1. R
    Standard memberRemoved
    Joined
    03 Jan '13
    Moves
    13080
    18 Mar '16 00:003 edits
    Originally posted by googlefudge
    Okay. You understand what WLC was not saying, I assume you have a grasp of his reasoning.

    But I still wonder about this:

    The purpose and point of a logical argument is that if properly formulated you start with premise A and through your logical reasoning deduce that IF A Therefore B.

    In other words given your starting premises IF the logical argument is correct then the conclusions MUST also be correct.

    However there is a logical fallacy known as the “fallacy fallacy”.

    This fallacy is to claim that because an argument is logically flawed the conclusion MUST be wrong. However this is not necessarily true as it’s perfectly possible to construct a flawed argument that leads to a true conclusion.

    The flawed argument just doesn’t prove that the conclusion is justified, not that it isn’t true.

    In this instance I will point out the many flaws (logical and otherwise) in WLC’s argument thus demonstrating that he has not proven his point.

    I will then Follow up with my own arguments for why his point is not just unproven but false.


    Why cannot the Fallacy Fallacy be applied to your argument just as much ?

    You are out to prove that WLC's argument is "not just unproven but false".
    Why cannot the Fallacy Fallacy not also be applied so that the premise you start with - WLC's unproven argument, is not arrived at simply because of your formulated logical argument ?


    Given your starting premises of WLC's unproven argument why MUST we assume you will arrive at the correct conclusion ?


    I will then Follow up with my own arguments for why his point is not just unproven but false.


    Given your own appeal to the Fallacy Fallacy, why should I think what you want us to apply to Craig cannot also be applied to googlefudge ?
  2. Joined
    31 May '06
    Moves
    1795
    18 Mar '16 01:57
    Originally posted by sonship
    Okay. You understand what WLC was not saying, I assume you have a grasp of his reasoning.

    But I still wonder about this:

    [quote] The purpose and point of a logical argument is that if properly formulated you start with premise A and through your logical reasoning deduce that IF A Therefore B.

    In other words given your starting premises IF the log ...[text shortened]... y, why should I think what you want us to apply to Craig cannot also be applied to googlefudge ?
    This is not an important issue, although understanding why this is the case might be.

    Your question is akin to asking why "the offside rule" didn't apply to a particular football game when
    nobody was ever offside in that game. The circumstances in which it applies just never came up.

    ANY logical argument [or anything that is trying to be or should be treated as such] can be tested for
    logical validity. And indeed should be tested for logical validity.
    So any time anyone [me included] makes an argument where they try to convince people that a conclusion
    is true, then the argument should be examined to see if it is logically valid. [and you should also check to
    make sure that the premises are all sufficiently justified and agreed upon, you can't build houses upon the
    sand and all that]

    The point of the 'Fallacy Fallacy' is to point out that IF the argument is found to be logically faulty then that doesn't
    mean that the conclusion is false, just that this particular argument doesn't prove it to be true and shouldn't be
    persuasive.
    I brought it up simply to make clear that while my opening posts would be focusing on the logical fallacies in
    WLC's argument that I was not claiming that I was proving his conclusion false by doing so, but instead was
    proving that he had not provided an argument that proved his desired and proffered conclusion to be true.

    Now of course any and all logical arguments that I make should be subjected to the same scrutiny and any
    logical fallacies I make can and should be pointed out. [I should clarify here that informal conversation is seldom
    if ever logically valid and that a distinction should be made between casual conversation and someone 'making an
    argument' for a position. The former shouldn't be held to the same standards as the latter. Around here we do
    much more of the latter than in real life]
    And again just as in the case of WLC's arguments, IF logical flaws are
    spotted in MY arguments this means that my arguments were flawed and don't prove the conclusion I was attempting
    to reach to be true. But that this in and of itself does not prove that my conclusion is false.

    However, for this to be an issue, as I said before. Someone would have to be claiming that I had in fact made logical
    errors in my arguments against WLC. AND they would then need to make the further claim that those errors meant
    that my conclusion was false, as opposed to simply unsubstantiated.

