "I will disregard anything that does not already agree with me," in addition to his history of deliberate distortion of science, is relevant to his argument?

You don't even know the details of the argument you are rejecting....so you can't credibly say anything about it.

Its sad because your hatred of Craig is preventing you from learning some critical thinking skills.

[Esquilax]

You don't even know the details of the argument you are rejecting....so you can't credibly say anything about it.

Do you deny that the position Craig holds, wherein anything that does not fit into the narrative he already holds to be true is discarded or misrepresented, is relevant to this discussion? Do you deny that that same position would also render any argument Craig makes to be inherently dishonest and not representative of the facts?

Its sad because your hatred of Craig is preventing you from learning some critical thinking skills.

Strawman.

[Alex K]

It would be an ad hominem fallacy if the reasons I presented were irrelevant to the argument being had. Do you deny that Craig's position, "I will disregard anything that does not already agree with me," in addition to his history of deliberate distortion of science, is relevant to his argument?

You don't even know the details of the argument you are rejecting....so you can't credibly say anything about it.

Its sad because your hatred of Craig is preventing you from learning some critical thinking skills.

Haha, slow down there, Heywood. Esq. didn't mean that he rejects WLCs arguments simply because he has "presup conman" written on his business card. It was obviously a shorthand for saying that WLCs arguments are the tricks of a presuppositionalist conman and therefore invalid.
There is only one way critical thinking skills are to be learned from Craig - by listening to him and identifying his lies and fallacies.

[Heywood]

Its sad because your hatred of Craig is preventing you from learning some critical thinking skills.

Strawman.

Negative Esquilax.....not a strawman.

You might be able to make an argument that it is a red herring....but that would be a stretch. I'm done trying to teach you. You're just too incredulous to learn.

Maybe you'll listen to someone else.

[FatAndFaithless]

Woody seems to be strawmanning the ad hominem. It's a delicious slurry of fallacy and presupposition.

Get your blenders here!

[LastPoet]

Since we are talking about fallacies, the whole thing is a non sequitur. Even if something had to come from nothing (saw what I did there, according to them, god is something that had to come from nothing), how does that implies a 'god' and not something else entirely?