• Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
    If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
    Donations can be made via here

Dr. William Lane Craig

BrachioPEP

Member
arg-fallbackName="BrachioPEP"/>
I like Dr. William Lane Craig. He’s a really nice guy. He is beautifully eloquent. He is an outstanding debater – possibly world class. There are respected atheists who consider that he rarely if ever loses a debate and respect him.

He is always calm and collected and listens attentively and makes notes in his debates out of respect for his adversary and their arguments and he, ‘generally’ addresses the issues raised.

The thesis of both of his doctorates (one in theology and one in philosophy) are the basis of his debates. Namely, the historicity of Jesus/validity of the resurrection and the Kalam cosmological argument.

Those who watch him a lot may be able to see his strategy (beyond the very restrictive debate topics he argues and framework of the debate he favours/requests/insists on). And few are able to deal with it.

Dr. Craig is almost 71 as of writing and I hope he continues to have a long and fruitful life. But if things do not change in debates, he will go down as a foremost believer who successfully held his own and the flag with little if any challengers.

We can look back on people who are now deceased and kick ourselves that they evaded scrutiny, or were not challenged by the best or right people and were peerless. But we have a living person on top of his game who’s claims seem unchallengeable (to many who see or debate him).

No, debates do not reveal the truth or better science, merely the better orator, wordsmith or presentation. But still. To those non theists with knock down arguments, there’s a public forum to bring them if you can. But like Randi or Ra’s challenges, there are few takers willing to take the forum. They’re all in the crowd presenting petty arguments or hiding somewhere.

His arguments may do less well in written exchange and no doubt many can find faults in his logic or elsewhere, but a bunch of nobodies writing on forums will not make history or move his likely status.

I see no compelling reason to believe in God, even after hearing a lot from Dr. Craig and others. So are his arguments compelling? Are they riddled with philosophical jargon? Does he evade the issues or have good cases? Or are his opponents (or the stage) just not fitting to meet the challenge?

Here we see a clip of him (more as a swordsmith than a wordsmith) asking, what we should be asking, “Is there no-one else?”



Here’s a very recent chat with him and Cameron on Capturing Christianity. Alex O’Connor (Cosmic Skeptic) also got to chat with him on the Kalam Cosmological argument in June, too. Both attached.





This post welcomes anything on the man, his work or arguments, flaws, debates and ways to counter him (in practise, not just theory).
 
arg-fallbackName="*SD*"/>
WLC is, as you state, eloquent and polite, non abrasive and generally amicable. Last I was aware he had a stipulation that he would absolutely not debate anyone without a PHD. Maybe that's changed, or was just not true to begin with and I'm misremembering or labouring under a misapprehension since I don't think CS has a PHD.

I thought he used that as an excuse not to debate Matt Dillahunty, though. I've seen a good number of his (WLC) debates and I do find my self eye rolling a lot, however. He is a huge proponent of the KCA and I find this bizarre considering God isn't in either of the premises or the conclusion when presented in Modus Ponens format.

P1 - That which begins to exist has a cause for its existence
P2 - The universe began to exist
C - The universe has a cause for its existence

No mention of God, anywhere. One can (should they be in a generous mood at the time) just grant the argument as sound (it's already valid) and we still aren't at God, it requires a LOT of further extrapolation (and usually sophistry) to get there. I don't think it is sound, but we can just grant it because we're in a good mood and then examine it further.

Also this is the 'new' version, the original didn't have "begins to" in there, because of course if God began to exist then he/it must (according to the argument) have a cause, and that cause must have a cause and you end up in an infinite regress, which is obviously a problem. Or, God didn't begin to exist because he/it is eternal and doesn't require a cause so we can jut say the same for the universe. So all proponents of the original shat themselves and thought "oh shit we can't have that so we better change it" and stuck the "began to" clause in there.
 
Last edited:
arg-fallbackName="BrachioPEP"/>
I think it is Richard Dawkins who claimed to restrict his debates to qualified scientists who’s expertise is in the area of discussion. I also recall it may have been more specific to PhDs, (but he has not conformed to either) but I could be wrong. So, as WLC is a philosopher and theologian, it would not be fitting to clash. Like a tiger vs a shark. Would WLC debate RD on evolution? It would seem odd and weighted towards RD, as would a debate on God for WLC vs RD. There is also the factor of a debate favouring a good debater, and WLC is a master. Conspiracy theorists and pseudo-scientists rely on such formats and platforms and the intrigue to promote their thing, but if it is truth one seeks, it is academic literature that counts; the rest is entertainment.

WLCs KCA does not include God, because the argument only intends to take the conclusion to an uncaused cause(r). Further arguments are intended/provided to then examine what that cause might be. Anyone is entitled to change or update their premises. I don’t see this as a problem or suspicious other than the pre-bias of wanting to try to fit/fudge/force the causation to God.