    I don't believe that I have made any logical errors in those arguments against WLC.
    I am not aware of anyone claiming that I have made such errors [you are welcome and encouraged to go check for any
    that you can find, and point them out if you can do so].
    And further, I am not aware of anybody claiming that my conclusion is false because I made some logical errors in my
    argument for that conclusion.

    So it's not that the 'Fallacy Fallacy' never applies to me, it's that in that thread the circumstances to which it is applicable
    never came up.

    And again, the "Fallacy Fallacy" is a benefit to WLC in this instance because it means that to prove his conclusion
    false as opposed to merely unproven/unjustified I/we can't just point out logical flaws in his arguments, I/we have
    to provide positive arguments in favour of our position in addition to that.

    ..........

    Again, the "Fallacy Fallacy" is not something that I was accusing WLC of committing, nor is it something I was using
    against him or his position. I brought it up solely to make it absolutely clear that I was not claiming that by pointing out
    logical flaws in his arguments that I was claiming to have proven him wrong and to explain why this was the case.

    Do you now understand this?
  3. R
    Standard memberRemoved
    Joined
    03 Jan '13
    Moves
    13080
    19 Mar '16 13:513 edits
    Originally posted by googlefudge
    However, for this to be an issue, as I said before. Someone would have to be claiming that I had in fact made logical errors in my arguments against WLC. AND they would then need to make the further claim that those errors meant
    that my conclusion was false, as opposed to simply unsubstantiated.


    The issue I make does not call for that. It merely calls for admission that the Fallacy, Fallacy principle could be applied to either Craig or you.

    To point out that the principle applies to both, there is no need that I have to point out specific mistakes in your reasoning.

    ...


    I don't believe that I have made any logical errors in those arguments against WLC.
    I am not aware of anyone claiming that I have made such errors [you are welcome and encouraged to go check for any
    that you can find, and point them out if you can do so].


    The principle of Fallacy, Fallacy should apply equally to both sides, even if I have not suggested your reasoning problems or you WLC's. That is what I'm saying.

    And with that I will go on.


    And further, I am not aware of anybody claiming that my conclusion is false because I made some logical errors in my argument for that conclusion.


    That is irrelevant to the notion that, in principle, what is good for the goose is good for the gander.
    Up front - we should agree on that.


    So it's not that the 'Fallacy Fallacy' never applies to me, it's that in that thread the circumstances to which it is applicable never came up.


    Okay then.

    And again, the "Fallacy Fallacy" is a benefit to WLC in this instance because it means that to prove his conclusion false as opposed to merely unproven/unjustified I/we can't just point out logical flaws in his arguments, I/we have
    to provide positive arguments in favour of our position in addition to that.


    ..........

    Again, the "Fallacy Fallacy" is not something that I was accusing WLC of committing, nor is it something I was using against him or his position. I brought it up solely to make it absolutely clear that I was not claiming that by pointing out
    logical flaws in his arguments that I was claiming to have proven him wrong and to explain why this was the case.

    Do you now understand this?


    I understand that you want me to believe that this series of utterances was more meant to establish Craig's possible valid premise and not yours.

    In other words given your starting premises IF the logical argument is correct then the conclusions MUST also be correct.

    However there is a logical fallacy known as the “fallacy fallacy”.

    This fallacy is to claim that because an argument is logically flawed the conclusion MUST be wrong. However this is not necessarily true as it’s perfectly possible to construct a flawed argument that leads to a true conclusion.

    The flawed argument just doesn’t prove that the conclusion is justified, not that it isn’t true.

    In this instance I will point out the many flaws (logical and otherwise) in WLC’s argument thus demonstrating that he has not proven his point.


    It is an important issue to me. But I can move on. You say you were cautioning the reader to apply the Fallacy Fallacy to YOUR argument and not Craig's. That seems to be what you are saying above.

    Moving on.
  4. Joined
    31 May '06
    Moves
    1795
    19 Mar '16 13:56
    Originally posted by sonship
    It is an important issue to me. But I can move on. You say you were cautioning the reader to apply the Fallacy Fallacy to YOUR argument and not Craig's. That seems to be what you are saying above.

