William Craig on the absurdity of life without God

[ImprobableJoe]

I'll say this:

There is no thought in my head that I would categorize as "real" or "truth" or "fact" that I am unwilling to defend and tear apart in open debate/discussion. I have a bunch of opinions that are not open to discussion, but I don't hold them up as being authoritative to anyone else... but even then, I tend to hold them up for discussion, because I want the input of other people before I accept ANYTHING. I get tons of input before I buy a new guitar or effect pedal, I read a million reviews of video games before I buy them. None of that stuff really matters in the greater scheme of things, but I check and double check before committing.

If I was unsure of my position on something as big as a religious belief, I would absolutely drag out the things that convinced me most, and ask other people to point out the flaws. I've been arguing about religion since at least 1991, and my position has held up to everything the theists have to offer. If someone is unwilling to put their strongest argument forward, and then stand and defend it, then I don't see why anyone else should listen to anything they have to say. We don't have to agree, but you should at least put forth the effort.

 

[RedYellow]

Christians believe that their God does, in fact, allow Himself to be known.

Yes, but in a completely subjective way. Argumentation requires more, it requires ground that can be agreed upon by both parties, and what you personally experience in your mind means nothing to me in light of what can be verified by myself and others, as well as yourself. As for claims of visible design, they have been debunked as being tautological and unreliable as evidence. To claim that nature is designed is to obscure the means by which we differentiate design from non-design.

If it were that easy to throw the argument aside, I doubt he'd be repeating this argument in so many debates.

Have you heard of these things called, "YOUNG EARTH CREATIONISTS?" Now I know Craig is not one of these, but, like them, he is a theist who places ultimate importance on his own subjective experience. So it's not unreasonable to think that, perhaps, he shares some behavioral attributes with them, namely the continued use of debunked arguments. Piltdown man? Peppered moths? Heakles(sp?) embryos? Kalam cosmological argument?

If God is to be proven, it will not be the work of kalam.

 

[Tohnren]

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.

Well, contrary to what another poster claimed (wherein I'm portrayed as silly for positing that he's right since there haven't been full refutations), I'm not asking for successful refutation, just a bit of humble pie. Secondly, I'm not trying to change anyone's opinions. Where have I put forth an argument for God? As far as I know, this is a forum wherein discussion occurs in hopes of finding truth. I gave a fellow truth-seeker a link that I found interesting because I thought he would find it interesting. If that is a problem, however, I apologize.

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.

Sorry, but I don't see how these are appeals to authority. I'm not claiming that because he is a professional philosopher that his arguments must be true. That would be absurd, since every professional philosopher can't be correct. However, I do find it puzzling to ridicule him as a standard apologist who uses rhetoric and swims in logical fallacies. That is where I had issue with what was being said. These ideas have been present and been much debated in intellectual circles, so to throw it off as a complete non-issue was merely the problem with me.

Also, the only reason I feel as though I must make it known that I'm not a Christian theist, and that I hope atheism is true, is because of the likely bias I would get for defending Craig otherwise. For instance, I encountered this with the snippet "or, maybe you're moving the goalposts" earlier on. I won't even get into the semantics of claiming that atheism is not a truth claim.

To Aught, I understand the objection to Kalam from the B-theory of time, and I have read literature from both sides on the Kalam. I guess that while I do see rhetoric in his debating style (his opponents aren't innocent in this either) I just don't see it taking over his arguments in such a way as to make them null. For sure, the opponent isn't necessarily expected to dismantle everyone of Craig's arguments in that one debate, however, I don't see the one that they do choose to focus on refuted, either. Lastly, debates are entertaining for sure. However, they ARE a means of coming to truth. One debate does not settle any issue, of course, however I don't think they are worthless in the endeavor.

Yes, but in a completely subjective way. Argumentation requires more, it requires ground that can be agreed upon by both parties, and what you personally experience in your mind means nothing to me in light of what can be verified by myself and others, as well as yourself. As for claims of visible design, they have been debunked as being tautological and unreliable as evidence. To claim that nature is designed is to obscure the means by which we differentiate design from non-design.

Right, I don't think Dr. Craig would try and convince other people, through logical argument, that Christianity must be true because he had subjective experience of God. Rather, he says that he would still believe without arguments in light of that for himself. My point here is that it's a little dishonest to claim that he said he would remain a Christian even if it were completely irrational to him. Subjective experience do very little for the persuasion of others, and on this I think he would also agree.

 

[Deleted member 619]

Humble pie? Are you fucking serious? Does Kalamity Kraig demonstrate any fucking humility when he presents his apologetic arse-gravy as if it remotely represents serious thought?