‘All proponents of the original arguments shat themselves.’

I think I would avoid such motives or generalisations. Creationists make exactly the same ones by clumping evolutionists together (as if they were a devil’s conspiracy group who regularly meet to determine what to agree on, say or avoid) and who are portrayed as being constantly in fear of creationist exposure or IC (Irreducible complexity) or new findings that don’t fit their world view/theory. E.g. ‘When evolutionists found X, they scratched their heads and ran for cover. Or have no explanation (but haven't checked)’
 
arg-fallbackName="*SD*"/>
I think perhaps you're underestimating how long this argument has been around, when I said "all proponents of the original argument shat themselves" we're going way back, because this argument has been around for a very, very long time. I didn't mean WLC came up with the original and then adjusted it following objection, I meant that this argument goes back to antiquity and the newer version (which is still old) includes the "began to" clause.
 
arg-fallbackName="BrachioPEP"/>
Yes, it’s pretty old and has kept the best philosophers and theologians on all sides busy defending and refuting it in all of its forms. WLC and others have adjusted it more recently, just as science adjusts their thinking, which is right. If you can remove a flaw rather than throw out the baby, why not?
 
arg-fallbackName="BrachioPEP"/>
The weaknesses of WLC in arguing over the reliability of the NT (and arguments for the existence of God), in my view, from seeing his debates are:

His reliance on authority, e.g. authors (and that those authors are not generally or necessarily even the consensus anyway, but even if they were, it would not matter).

When a particular area he is weak on or feels it is difficult or impossible to defend, his response has either been to imply that it is silly or not worth mentioning, OR reasonable and a fair point, to which he then moves on as if to imply that the opposition has one tiny point to make, when in fact it is crucial and needs focus, expansion and dealing with. I am sorry I have no links to share to demonstrate this, but I will endeavour to at some stage.

He also targets, dismisses or points to the superficiality of non-specific professionals (e.g. RD and at least one of his books) who talk on his specialisms like theology or philosophy, whether the point is valid or not.

He keeps things pretty simple as a rule and throws in some depth which he sometimes uses as a trump card, as if to say he has depth but he does not necessarily have it in some instances, but bluffs the audience or opponent by disguising this or by just nodding with a smile as if he could say more (to a point), but won’t and sometimes this is because he can’t or sees a trap or weakness he does not want to discuss.

I also appreciate that it is different when you are in a debate and without hindsight, to recognise these things.

WLCs’ topics are his speciality, which are his PhD theses and which he has built up over decades and rarely diverts from and he has plenty of experience discussing, teaching, writing about and debating them. This is fine, but it does give him a distinct advantage in debates with anyone who has not spent so long on such an exclusive topic shortlist. So, even experts who have good point and challenges to present, WLC is skilful in his sleight of voice in debate to cleverly get round this. Perhaps a focus debate on a particular topic area which observant folk have noticed as troublesome might help.

WLC clearly has all angles, ‘covered’ following the years and people and arguments he has encountered. By covered, I mean that he is either clear that he wins on them OR (and this is what debaters need to find) that he is on stony ground and simply has rebutals that are designed to scare off all who enter. And it is these areas and vulnerabilities (Achilles heals) to which they must find. That’s two posts referencing WLC to Achilles. He’s doing well.

But an Achilles heal is a total downfall. A killer blow to the whole claim, whatever it may be. So no matter how strong the chain may seem or be presented, if there is a weak link that breaks the chain, the whole thing crumbles and all the intellect in the world cannot revive it. Some things are either true or they are not and have no middle ground. Like God and the resurrection for example. You can dress some things up extremely realistically, but if it is not real, it is not real and all the effort was for nothing (or at least limited to finding out that it is nothing).

I must admit to having been very vulnerable to persuasive presenters and looked less at substance than presentation. Which is why I generally avoid debate and feel it is a convenient medium for those who fail to use the proper processes like literature to make points than may not otherwise pass the grade, and conspiracy theories and pseudo-science is, as a result, very popular and persuasive.

In a Tarzan movie, there was a puzzle he (or someone) had to solve. The question was, ‘If you were to meet an enemy after a long journey, what would you make sure of first?’ The answer was, ‘Make sure the journey was his.’ It’s like not getting into a stink fight with a skunk or you’ll lose. Debate is more for entertainment and presents two sides as equal, whether they are or not, but there is a new, young breed of person on the scene with several notable. active representatives (who I will speak about soon) that really do make philosophical discussion or debate worthwhile, educational, enlightening, honest and pleasant.

I want to add that I have praise and criticism for people and arguments on all sides and shall be very happy to congratulate and critique them where appropriate.