    Moving on.
    Close enough.
  5. R
    Standard memberRemoved
    Joined
    03 Jan '13
    Moves
    13080
    19 Mar '16 14:231 edit
    Originally posted by googlefudge
    Close enough.
    I have heard a lot of debates from Bill Craig. Usually, he seems to say something like this:

    "I will show that there are sufficiently good reasons to believe there is a God. And I will show that there are not sufficiently good reasons to believe in Atheism. " - paraphrased

    I cannot recall Craig ever claiming he was going to prove that God exists or prove that Atheism is false. He frequently uses the phrase "sufficient reasons to believe ... etc."
  6. R
    Standard memberRemoved
    Joined
    03 Jan '13
    Moves
    13080
    19 Mar '16 14:541 edit
    His central argument is that Atheists (which here seems to be anyone who doesn’t believe in the god of the bible...


    I am not sure that sounds like WLC. He is usually pretty careful about the scope of what he is debating.


    either that or he’s forgotten about every other theist religion on the planet) have no basis for Objective morality due to not having any Objective purpose, meaning or values.


    I'm not sure this is a fair criticism.

    However the most he ever attempts to disprove is that you can have Ultimate meaning, values and purpose without god.

    He never demonstrates that without ultimate (which looks to me to be meant to mean externally imposed by god) values you can’t have objective values.

    He is claiming a false equivalency between his ‘Ultimate’ (imposed by god) values and Objective values. His entire argument is based on this. Meaning that the entire argument ‘does not follow’ [and is thus a Non-Sequitur]


    What would you say about this in Reasonable Faith by Craig, under a heading "No Ultimate Meaning Without God and Immortality" ?

    " Look at it from another perspective: Scientists say that the universe originated in an explosion called the "Big Bang" about thirteen billion years ago. Suppose the Big Bang had never occurred. Suppose the universe never existed. What ultimate difference would it make? The universe is doomed to die anyway. In the end it makes no difference whether the universe ever existed or not. Therefore, it is without ultimate significance."


    Now, no doubt, you and I have purpose in discussing this. No doubt, you and I have a purpose to write here to each other and for others, on this Forum. But do you see Craig's point about ultimate purpose, given no God and no immortality?

    I recall in the past, viewing my life like that of a trapeze acrobat. I was jumping from ring to ring. To miss a ring would be to plunge down to the floor.

    I felt once that "I have to keep going from one thing to another to keep from plunging down into the boredom of meaninglessness." So I swung from preoccupation to preoccupation. Sure, there are enough rings to keep someone jumping from one to another for his whole life.

    Ultimately though, without God won't we just with the whole universe dissolve into cold dead dust of oblivion ?

    Often I get from Atheists a response like one should take a stiff upper lip and embrace the absurdity without idealistic wishful thinking. But the problem is not wishful thinking as much as what is realistic.

    You look at the sting of a wasp under a microscope - the design and functionality of a wasps sting is amazing. Is it realistic to think the functionality of a human being is for nothing ultimately ?
  7. Joined
    31 May '06
    Moves
    1795
    19 Mar '16 20:28
    Originally posted by sonship
    His central argument is that Atheists (which here seems to be anyone who doesn’t believe in the god of the bible...


    I am not sure that sounds like WLC. He is usually pretty careful about the scope of what he is debating.

    [quote]
    either that or he’s forgotten about every other theist religion on the planet) have no basis for Objective ...[text shortened]... amazing. Is it realistic to think the functionality of a human being is for nothing ultimately ?
    http://www.redhotpawn.com/forum/spirituality/william-lane-craig-deconstructed-at-lengh.145003
    For reference.

    Now, no doubt, you and I have purpose in discussing this. No doubt, you and I have a purpose to write here to each other and for others, on this Forum. But do you see Craig's point about ultimate purpose, given no God and no immortality?


    The problem is not that I cannot see his point. He makes that very clear.
    The problem is that I DISAGREE with his/this point.

