stevelikes2curse takes on WLC's "Reasonable Faith" (Video)
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-06-2012, 08:44 PM
RE: stevelikes2curse takes on WLC's "Reasonable Faith" (Video)
I stand up and applaud this guy.

"Plantinga has observed that you can actually reduce someone from knowledge to ignorance by presenting him with a valid argument containing premises he knows to be true for a conclusion which he simply refuses to accept, so that he has to deny one of the premises he knew to be true."

Couldn't agree more Craig, couldn't agree more.

This guy is fucking hilarious.

[Image: 3cdac7eec8f6b059070d9df56f50a7ae.jpg]
Now with 40% more awesome.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like earmuffs's post
25-06-2012, 10:28 AM
RE: stevelikes2curse takes on WLC's "Reasonable Faith" (Video)
(24-06-2012 08:13 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  So Starcrash, what are the "smart" and "creative" arguments ?
I didn't call his arguments smart or creative (again, I haven't even seen these particular arguments)... I said *he* was. But even though you're attacking a straw man, your evidence doesn't even follow that argument. You rebut his arguments, and no one is claiming that they can't be rebutted. Do you believe that a person whose arguments can be rebutted is stupid and/or uncreative?

He's got a doctorate in philosophy. That probably counts for something. And the Kalam Cosmological Argument was formulated by him alone, which is rather creative. Will your bias even allow you to apply positive traits like these to someone you disagree with (or whose argument you can personally rebut)?

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-06-2012, 11:52 AM
RE: stevelikes2curse takes on WLC's "Reasonable Faith" (Video)
(25-06-2012 10:28 AM)Starcrash Wrote:  He's got a doctorate in philosophy. That probably counts for something. And the Kalam Cosmological Argument was formulated by him alone, which is rather creative. Will your bias even allow you to apply positive traits like these to someone you disagree with (or whose argument you can personally rebut)?
No, not by him alone.

From Wiki:
The Kalām cosmological argument is a variation of the cosmological argument that argues for the existence of a First Cause for the universe. Its origins can be traced to medieval Jewish, Christian and Muslim thinkers, but most directly to Islamic theologians of the Kalām tradition.

And it's a simplistic argument based on a false assumption, so it does no one great credit.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-06-2012, 12:54 PM
RE: stevelikes2curse takes on WLC's "Reasonable Faith" (Video)
(25-06-2012 10:28 AM)Starcrash Wrote:  He's got a doctorate in philosophy. That probably counts for something. And the Kalam Cosmological Argument was formulated by him alone, which is rather creative. Will your bias even allow you to apply positive traits like these to someone you disagree with (or whose argument you can personally rebut)?


How exactly do you know he was/is smart or creative, Mr. King of the Rabbit Hole, if you can't/don't reference even one of his arguments ? I pointed out where some of his individual arguments have no merit, and you still want me to say he is smart and creative. Ok. William L Craig is smart and creative. He has 5.87453 positive traits. The Moon is made of green cheese. Are we happy now ? He has stupid arguments, everyone of which I have found refutable, and outdated. But, he is very smart, and very creative. His arguments remain refutable. Why am I getting this strange feeling, that this has nothing to do really, with this actual argument, but something "else" ? Are we eating from Egor's bag of Acromion Chips this Summer ? As for 'him alone"..if you wanna stuff Craig in with St. Bonaventure, John Philoponus, Al-Kindi, Al-Gkazali, and Saadia Gaon, Aristotle, and Aquinas, and tell yourself that it was "him alone", be my guest. Since he calls himself a Metaphysician while calling a mountian a "being", I am now a Craig "birther", if you get my drift. Joseph Ratzinger has a PhD. It counts for something. It counts for shit. Nibble nibble. TTFN.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
25-06-2012, 04:04 PM
RE: stevelikes2curse takes on WLC's "Reasonable Faith" (Video)
(25-06-2012 11:52 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(25-06-2012 10:28 AM)Starcrash Wrote:  He's got a doctorate in philosophy. That probably counts for something. And the Kalam Cosmological Argument was formulated by him alone, which is rather creative. Will your bias even allow you to apply positive traits like these to someone you disagree with (or whose argument you can personally rebut)?
No, not by him alone.

From Wiki:
The Kalām cosmological argument is a variation of the cosmological argument that argues for the existence of a First Cause for the universe. Its origins can be traced to medieval Jewish, Christian and Muslim thinkers, but most directly to Islamic theologians of the Kalām tradition.

And it's a simplistic argument based on a false assumption, so it does no one great credit.
Yes, the cosmological argument itself is old. The "Kalam" version is not. Nevertheless, is this relevant? Does shooting down the one example I offered make him "uncreative", or are we really here just to try desperately to cling to our beliefs that Christians must be awful people in every aspect?

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-06-2012, 04:07 PM
RE: stevelikes2curse takes on WLC's "Reasonable Faith" (Video)
(25-06-2012 12:54 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Why am I getting this strange feeling, that this has nothing to do really, with this actual argument, but something "else" ? Are we eating from Egor's bag of Acromion Chips this Summer ?
Do you reach for ad hominem when you have nothing else?

You're conceding, at least, that WLC is smart, which is the point I originally made that you argued against. You're very sarcastic about it, but it's clear that you can admit that a Christian apologist doesn't necessarily have to be stupid just because he's theologically mistaken. I hope I don't sound sarcastic here myself, because I'm not -- I'm sure it wasn't easy.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Starcrash's post
25-06-2012, 04:25 PM
RE: stevelikes2curse takes on WLC's "Reasonable Faith" (Video)
(25-06-2012 04:04 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  
(25-06-2012 11:52 AM)Chas Wrote:  No, not by him alone.