If you have anything to say on WLC, please feel free. Or why not create a new thread on someone or something else and help regenerate the forums?
 
arg-fallbackName="BrachioPEP"/>
Here are some interesting links.

The Guardian’s inclusion of Professor Richard Dawkins’ explanation on why he will not debate WLC is not very nice, but interestingly seems to dismiss most/all Evangelicals and Pentecostals from debate/discussion, too, as literalists and inerrantists tend to share such beliefs and/or similar interpretations. It sounded like an excuse, when I would think that he could state much more understandable reasons, like his field of expertise being very different or him being inappropriate or preferring to use the written word of discourse, especially as he has discoursed with other Evangelicals.

RD also says that WLC parades as though he were a philosopher and, ‘may’ be a theologian. Well there are people who philosophise or theologise with no qualifications and having a degree would count for many as being somewhat of a justified knowledge in that area. But WLC has perfectly legitimate doctorates in both theology and philosophy in excellent universities and world leading doctoral directors (i.e. John Hick and Wolfhart Pannenberg) . Whether anyone has heard of him or not (another RD criticism) is irrelevant, but people in his specific field who oppose his stand point argue that he is amongst the most cited in related literature in two key areas, philosophy of religion and time. He has also written more books than RD and it is a cheap and false shot to lessen this. There are countless zoology experts in the world to whom RD will never have heard of, because it is a big, wide world and there are many topics of choice and preference with who you might be familiar or not. RD himself is considered by many as surpassing his academic status (which is surpassed by many) with popularity for his populist writing.

WLC is not a scientist and RD is neither a philosopher or a theologian. If I wanted to win a football tournament, I would want a good… footballer in my team. And to discuss God (or alternatively science), I would want ALL sides of discussion to be well versed in the topic at hand. And if I were going to present a class or course on the earth/moon system, I would avoid flat earthers and moon landing conspirators from creating the curriculum or sharing it equally as not all things are equal.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/oct/20/richard-dawkins-william-lane-craig

https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/debating-william-lane-craig

http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=392
 
arg-fallbackName="Sparhafoc"/>
Yes, it’s pretty old and has kept the best philosophers and theologians on all sides busy defending and refuting it in all of its forms. WLC and others have adjusted it more recently, just as science adjusts their thinking, which is right. If you can remove a flaw rather than throw out the baby, why not?

Because WLC didn't amend the argument in order to make it more accurately reflect newly available evidence, but rather to add a little phrase to superficially fill a problematic hole, unfortunately also making that argument thereby contingent on that superficiality - essentially a trick. These are not equivalent: science is attempting to draw some conclusions about actual observable phenomena; this religious argument starts with its conclusion and is trying to use semantic tricks to argue something exists.
 
arg-fallbackName="BrachioPEP"/>
Hi Sparhafoc.

“Because WLC didn't amend the argument in order to make it more accurately reflect newly available evidence, but rather to add a little phrase to superficially fill a problematic hole, unfortunately also making that argument thereby contingent on that superficiality - essentially a trick.”

Philosophy doesn’t work that way, but science does, so anyone can present any, and as many arguments with premises and a logical conclusion as they like. You can then ignore it, accept it or show where it errs. With science, you present the evidence and makle it available for others to ignore, test, check, refute, add to or verify.

“These are not equivalent: science is attempting to draw some conclusions about actual observable phenomena; this religious argument starts with its conclusion and is trying to use semantic tricks to argue something exists.”

No, they are not equivalent. And hence my next point, that WLC is a philosopher (and nothing to do with life or earth sciences) and a theologian and RD is a (zoology) scientist. They focus on very different areas and so they (as adversaries) would be of little use discussing anything. I personally think that semantics are being used in the KCA and many others, but it is for us/others to demonstrate it, not simply claim it. As I have argued, debates don’t get to the truth or facts, they are more for entertainment and rhetorical skills to convince people. Science has no such platform.

There is nothing deep in anything I am saying or implying (and I don’t have any deep knowledge to impart anyway). RD and WLC are both very eloquent and good at what they respectively do and both have flaws which can be examined. People’s arguments and any other relevant aspects can rightly be discussed and examined.

I recall Michael Drosnin’s, ‘The Bible code’ coming out and it seemed to be a very powerful argument for a genuine code within the Bible’s original language. Critics were asked told that when they came up with something equivalent with a book like, Moby Dick’ to come back. And they did just that and explained how the code was formulated, using a very wide matrix of options.