    And from the perspective of analysing WLC's ability to argue for his position I find his arguments to be
    pathetically weak, the flowery prose not withstanding.

    Take this line from his opening 'arguments' from the talk I transcribed...

    Thus if there is, no god, then life itself becomes ultimately meaningless man and the universe are without ultimate significance.


    The 'Thus' on the front of that statement is meant to imply that he has just demonstrated through logical argument
    that this conclusion he is presenting is the logical consequence of that 'argument'.

    Ok, so lets look at what he presented as the argument that is supposed to lead to that conclusion.

    First; life is without ultimate meaning.

    If each individual person passes out of existence when he dies then what ultimate meaning can be given to his life? Does it really matter, whether he really existed or not?

    Now it might be said that his life was important because it influenced others or effected the course of history, but that shows only a relative significance, to his life, Not an ultimate significance.

    If all of the events are ultimately meaningless then what significance is there in influencing any of them?

    Mankind is destined only to perish in the eventual heat death of the universe.

    And thus the contributions of the scientist to the advance of human knowledge...

    The efforts of the doctor to alleviate pain and suffering...

    The efforts of the diplomat to secure peace in the world...

    The sacrifices of good people everywhere to better the lot of the human race...

    In the end all of these come to nothing.

    They don’t make one bit of difference, not one bit.

    And therefore each person’s life is without ultimate significance.

    And because our lives are ultimately meaningless, the activities that we fill our lives with are also, in the final analysis, meaningless.

    The long hours spent in study at the university, our friendships, our interests, our jobs, our relationships, all of these are in the final analysis ultimately meaningless.

    This is the horror of modern man, because he ends in nothing, he ultimately is nothing.

    Twentieth century man came to understand this.

    Read for example a play like “Waiting for Godot”. By Samuel Becket.

    During this entire play two men carry on trivial, mind numbing, conversation, while waiting for a third man to arrive, who never does.

    And our lives are like that Becket is saying, we just kill time waiting, for what, we don’t know.

    In a tragic portrayal of man Becket wrote another play in which the curtain opened revealing a stage littered with trash. And for thirty long seconds the audience sat, and stared, in silence at that junk and then the curtain closed that was all.

    The French existentialists Jean-Paul Sartre and Albert Camus also understood this.

    Sartre portrayed life in his play “no exit” as hell. The final line of the play are the words of resignation “well... let’s get on with it” hence Sartre writes elsewhere of the “nausea of existence”.

    “Man” he says “is adrift in a boat without a rudder on an endless sea.”

    Camus also saw life as absurd “life he said is like a man doomed for all eternity to roll a boulder up a hill only to have it roll back down again. Over, and over, and over again.”

    At the end of his brief novel the stranger Camus’ hero discovers in a flash of insight that life has no meaning, and that there is no god to give it one.

    The French biochemist Jacques Monod seemed to echo these sentiments when he wrote in his work “chance and necessity”.

    “Man finally knows that he is alone in the indifferent immensity of the universe.”

    Thus if there is, no god, then life itself becomes ultimately meaningless man and the universe are without ultimate significance.[/i]



    Um... I'm looking, and I can't see ANY logical argument that leads to this conclusion.

    Which is a problem because he relies on having established this conclusion throughout the rest of his talk.

    This short passage actually encapsulates everything wrong with the entire talk in microcosm.

    Now I don't expect you to just take my word for it that there is no logical argument here, so I will take this section apart
    line by line in the next post [because otherwise I will run out of space].
  8. Joined
    31 May '06
    Moves
    1795
    19 Mar '16 21:221 edit
    For the sake of brevity I am first going to cut out all the references to famous people that he quotes or paraphrases
    because in NONE of those quotes do those people actually make arguments [and I feel that in some cases he is
    not accurately representing their actual positions] and thus these passages do nothing to progress the argument
    other than via an Argument from Authority fallacy. The quotes are available in full in the transcript and my previous
    post should you wish to verify that this is the case.

