The Intellectual Dishonesty of William Lane Craig

Post Reply New Topic

The line on what physicists and metaphysicists can talk about isn't some clear-cut dividing line. This is a matter of physics as it is a matter of physical theories. I mean, it isn't as if we say that the interpretation of quantum mechanics has nothing to do with physics, so even if this is all just interpretations, it's still not outside of the discipline.


Except I am not. You're blustering about when there is not enough power to really make or break me with your claims.

I mean, even if we, again, go back to that reference: "Subsequent to the advent of special relativity, only a small number of individuals have advocated the Lorentzian approach to physics. " Bam. Right in wikipedia. Now, you can start blustering about this too, but frankly, that is sufficient to make the claim.


If a premise necessary for the argument is questioned, then the argument relying on the premise can be "utterly dismissed". We aren't going to be persuaded by an argument if we don't believe the starting premises.


Ok? The section I quoted was on relativity, not McTaggart's paradox. WHY ARE YOU CHANGING THE SUBJECT! RED HERRING! BLUSTER! I mean, for f**k's sake dude, you're changing the subject to avoid a core point, the core point being that if the Neo-Lorentzian view is so popular, a lot of people really aren't recognizing it. Like, I haven't seen this level of contradiction in behavior before.

Also, I don't discuss McTaggart's paradox simply because I simply wouldn't care. It's not discussed because I am not going "B theory ALL THE WAY!". I'm simply holding, like most people have, that the theory of relativity really seems to appear to uphold a B theory. This is noted in the article: "The first of these is an argument from the special theory of relativity in physics. According to that theory (the argument goes), there is no such thing as absolute simultaneity. But if there is no such thing as absolute simultaneity, then there cannot be objective facts of the form “t is present” or “t is 12 seconds past”. Thus, according to this line of argument, there cannot be objective facts about A properties, and so the passage of time cannot be an objective feature of the world." And I pay attention because the emphasis is on physics. The claim in physics is that there is a relativity of simultaneity, and this relativity of simultaneity undercuts the A theory by denying the existence of facts about whether something is temporally before or after another event. Now, if physicsts change their mind massively on what the theory of relativity entails involving simultaneity, and I hear about it, sure, I'll change my mind, but my position is pretty orthodox. I am not even considering McTaggart's argument as even vaguely a consideration. I've heard of it before, but as a piece of philosophy it seems to emphasize the very mindset I hate most in philosophy, so I ignore it. I don't even *KNOW* why you'd think that this piece of philosophy would even interest me? Because you think I dogmatically oppose everything you hold to? I've likely made plain my dislike of a lot of the discipline of metaphysics, so, while I recognized awhile ago that you thought it was a weakness on my part not to reference it, it's simply that I don't buy into that kind of argumentation.

Well no, the dividing line between the physics of time and the metaphysics of time has been clear cut for the better part of a century now. Their respective works are mostly written on by different sets of authors and the articles are published in different journals. I just don't see this claim as credible, especially since you are making it mostly to cover up the fact that you talked about the wrong subject, then claimed that it was the same subject, then claimed that I was talking about the wrong subject, then claimed that it was the same subject again and are now positing that it does not matter.

I find this new argument that they are the same subject to stand in total opposition to the statement you made only a couple of hours ago:



The only thing that changed in that time was that you realized, in spite of your bluster, that you were talking about the wrong group of people. Now surprise, you are saying the difference is not all that important. What an absolute disgrace of an argument you are making.



The Lorentzian approach to physics is not the same thing as the Neo-Lorentzian interpretation of general relativity (which is empirically no different to the relativity interpretation). Put you 'Bam' back in your pocket until you figure out what the hell you are talking about.



Wrong again, the Relativity interpretation is empirically no different from Neo-Lorentzian interpretation; both are just interpretations of Special Relativity. No one theory can uphold relativity better than another; they are both drawn from the same source.

Keep dragging this out, its just more posts with you saying things that are either beclouding or wrong.



Your grasp of the subject matter is not a red herring.

Last edited by 91 on 01 Dec 2011, 12:34 am, edited 1 time in total.

No, I didn't change my mind on anything. You can't interpret people very well. Remember that time you once interpreted me as disagreeing with Orwell and I said that he and I actually agreed? Yeah....

I still was talking about physicists. I'm also saying "hey, even if this is metaphysics, they're not irrelevant ANYWAY", so.... nothing is changing here.


Did the article make that distinction? No. 91, you're blustering. You're full of s**t, and you aren't willing to back down. You always do this. It is always full of fail.


91, the discussion was on how the neo-Lorentzian position is not well accepted. That's been shown,. I am not dodging, you're twisting the issues. I've already shown my claim sufficiently. The majority of people with awareness side with B-theory time, even though the neo-Lorentzian is only justified by a desire for an A-theory. Even encyclopedias generally accept that relativity is mostly interpreted towards a B-theory, thus meaning that the neo-Lorentzian is not standard.

Regardless of what qualifications you want, my claim clearly stands with minimal edits needed IF ANY. It also basically means that you've been blustering about, and making false claims about logic and misinterpretations of my statement pretty openly. Stop blustering. Stop lying. Stop deceiving. Stop the dishonesty, 91. I am tired of the continual dishonest behavior on your part. Can you please correct your failings? Also, by this point, you owe me a number of apologies for your false accusations in this thread and others.

Note: More evidence that however we even WANT to interpret what I said, it's certainly good enough for government work. (Frankly, this is evidence for what I originally said)
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmi ... w-of-time/

"Modern physics suggests that we can look at the entire history of the universe as a single four-dimensional thing." (Now, you can dispute with this man about the neo-Lorentzian view, but he's a physicist. Apparently these physicists must be horribly mal-educated on the metaphysics of the interpretation of their field. Or.... I'm basically right. )

So when I mentioned the polled philosophers, you did not dismiss the on the grounds that they were not relevant because what we were discussing was in your view physics.

Lets look at what you said and see if it is viable:







So we have sine statements from you here. One saying its ok because physicists can also talk about philosophy and the other claiming that what philosophers think on the subject has nothing to do with your statement. THen we have one dismissing Craig because he is a philosopher of time and that has nothing to do with the Neo-Lorentzian view. Well it does have something to do with your statement because it is philosophy and it is not physics. Lets face facts, your statements are all over the place and the quote at the top is just a post-hoc hand wave to dismiss the fact that you have spent the better part of my day saying things that are wrong.



So you are still questioning if there is a difference between the Lorentzian approach to physics and his approach to metaphysics. They are both very different things. As a point of interested the article did make a distinction; at least one you ought to be able to spot. Lorentz himself essentially gave up on his approach to physics; because of the advent of general relativity. He then changed the field he was working on and created an interpretation of special relativity. Of course his approach to physics would be unpopular, in fact the article lists a couple of experimments that use the Lorentzian approach. But for the most part that method has been abandoned. The fact that that has been abandoned does not mean that all of Lorentz's work has been abandoned. His work is still relativitly popular, at least in the area of metaphysics. His work on the metaphyics of time, once he squared it with relativity has continued to be influential and is now as empirically valid as the other two main interpretations (I have listed them elsewhere).

91, I'm not playing this stupid game of yours. No, I actually didn't change my mind. You just can't interpret people worth s**t. Remember that time that you literally interpreted me as disagreeing with Orwell, even though I actually agreed with him? Yeah..... (Then you accused this some arbitrary move on my part)

The first statement is literally that my statement has nothing to do with philosophers. It literally doesn't. It refers to physicists.

The second statement is really just saying that Craig's authority is irrelevant to accepting the Neo-Lorentzian view or not, and it is. He's not a powerful enough authority where he lends any inductive weight.

The third statement is still not really being backed down on. I'm hand-waving because at the end of the day, I'm not a big "drawer of distinctions". Metaphysics/physics, the issue from where I care is merely "Is a physicist a competent authority to discuss this?" and the answer is still yes. Somebody can make some argument that String Theory is really metaphysics, and that's nice. I'll defend that it's physics, BUT, if someone really wants to go at that, and I don't need that claim to make my point, then I'll drop that claim without question. I don't care about baggage in an argument, only getting the claim shown while sticking to the original intuitions.

My statements are not "all over the place", you just need to take an ESL course. You've failed to interpret writings that were literally almost exactly logical tautologies. You've actually misread the authors of papers. Your interpretation of something has 0 credibility.


No. I'm not. I literally asked if the article made the distinction. You're saying that there is a practical distinction that the ARTICLE MADE about acceptance. "The Lorentzian approach to physics is not the same thing as the Neo-Lorentzian interpretation of general relativity" The issue is that at that stage, no distinction was made. This suggests that the article drew no distinction, whether it exists or not. It's an interpretive question.

In any case, I am basically done. You utterly waste my time, and there has been no gain, nor shift in position, nor anything else. Maybe against you, I just need to be more dogmatic, as even the appearance of a concession is taken as a concession by you, and I don't like dealing with that.