I also sympathise with debunkers having to spend an awful lot of time and effort doing what they do with something that someone spent two minutes locating and posting on the internet. I want to state that new rules (if making a claim of the supernatural or similar) should have to show the efforts THEY THEMSELVES have made to refute it first. Or steel man it and provide links. And this should be done with Creation/evolution matters, to save a lot of wasted effort.
 
arg-fallbackName="Sparhafoc"/>
Yes, it’s pretty old and has kept the best philosophers and theologians on all sides busy defending and refuting it in all of its forms. WLC and others have adjusted it more recently, just as science adjusts their thinking, which is right. If you can remove a flaw rather than throw out the baby, why not?

Because WLC didn't amend the argument in order to make it more accurately reflect newly available evidence, but rather to add a little phrase to superficially fill a problematic hole, unfortunately also making that argument thereby contingent on that superficiality - essentially a trick. These are not equivalent: science is attempting to draw some conclusions about actual observable phenomena; this religious argument starts with its conclusion and is trying to use semantic tricks to argue something exists.

Philosophy doesn’t work that way, but science does, so anyone can present any, and as many arguments with premises and a logical conclusion as they like.

Philosophy doesn't work that way: this is not a case of philosophy adjusting its thinking - it's WLC playing semantics.

Anything that begins to exist has a cause, ergo the universe is caused - the entire phrase is set up solely to usher in the God concept whereby the god has always existed and thus didn't begin to exist and therefore is uncaused (else infinite regression of necessary entities). It's not philosophy - it's theology, and fails stupendously to conform to logic, necessity, or honesty.

No one find this convincing aside from people who already believe in that god with those attributes. That kind of contingency of belief is what makes it religion rather than (science) philosophy.
 
arg-fallbackName="BrachioPEP"/>
I do not know WLC’s motives, but they are surely irrelevant? There are perfectly good syllogisms that may have good or bad motives for their presentation, but the solution or logic must be demonstrated or refuted by it alone, not the intended or alleged motive.

I was confused by Anselm’s argument (and later to a lesser extent, Guanilo’s) but they have the right to present what they like and (again) we can ignore, concur, adjust or reject it, but with logic. Argument’s for the existence of God are of interest to me and are to many philosophers and this form of reasoning is as strong and airtight as any science.

Premise one of WLC’s KCA may seem or even be a slight of hand, but you can’t just dismiss it and expect to be seriously heard. And any objections must also be allowed to be responded to and dealt with. I have problems with this premise, but my own position or the motivation for it’s being there or having been changed is not an argument against it.

An argument against it (or premise two) might be that the universe may have always been there. Another might be that we just don’t know. Another is that not everything needs a beginning or a cause. Another might be that having to experience or evidence of what, ‘nothing’ might be like, we cannot put forward an argument about beginnings. And there may be (as yet) unknown explanations. And a cause does not imply a God, intelligence and certainly not any specific (e.g. Christian or Biblical) God.

I would like to add, on a personal note, that it is great to have some added interaction and I hope this generates more and others to take part. You have done so respectfully, patiently and without personal attack, which is always nice, thanks. There are many here who know very little (like myself) and others (like yourself) who know more, so let us cater for all minds.
 
arg-fallbackName="Sparhafoc"/>
I do not know WLC’s motives, but they are surely irrelevant? There are perfectly good syllogisms that may have good or bad motives for their presentation, but the solution or logic must be demonstrated or refuted by it alone, not the intended or alleged motive.


Why are they irrelevant?

If you're talking in terms of contending with the argument, then sure - of course they are, but then I am not contending with the KCA, nor have I suggested that I am. I've done that in the past, and there's no need to repeat it here as far as I am aware.

Instead, what's actually interesting for me and perhaps for others (because the argument isn't) is why WLC shoved those words in at the beginning of an argument that has existed for centuries. It exposes weakness in the original framing of the argument, but it also exposes the way WLC intellectually approaches the world.

As this thread is not expressly about the KCA, but actually about WLC and what a supposedly nice chap and awesome intellect he is, then I am not clear why you think his motives and reasons for his argument are irrelevant.


I was confused by Anselm’s argument (and later to a lesser extent, Guanilo’s) but they have the right to present what they like and (again) we can ignore, concur, adjust or reject it, but with logic.

Did anyone suggest that they don't have the right to present what they like? They are indeed perfectly free to present whatever ideas they like and in whatever form they like, just as I am. So if I want to call the KCA a sack of wibbly shite, then consistency must also suggest that I have the right to do so, no?


Argument’s for the existence of God are of interest to me and are to many philosophers and this form of reasoning is as strong and airtight as any science.

Which form of reasoning is 'strong and airtight as any science'? Even not knowing what you're notionally talking about, I disagree. That's a fundamental misapprehension as far as I am concerned (and I am not anti-philosophy). Scientific reasoning is validated externally (it concurs with repeated observation), logic is internally validated (it adds up). This is a striking difference in methodology unique to methodological naturalism that is wholly absent from other branches of philosophy - admittedly in part because some branches of philosophy are simply not amenable to external quantitative validation., but those which are have failed to incorporate such external validation into their methodology.