    This essentially halves the length of the segment... which says something meaningful about the quality of his
    argument all on it's own.

    First; life is without ultimate meaning.

    If each individual person passes out of existence when he dies then what ultimate meaning can be given to his life? Does it really matter, whether he really existed or not?


    Reveal Hidden Content
    First it should be "passes out of existence when THEY die" and "to THEIR life?" and "Whether THEY really existed"... But ignoring the sexist use of language throughout....
    Ok what we have here are essentially two questions:

    If people have a finite existence do their lives have ULTIMATE MEANING! ?
    And
    If a person has a finite existence then does it really matter if a person has existed or not?

    To which my first response is "Matter to whom?"
    For something to matter there must be someone for it to matter to, so to whom is he is asking whether it matters or not?

    My second response is to ask "what is ULTIMATE MEANING"? And how is it different from regular meaning?
    He has mentioned "ULTIMATE MEANING" Reveal Hidden Content
    [OK I'll stop block-cap'sing it, but it feels like it should be said in a booming deep Morgan Freeman voice-of-god way.]
    several times at this point but not actually defined it clearly, or
    really at all. Which is a problem because precisely what he means by it is going to be important in telling whether he
    demonstrates that we cannot have it without a god [or that we can have it with a god]

    Having asked the questions, let's see if he answers them...

    Now it might be said that his life was important because it influenced others or effected the course of history, but that shows only a relative significance, to his life, Not an ultimate significance.


    I still don't know what an Ultimate Meaning is and Now I have a Relative Significance and an Ultimate Significance to
    deal with... Is he going to define what he means by any of these at any point so that I could actually determine whether
    he is correct in his assertion here that what is being shown is a Relative Significance and not an Ultimate one?... or that
    anyone should care? ... Let's carry on and find out....

    If all of the events are ultimately meaningless then what significance is there in influencing any of them?


    Another question, they are starting to pile up.
    Well You [WLC] have not yet demonstrated that "all of the events are ultimately meaningless", nor even defined what
    that might actually mean or why anyone should care. But this is a potentially interesting question... Let's see if you
    answer it...

    Mankind is destined only to perish in the eventual heat death of the universe.

    And thus the contributions of the scientist to the advance of human knowledge...

    The efforts of the doctor to alleviate pain and suffering...

    The efforts of the diplomat to secure peace in the world...

    The sacrifices of good people everywhere to better the lot of the human race...

    In the end all of these come to nothing.

    They don’t make one bit of difference, not one bit.


    Ok, we have a list of things that WLC is claiming as meaningless... IF the answer to the last question he asked is "none"...
    He has not demonstrated that the answer IS in fact "none", and worse he hasn't yet demonstrated or even defined the premises
    upon which that question is based, which he would have to do before we got around to answering this question.

    He is also just asserting this list is justified IF we assume the answer to his question is "None" without actually demonstrating
    that any of those claims is actually true.

    And therefore each person’s life is without ultimate significance.


    Whoa... Ok, the "Therefore" means he thinks he's just proven something.
    ALL he's done so far is ask ill defined questions and then make unproven assertions about what would be true IF you answer
    those ill defined questions a particular way... There is no "Therefore" from that, this is an unproven assertion and nothing more.
    One I happen to vehemently disagree with.

    And because our lives are ultimately meaningless, the activities that we fill our lives with are also, in the final analysis, meaningless.

    The long hours spent in study at the university, our friendships, our interests, our jobs, our relationships, all of these are in the final analysis ultimately meaningless.


    We are now building castles in the sky. He is now moving on like he has proven that peoples lives are without ultimate significance
    and that because of that there can be no meaning at all. NEITHER of which has he properly defined let alone demonstrated.

    This is the horror of modern man, because he ends in nothing, he ultimately is nothing.


    ALL he is doing is asserting this, he hasn't demonstrated anything. There has been no logical argument, no presentation
    of evidence to justify premises, just questions without answers and bald assertions.

    This is where the big block of fancy sounding philosopher quotes used to be. Using their supposed Authority and
    kudos to try to bolster his non-existent arguments and justify his position. Just a big old Argument from Authority fallacy.


