William Craig on the absurdity of life without God

[borrofburi]

The entire speech is a logical fallacy of appeal to emotion.

Absolutely. Even the premise is ridiculous: whether or not there is "purpose" or "happiness" or any of these other emotional buzz words has absolutely no relevance as to whether or not god exists; god does not exist (or does exist) independently of whether or not it makes you feel good to believe in god. I don't know about these people, but I value truth more than to discard, ignore, or fail to seek it simply because something potentially (or actually) untrue makes me feel good.

 

[Tohnren]

While I don't entirely agree with WLC in these videos, I just don't understand the response I've read thus far in this thread. As far as I can tell, aside from a few wayward posts, there is no attempt to refute or even discuss the arguments WLC makes. Instead, I see ad hominem attacks on Apologetics. In fact, it is explicitly thrown out there that "his arguments have all been refuted before yet he continues to parrot them." I don't understand how you can reasonably write that post. What are the refutations? While I wouldn't reasonably expect someone to write them all out here, it would help if one were to offer at least some thoughts on the subjects. Actually, even reference or links to publications which do claim to refute them would have made the post at least somewhat useful. Secondly if this were the case, why does it not come out in debate? Everyone just declares that "well, his arguments sound good... but they must be wrong!" If his arguments that he parrots have so deftly been refuted, then why is it that this does not come out in debate. It's not as if he deflects debating intellectuals. The man has an impressive resume.

Secondly, people are accusing Dr. Craig of committing the appeal to emotion fallacy. While I'm not surprised many did not watch the videos, I think it's a little dishonest to ignore his explicit denial of his argument proving either way whether or not God exists. That is not what this lecture is espousing to do. Instead, it's attempting to debunk a majority of atheists understanding of life under their view. It is to show the inconsistency with which atheists live. Remember, these fallacies only work if the argument is meant to prove something in light of appeal to emotion, etc. If it were to mean anything, it would mean that atheists should change their lifestyle. That is all he is arguing for here, not that life's absurdity means God is true. However, if he can prove absurdity without God in more than just an emotional sense, then this does provide an argument for His existence via reductio ad absurdum. We should realize that unappealing and absurd are not the same thing.

Also, the first page spent a long time discussing the supposed "irony" in these videos. It is only ironical to hear him talk of self-delusion IF you beg the question and presume atheism is true before argumentation.

And finally, I had to chuckle at the remark of self imposed meaning not being a delusion as long as we remember that it's truly meaningless. I can't imagine how tough it was to crank out the word choices to make that sentence sound coherent. I surely think there can be meaning without "purpose," however, I don't think there can be meaning without meaning. I don't understand how one could.

Again, I don't agree with Dr. Craig. However, I do not disagree with him for the reasoning I've seen displayed in this thread.

 

[RedYellow]

there is no attempt to refute or even discuss the arguments WLC makes

Maybe not in this particular thread, but that's probably because by the time this thread was made, there have already been numerous detailed dissections of Craig's arguments on youtube and elsewhere. Everybody already knows why Craigs arguments fail because it's been pointed out already.

What are the refutations?

I would direct you to youtube, but hell, go ahead and give me one. I'll refute it right here.

That is all he is arguing for here, not that life's absurdity means God is true.

Appeal to emotion is a big part of apologetics, because that is usually where God arguments hit the hardest. People are rarely convinced that God exists through arguments, in fact the idea that God even needs to be argued is absurd, it sort of already points out the fact that God's existence is not apparent to people who are immune to emotional appeals or established belief prior to evidence. People tend to believe first, THEN construct arguments. This, to me, exposes the true nature of theism and apologetics: It's a construction of arguments to suit a pre-conceived belief, and Craig himself admits this when he says that convincing arguments against God wouldnt trump his personal belief.

people are accusing Dr. Craig of committing the appeal to emotion fallacy. While I'm not surprised many did not watch the videos

I suspect you are the one not watching videos here. Tooltime9901, DasAmericanAtheist, smpunditz, Thisisatriumph, etc. ALl these folks and more have refuted his arguments in detail.

It is only ironical to hear him talk of self-delusion IF you beg the question and presume atheism is true before argumentation

A bad argument that uses illogical premises doesnt need either to be true in order to be bad. For example, his Kalam argument uses unproven premises that are not based on factual, conclusive knowledge. We dont know that things can literally begin to exist, so to say that such things must have a cause is an unconfirmable claim about an already unproven concept. But that's good enough for Craig, and he continues to defend the argument by saying "Did I always exist? didnt I begin to exist??" When he knows full well that this is not what people are talking about. Yes, Craig IS self-deluded, and again he admits this by saying he cannot be convinced otherwise.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

While I don't entirely agree with WLC in these videos, I just don't understand the response I've read thus far in this thread. As far as I can tell, aside from a few wayward posts, there is no attempt to refute or even discuss the arguments WLC makes.