Premise one of WLC’s KCA may seem or even be a slight of hand, but you can’t just dismiss it and expect to be seriously heard.

For one sentence, there's a lot to reply to there:

1) Yes, of course I can just dismiss it - that's precisely what happens when someone attempts to construct a premise that is flawed - you reject the premise. That is not unusual - that's perfectly reasonable practice in debate and in discussing logical arguments. A flawed premise can only result in a true conclusion by chance.
2) The assumption is that WLC can expect to be 'seriously heard' solely on the grounds of shoving a couple of words onto an ancient argument; I disagree... I think in this context he's done nothing remotely notable and the nearly perfect absence of his impression on modern thought is indicative of this.
3) At no point in this thread have I even attempted to challenge the KCA - why on Earth would I want to? Are you arguing in favour of the KCA? Are you prepared to be the proponent of that argument? If that's not what you're trying to do, exactly who is it that I am supposed to be arguing against? Absent a proponent, and not actually being engaged in a formal debate, I am not sure exactly where this supposed obligation on me is coming from, but just to be clear anyway: I reject that obligation.
4) Hardly uniquely, I have already dismantled the flawed premise in the past and on these fora, and see no reason why I am supposed to be obliged to do so again here. In fact, I would have assumed that doing so would be taking this thread off topic.



And any objections must also be allowed to be responded to and dealt with.

By whom? You? Are you now actually seeking to become the proponent of the KCA here in this thread? If you are not, then the proponent is absent, so who am I supposed to expect a response from? If I wanted to object to the KCA, I would either need to find a proponent of the KCA and debate with them, or I could construct my own argument to debunk the KCA then go fishing for someone to contend with my argument. However, as I've said - from what I can perceive of this thread, you intent was not to set up a formal debate on the KCA here, so if I am wrong and you do want to propound the KCA, then do say so, although to be honest, it's such a tired old hackneyed argument, that I think you'd probably just net a collective groan more than any serious attempt to contend against it.



I have problems with this premise, but my own position or the motivation for it’s being there or having been changed is not an argument against it.

For me, it's becoming increasingly opaque as to what exactly you are doing. My assumption, based on your OP, was that you were just shooting the breeze about WLC and hadn't proposed any discussion about the KCA.



An argument against it (or premise two) might be that the universe may have always been there. Another might be that we just don’t know. Another is that not everything needs a beginning or a cause. Another might be that having to experience or evidence of what, ‘nothing’ might be like, we cannot put forward an argument about beginnings. And there may be (as yet) unknown explanations. And a cause does not imply a God, intelligence and certainly not any specific (e.g. Christian or Biblical) God.

My position is fairly simple: WLC makes an elementary category error and hasty generalization by leveraging the fact that the set of all the things within the universe 'begin to exist' (itself not exactly true but nevermind) to then include the universe itself - something that is expressly not within the set of all things in the universe. It's functionally equivalent to pointing to a box full of balls then saying that because all the balls in the box are round, so the box must also be round. So the simplest rejection for me is that I don't accept the first premise that 'whatever begins to exist has a cause' - for me, that needs a lot more support than he's ever tried to provide, it appears to me to be a faulty assumption, and therefore I cannot accept it as a premise. If a premise is rejected, then the argument cannot hold.

My analysis diverges greatly from your own in the OP: I don't think WLC is an intellectual giant or a man whose ideas will long outlive him... I think the reason why his arguments have mostly been untouched is because credible professional peers in relevant fields who don't share his motivations find his argument astonishingly terrible; embarrassing even. I also think he's made some genuinely disgusting arguments (justifying slavery) purely for ideological reasons without employing a jot of intelligence or ethics, and for that, I have no respect for his supposed intellectual abilities whatsoever.


I would like to add, on a personal note, that it is great to have some added interaction and I hope this generates more and others to take part. You have done so respectfully, patiently and without personal attack, which is always nice, thanks. There are many here who know very little (like myself) and others (like yourself) who know more, so let us cater for all minds.

First of all - thank you, but I don't know more than you or others. My field of expertise is narrow and completely irrelevant to this topic. Secondly, it's a bit of a shame that you have to be appreciative when someone doesn't make personal attacks, but I do understand... this being the internet and all... however, I think it's common practice here that ideas are challenged without personalizations. The only divergence from this is when someone's being a total dick.
 
arg-fallbackName="BrachioPEP"/>
I do not know WLC’s motives, but they are surely irrelevant? There are perfectly good syllogisms that may have good or bad motives for their presentation, but the solution or logic must be demonstrated or refuted by it alone, not the intended or alleged motive.


Why are they irrelevant?

"Motives are always irrelevant to an argument in terms of it needing to be addressed (or ignored). Current or previous arguments, be they cosmological, teleological or whatever are just attempts at trying to justify the conclusion with premises. Most are likely highly biased and motivated, but whether they are arseholes, trying to squeeze proof from words or whatever, is entirely up to them and irrelevant to the argument. And if the argument is sound, it works (whether you like it or not). If not, it is either because it breaks the rules (naturally/self-contradiction etc.) or someone has to come along and refute (not reject) it. I can deny black and call it white or reject evolution, but one needs to refute (reason) against it, not simply state your opposition. That is all I meant."


If you're talking in terms of contending with the argument, then sure - of course they are, but then I am not contending with the KCA, nor have I suggested that I am. I've done that in the past, and there's no need to repeat it here as far as I am aware.

Instead, what's actually interesting for me and perhaps for others (because the argument isn't) is why WLC shoved those words in at the beginning of an argument that has existed for centuries. It exposes weakness in the original framing of the argument, but it also exposes the way WLC intellectually approaches the world.

As this thread is not expressly about the KCA, but actually about WLC and what a supposedly nice chap and awesome intellect he is, then I am not clear why you think his motives and reasons for his argument are irrelevant.




BrachioPEP said:

I was confused by Anselm’s argument (and later to a lesser extent, Guanilo’s) but they have the right to present what they like and (again) we can ignore, concur, adjust or reject it, but with logic.

Did anyone suggest that they don't have the right to present what they like? They are indeed perfectly free to present whatever ideas they like and in whatever form they like, just as I am. So if I want to call the KCA a sack of wibbly shite, then consistency must also suggest that I have the right to do so, no?


“So if I want to call the KCA a sack of wibbly shite, then consistency…” :)

If Einstein presents his argument for his theory of relativity, I too can call it a sack of wibbly shite. But that is pre-school silliness and immaturity. Sure, you can ignore it, but if you want to have a mature discussion or address anything, you have to show why it is invalid or coming up short. Calling it a sack of wibbly shite in a debate at the Royal institution might get a few laughs, but wouldn’t have him scratching or shaking his head in deep thought or respect for your rebuttal. Your response might be summing up his argument in as much as being like a sack of wibbly shite, but you need some related words of rebuttal to accompany it."



BrachioPEP said:

Argument’s for the existence of God are of interest to me and are to many philosophers and this form of reasoning is as strong and airtight as any science.

"P1. If my garden has trees

P2. And if all trees are made from wood

C. Then my garden contains wood.

This seems pretty sound, and much of science is not sound as it often changes to allow for progress, such is the nature of science.

2+2=4. This seems pretty sound. More so than any other science.

I am simply arguing that a logically framed syllogism (or maths) is a perfectly reasonable presentation to make to present a point. If it isn’t sound, logically reject or reasonably refute it, otherwise accept or ignore it."

Which form of reasoning is 'strong and airtight as any science'? Even not knowing what you're notionally talking about, I disagree. That's a fundamental misapprehension as far as I am concerned (and I am not anti-philosophy). Scientific reasoning is validated externally (it concurs with repeated observation), logic is internally validated (it adds up). This is a striking difference in methodology unique to methodological naturalism that is wholly absent from other branches of philosophy - admittedly in part because some branches of philosophy are simply not amenable to external quantitative validation., but those which are have failed to incorporate such external validation into their methodology.




BrachioPEP said:

Premise one of WLC’s KCA may seem or even be a slight of hand, but you can’t just dismiss it and expect to be seriously heard.

For one sentence, there's a lot to reply to there:

1) Yes, of course I can just dismiss it - that's precisely what happens when someone attempts to construct a premise that is flawed - you reject the premise. That is not unusual - that's perfectly reasonable practice in debate and in discussing logical arguments. A flawed premise can only result in a true conclusion by chance.


"You cannot just dismiss it anymore than I can dismiss your existence. That’s childish. You can ignore it, accept it or refute (not reject/dismiss) it. If you refute it (the premise) you need a reason, you can’t just point the person to something behind them and remove the words whilst they aren’t looking. We both know this so I suspect there is some misunderstanding or misuse of words."



2) The assumption is that WLC can expect to be 'seriously heard' solely on the grounds of shoving a couple of words onto an ancient argument; I disagree... I think in this context he's done nothing remotely notable and the nearly perfect absence of his impression on modern thought is indicative of this.


"Not WLC, but anyone(‘s argument). If I say to people, ‘look at that huge sauropod dinosaur walking past that building.’ People can ignore it, in which case it really was there but no-one will know, or it was not really there (insert multiple reasons to explain it) and or people can address it and refute or accept it (whether it was there or not). If a syllogism is presented (especially in this case where it is discussed by serious folk on all sides) then it needs to be heard, and seriously. It can then be accepted, adjusted or refuted with reasons or logic.

So you think, contemporarily, WLC is nearly perfectly absent from his specialism in philosophy of religion and/or philosophy of time as far as peers are concerned? Maybe we can come back to this. I only have the word of a critic of his who claims otherwise and almost the opposite."



3) At no point in this thread have I even attempted to challenge the KCA - why on Earth would I want to? Are you arguing in favour of the KCA? Are you prepared to be the proponent of that argument? If that's not what you're trying to do, exactly who is it that I am supposed to be arguing against? Absent a proponent, and not actually being engaged in a formal debate, I am not sure exactly where this supposed obligation on me is coming from, but just to be clear anyway: I reject that obligation.


"I am not convinced of any arguments for the existence of God on any level, but I don’t doubt that there are people who could convince me logically or persuasively of it, though that would be as a result of my limited knowledge or skills to respond and I’d want to go away and think and discuss and research such a scenario happening."



4) Hardly uniquely, I have already dismantled the flawed premise in the past and on these fora, and see no reason why I am supposed to be obliged to do so again here. In fact, I would have assumed that doing so would be taking this thread off topic.



"I think any misunderstanding here (about who you are to respond to) is based on what I read as your legitimacy to simply reject it or the premises out of hand without refutation or reason or logic. It is in those terms that I say you are obliged to respond (or ignore it). So, if you reject the obligation to refute it, the argument still stands and you have added or removed nothing. If you have addressed the KCA here already/before, then that’s fine and I do not ask you to do so again (or at all)."



BrachioPEP said:

And any objections must also be allowed to be responded to and dealt with.

By whom? You? Are you now actually seeking to become the proponent of the KCA here in this thread? If you are not, then the proponent is absent, so who am I supposed to expect a response from? If I wanted to object to the KCA, I would either need to find a proponent of the KCA and debate with them, or I could construct my own argument to debunk the KCA then go fishing for someone to contend with my argument. However, as I've said - from what I can perceive of this thread, you intent was not to set up a formal debate on the KCA here, so if I am wrong and you do want to propound the KCA, then do say so, although to be honest, it's such a tired old hackneyed argument, that I think you'd probably just net a collective groan more than any serious attempt to contend against it.



"I am saying here that if one chooses to respond to an argument, e.g. addressing a flawed premise, then unless it is an irrefutable logical flaw (rather than one’s stab or claim to one), then you can’t claim victory unless people (be it the originator or others) have had a chance to come back and address those challenges, as you did to the premise."



BrachioPEP said:

I have problems with this premise, but my own position or the motivation for it’s being there or having been changed is not an argument against it.

For me, it's becoming increasingly opaque as to what exactly you are doing. My assumption, based on your OP, was that you were just shooting the breeze about WLC and hadn't proposed any discussion about the KCA.

"My OP was not to present or discuss the KCA. It was to show how one man’s skills, despite the distinct possibility that he is wrong, seems to be a living winner and will go down on record (watch his obituary) as the undefeated crown bearer of demonstrating God’s existent in argument and debate. I am pre-warning those who have not considered this or fancy their chances of catching him out, that the time is now or it may be never. Where are the rebuttals, the victors, the texts in philosophical literature that intellectually mock him or show him for what he is. We may look back in hindsight at how boxers could have beaten undefeated boxer A, B or C, but it is too late. Yes, debate is entertainment, and I am happy to accept that, but from an opposition position to WLC, I would rather people come and show up his flaws in logic rather than poke the deceased with after thoughts.

And I tried to suggest how he operates and uses his skills to win debates, which again does not make his arguments correct."




BrachioPEP said:

An argument against it (or premise two) might be that the universe may have always been there. Another might be that we just don’t know. Another is that not everything needs a beginning or a cause. Another might be that having to experience or evidence of what, ‘nothing’ might be like, we cannot put forward an argument about beginnings. And there may be (as yet) unknown explanations. And a cause does not imply a God, intelligence and certainly not any specific (e.g. Christian or Biblical) God.

My position is fairly simple: WLC makes an elementary category error and hasty generalization by leveraging the fact that the set of all the things within the universe 'begin to exist' (itself not exactly true but nevermind) to then include the universe itself - something that is expressly not within the set of all things in the universe. It's functionally equivalent to pointing to a box full of balls then saying that because all the balls in the box are round, so the box must also be round. So the simplest rejection for me is that I don't accept the first premise that 'whatever begins to exist has a cause' - for me, that needs a lot more support than he's ever tried to provide, it appears to me to be a faulty assumption, and therefore I cannot accept it as a premise. If a premise is rejected, then the argument cannot hold.


"I largely agree and for the reasons you offer.

Here are some pretty recent discussions on the KCA from different perspectives from a mediocre level of understanding:



"


My analysis diverges greatly from your own in the OP: I don't think WLC is an intellectual giant or a man whose ideas will long outlive him... I think the reason why his arguments have mostly been untouched is because credible professional peers in relevant fields who don't share his motivations find his argument astonishingly terrible; embarrassing even. I also think he's made some genuinely disgusting arguments (justifying slavery) purely for ideological reasons without employing a jot of intelligence or ethics, and for that, I have no respect for his supposed intellectual abilities whatsoever.

"Whilst I do not consider WLC an intellectual giant, I am struggling to think of a more prolific writer on his specialist area (not that books = intellect or anything) and it is claimed that he is quoted in intellectual related literature more than anyone else today, so I have to question what basis or standards or quota you refer to when saying quite the opposite –though again, I still agree with you, but without foundation. Slavery is only the tip of the iceberg and shared by many others (i.e. Evangelicals/Innerrantists)."




BrachioPEP said:

I would like to add, on a personal note, that it is great to have some added interaction and I hope this generates more and others to take part. You have done so respectfully, patiently and without personal attack, which is always nice, thanks. There are many here who know very little (like myself) and others (like yourself) who know more, so let us cater for all minds.

First of all - thank you, but I don't know more than you or others. My field of expertise is narrow and completely irrelevant to this topic. Secondly, it's a bit of a shame that you have to be appreciative when someone doesn't make personal attacks, but I do understand... this being the internet and all... however, I think it's common practice here that ideas are challenged without personalizations. The only divergence from this is when someone's being a total dick.

"I frequent very few groups and the ones I do or run are very friendly, but I am well aware that many are not so patient or nice to people or views. I did not see you as anything but nice and bright, but it was more due to my own limitations of not knowing where to stop when writing/responding (it’s an Autistic related thing) that I wanted to anticipate any possible limit to your patience, so I just made it clear that I respect you and was trying to genuinely engage and would gladly give way to my limitations or weaknesses in arguments.

People being dicks can be a subjective view!"
 
arg-fallbackName="he_who_is_nobody"/>
I just happened to watch this video recently and feel it is relevant to this thread.

 
arg-fallbackName="Collecemall"/>
To echo HWIN I tried reading his book Reasonable Faith and he lost me irretrievably around page 47 when he said:

"Should a conflict arise between the witness of the Holy Spirit to the fundamental truth of the Christian faith and beliefs based on argument and evidence, then it is the former which must take precedence over the latter, not vice versa"

I'm not a towering intellect like many of the ppl on this forum. But if you tell me you don't care about reality and your holy book trumps all then I don't really think I need to listen to you. He openly admits he wasn't convinced by the arguments. He followed a girl to church... happens to the best of us.
 
arg-fallbackName="BrachioPEP"/>
Yes, this is very largely my view also and I have mentioned this in my posts. That WLC is very selective on topics, people, structure, setting and it largely becomes his opponents having their hands tied behind their backs – the ones he will accept. A bit like boxers choosing their oponents and having reasons to miss the real oponents that could cause damage.

He also has all outlets covered; some well, some not so, and for them there is lots of sleight of speech to move back to areas of relative safety.

I also think that WLC would, if pushed, accept a debate with John Loftus and would win, due to his oratory skills.
 
arg-fallbackName="Sparhafoc"/>
Again BrachioPEP: are you forwarding the KCA or not?

If not, then why do you keep talking about me not having addressed the KCA? I think I've been very clear that I am not attempting to address the KCA and that as there is no one here propounding the KCA, then there's no obligation upon me to conform to the rules of a formal debate.

In a thread not about any specific argument but about what an intellect he is - which is already about his character - then pretending that i am somehow failing to address his argument by talking about him personally is at best confusing, at worst disingenuous.
 
arg-fallbackName="Sparhafoc"/>
Where are the rebuttals, the victors, the texts in philosophical literature that intellectually mock him or show him for what he is.

....

Everywhere?

On Youtube from amateurs to experts:







To rebuttals in relevant journals, books and literature

Oppy G (2002). Arguing About The Kalam Cosmological Argument.
Morriston W (2000). Must the Beginning of the Universe Have a Personal Cause? A Critical Examination of the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Faith and Philosophy
Pearce (2016) Did God Create the Universe from Nothing?: Countering William Lane Craig's Kalam Cosmological Argument

His arguments have been spanked over and over again from many different disciplines, but that's the entire point of apologetics in religion: to artificially prop up bad ideas so that they don't get destroyed by the ideologically non-conformist.
 
Back
Top