    Skipping to the end...

    Thus if there is, no god, then life itself becomes ultimately meaningless man and the universe are without ultimate significance.


    And here you have his conclusion from his opening [argument] that he will use as a foundation for the rest of the talk.

    And it's completely and utterly unfounded.
    He has asked a bunch of questions, about topics he hasn't bothered to properly define, failed to answer any of them,
    and then made unjustified assertions about the consequences of answers to those questions giving the impression
    that he has answered them when he never did.


    Now what he's actually doing here is actually quite clever... If by clever you mean sneaky.

    He asks these 'questions' in such a way as to draw you in to supposing that you know the answers, and then
    goes on to assume that those questions have been answered and build on those supposed answers without ever
    doing the hard work of actually answering those questions in a rigorous way.

    The idea is to leave the audience FEELING like he's presented an argument to support his position, but in reality
    it's ENTIRELY smoke and mirrors. The copious fancy quotes from famous philosophers added to give the whole thing
    a sophisticated and intellectual vibe that is meant to dazzle the audience and trick them into accepting whatever he
    is selling.

    He's an excellent and well presented glossy seller of snake-oil.

    However as a person supposedly presenting a sound logical argument for a particular set of beliefs he fails utterly.
  9. Standard memberwolfgang59
    Quiz Master
    RHP Arms
    Joined
    09 Jun '07
    Moves
    48793
    19 Mar '16 22:05
    It might be useful to differentiate between Logic (the Mathematical discipline) and
    'logic' the informal concept people use as a synonym for sensible/correct/true.
    🙂
  10. Standard membermenace71
    Can't win a game of
    38N Lat X 121W Lon
    Joined
    03 Apr '03
    Moves
    154771
    19 Mar '16 22:10
    Why can't one reconcile the two ? I prefer both and I guess I wold be technically a protestant as I'm not a Catholic but I hate labels.


    Manny
  11. Joined
    31 May '06
    Moves
    1795
    19 Mar '16 22:131 edit
    Originally posted by wolfgang59
    It might be useful to differentiate between Logic (the Mathematical discipline) and
    'logic' the informal concept people use as a synonym for sensible/correct/true.
    🙂
    I think for it to matter at least ONE of those two meanings would actually have to apply to WLC's arguments. 😉


    More seriously, I haven't got a vibe that that is actually a problem thus far.

    Or if it is it's way way secondary to the bigger problems we have first.

    I could be wrong and missing something, but that's where I am currently.


    EDIT: I also note that I did explain the point and value of a logical argument on the front of the original
    thread where I destroyed WLC last time.

    http://www.redhotpawn.com/forum/spirituality/william-lane-craig-deconstructed-at-lengh.145003

    The purpose and point of a logical argument is that if properly formulated you start with premise A and through your logical reasoning deduce that IF A Therefore B.

    In other words given your starting premises IF the logical argument is correct then the conclusions MUST also be correct.


    And sonship quoted that line earlier, so I assume he has read it, and he hasn't disagreed with this
    point thus far. So I am assuming we are good here.
  12. R
    Standard memberRemoved
    Joined
    03 Jan '13
    Moves
    13080
    21 Mar '16 13:392 edits
    First; life is without ultimate meaning.

    If each individual person passes out of existence when he dies then what ultimate meaning can be given to his life? Does it really matter, whether he really existed or not?



    Ok what we have here are essentially two questions:

    If people have a finite existence do their lives have ULTIMATE MEANING! ?
    And
    If a person has a finite existence then does it really matter if a person has existed or not?

    To which my first response is "Matter to whom?"


    I think he means matter to "each individual person".
    I think he means to the person who is doing the passing out of existence.

    Since the atheistic scenario is that all persons pass out of existence - he argues (something like) that adding many zeroes still amounts to zero.

    To the one passing out of existence, Craig must be saying, no ultimate significance or left. If you puzzled that the who is not identified, whoever else you think should step in, makes no difference. They are going to pass out of existence too.