The man is either a complete fucking moron or a lying little fucking toad, and I will show no humility in the face of the cunt.

If you think he has a remotely convincing argument, please present it, and I'll kick it's arse into next week. I owe this cretin no humility, he owes it to reason, which he wouldn't recognise if it hit him in the face with a large fish.

Oh, and as for the ad hominem bollocks, I commit no fallacy here. I don't say that Kraig is an idiot, therefore his arguments can be dismissed, I say that his arguments demonstrate him to be a moron, no fallacy involved.

 

[borrofburi]

Well, contrary to what another poster claimed (wherein I'm portrayed as silly for positing that he's right since there haven't been full refutations), I'm not asking for successful refutation, just a bit of humble pie.

Ah so you don't like the tone?

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Well, contrary to what another poster claimed (wherein I'm portrayed as silly for positing that he's right since there haven't been full refutations), I'm not asking for successful refutation, just a bit of humble pie.

Ah so you don't like the tone?

:facepalm:

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Also, the only reason I feel as though I must make it known that I'm not a Christian theist, and that I hope atheism is true, is because of the likely bias I would get for defending Craig otherwise.

So you've been lying?

 

[Anachronous Rex]

Well I'll just make it perfectly clear:
Tohnren, you would be amazed how little I care what you believe. What matters is what you say, is it defensible or not? I don't think I'm alone in this opinion.

Now you wax respectful at WLC, and argue - in essence - that he wouldn't be so well known if there was not something to what he says. I'll admit it's not a form I run into too often, but this is the ad populum fallacy. If his opinions are worthy of respect then they ought to be defensible. They are not.

It really is that simple.

 

[borrofburi]

Also, the only reason I feel as though I must make it known that I'm not a Christian theist, and that I hope atheism is true, is because of the likely bias I would get for defending Craig otherwise.

So you've been lying?

I hardly think that's a justified extrapolation. I imagine it's more like "I'm not a christian theist, but I don't think the way you're treating craig is fair, but if I don't explicitly remind you guys that I'm not a christian theist you'll group me in with one of them and I don't want to be grouped unfairly".

 

[ImprobableJoe]

I hardly think that's a justified extrapolation. I imagine it's more like "I'm not a christian theist, but I don't think the way you're treating craig is fair, but if I don't explicitly remind you guys that I'm not a christian theist you'll group me in with one of them and I don't want to be grouped unfairly".

Well, I disagree... because I find your imagined rationalization to be a form of dishonesty. I actually find the whole conversation to be false on that person's end, in one way or another. I'm waiting for the complaint about tone to be used as an excuse to run away from the open invitation to discuss the claims Craig makes. You'll note that the invitation was ignored completely, in favor of a complaint about tone.

We'll see which one of us is closer to the mark. I honestly hope it is you.

 

[Kaliren]

Tohnren, have you seen Daniel Dennett's critique of WLC? If you are impressed by philosophers, this might be what you're looking for.



@Nautyskin, thanks - I put a lot of thought into that post. I credit the intellectual rigor to my regularly reading Pharyngula.

 

[Deleted member 619]

Well I'll just make it perfectly clear:
Tohnren, you would be amazed how little I care what you believe. What matters is what you say, is it defensible or not? I don't think I'm alone in this opinion.

Now you wax respectful at WLC, and argue - in essence - that he wouldn't be so well known if there was not something to what he says. I'll admit it's not a form I run into too often, but this is the ad populum fallacy. If his opinions are worthy of respect then they ought to be defensible. They are not.

It really is that simple.

 

[Anachronous Rex]

My first Orson Welles. Huzzah!

 

[Aught3]

To Aught, I understand the objection to Kalam from the B-theory of time, and I have read literature from both sides on the Kalam. I guess that while I do see rhetoric in his debating style (his opponents aren't innocent in this either) I just don't see it taking over his arguments in such a way as to make them null. For sure, the opponent isn't necessarily expected to dismantle everyone of Craig's arguments in that one debate, however, I don't see the one that they do choose to focus on refuted, either. Lastly, debates are entertaining for sure. However, they ARE a means of coming to truth. One debate does not settle any issue, of course, however I don't think they are worthless in the endeavor.

Do you understand why physicists prefer the B-theory over the A-theory?

If you like Craig debates so much the ones where I think more in depth refutations occur (although obviously still time limited) are:
Stenger - cosmological and fine tuning (I think coarse tuning is a better answer to fine tuning but Stenger does okay)
Tabash - objective morality (I think it was Tabash who ran contractarianism, might have been Shook)
Ehrman - resurrection/miracles
Pigliucci - personal experience

Obviously, I haven't listened to all Craig debates but those are the ones that I recall off the top of my head.