Would you spend a lot of time refuting a flat-earth argument?

Plus, looking at the thread there's refutation and discussion. Maybe not with the respect you think Craig deserves, and there are dirty words involved, but still. Also, I don't think you understand the meaning of an "ad hominem" fallacy. Calling someone a moron because they say dumb things, and then showing why it is dumb, is just being descriptive, not committing a fallacy. If I said that your post was complete bullshit because I think you're an asshole, I would be committing a fallacy. And, obviously it is impossible to commit the ad hominem fallacy against apologetics itself, since it isn't a person.

 

[Aught3]

Tohnren, thanks for the criticism - sometimes it's easy to get lost in the echo chamber. However, I think I did address WLCs argument back on the first page. If there was something you think is central to Craig's argument but wasn't dealt with, it would be great if you could point it out so I could have another go.

I agree that irony is not an argument against someone, but you have to admit that to an atheist seeing a Christian berating others for imposing delusional meaning would be pretty funny and worth pointing out.

 

[Tohnren]

While I don't entirely agree with WLC in these videos, I just don't understand the response I've read thus far in this thread. As far as I can tell, aside from a few wayward posts, there is no attempt to refute or even discuss the arguments WLC makes.

Would you spend a lot of time refuting a flat-earth argument?

Plus, looking at the thread there's refutation and discussion. Maybe not with the respect you think Craig deserves, and there are dirty words involved, but still. Also, I don't think you understand the meaning of an "ad hominem" fallacy. Calling someone a moron because they say dumb things, and then showing why it is dumb, is just being descriptive, not committing a fallacy. If I said that your post was complete bullshit because I think you're an asshole, I would be committing a fallacy. And, obviously it is impossible to commit the ad hominem fallacy against apologetics itself, since it isn't a person.

Comparing these arguments to flat earth arguments is kind of exaggerating a bit. Secondly, in that same post I point out that others are misunderstanding these fallacies because they only work if the person is arguing for something in light of them. The problem I had with this thread (admittedly, I did not read every post) was that people were just saying his arguments were dumb without showing in any way why that is true. It all felt like a quaint circle-jerk. The dirty words bit isn't what bothered me. Secondly, I mean by committing ad hominem against apologetics that people tend to dismiss apologetics by personally attacking the intelligence of apologists in general.

Maybe not in this particular thread, but that's probably because by the time this thread was made, there have already been numerous detailed dissections of Craig's arguments on youtube and elsewhere. Everybody already knows why Craigs arguments fail because it's been pointed out already.

This is actually thrown around quite often. I've found a hard time discovering any of these solid refutations. Again, I've watched a ton of Craig debates, and I've not really seen these sound refutations. As always, however, I will remain humble about whether or not they are out there.

Appeal to emotion is a big part of apologetics, because that is usually where God arguments hit the hardest. People are rarely convinced that God exists through arguments, in fact the idea that God even needs to be argued is absurd, it sort of already points out the fact that God's existence is not apparent to people who are immune to emotional appeals or established belief prior to evidence. People tend to believe first, THEN construct arguments. This, to me, exposes the true nature of theism and apologetics: It's a construction of arguments to suit a pre-conceived belief, and Craig himself admits this when he says that convincing arguments against God wouldnt trump his personal belief.

I think that's a tad dishonest. The idea that if theism were true it wouldn't need to be argued seems a bit absurd to me. I won't go into that, however. Even if it were true that people believe before constructing arguments for their belief, that would still lend no credence to the idea that the proposition is false. Finally, Craig says that he would remain convinced even if his arguments were refuted not because he has an emotional need for God, but because of his personal experience. He also tends to hold that you have to do more than refute his arguments, you have to give some of your own for atheism. It's not so easy to write him off as irrational like that.

I suspect you are the one not watching videos here. Tooltime9901, DasAmericanAtheist, smpunditz, Thisisatriumph, etc. ALl these folks and more have refuted his arguments in detail.

I appreciate you giving me these references, however, I can assure you that I've watched many videos submitted by those users. I've also done research well beyond youtube. The problem, however, is that those youtubers have far from impressed me with their refutations. To be honest with you, I find it very hard to be an atheist in light of the arguments I've watched. While I'm not quite ready to submit to Christian theism, I certainly don't think that the atheist youtubers have been making better arguments. There's been a ton of literature written about the Kalam argument in professional philosophy of religion. I just don't see how a youtuber can claim to thoroughly refute it when it's hung around this long and has been this much of a nuisance.

Tohnren, thanks for the criticism - sometimes it's easy to get lost in the echo chamber. However, I think I did address WLCs argument back on the first page. If there was something you think is central to Craig's argument but wasn't dealt with, it would be great if you could point it out so I could have another go.

I agree that irony is not an argument against someone, but you have to admit that to an atheist seeing a Christian berating others for imposing delusional meaning would be pretty funny and worth pointing out.

I appreciate the open mind. Looking back at page one I see that you mention his arguments do not seem to make his claim, and pretty much leave it at that. You do, however, bring up the Euthyphro dilemma. This is actually one of the major contentions I have with Craig's argument myself. However, I think it might be worth pointing you to Dr. Feser's blog http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/ here. He brings up some interesting points and it is surely nice food for thought. Overall, though, I do remain unconvinced that God could be a source of objective morality.

Finally, I would say that for some Christians, atheists throwing out the delusion card is pretty funny as well. There are certainly those who think that atheists like the idea of being free from religious doctrine and guilt when it comes to sexual desires--among other things. In fact, while I forget the name, a prominent atheist did once write that he did not want God to be true. I think there might be some merit to that claim as well. Both claims, however, do nothing to advance argumentation. I would hold that there are emotional reasons for accepting both sides.

Edit: I'm sure there are grammatical errors here, but you have to cut me slack at four in the morning .

 

[Aught3]

Thanks for responding Tohnren, but I'm still not sure which part of Dr Craig's argument you feel still needs to be addressed. Obviously it's been a while since I watched the videos but it seemed to me I responded to three points, namely that religion gives you a basis for meaning, justice, and morality. On meaning rather than adopting Craig's dichotomy of meaning vs no meaning I distinguished between ultimate and proximate meaning. I said I wasn't sure if there is ultimate meaning (I now am more convinced that no such ultimate meaning exists) and I also said proximate meaning can come from any place you want. Since Craig didn't talk about this distinction in his video, (i.e., he made no argument that Christianity should be considered ultimate meaning over proximate meaning) I left it at that.

On justice I gave an argument that Christianity was not a source of justice and turned Craig's example around on him. On morality I not only brought up Euthyphro's dilemma but pointed out that morality directly from the whims of a god would be subjective in nature (Craig argues for an objective morality).

I think I addressed the main points of his arguments. I certainly agree with you that a proper refutation would take pages but at the very least I gave reasons to be sceptical of Craig's main points, wouldn't you say?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Okay, I've read the link you provided. It attempts to split the horns of Euthyphro's dilemma by equating god with goodness so that we cannot appeal to any standard outside god (because god is good) nor claim that gods commands are arbitrary because, by definition, they will always be good. Several things to think about here.

First, this response is very ad hoc as it introduces a new idea without giving us any reason to accept it, other than it manages to split the dilemma. Additionally, the ad hoc element is an appeal to metaphysical universals, which I don't actually believe in. If god is to be equated with the metaphysical universal 'goodness' then I would need an additional argument to convince me that such universals exist independently and are not merely descriptors of other, more concrete, objects and actions.

Second, it's not clear to me that even if 'goodness' existed as such a universal we are at all justified in calling it god. This view seems to make the same mistake as pantheism but instead of equating god to the universe and declaring that god therefore exists, god is equated to goodness and therefore must exist. Since there is no ontological distinction between someone who believes that 'goodness' exists and someone who believes 'goodness' is god, the statement "I believe god exists" (i.e., theism) becomes trivial.

Third, even if we accept the existence of metaphysical universals and that 'goodness' can justifiably be referred to as god, we certainly aren't talking about the Christian god. The example used in the blog post is that this goodness-god could never command the "torture of babies for fun" but in Psalms (137:9) we are told by the Bible itself that "Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones." Seems like the torture of babies for fun to me. Maybe the blog writer is arguing for neo-Platonism, but his argument certainly does not support Christianity.

 

[Tohnren]

Thanks for responding Tohnren, but I'm still not sure which part of Dr Craig's argument you feel still needs to be addressed. Obviously it's been a while since I watched the videos but it seemed to me I responded to three points, namely that religion gives you a basis for meaning, justice, and morality. On meaning rather than adopting Craig's dichotomy of meaning vs no meaning I distinguished between ultimate and proximate meaning. I said I wasn't sure if there is ultimate meaning (I now am more convinced that no such ultimate meaning exists) and I also said proximate meaning can come from any place you want. Since Craig didn't talk about this distinction in his video, (i.e., he made no argument that Christianity should be considered ultimate meaning over proximate meaning) I left it at that.