    I don't see too much of an issue here yet.


    For something to matter there must be someone for it to matter to, so to whom is he is asking whether it matters or not?


    All "someones" ultimately will end up with nothing. That seems to be a point here.
    At least any "someones" around to whom it might matter, will themselves lose everything.
    No gain from significance will last. So ultimately, he argues, man and man's life will have no meaning.

    In contrast to this, the Bible says to Someone Eternal we matter in that there is an undying meaning in His love and life.

    " For I am persuaded that neither death nor life nor angels nor principalities not things present nor things to come nor powers nor height nor any other creature will be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord." (Rom. 8:38,39)


    I know this is more a philosophical debate between you and Craig. And I am not sure whether Craig is specifically arguing for Christian theism. But your perplexity over "To whom must there be meaning", Craig must be arguing, is ultimately lost, because in atheism all someone's are headed for oblivion, and there is no everlasting Someone.


    My second response is to ask "what is ULTIMATE MEANING"? And how is it different from regular meaning?
    He has mentioned "ULTIMATE MEANING" several times at this point but not actually defined it clearly, or really at all. Which is a problem because precisely what he means by it is going to be important in telling whether he demonstrates that we cannot have it without a god [or that we can have it with a god]


    Well, if there is no lasting someone, there is no lasting meaning.
    The termination of all someones, Craig must mean, would be the termination of any enduring meaning.

    I don't think you could fault Craig for saying all men destined to oblivion ultimately, could not find meaning in temporal things.


    Having asked the questions, let's see if he answers them...

    Now it might be said that his life was important because it influenced others or effected the course of history, but that shows only a relative significance, to his life, Not an ultimate significance.

    I still don't know what an Ultimate Meaning is


    You COULD be making his point by admitting this. As an atheist you don't know what in the world "Ultimate Meaning is".

    Consider that you yourself may be making his point by this exasperated expression of bewilderment - "What does WLC mean by Ultimate Meaning anyway ??"

    and Now I have a Relative Significance and an Ultimate Significance to
    deal with... Is he going to define what he means by any of these at any point so that I could actually determine whether he is correct in his assertion here that what is being shown is a Relative Significance and not an Ultimate one?... or that
    anyone should care? ... Let's carry on and find out....


    This is kind of dense. I assumed you cared enough to want to outline a detailed response to Craig.


    If all of the events are ultimately meaningless then what significance is there in influencing any of them?


    I think that is what he is saying. Ultimately, what will this influence amount to? I think he argues it will ultimately amount to nothing. No one is left for whom it COULD be meaningful.

    With the death of all, the meaning for all dies too.


    Another question, they are starting to pile up.
    Well You [WLC] have not yet demonstrated that "all of the events are ultimately meaningless", nor even defined what that might actually mean or why anyone should care. But this is a potentially interesting question... Let's see if you
    answer it...


    What he argues is that IF atheism is true, I think, a disappearing universal death of all persons and all environment renders that temporary existence ultimately meaningless.

    I am surprise at some of your reaction. I knew a group of Atheist on the Internet years ago who would embrace this without a problem. One of them proposed that they ban together and start a new religion called ZERO. From what I understood of the conversation, they were attempting to embrace the fact that ultimately their lives and the lives of all their loved ones amounted to ZERO.

    One of them had had a death of a loved one in his family. He was sadly dealing with the grief. It was proposed that the decaying body of the loved one would furnish some nourishment to some vegetation growing on the site of that one's grave.

    Now, you cannot fault someone like Craig pointing out that that purpose also will pass into oblivion with the extinction of ALL life lf any kind in the inevitable heat death of the universe. This, Craig would say, is the final end that the atheist has to look for.

    You seem to be arguing neither to embrace the ZERO or the disdain the ZERO but complain that you have no idea what he's talking about. This is some kind of effective postponing having to think about his scenario. And it may have for you the benefit of arguing that Craig is not a good debater with logical concepts.

    "The process of argumentation is so bad he proves nothing."