I'm done with this. You can yammer on all you want, but you've wasted a lot of my time, and frankly at the point where you start misinterpreting me, is the point where I really really really just don't care any more.

Hi 91,

From all the evidence you have made available about your knowledge, it is apparent you are either not very knowlegeable about Einstein's points of view, or that you reject them.

As this forum is titled "The Intellectual Dishonesty of William Lane Craig", and you cited a school of thought that disavowed the view:

"Since there exists in this four dimensional structure [space-time] no longer any sections which represent 'now' objectively, the concepts of happening and becoming are indeed not completely suspended, but yet complicated. It appears therefore more natural to think of physical reality as a four dimensional existence, instead of, as hitherto, the evolution of a three dimensional existence."

in favor of the return to the mystical "Aether", with the same & other multiple names, but truly, only many names for the one Aether.

You then presented under many guises a morpheous "philosophy of time", to such a vague and broad extent, that I often wondered if you were going to present a division of "space" and argue the names of various coordinate systems with each dimension a "philosophy". Maybe even to the ludicrous extent of "philosophy of longitude" versus the correctness or incorrectness of the "philosophy of lattitude", then maybe a "philosophy of distance".

I prefer Einstein's philosophy of "space-time", and I don't wish to take advice from a carnival barker with "easy" to win Christian teddy-bears of warped apologetics, by humanity re-sufferring the likes of the Salem witch trials.

You preach a "neo-" instead of the "non-", while relying on centuries old, rejected, nearly useless, arcane, and newly tweaked doctrines. But, you don't know the "non-" or the old school of thought that you are applying the modifier "neo-" to, and I wonder how that can be, so I plagiarize lines from both instances of the "non-" and the old school, and you find it nearly impossible to follow, and you seldom have the time to be bothered by the school you wish replaced with the "neo-", dropping both the "non-" and the "old school", and then tweaked with a further tweaked dark-age doctrine. (Hint: Try the blather on page 91 of "Einstein, Relativity and Absolute Simultaneity" by William Lane Craig & Quentin Smith for one varation of your source of misguided & confused guidance (understand the difference between "observation of" and "seeing" the invisible? (they're "confused" again))).

Roger Penrose tried to screw up Behaviourism further, with "The Emperor's New Mind", a couple decades after the return to "cognitve" mysticism, so Craig isn't much alone.

You answer any inquiry in a manner that meets the notions of "prevarication", and when presented a very basic question of Christian Apologetics, such as I've cited elsewhere with the buffer of:
http://www.google.com/search?q=Skinner+ ... =bks&tbo=1
you scramble off in a wild direction and seek ambiguous cover, which reminds me of an arrogant cockroach that can't tolerate the light of anything close to any truth.

I've been told often that I'm difficult to follow, and as I posted previously to Vexcalibur, "I am an iurodivyi-idiot, as in Dostoevsky's 'The Idiot', and from temporal lobe epilepsy. Please Vexcalibur, please do not compromise the words idiot, idiocy, etc., as these words are debased by any application to the extreme fringes of what is poorly masquerading as centrist conservatives and/or neo-conservatives, libertarians, objectivists, etc., and these words may be exploited by the extremes in front of a rational public in the future as a defense for irresponsible potentially foreboding actions."

If you've read all of Craig's works, you know you have lost Pascal's Wager, as has Craig, as neither of you appreciate first order infinity, and are both stuck in one-bit binary-land. Use all the verbosity you wish, but everything is fixed, and you can't change it. Now try to understand that! Dostoevsky's "The Devil" is much easier to understand sans Craig dragging as many as possible into his deceptive pit.

Tadzio

Definitions are not baggage. They are central to you giving me the responder a sense that you know what you are talking about. When you start fudging them, you cannot really continue to pretend that you are making anything like a logical argument.



I can accept that but you need to understand that I will call you on a subject if you proclaim to be right about it. If when I challenge you, you cannot demonstrate some sort of depth to your knowledge do not expect to be able to retreat to the vague and then come back in on another tangent.