On justice I gave an argument that Christianity was not a source of justice and turned Craig's example around on him. On morality I not only brought up Euthyphro's dilemma but pointed out that morality directly from the whims of a god would be subjective in nature (Craig argues for an objective morality).

I think I addressed the main points of his arguments. I certainly agree with you that a proper refutation would take pages but at the very least I gave reasons to be sceptical of Craig's main points, wouldn't you say?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Okay, I've read the link you provided. It attempts to split the horns of Euthyphro's dilemma by equating god with goodness so that we cannot appeal to any standard outside god (because god is good) nor claim that gods commands are arbitrary because, by definition, they will always be good. Several things to think about here.

First, this response is very ad hoc as it introduces a new idea without giving us any reason to accept it, other than it manages to split the dilemma. Additionally, the ad hoc element is an appeal to metaphysical universals, which I don't actually believe in. If god is to be equated with the metaphysical universal 'goodness' then I would need an additional argument to convince me that such universals exist independently and are not merely descriptors of other, more concrete, objects and actions.

Second, it's not clear to me that even if 'goodness' existed as such a universal we are at all justified in calling it god. This view seems to make the same mistake as pantheism but instead of equating god to the universe and declaring that god therefore exists, god is equated to goodness and therefore must exist. Since there is no ontological distinction between someone who believes that 'goodness' exists and someone who believes 'goodness' is god, the statement "I believe god exists" (i.e., theism) becomes trivial.

Third, even if we accept the existence of metaphysical universals and that 'goodness' can justifiably be referred to as god, we certainly aren't talking about the Christian god. The example used in the blog post is that this goodness-god could never command the "torture of babies for fun" but in Psalms (137:9) we are told by the Bible itself that "Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones." Seems like the torture of babies for fun to me. Maybe the blog writer is arguing for neo-Platonism, but his argument certainly does not support Christianity.

I appreciate the timely response. I'm not asking for a peer-reviewed discussion and thorough refutation of every argument and every intricacy of every argument that WLC poses. Rather, I find it distasteful and dishonest to post assertions such as "these have all been soundly refuted before many times" without offering so much as a modest link or a passing thought. This is actually just a general complaint, and not meant towards every poster in this thread. I simply hope that we can gain a little humility here and not turn this into a childish WLC and apologetics bashing thread just for the sake of it.

Secondly the link I referred you to is an argument based on classical theism. It holds to Aristotelian-Thomistic metaphysics. I'm sure he would have much to say on your accusation of this not being Christian. Perhaps I'll attempt to get a response from him regarding this. As for myself, I'm surely no expert here. Theology is not by any means my most learned subject. I actually parrot your idea that if God IS goodness (I would even say this is true if goodness is wholly dependent on God in general) then the idea that God is omni-benevolent or "good" is entirely meaningless. It's as if you are saying God is all God when you say that He is all good. Also, it's very understandable that you would need to first be convinced on the problem of universals before being convinced of the post's content. However, I'd think that would be an entirely different debate and is not the obligation of the author in this particular post. That is not to say that he is exempt from arguing universal realism. I do think that we can, for the sake of argument, think about the validity and content of this post given the author's universal realism.

I do very much respect the blogger in question, which is why I posed the link. In truth, I've not given his post the thought it likely warrants. I'm afraid, therefore, that I won't be much of an intellectual partner in discussing it. However, I do like offering food for thought .

I would also encourage you to read the same blogger's post titled "Law's 'evil-god challenge'" on the same page.

 

[RedYellow]

I think that's a tad dishonest. The idea that if theism were true it wouldn't need to be argued seems a bit absurd to me

I should clarify that yes, I do allow for the possibility of an intentionally hidden God, but I don't lend that possibility much consideration, because to me a hidden God isnt that much different from an imaginary God, or at least it's not our responsibility to look for a God that doesn't seem to want to be found.

The idea that if theism were true it wouldnt need to be argued is perfectly reasonable to me, because to assume otherwise you must add on the assumption that you can determine the intentions of the god you've yet to prove. It's a very sneaky way of begging the question. Carl Sagan's invisible dragon in the garage comes to mind. A dragon that doesnt seem to be there beyond someone's claim that it is, is the same as a made up dragon as far as what should be reasonably accepted.

The problem, however, is that those youtubers have far from impressed me with their refutations.

Or maybe you've been moving the goalpost......

There's been a ton of literature written about the Kalam argument in professional philosophy of religion. I just don't see how a youtuber can claim to thoroughly refute it when it's hung around this long and has been this much of a nuisance.