    I don't think its that bad. You have to know the guy is a professional debater making something of a living doing this. Are you sure you're better at it ? I mean, you're free to walk on university campuses throughout the world and upscale William Lane Craig in debating skill.


    Mankind is destined only to perish in the eventual heat death of the universe.
    And thus the contributions of the scientist to the advance of human knowledge...

    The efforts of the doctor to alleviate pain and suffering...
    The efforts of the diplomat to secure peace in the world...
    The sacrifices of good people everywhere to better the lot of the human race...
    In the end all of these come to nothing.


    You don't think he has a point?


    They don’t make one bit of difference, not one bit.

    Ok, we have a list of things that WLC is claiming as meaningless... IF the answer to the last question he asked is "none"... He has not demonstrated that the answer IS in fact "none", and worse he hasn't yet demonstrated or even defined the premises
    upon which that question is based, which he would have to do before we got around to answering this question.


    To whom will any of this matter if all end in oblivion ?
    That seems to be the demonstration.

    You say "Matter to WHOM ??" That seems to be the point. No ONE - No meaning.
    If you argue that there could be meaning ultimately, then we turn the questions around to you. "Meaning to WHO ?? No one is left."


    He is also just asserting this list is justified IF we assume the answer to his question is "None" without actually demonstrating that any of those claims is actually true.


    Again, the way I hear him, no one left means no ultimate purpose.
    With the passing of all to whom meaning could be is the passing of meaning itself.


    And therefore each person’s life is without ultimate significance.

    Whoa... Ok, the "Therefore" means he thinks he's just proven something.
    ALL he's done so far is ask ill defined questions and then make unproven assertions about what would be true IF you answer those ill defined questions a particular way... There is no "Therefore" from that, this is an unproven assertion and nothing more.
    One I happen to vehemently disagree with.


    Somehow, I don't think as many people could have a problem with this kind of conclusion as you do.

    I don't a lot about Theater of the Absurd, though I have seen some, like "Waiting for Godot". But it seems pretty bleak in the end to me. Bleak because of the futility of waiting and the nonsense which occurs during it.

    Without knowing a lot about the author, I think if you derived that life was meaningful at the end of the play, I think the author would probably say you missed the point.

    I do know Gustav Mahler's 6th symphony. It has a underlying funeral beat embedded in wonderful beauty and splendor. But at the end the funeral beat swallows up everything and the whole symphony is extinguished in a death march.

    I think if you came away that the piece is about the surviving meaning of life, the composer would probably say, you didn't understand the music too well.

    Now I grant that it would be a weak argument that ALL such artist have the bleak picture Craig is trying to convey. That I would grant you. And he could not argue that because a subset of thinkers conclude this futility, that makes it true.

    But he certainly has every right to draw from examples of non-theist agreement.
  13. Joined
    31 May '06
    Moves
    1795
    21 Mar '16 14:27
    Originally posted by sonship
    [quote] First; life is without ultimate meaning.

    If each individual person passes out of existence when he dies then what ultimate meaning can be given to his life? Does it really matter, whether he really existed or not?



    Ok what we have here are essentially two questions:

    If people have a finite existence do their lives have ULTIMATE ME ...[text shortened]... kes it true.

    But he certainly has every right to draw from examples of non-theist agreement.
    Oh man did you miss the point and spectacularly so.

    You really really really didn't want to attempt to do a line by line response to my post
    because what mattered was the whole not the parts.

    Ok, I will get together at some point today a post detailing precisely what you got wrong,
    but in the mean time try reading my post as a whole instead of as little bits remembering
    that what I am trying to do is demonstrate that WLC has not made a logically sound valid
    argument to back up the claim he is making.

    I know that you AGREE with the bull he is spouting, but the point I am making is that he makes
    absolutely no attempt what so ever to prove his position is correct.

    I haven't got to proving him wrong yet, I am simply trying to get you to see that HE has utterly
    failed to prove himself right.

    He has not produced a logical argument to support his position.
    Meaning that he has not laid out a set of agreed upon premises and then used logically sound
    arguments to reach a conclusion.

    Do you understand this?
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree