The Intellectual Dishonesty of William Lane Craig

Post Reply New Topic

91, it's obvious we're not going to reach an agreement on this. You have high respect for Craig and truly believe he has it spot on when it comes to the subject of God (I can empathize with that).

Either way, I said what I had to say. If there's anything you'd like me to address specifically, let me know. Otherwise, I see no need to continue.

I think the Kalam is unlikely to fall for a while. It's biggest weakness is its reliance on the standard model. If the evidence shifts back towards an eternal universe, like it was for centuries the argument will fade from prominence. The huge strength of the cosmological arguments as a family, is that they work pretty well with all views. I think at some basic level the argument the is likely sound.

Also in contemporary philosophy, there are so many people who defend the cosmological arguments in writing against a diminishing number of atheists. Although atheists still outnumber theists in philosophy departments, the number of them working in this area is much smaller. Thirty years ago, I would not have had so much literature to work with and the depth of the atheist meterial was much better. This is most likely not going to get any better as more Christians are taking up philosophy and most of my atheist friends in philosophy got lost in the wasteland of post-modern thought.

Paul is cited as creating God's fornication to sell his franchises.

I googled "Immutability is the modal property of being incapable of change; a changlessness is a de facto property," and I get directed to "Craig discusses timelessness & changelessness, with the descrition:
"Don't confuse changelessness with immutability. A timeless being must be changeless, but that doesn't entail it is immutable (incapable of change). You're confusing a de facto property with a modal property. .... explain to me how God gets around to changing from an eternal state of changlessness. ..."
and 8 other results.

But, the cited Craig stating:
Dr Craig:
"I agree that God changed in creating the universe. But that only proves that He’s not immutable. Don’t
confuse changelessness with immutability. A timeless being must be changeless, but that doesn’t
entail it is immutable (incapable of change). You’re confusing a de facto property with a modal property."

Which returns not to verification, but just to the same source from the original Craig-Speak.

Craig-Speak is actually very ancient, as is the worship of Gold, and the "immutable" versus "impossible to change" technicality reveals this now nonsense. Gold was since the beginning of human history, held to be "immutable", but easily hammered into any shape (hence, a seperate vague concept of "changeable"), but that deceptive Universal notion of "immutable" fell to Modern Science (1941 A.D.) with the synthesis of rare metals like the "immutable" and "divine" metal of Gold: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthesis_ ... ous_metals

Craig-Speak uses so many "neo-", "non-", "post-", "pseudo-", etc., with outdated and ancient alchemies, that the Age of Non-Reason is being greatly exploited by Religious Zealots trying to sneak Gods back into weak science as every opportunity.

About the only God that is going to be officially recognized by the Newest Modern Science, is the Great God of Chance, with the new name as the God of Randomness in Quantum Mechanics. The Logical Self-Contradiction of the notion of randomness will soon be totally ignored, as physical reality will conquer needless worship of constructed rules of Human Limited & Faulty Logic.

I posted a link to the problem created by this "God of Randomness", using B.F. Skinner, who is also famous for his Behaviourism and books, including "Beyond Freedom & Dignity", which answers most of the "free" this-or-that riddles, including those of "morality".

Craig-Speak will likely continue exploitation of fallacies often improperly useful by abusing Bayesian Probabilities, but legitimate philosophers will soon overtake such.

One promising candidate may be Quentin Meillassoux, as in his recent book "After Finitude: An Essay on the Necessity of Contingency" (2010):
"What you DO get here is the formulation of a consummately atheistic thought, one that attempts to consummate a rupture that has been promised since the dawn of modernity- philosophy's irrevocable divorce from the One. This is the most rigorous attempt yet to initiate the 'Death of God', breaking with the disavowed fideism/pietism of post-structuralism. I can't help but feel that meillasoux takes especial issue with the haphazard bricolage of Bataille, Levinas and Kierkegaard that constitutes 'deconstructive' religiosity today, and this can be read alongside Zizek's 'The Puppet and the Dwarf' as an attempt to salvage a (militant) thought of universality and the absolute from mystical obscurantism. "

http://ndpr.nd.edu/news/23797-after-fin ... ntingency/

I hope I can find an example easier to understandand for the general public for Craig-Speak's Bayesian Violations than those at:

http://www.facebook.com/pages/William-L ... 7752136532

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JQD6uVVqf0[/youtube]


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JQD6uVVqf0

Then, hearing his statements near the end of the video puts any rational person on alert for "fanatic warning".

It all might be a replay of something like "Uncle God's Coffee", as when the market collapsed, but here, more with oil, as when the oil runs out, how can warehouses full of needless dip-sticks be sold for profit???

Tadzio