Kalam is only a nuisance presicely because it hides within faulty, vague premises that trick apologists into thinking that they understand cosmology, when actually nobody does completely. Saying that the universe requires a cause is to apply concepts like causality to areas beyond the reach of physics, causality being a physical concept. In fact, this is a running theme with theistic arguments: They hide their premises in areas of science that are still in the process of being understood, such as when theists try to argue that the mind is separate from the brain by saying, "Well we dont completely understand the mind...."

 

[Anachronous Rex]

I had hoped to go into a tad more depth in this post, unfortunately I am a bit pressed for time today, so maybe later...

Tohnren... this is the type of thing that makes it hard to take WLC seriously:

 

[ImprobableJoe]

I appreciate you giving me these references, however, I can assure you that I've watched many videos submitted by those users. I've also done research well beyond youtube. The problem, however, is that those youtubers have far from impressed me with their refutations. To be honest with you, I find it very hard to be an atheist in light of the arguments I've watched. While I'm not quite ready to submit to Christian theism, I certainly don't think that the atheist youtubers have been making better arguments. There's been a ton of literature written about the Kalam argument in professional philosophy of religion. I just don't see how a youtuber can claim to thoroughly refute it when it's hung around this long and has been this much of a nuisance.

If you cared to, you could personally refute Kalam in about 30 minutes. Just because it is old doesn't mean it makes sense. There's a reason why people like me say that apologetics is simply using fancy language and the format of logical argument in order to disguise logical fallacies and sell the same bad argument in a fancy new suit.

And I mean that very literally: YOU could personally refute Kalam, and we wouldn't have to do more than give you an occasional nudge. Maybe that's exactly what needs to happen, for you to understand that anyone who would rely on such a bad argument automatically loses credibility when it comes to other such arguments.

 

[Tohnren]

The idea that if theism were true it wouldnt need to be argued is perfectly reasonable to me, because to assume otherwise you must add on the assumption that you can determine the intentions of the god you've yet to prove. It's a very sneaky way of begging the question. Carl Sagan's invisible dragon in the garage comes to mind. A dragon that doesnt seem to be there beyond someone's claim that it is, is the same as a made up dragon as far as what should be reasonably accepted.

Well, that's not exactly what Christians argue. Christians believe that their God does, in fact, allow Himself to be known. I don't see the dragon analogy applying. I mean, I guess debate really is lost if you don't think it should begin in the first place.

Or maybe you've been moving the goalpost......

I actually want atheism to be true. I did no goalpost moving I assure you. If anything I put it closer.

Kalam is only a nuisance presicely because it hides within faulty, vague premises that trick apologists into thinking that they understand cosmology, when actually nobody does completely. Saying that the universe requires a cause is to apply concepts like causality to areas beyond the reach of physics, causality being a physical concept. In fact, this is a running theme with theistic arguments: They hide their premises in areas of science that are still in the process of being understood, such as when theists try to argue that the mind is separate from the brain by saying, "Well we dont completely understand the mind...."

Would you contend that logic is based on physics? If it were that easy to throw the argument aside, I doubt he'd be repeating this argument in so many debates. It's not as if he's a street apologist who just throws bible verses at you. The man has plenty of formal training. Secondly, as far as monism/dualism goes, that is hardly the only argument for dualism. In fact, I've never seen that argument being seriously progressed. Maybe the argument that it is ontologically impossible for us to understand it is pressed. However, I've never seen someone say that because we don't understand it as of yet that it must not be all there is.

If you cared to, you could personally refute Kalam in about 30 minutes. Just because it is old doesn't mean it makes sense. There's a reason why people like me say that apologetics is simply using fancy language and the format of logical argument in order to disguise logical fallacies and sell the same bad argument in a fancy new suit.

And I mean that very literally: YOU could personally refute Kalam, and we wouldn't have to do more than give you an occasional nudge. Maybe that's exactly what needs to happen, for you to understand that anyone who would rely on such a bad argument automatically loses credibility when it comes to other such arguments.

Again, I've not ever seen it be this easy in debate. A professional philosopher isn't so naive as to use such an apparently ridiculous argument and overly-refuted argument. The kalam, I've found, is one of the main obstacles to me in remaining an atheist. Secondly, that's a little fallacious to ignore his other arguments simply because he has a refuted one.

I had hoped to go into a tad more depth in this post, unfortunately I am a bit pressed for time today, so maybe later...

Tohnren... this is the type of thing that makes it hard to take WLC seriously:

I actually have watched that video, and the responses to it seemed more reasonable to me.

I don't claim that the cosmological argument is irrefutable or even that it hasn't been refuted. But writing it and Dr Craig off and hilariously bad philosophy and naive argument is really quite arrogant.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Again, I've not ever seen it be this easy in debate. A professional philosopher isn't so naive as to use such an apparently ridiculous argument and overly-refuted argument. The kalam, I've found, is one of the main obstacles to me in remaining an atheist. Secondly, that's a little fallacious to ignore his other arguments simply because he has a refuted one.

Not fallacious at all. If someone claims to be a master car mechanic, and you show that they can't fix a flat tire, their entire skill-set is called into question. It isn't fair from a formal logic standpoint, but from the informal position that debates take it seems fair enough to me.

So, I pose this to you a second time. You can yourself poke enough holes if Kalam if you so choose. It would at most take some slight guidance from a few of us, but you would figure out the flaws yourself, which is the best way to convince yourself. I would love to see you do it.

Here's my challenge to you:

Find the version of the Kalam Cosmological Argument that you consider to be most compelling. Post it in a new thread on this site, or better yet post it as a debate thread where participation is limited to a few people. Allow no more than two or three of us to post to the thread along with you, and allow us to talk you though the flaws one at a time. Go into it with the proper attitude, and you'll be an atheist within a month.

I think you should be an atheist now, of course... if Kalam is holding you back, there's something wrong. Not because you're dumb or anything insulting, but just because all of these arguments are fundamentally word games. If I claim the existence of a chair, all you have to do is sit on it to know it is real... I don't have to play word games with you to convince you of it. Why should a "god" be any different?

 

[Aught3]

Secondly the link I referred you to is an argument based on classical theism. It holds to Aristotelian-Thomistic metaphysics. I'm sure he would have much to say on your accusation of this not being Christian. Perhaps I'll attempt to get a response from him regarding this. As for myself, I'm surely no expert here. Theology is not by any means my most learned subject. I actually parrot your idea that if God IS goodness (I would even say this is true if goodness is wholly dependent on God in general) then the idea that God is omni-benevolent or "good" is entirely meaningless. It's as if you are saying God is all God when you say that He is all good. Also, it's very understandable that you would need to first be convinced on the problem of universals before being convinced of the post's content. However, I'd think that would be an entirely different debate and is not the obligation of the author in this particular post. That is not to say that he is exempt from arguing universal realism. I do think that we can, for the sake of argument, think about the validity and content of this post given the author's universal realism.

Can I just clarify that I didn't say the blogger was not a Christian, I only said that his argument points away from Christianity and more towards neo-Platonism. The fact that you say his argument is based on Aristotelian-Thomistic (emphasis on Aristotle) metaphysics seems to support my assertion. Aristotle was in no way a Christian but he was a student of Plato. Additionally, as I read the response to the 'evil-god challenge' I noted that he cited Plotinus (among others) as being someone who advanced similar arguments. Plotinus was, of course, the founder of neo-Platonism so I think I was on to something

I'm much more familiar with the classical Greek philosophies than I am with any philosophy of religion and I'm also fairly familiar with the Bible. When I read articles written by prominent theologians I am reminded much more of Greek philosophy than I am of that most Christian of books. I think many philosophers of religion are at the point where they are arguing for neo-Platonism rather than Christianity - the message just hasn't got out to the Christian masses that their academics no longer support their theology!

The appeal that god is the universal 'goodness' is what I would call a consistentiser. The theist notices that there is some problem with their conception of god and adds extra elements in order to make their conception consistent with reality. This happens so often that it's worth pointing out when ever they do it, more unjustified assumptions make your case harder to prove - not easier. I can show mathematically that adding extra hypotheses actually makes their god less likely given the background evidence.

Law's 'evil-god challenge' is a good one, I like it more than Euthyphro but it is much longer to explain. The blogger admits that the challenge is highly problematic when you see god as personal (i.e., theistic personalism) which, given my take, is basically Christianity. He has two defences as to why 'evil-god' does not work for classical theism. Evil as the privation of good which I think Law deals with quite effectively in his appearance on the 'Converstaions from the Pale Blue Dot' podcast. Basically, there are reasons to think that evil is not merely the privation of good. The other defence is an appeal to the necessity of god being good given the blogger's particular metaphysics. I'm not sure how Law would respond to this but my understanding is that he is satisfied with saying that there are no arguments that prefer a good-god over an evil one. A good-god may fall out of your metaphysics, but given a different set of metaphysical claims god would just have to be evil. I think that satisfies Law's claim, otherwise we'd have to have an in depth look at his metaphysical claims and I've got better things to read.

Addendum, on WLC we know he is a good debater but we also know that he uses the same five arguments over and over again. If you already know in advance the arguments he uses saying that they have all been refuted by others (assuming you have seen/read the refutations) doesn't strike me as dishonest or problematic. Btw, that video on circularity was genius. Especially the part about the A and B theories of time which is devastating to Kalam.

 

[Anachronous Rex]

I had hoped to go into a tad more depth in this post, unfortunately I am a bit pressed for time today, so maybe later...

Tohnren... this is the type of thing that makes it hard to take WLC seriously:

I actually have watched that video, and the responses to it seemed more reasonable to me.

I don't claim that the cosmological argument is irrefutable or even that it hasn't been refuted. But writing it and Dr Craig off and hilariously bad philosophy and naive argument is really quite arrogant.

I don't call him a bad philosopher, or naive. I call him dishonest. It has been pointed out to WLC that Kalam is fallacious. It has been clearly explained and he understood it, or - at least - he should have if indeed he is so intelligent.

His reaction was to dismiss his critics, and strawman the critique. To be clear, WLC has no answer to the likes of AW; he simply will not admit to it, because he will not concede the arguement however flawed.

So I'll say it again: Dishonest.

 

[Aught3]

Again, I've not ever seen it be this easy in debate. A professional philosopher isn't so naive as to use such an apparently ridiculous argument and overly-refuted argument. The kalam, I've found, is one of the main obstacles to me in remaining an atheist. Secondly, that's a little fallacious to ignore his other arguments simply because he has a refuted one.

This may be your issue. When you watch a debate it's better to consider it a form of entertainment rather than an exercise in finding the truth. A creationist can easily win against an evolutionist not because his arguments are strong but because his rhetoric is superior. The reason Craig is such a good debater is that he has five short arguments which he can fire out in rapid succession. Each one would take pages and pages for a proper refutation. Inevitably his opponent either gives each argument a quick superficial response - which Craig then ridicules - or takes a look at one of the arguments in depth, to which Craig responds that he still has four other arguments not yet refuted. Watch his debates and you will see this rhetorical style over and over again. My suggestion for you would be to start reading some philosophical papers where the arguments on both sides are drawn out in more depth.

Also, iJoe's suggestion is a good one. I'll explain the theories of time and why it's problematic for Kalam's second premise if you're interested.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Also, iJoe's suggestion is a good one. I'll explain the theories of time and why it's problematic for Kalam's second premise if you're interested.

Thanks. As you said, the debate format works in favor of slick rhetoric, and WLC has that in spades. He's a master of that format, but when you slow it down and take the time to look at the points individually, his arguments fail badly. WLC was almost made to be a YouTube star before YouTube existed, but his ideas don't stand up to more rigorous scrutiny.

Again, my suggestion is that you present the best and strongest argument you can find for the existence of "God" and work though it step by step. It isn't an absolute disproof of the idea, but absolutes are sort of nonsensical anyways. If Kalam is the most convincing to you, let's do that.

 

[Deleted member 619]

I can't be arsed refuting Kalamity Kraig yet again. If you want to find my refutations of some of his inane fuckwittery, google my username and his, and you should find stuff with no difficulty whatsoever. Further, check out the Youtube channel of our very own ThisWasATriumph to see Kraig's idiocy pretty comprehensively nailed to the wall. The man's a moron with a vocabulary.

I did, however, want to address the following, because it's the second time you have made a glaring category error:

I actually want atheism to be true.

Then you wish for the impossible, because atheism is not a truth claim.

 

[borrofburi]

I appreciate the timely response. I'm not asking for a peer-reviewed discussion and thorough refutation of every argument and every intricacy of every argument that WLC poses. Rather, I find it distasteful and dishonest to post assertions such as "these have all been soundly refuted before many times" without offering so much as a modest link or a passing thought. This is actually just a general complaint, and not meant towards every poster in this thread. I simply hope that we can gain a little humility here and not turn this into a childish WLC and apologetics bashing thread just for the sake of it.

Err... No. Here's the problem: we encounter theists a lot, they tell us lots of things that we are quite familiar with and have dealt with on many occasions. You dictated an insane requirement: that to discuss our rejection of a set of arguments we must either re-refute them or link to a refutation... However if that were the case an apologist could win any argument by simply presenting more claims than could actually ever be refuted, or even linked to refutations of; but this is hardly true, and indeed is the method of a dishonest person not actually interested in truth (only in "victory" whatever that means). Of course, it doesn't stop them from playing the gish gallop anyway...

If you want an actual thoughtful response to any argument, you may get that, but to enter a thread and say "HAH you guys aren't actively refuting every claim you're presented with every time it's presented to you" is... silly.

Secondly the link I referred you to is an argument based on classical theism. It holds to Aristotelian-Thomistic metaphysics. I'm sure he would have much to say on your accusation of this not being Christian. Perhaps I'll attempt to get a response from him regarding this. As for myself, I'm surely no expert here. Theology is not by any means my most learned subject. I actually parrot your idea that if God IS goodness (I would even say this is true if goodness is wholly dependent on God in general) then the idea that God is omni-benevolent or "good" is entirely meaningless. It's as if you are saying God is all God when you say that He is all good. Also, it's very understandable that you would need to first be convinced on the problem of universals before being convinced of the post's content. However, I'd think that would be an entirely different debate and is not the obligation of the author in this particular post. That is not to say that he is exempt from arguing universal realism. I do think that we can, for the sake of argument, think about the validity and content of this post given the author's universal realism.

I always have a problem with saying things like "god is goodness". What does that mean? I know what it means to say my friend bob is good; the english construction is simple: the adjective "good" applies to my friend. So to say "Bob is good" is to say "the adjective good applies to Bob". But what would it mean to say "Bob is goodness"? Indeed I'm having difficulty of what the english construction "noun is noun" means: I can, for instance, say "Bob is a mammal", but then we're saying "bob is a member of the set of mammals". And I hardly think that we mean "god is a member of the set of goodness".

But anyway, so far as I can tell it means one of two things:
god defines good - in which case the simple question is "would it then be good if god told me to rape a child?" the answer of course is "yes", but the problem then becomes that all you're doing is saying "good is defined as what god says", which, ultimately, means that it's meaningless to say "god is good"; as meaningless as saying "Bob's words are Bob's words". (and really, I am severely critical of any notion of "good" that includes child rape)
god is unable to do bad - in which case god is limited, and certainly isn't omnipotent; and I start to wonder why we call this entity "god"
(I feel it is important to note that if you ask "what about god being a member of things that are good?": then I question how "god is goodness" is different from "god is good"; I have no problem with the sentence "god is good" (other than the lack of evidence), but it's not terribly meaningful, and it's something that is subject to change (if for instance god started saying child rape was good, I would be of the opinion that god is not good))

Or, I guess, it could mean a third thing: we are defining "god" to mean "good"... But then you have the problem that "Bob did a good thing" becomes identical to "Bob did a god thing" (not "holy" not "religious", just good) yet Bob doing a god thing hardly proves that some sort of super powerful being exists (what is really meant by "god"). More clearly: bob doing something we consider to be good is hardly evidence or indication of any "god" (other than meaningless "god is a word identical to good").

And indeed all of these have that problem: that we humans value certain things and call them "good" is not evidence for the existence of a powerful being.

I do very much respect the blogger in question, which is why I posed the link. In truth, I've not given his post the thought it likely warrants. I'm afraid, therefore, that I won't be much of an intellectual partner in discussing it. However, I do like offering food for thought .

I'm of the opinion that if you're not up for discussing and thinking about the things you post, then you shouldn't post them; especially if you expect them to change anyone else's opinions, because then you're being dishonest.

 

[borrofburi]

If it were that easy to throw the argument aside, I doubt he'd be repeating this argument in so many debates. It's not as if he's a street apologist who just throws bible verses at you. The man has plenty of formal training.
...
Again, I've not ever seen it be this easy in debate. A professional philosopher isn't so naive as to use such an apparently ridiculous argument and overly-refuted argument. The kalam, I've found, is one of the main obstacles to me in remaining an atheist. Secondly, that's a little fallacious to ignore his other arguments simply because he has a refuted one.

These are odd appeals to authority... I guess Aught already pointed out that you can win debates with dishonest rhetorical games instead of an actual superior position; also you can lose debates while still having the superior position... And it's already been pointed out that most of us don't think he's incompetent, most of us think of him as semi-professionally dishonest. If the ridiculous argument is all he's got to keep the money flowing in, and if he has enough sly rhetoric to keep people paying him (and believing he won because he made fun of his opponent a bunch), he'll keep using it.


I second Joe's proposal that you attempt to refute the kalam... although another route to take is you can post the strongest version of kalam that you think exists, and someone else can take it apart... But if you *actually* want to not believe god exists, then it'll be best if you start "I want to disprove this, but it seems airtight because of reasons (1), (2), and (3)" and someone can respond "why is (1) so strong iny our mind" and you can say "because of a b c" and someone can say "but does not C have some problems?"...