William Lane Craig continues to desperately defend the indefensible.

[robvalue]

For apologists like WLC, all that lot, there's only one question for me. Are they aware how dishonest they are being. Maybe their zealous beliefs really do cause them to be unable to see the flaws in their arguments. I find it a stretch, but it's possible. What do you think? I would say it's more likely that they are well aware of the deceptions of at least most of the "techniques" they use.

These people make me thoroughly sick. I was trying to evaluate how bad they are, and I think the sensible thing to compare to is something like psychics or mediums, other professional liars. I think I would say they are not as bad as mediums, I thoroughly despise what they do. I've seen the damage first hand.

[Thumpalumpacus]

[...] but right now I need to be taking care of my sick wife.

Give her our regards and well-wishes, bud.

[emilynghiem]

William Lane Craig, advocate for such amazing arguments as "things have a cause, and the only cause for all things is god," and "I'm going to believe in god no matter what you say!" has once again hunkered down over the remains of his credibility and pinched out another argument all over it: "Math is good at describing things, therefore god!"

It was very evident to me that [naturalists are not] able to provide any sort of an explanation of mathematics’ applicability to the physical world.…

The theist has explanatory resources that are not available to the rationalist.

Yes, it's another argument from ignorance: "I don't understand why this is so good at what it does, therefore god." Why is this guy still respected in christian circles? It's not like he started off anywhere good, and his arguments have only been dropping out of the fucking sky with increasing frequency... how is he still able to make a living off this?

Hi Esquilax
Some people don't get how leaps are made into Global Warming
from the data either. They scratch their heads and say HOW did you get from here to THAT???

Kinda ironic that one side tries to prove God and the other Global Warming, they irritate the heck out of each other, and yet complain when the other side pushes arguments that make no sense either when they do the same thing when it's their turn.

Can't people agree to be OK with natural laws we DO AGREE ON.
and quit adding God or global warming, if cause and effect are ENOUGH to agree to stop pollution and waste, restore the environment and seek sustainable solutions to social problems. Why add another condition to PROVE if we already know these are messes that need to be cleaned up?

Sorry to vent.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Global warming is an evidenced based theory, whilst 'god' is a fantasy fairy tale with less than nothing to back it up. There's really no basis for holding them as comparable at all (apples and invisible unicorns).

Unfortunately it doesn't matter who is annoyed by evidenced based facts, such as when creationists deny evolution. They can rant and rave against it but thus far they haven't come up with anything to dismantle the theory or the fact.

Just because you don't like something (in this example, global warming) doesn't mean you get to ignore it and pretend like it's not there. It is, and all the whining and tantrum throwing isn't going to change it.

[Chas]

Each side of the Pyramid of Giza, three dots on a paper, and a piece of spanakopita all, to various degrees of exactness and completeness, embody the idea of a triangle. By the process of abstraction, people strip away the unessential features of particular things to recognize the universal ideas that a group of objects share. In order to have the idea of a pattern, the pattern must, in some way, already be present.

The pattern is present only as a concept in the mind; it has no other existence.

[robvalue]

Yeah. It is "in some way" present, it exists as a concept in the mind. That doesn't mean it is even possible in reality, and even if it is, it doesn't mean it exists.

To say otherwise is to say everything that could possibly ever be thought of does already exist. I find that a ludicrous statement.

[Chas]

Coming from a guy that cannot tell Plato's theories from those of Aristotle, much less Aquinas.

A poor theory is a poor theory regardless of source.

[Alex K]

Coming from a guy that cannot tell Plato's theories from those of Aristotle, much less Aquinas.

A poor theory is a poor theory regardless of source.

Who really cares about Plato's, Aristotle's and Aquinas' obsolete and unscientific theories anyways? Not people dedicated to understanding Nature as it really is.

[robvalue]

Right, an argument is valid or it is not. It makes no difference who thought of it first.

[Cyberman]

Hi Esquilax
Some people don't get how leaps are made into Global Warming
from the data either. They scratch their heads and say HOW did you get from here to THAT???

Kinda ironic that one side tries to prove God and the other Global Warming, they irritate the heck out of each other, and yet complain when the other side pushes arguments that make no sense either when they do the same thing when it's their turn.

Know what the difference is?

Evidence.

Can't people agree to be OK with natural laws we DO AGREE ON.

If we agree on the natural laws, then clearly people agree to be OK on them. What you can't do is posit "God" as a natural law and expect to be taken seriously by default. You need to put in the work for that.

and quit adding God or global warming, if cause and effect are ENOUGH to agree to stop pollution and waste, restore the environment and seek sustainable solutions to social problems. Why add another condition to PROVE if we already know these are messes that need to be cleaned up?

Congratulations, you just discovered Occam's Razor. Mind you don't cut yourself.