These sorts of problems are the sort you will run into if you do not fully understand the subject matter. How can you possible hope to 'utterly dismiss' the neo-Lorentzian interpretation of Special Relativity if you cannot even tell me where it begins and general Lorentzian physics begins. You have done this often. Like when you made the mistake of thinking that the neo-Lorentzian interpretation was dependent on absolute presentism. You posted an article attacking absolute presentism (http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/525/1/p ... tivity.pdf) and then had the temerity to state 'Except if YOU read the article, you'd realize that they were doing a criticism of the neo-Lorentzian view' not realizing that the article was about the debate between endurantism and perdurantism and you were not actually discussing the topic at hand in anything except a tangential way. Balasov is a prolific author on time, if you had read his more recent work you would have discovered that he has criticized b-theory for being restrictive because it rejects endurantism (Balasov 'Times of Our Lives: Negotiating the Presence of Experience'). Balasov favors perdurantism but the perdurantism/endurantism/exdurance that was being carried out in your article had to do with theories of time not concepts in time like the a and b theory which is only tangentially relevant. The reason for the debate between Balasov and Craig in the literature was because Craig attacked perdurantism and through it b-theory. Balasov followed up by attacking presentism, which is a type of method of looking at a-theory. What you missed was that even if the attack on presentism was complete, a-theory would not be dead.

I hope you understand that if you do this, yes it does make you expedient but it makes it hard to take you seriously.

Tadzio

@Tadzio

I don't reject Einstien in that I do not reject special relativity. What I do reject is the spacetime interpretation of general relativity. Some people have suggested (I say some because I am not sure if you are suggesting this) that the spacetime interpretation can be found, as a basic fact within special relativity. I personally find Einstein's own comments to stand in opposition to this, he states "in the relativity theory we can still use the dynamic picture if we prefer it", that gives one the impression that Einstien perfered to keep his theory as open as possible, to not affirm a position that closed the theory off should the situation arise. So no, I do not reject Einstein, I do reject his preference for the static view of time, but I think he would agree that the dynamic is not rejection of his science.

Hi 91,

The quote was from Einstein. I've read most, if not all, of his works. One I definitely remember well is one where he never wanted to hear of the ridiculous concept of "e***r" again.

Another recent major dispute from another Christian Apologists Group was the charge that the observations verifying the "Relativity and the Perihelion Precession of Mercury's Orbit" were falsified to protect Einstein, as the observation measurements "were too perfect" in verifying his theories, to be "genuine".

One quick search result is:
http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath557/kmath557.htm

But I have a couple books solely addressing the observations, calculations, documentations, measurements, etc., all that was challenged as fraudulent, and many otherwise sane scientists were needlessly distracted by such frivolous balderdash masquerading as evidence from the Christian Realists For The Truth, or some such similar then trendy name.

I see there are about 8,000 matches with the name in the link and WLC, whether if there are more people with the same names or not, and still plenty of other names were involved.

Tadzio

Depends on the argument. They can be.


I already proved my point. Period. I retreat to "the vague" because I don't accept the kind of argument that is very focused on specific definitions as being very useful. Our concepts don't fit into our rigid efforts to define, and our rigid efforts to define fail to understand how language works.

In any case, you've proven that you're full of bluster. I read your comment, it is *STILL* bluster. You're trying to deny the OBVIOUS, which includes a frank, and literal interpretation of the article, just to hold this up even further. Why do you lie? Why do you screw around? Why do you bluster about? Why are you so f*****g dishonest? Is this a matter of preserving your ego? Is this a matter of someone telling you that you're smart, and you not wanting to give that up?

91, no matter what you say, the article I cited earlier was EXPLICIT. "Craig’s defense of his position boils down to endorsing a “neo-Lorentzian interpretation” of special relativity. We contend that his reconstruction of Lorentz’s theory and its historical development is fatally flawed and that his arguments for reviving this theory fail on many counts." So, they're attacking the neo-Lorentzian theory. End of it.

I mean, 91, I've won on all of the counts I need to get my point through. I've shown that experts do not generally tend to endorse the neo-Lorentzian interpretation, which entails that the KCA can be outright dismissed due to the reliance on the neo-Lorentzian interpretation, as the non-expert can simply recognize that they don't have to accept a major premise at all, and can outright ignore the argument from thereon after.

Note: You might say "yes it does make you expedient but it makes it hard to take you seriously.", but.... I can't take you seriously ANYWAY, so what's the point of your criticism? I mean, isn't there a Bible verse on this? Mat 7:3-5 Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? (4) Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when there is the log in your own eye? (5) You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.

Frankly, all I care about is expedience anyway. Why shouldn't I? Because you'll want to spam around with various citations?

No actually you haven't you just keep hand waving this and expecting me to accept it despite the fact that your argument does not hold anything like water. I also think that just about every argument you have made in support of your position fails for quite obvious reasons that you fail to recognize.