From Wiki:
The Kalām cosmological argument is a variation of the cosmological argument that argues for the existence of a First Cause for the universe. Its origins can be traced to medieval Jewish, Christian and Muslim thinkers, but most directly to Islamic theologians of the Kalām tradition.

And it's a simplistic argument based on a false assumption, so it does no one great credit.
Yes, the cosmological argument itself is old. The "Kalam" version is not. Nevertheless, is this relevant? Does shooting down the one example I offered make him "uncreative", or are we really here just to try desperately to cling to our beliefs that Christians must be awful people in every aspect?
I have pointed out that your statement about WLC is not true. You are very defensive; I have not attacked him.
But now I will.
His arguments are old and tired, having been debunked repeatedly, but he just carries on. I find it hard to believe that someone who is smart and creative acts in such a fashion.

My suspicion is that even he no longer believes his arguments, but he has nowhere else to go.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-06-2012, 05:42 PM (This post was last modified: 25-06-2012 10:02 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: stevelikes2curse takes on WLC's "Reasonable Faith" (Video)
Look who's lecturing whom :

(25-06-2012 04:07 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  Do you reach for ad hominem when you have nothing else?

"Yeah, it all must be true because you put it in capital letters and keep insisting on it. Also, it's written in books. Bucky, let me be honest with you: most of your posts are worthless. They're heavily laden with bias, and you are clearly irrational. Even when I agree with you I find that you came to a rational conclusion purely by chance. And I'm tired of fighting arguments that I can't win because my opponent to blind to the fact that he or she could possibly be wrong.

I'm tired of irrationality, and I'm tired of you. Don't want my advice? That's fine, I wouldn't expect someone who sees himself as incapable of wrong to be able to do anything useful with advice, but it makes me personally feel better to have done what I can. "

Speking of "got nothing", (to say nothing of "else"), I did notice you have not actally engaged on even ONE actual argument yet, either about one of Craig's points, the Kalam argument, (other than to argue, mistakenly BTW, it's origin), or anything, other than to make a sweeping unsupported, personal anecdotal observation. Then you did say it was "formulated by him alone". That is false.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-06-2012, 07:41 PM
RE: stevelikes2curse takes on WLC's "Reasonable Faith" (Video)
(25-06-2012 05:42 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Speking of "got nothing", (to say nothing of "else"), I did notice you have not actally engaged on even ONE actual argument yet, either about one of Craig's points, the Kalam argument, (other than to argue, mistakenly BTW, it's origin), or anything, other than to make a sweeping unsupported, personal anecdotal observation. Then you did say it was "formulated by him alone". That is false.

No kidding. How many times in this one thread have I told you that I didn't see this particular debate? The only thing I said about it was that I had a feeling Krauss lost because he felt the need to defend his argument to fellow atheists afterwards. I put all my evidence up front to back up a weak supposition. So obviously I'm not defending Craig's arguments in his debate vs Krauss, because the only source I have for any of it is you.

Nor would I defend the Kalam argument. It's false and has already been thoroughly trashed by minds greater than mine, such as by YouTubers TheologicalBullshit and SisyphusRedeemed. Why would I even want to defend that? Are you desperate to get me in an argument that you know you can win?

I didn't mistake the origin of the Kalam argument. I know Wikipedia says that Aristotle first formulated "the cosmological argument", and I admitted as much to Chas. The "Kalam" argument (the modern version) in that same article is attributed to WLC. Why? Because he wrote an entire book on it. He coined the name and came up with the logical structure. What else would one mean by "he formulated the argument"? (By the way, if you click on that article link above, you'll find that's exactly how Wikipedia worded it, too). Do you have something other than a "sweeping, unsupported, personal anecdotal observation" to back up the idea that there was someone else behind the creation of the Kalam cosmological argument?

Speaking of which, I made no such thing. I offered an opinion (can someone be objectively "smart"?) and gave evidence for it by citing his credentials. I said that he is a good debater (also opinion) and supported it by citing his experience. I said that he was creative (again, opinion) and offered evidence as shown above. You can reasonably argue any of these things, of course, but you'd have to do so with evidence that's on topic. I don't care if you disagree with him or his arguments. I never attempted to defend the logic or reason behind them. I'm simply trying to defend things that I personally think are true about him, and it seems I have to keep defending him from your prejudiced view of Christian apologists. I think this is the third time I'm accusing you of anti-Christian bias. If you wanted to rebut that, you could cite a single instance in all of your posts that you have defended Christianity. I'm not holding my breath, though.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-06-2012, 07:49 PM
RE: stevelikes2curse takes on WLC's "Reasonable Faith" (Video)
(25-06-2012 04:25 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(25-06-2012 04:04 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  Yes, the cosmological argument itself is old. The "Kalam" version is not. Nevertheless, is this relevant? Does shooting down the one example I offered make him "uncreative", or are we really here just to try desperately to cling to our beliefs that Christians must be awful people in every aspect?
I have pointed out that your statement about WLC is not true. You are very defensive; I have not attacked him.
But now I will.
His arguments are old and tired, having been debunked repeatedly, but he just carries on. I find it hard to believe that someone who is smart and creative acts in such a fashion.

My suspicion is that even he no longer believes his arguments, but he has nowhere else to go.

Of course I'm defensive -- not so much because you attacked him (after all, I do it too) but because you attacked my argument. I rebutted it. You can see in my response to Bucky Ball above why I still hold that WLC created the argument. I still also hold that he is "creative", as in original. When you say "his arguments" are old and tired, what you mean is that you're familiar with WLC-specific arguments. I think we all are. That's because he is one of the major sources of modern apologetic arguments.

It may be possible that he no longer believes his arguments, but how would a person know what he personally believes unless he says as much? It's also possible to live with cognitive dissonance and rationalize everything that doesn't seem to fit. I think this is more probable, but again, there's simply no way to know what he honestly believes.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: