BrachioPEP
Member
Regarding the KCA, I have no idea what you are talking about in the first post, but to clarify and repeat, no, this post is not about the KCA (unless/until you choose to make a claim on it, thus entering the arena). As I hold the same conclusion as you, I see no reason to expand or consider this any more than a misunderstanding somewhere.
Daniel Dennett has a remarkably similar view on WLC to the one I hold (and talk about). Dennett sometimes talks absolute rubbish sometimes, but is generally very good in his areas. He seems to have respect for WLC and claims not to be able to rebut him.
Graham Oppy and Dan’s friend/colleague, Alex thingy are both considered by Craig as very good adversaries and have (I think) both debated him.
As for the scientists, WLC is not one, so this is an unfair comparison and there are corresponding scientists who can put up opposition to them, like for like.
Personal books by authors (as opposed to peer reviewed work) are common place. Richard Dawkins has one theist author who has no less than three books with Dawkins' name in the title, rebutting him. To write a rebuting book or response does not mean an argument is rebutted. If it did, Dawkins and evolution and a whole host of things are invalid.
I will let you locate the many peer reviewed articles by WLC and do a quota count on how often thewy are cited compareed to other philosophers in his area. This will ensure you don't selectively withold them to incite readers to think he is less than he is, as you claim.
Daniel Dennett has a remarkably similar view on WLC to the one I hold (and talk about). Dennett sometimes talks absolute rubbish sometimes, but is generally very good in his areas. He seems to have respect for WLC and claims not to be able to rebut him.
Graham Oppy and Dan’s friend/colleague, Alex thingy are both considered by Craig as very good adversaries and have (I think) both debated him.
As for the scientists, WLC is not one, so this is an unfair comparison and there are corresponding scientists who can put up opposition to them, like for like.
Personal books by authors (as opposed to peer reviewed work) are common place. Richard Dawkins has one theist author who has no less than three books with Dawkins' name in the title, rebutting him. To write a rebuting book or response does not mean an argument is rebutted. If it did, Dawkins and evolution and a whole host of things are invalid.
I will let you locate the many peer reviewed articles by WLC and do a quota count on how often thewy are cited compareed to other philosophers in his area. This will ensure you don't selectively withold them to incite readers to think he is less than he is, as you claim.