No it really is not your objection fails on two counts. The first, and I don't think you can continually attempt to insist this given you even quoted the right part. You would not that they are criticizing Craig's attempt to reconcile 'presentism' with 'relativity theory' and that this entails a 'neo-Lorentzian interpretation'. There are three concepts in that sentence not two and you really need to show some appreciation for the intricacies of the subject matter otherwise I am justified in thinking that you are making a loud insistence on a subject area in which you do not know what you are talking about. You insist that what they are criticizing is the 'neo-Lorentzian interpretation' (they restrict themselves in conclusion to saying that Craig has not made a case that one should trade in the Space-Time interpretation) in general but if you read the article again you will find that they are criticizing it given 'presentism'. You keep attempting to hand wave yourself through the problems. Interestingly the article does take some shots at the 'neo-Lorentzian interpretation' in general but they do not conclude to have taken it totally out.

The second way in which this objection fails and on this you really have no excuse is that the article you put forward has been responded to. It has been peer-reviewed, by Craig and others (I note particularly Craig Bourne), they have made critical objections and strong rebuttals and thus far Balashov, despite being a prolific author of time and has had much of it has not responded (http://philpapers.org/s/Yuri%20Balashov).You have no excuse for not knowing this, because I pointed it out to you here http://www.wrongplanet.net/postxf181287-0-105.html (about two thirds the way down the page). We have adequate grounds for rejecting the piece given Craig and others defense of their position in subsequent articles.

I pointed it out three days ago and told you to make note of it. So even if you do not want to get your definitions right your statement still fails. You got your definitions wrong and cited an out of date article yet you are still declaring victory for yourself. I asked you yesterday, how big of a hole do you want to dig for yourself?



Your argument from authority also fails on two grounds. The people in question, philosophers, tend to withhold their view on endorsing a particular theory of time. At best you can claim that a person is justified in also withholding judgement but then you would need to start making an argument; but as I showed above, the argument you made has failed. So all you seem to be betting on now is your argument from authority. But the majority of philosophers (those are the people who study metaphysics btw, we are discussing the metaphysics of time) don't endorse either; ergo your argument from authority is fallacious. In response to this reality you say 'physicists endorse b-theory and not the neo-lorentzian' and we should be listening to physicists not philosopher since its kind of the same thing. When you look at that, do you honestly think you are putting forward a strong case? This may be wrongplanet but that won't fly on any planet. Given that the philosophers withhold judgement and that they study this too, you really ought to abandon the argument from authority on those grounds alone. In proper philosophy one only uses an argument from authority to avoid having to state the obvious, using one to dismiss contemporary discussion is disingenuous.

Secondly, arguments from authority do not guarantee the truth or their premises, you ought to know this. You put forward a an argument from a percentage of the views of an authority and then concluded that you were entitled to 'utterly dismiss' the Kalam on those grounds (claim on the bottom of page 4 and restated on page 5). If you conclude an absolute from an arguments from authority then you have made a fallacious argument from authority. The argument may have probabilistic merit (even if you cited the right people and they endorsed your view, which they don't) but the conclusion does not flow from logical necessity. This is actually a very common mistake from you; when you draw an absolute conclusion from a probabilistic argument. Given your proclivity for reading and reasoning from the wiki, you should have spotted this since it is there, right within the discussion on arguments from authority.

Yet you have stubbornly stuck with your argument, despite the fact that you have good reason to abandon it. Every part of your argument fails for more than one very good reason and no amount of hand-waving and self-declaration of victory will make up for it.



Not an advisable position for someone intent on discussing a sophisticated issue.

91, I have proved my point. I made references that show that the neo-Lorentzian view is the minority view, in whatever way you want to declare relevant, and yes, even in physics. This is sufficient for holding that a person is justified in utterly dismissing the KCA.

The article is also explicit on "neo-Lorentzian". It specifically addresses Craig's use of a neo-Lorentzian interpretation. Yes, it also addresses presentism, but a LOT of what it says is very much focused on the neo-Lorentzian interpretation that Craig promoted. This is explicit in the article. This is beyond reasonable dispute. If you cannot read, please have someone read for you.

Additionally, saying I am not citing Craig's response is ludicrous. This NOT an academic requirement for citing an article. This is NOT relevant to my purpose, which is showing that controversy existed on the viability of Craig's position. Finally, the requirement is ludicrous, as in academia, the rebuttals can become nearly endless. Inventing a criterion that I have to hold to is not useful. Also, "We have adequate grounds for rejecting the piece given Craig and others defense of their position in subsequent articles. " is pretty much false. If that were the case, then by a mere rebuttal, ANY ARTICLE WOULD BE INVALID. That's not how citing sources works at all, 91.

I'm not going to debate further the appeal to authority. I provided evidence for my claim. I didn't even HAVE TO given that the neo-Lorentzian in common discourse simply does not exist. The people who ducked out were the non-experts, and that's fine to allow them to duck out as uncounted. Your continued arguing is merely a whine, and I don't have patience for that brand of foolishness. I've provided my sources. I've provided my reasoning. Any sane and intelligent person can come to the proper conclusion on the matter.

Finally, I have no plans on "discussing a sophisticated issue" with you. I don't think you're intellectually honest. That means that my real goal here can only be to oppose you, because there is no potential gain if I can't trust you as a discussion partner. I clearly do not trust you. I simply don't want your nonsense to go unopposed.

This position fails also. It seems that in order to cover a bad argument up, that fails on multiple counts, you are making a new bad argument that fails also. I asked how far it is you want to dig, but it seems you have bought your own shovel, so down you dig.

Firstly, the Kalam is not dependent on the neo-Lorentzian interpretation, it works with any classical 3+1 view of ontological objects. The standard relativity interpretation and the neo-Lorentzian interpretation work with the Kalam. The standard relativity interpretation is a 3+1 view and is both the classical and majority view amongst scholars of the metaphysics of time (Response to McCall and Balashov, William Lane Craig in Chronos: Proceedings of the Philosophy of Time Society 4). What you have citied from Balashov is a defense of the Spacetime Interpretation which is the minority view. I mentioned repeatedly that there were three views, you consistently ignored it, you have no excuse. So if you reject the neo-Lorentzian view, which you haven't but we will get to that your argument is steaming failure. I told you that your inability to process definitions would work against you.

From William Lane Craig,
'It’s crucial to keep these three interpretations distinct because criticisms of one interpretation may not be applicable to the others. My argument is that SR supports a tenseless theory of time only if the Spacetime Interpretation is shown to be the correct interpretation.'

Secondly you once again committed the fallacy of drawing an absolute conclusion from a probabilistic premise. I already discussed this problem in my previous post and you have simply attempted to hand wave your way past it. The objection still stands, your argument is still fallacious on those grounds.

So your statement here fails on two grounds. In an effort to save your bad argument you have simply piled on more bad argument. At the very least I will agree that your argument is consistent.



They are not endless in this case. Balashov defended the spacetime interpretation in his article, but what you failed to notice is that Craig responded; Craig Bourne responded also. Then Balashov did not respond. This is not an endless dialog it is a finished one. Balashov has had years to respond and now you are hand-waving off the rebuttals, absolute nonsense. Considering that your argument is one based on a consensus among scholars you have no excuse for not dealing with the responses.



No, an article would not be invalid, but it would be out of date; especially if the author chose not to respond in print to a valid objection to his work and he had reasonable time to do so. Stop your nonsense hand-waving; I will not grant you a pass on such sloppy argument. I don't know what university you went to but where I am from you always use up-to-date research where it is available; otherwise you undermine the building of a consensus.

The new arguments you have made, do not work. The objections I made to your last one still stand; all you have done is hand-wave off legitimate objections. Your point is lost now, it is best you concede. You are however welcome to continue to make more bad argument if you like.

Your argument has moved passed the absurd into the realms of Monty Python's the Holy Grail. Every time you commit a fallacy its 'just a flesh wound', every time you completely mess up the definitions 'tis but a scratch' and when you talk about the wrong thing its 'I'm invincible'. I am almost at the point where I am ready to ride of while you threaten to bite my legs off.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eMkth8FWno[/youtube]

William Lane Craig's five arguments for God have been debunked in so many ways it's not funny.

After much thought, I've finally come up with my own counterarguments for his five main arguments for God's existence.

Here's the short summary.

The two Cosmological Arguments and the Teleological one are debunked the moment I posit a necessary "cosmic field" that is eternal, outside of time and space, and that intrisically and randomly brings forth universes into existence through various singularities that it can intrinsically and randomly "create". I also posit that even if it was God who did it, he could not have used his mind to create this universe, and therefore God acted as an impersonal agent upon creating this universe. Which is no different from my impersonal "cosmic field".

The Moral Argument is simple enough to debunk. Moral values and duties are subjective, and there's no evidence they are objective. Therefore, this is no evidence for God.

The Ontological one is pretty much a stupid one. An omnipotent God does not have to exist within reality. Period.