William Lane Craig deconstructed. at lengh.

Originally posted by jaywill
Maybe a more effective criticism would be to demonstrate that life with God was also portrayed as absurd, by supplying evidence of some other people. Let googlefudge do that homework. But the book of Ecclesiastes would have been, I think, a good place to go for that point.

if googlefudge did that, he would be as guilty of logical fallacy as craig. i think he made this point clear.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
if googlefudge did that, he would be as guilty of logical fallacy as craig. i think he made this point clear.

Why ?

If the point of Craig's talk was The Absurdity of life without God, one counter argument would be that life could STILL be absurd even WITH God. And for that Ecclesiates as at least sacred poetry would be quite effective and well known to make precisely that point.

"Vainity of vainities .... all is vanity, says the preacher [paraphrased]

Hey, its the "preacher" saying it !

I am thinking in terms of it isolated from the rest of the Bible. The Bible is a collection - a library you know ?

So I quite disagree with your post.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
if googlefudge did that, he would be as guilty of logical fallacy as craig. i think he made this point clear.

Why ?


I think the issue is that WCL committed an argument from authority fallacy. If Googlefudge quoted the Bible to support a counter-argument then he would be committing the same fallacy.

If WCL had referenced the logical arguments of his various sources, then fine. Instead he quoted the conclusions of those sources and trusted that the authority of the source would give weight to the conclusion. It doesn't. Only the validity of the argument can give weight to the conclusion.

--- Penguin.

Originally posted by Penguin
[b]Originally posted by VoidSpirit
if googlefudge did that, he would be as guilty of logical fallacy as craig. i think he made this point clear.

Why ?


I think the issue is that WCL committed an argument from authority fallacy. If Googlefudge quoted the Bible to support a counter-argument then he would be committing the same fallacy.

I ...[text shortened]... t doesn't. Only the validity of the argument can give weight to the conclusion.

--- Penguin.[/b]

I think the issue is that WCL committed an argument from authority fallacy. If Googlefudge quoted the Bible to support a counter-argument then he would be committing the same fallacy.

1.) Where did goodlefudge say that WLC was committing Argument from Authority by quoting the Bible. I must have missed that.

2.) Where did WLC argue that Beckett or H.G.Wells or Sarte or Kafka etc were the infallible utterances of truth like the "Word of God" or the Bible ?

What I see is a man saying "These people expressed opinions which support what I am trying to say."

3.) If quoting supporting opinions is "Argument from Authority" then practically every reference to someone's opinion in such a lecture is "Argument from Authority"

If I debate about who should have won the Super Bowl and quote the opinions about the Giants or the Patriots, they are not in and of themselves, logical fallacies of Argument from Authority.

Googlefudge argued that this was the most prevalent logical weakness of Craig's talk. I think that is a ridiculous charge. If what he says is true then why can I not say you use logical fallacy of Argument from Authority by refering to googlefudge's view ?

If WCL had referenced the logical arguments of his various sources, then fine. Instead he quoted the conclusions of those sources and trusted that the authority of the source would give weight to the conclusion. It doesn't. Only the validity of the argument can give weight to the conclusion.

Googlefudge's own personal testimonial supported the view that Craig was espousing. Reading it one can only decide that one will determinetly not call such an existence as googlefudge's absurd. Ie. Making dung look like icecream.

I guess that's just putting the best face on a very empty situation.

Googlefudge: And my response to "Why do you exist then ?" is simply that I have no reason for existing,
nor need a reason for existing, other than that which i make myself.

Yea. You and Jack the Ripper.
You and Pol Pot.
You and Ted Bundy

Googlefudge:
I exist because my parents decided to have kids, as their parents before them ect, back to the start
of evolution with first life, and then before that because conditions for life to form were possible in this
part of the universe, and that this part of the universe came to be like this in the first place.

None of which has, or needs, any reason... it just is.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Where to start?

Ah, hell: may as well start in order since your rebuttal is a complete mess otherwise.

[b]Argument from Authority
WLC is not citing anyone as an expert when he quotes members of society. Rather, he is pointing to their output as proof of where their stated lines of thought ultimately come out.
The proof, or authority, of the qu ...[text shortened]... emotely close to an attack on the atheist, just the atheistic position.


See you in church.[/b]

Ok back into the fray... been busy in RL...

"Argument from Authority
WLC is not citing anyone as an expert when he quotes members of society. Rather, he is pointing to their output as proof of where their stated lines of thought ultimately come out.
The proof, or authority, of the quotes is that they show the results of a certain type of thinking. Nothing more, nothing less."

WLC does not at any point during his entire speech actually make an argument for his claim that atheism logically and inexorably leads
to Nihilism and that Nihilism then leads to all sorts of bad things like Nazi concentration camps, killing puppies and eating babies ect...
He simply states that this is true, and tries to make it sound like he HAS proved his point by saying 'thus' allot.
Then he goes on to quote lots of other people who seem to (according to these cherry picked quotes) support his position.
But at no point does he do anything other than quote their conclusions, not their arguments for those conclusions...
And then makes it seem like he has presented an argument by saying 'thus' again.

While he doesn't at any point actually say "these people are important thinkers who back me up and thus I must be right" that is implied throughout.
This is classic and incontrovertible argument from authority.
He isn't presenting arguments for his position he is presenting famous thinkers who agree with his position.

"False Dichotomy
You complain that WLC has set up a false dichotomy, but have failed to replace it with anything else. Certainly in ANY thinking person's mind, there is no place between God and atheism, no alternative reality that both allows for and rejects the existence of God."

You are quite right (and I have said it many times before) that there is no 'gap' between atheism and theism... however he wasn't contrasting atheism
with theism and that's not the false dichotomy I was pointing out.

His false dichotomy is to claim that your only choices are atheism (which he is claiming is actually equivalent to nihilism) and biblical Christianity.

Now apart from the fact that he never actually demonstrates that atheism is equivalent to nihilism there are literally thousands of religions apart from
Christianity that include creator gods that would fit his argument just as well as biblical Christianity.

He is presenting the choice as being between a straw man of atheism and biblical Christianity when those are not the only options.

What can you call this OTHER than a false dichotomy?

"Non Sequitur
This is used to compare two unlike items, a result or outcome which simply cannot arise from a particular action or situation--- usually with comedic and/or non-nonsensical undertones. If a situation as was described by WLC were true, the conclusions he states are the only ones that would make sense, the only ones that would logically follow."

The non sequitur is claiming that atheism as equivalent to nihilism, that because in atheism there are no externally imposed meaning, value, or purpose
(he uses the term 'ultimate'😉 that there can be no logically consistent or objective meanings values or purposes, and thus nihilism.
He states this as being 'evident' and true but it 'does not follow' logically and he didn't demonstrate that it did.
Thus his initial claim is a non sequitur. (This isn't the only non sequitur as he also makes claims about what follows from nihilism that are also not true
or demonstrated by him)

"Ad Hominem
An attack on the person. Nothing within the test quoted from WLC is remotely close to an attack on the atheist, just the atheistic position."

I am sorry but he claims that atheism leads inexorably logically to nihilism and then blames it for everything from teen suicide to Nazi concentration camps.
This is a blatant attempt to paint atheism as evil and bad on the flimsiest of grounds and then makes the argument that you should believe in god not
because it's true but because being an atheist is so sucky and evil.

That's an ad hominem, pure and simple.


"See you in church."

I really think not.

work graded C- ... Must try harder.

Originally posted by jaywill
Here was googlefudge's personal response to his life's meaning.

Does it confirm or negate what William Lane Craig said was the absudity of life without God ?

[b] Craig:

[quote] If death stands with open arms at the end of life’s trail, then to what end has life been?

Is it all for nothing?

Is there no reason for life?

Is ther ...[text shortened]... n he agrees with Craig and admits " ... that I have no reason for existing, ..." [/b]

Ahh... I think you have missed the point of my rebuttal and the failure of WLC's argument.


WLC's first claim, That Atheism naturally does not include a god imposing external meaning, value, or purpose...
(He uses the word 'Ultimate'😉 is true.

Of course if you don't have a god you don't have that god imposing external meaning or anything else...

However, that is not the problem with his argument and not what I was objecting to.

WLC's main problem is that he doesn't think you can have objective moral values without god.

Which is his main thrust, he is saying that "atheists can't construct objective moral values without god and thus can
just decide to do whatever they want and this leads to Nazi concentration camps and suicide..."

However, this is just not true. As and others have argued many times before on these forums and the lecture videos
I keep linking expressly deal with.

Now I haven't yet made that argument on this thread but so far, all I have done is show that WLC hasn't managed to
prove his point, and haven't yet got to making the counter argument that proves him wrong. (although others in this
thread have certainly made good points on that score)



Reasons, meanings, values, and purposes ALL require a mind to do the reasoning, impose the meanings, hold values, and
have purposes. If there is no creator of the universe, of the earth, of us, then there are no external meanings (ect) and
there never have been.

But why should we care?

We have always imposed our own meanings and values on the world and developed our own purposes.
Directed by our own emotions and reasoning.
Over the millennia we have got better and better at it, and now we are getting really advanced we are employing the
scientific method to do it even better.

YouTube&feature=channel_video_title

Even if there is a god that created the universe (and/or) us and has meanings and purposes for us...
What difference does it make to us who can't tell if such a being exists let alone what it thinks?
And even if we did know what it thinks, why should we care more what it values as a universe creating immortal super being
than what we want as mortal universe inhabiting beings?

The typical (and mine) atheist answer is that we don't care if there are external god imposed values or not, we're making our own
to suite us regardless.


This brings us to the Euthyphro dilemma (again).

Things are either good(moral) because god says they are good(moral)
OR
Things are good(moral) independent of what god says.

Given that I am not prepared to accept that certain things can be considered good regardless of what god thinks on the subject,
the only conclusion is that things are good or bad independent of what god thinks.

This means we can work out what is good and what is bad and thus don't need god to do it for us.

This means we can create our own secular morality that is better than what goat herders thought was good 2000+ years ago.

http://atheistexperience.blogspot.com/2010/10/matts-superiority-of-secular-morality.html


So no I don't have any external reason or purpose to exist.
This doesn't mean I can't and don't have consistent and objective moral values, and doesn't mean I can't also and simultaneously be happy.

What's wrong with WLC's argument is not claiming that atheists don't have externally imposed values...

It's then claiming that without such externally imposed values we would all turn into Nazis...

I would remind you of all the atrocities committed by people who allegedly DO have externally imposed values from their god.
Atrocities apparently completely in keeping with those god imposed 'values'.

I would also remind you how many of them were, and still are, committed by biblical Christians.

Originally posted by LemonJello
It's scary to me that someone like WL Craig actually makes a living as a research professor of philosophy. I've heard him speak in person, and he is a thoroughly amiable guy. But he ain't no philosopher worth taking seriously, that's for sure.

Yes I was thinking throughout that he sounded like a perfect example for the truism about a 'little bit of knowledge'
being dangerous.

He came across to me as someone who had done a cursory read through some philosophy textbooks, failed to
understand them or put them in context, and freaked out.

He seems genuinely afraid of people believing in nihilism and subjective morality...
And I fully agree that the new age post-modernists morons who think that "everything (including knowledge) is subjective
and that you can't 'know' anything or claim that any one persons opinion is any more valid than any other" are talking
total and dangerous bunk and need some sense beat into them...

YouTube

But the vast majority of atheists I know are rational skeptics and don't believe any of that c**p.

I believe in objective morality and that I CAN look at a different culture and say, "You know what, you cutting up young girls
private parts and sowing them up to stop them having sex till married is NOT OK! And unless you shape up the 105th airborne
will be coming to explain it to you..."

However WLC going around claiming that the ONLY way you can get objective morality is through belief in god and reading the bible
is deeply damaging and dangerous.

Because people believe him when he says that atheists can't have objective morals, because he sounds so reasonable...
as long as you have no rational training whatsoever.
Which is most people.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Ahh... I think you have missed the point of my rebuttal and the failure of WLC's argument.


WLC's first claim, That Atheism naturally does not include a god imposing external meaning, value, or purpose...
(He uses the word 'Ultimate'😉 is true.

Of course if you don't have a god you don't have that god imposing external meaning or anything else...
any of them were, and still are, committed by biblical Christians.

So no I don't have any external reason or purpose to exist.
This doesn't mean I can't and don't have consistent and objective moral values, and doesn't mean I can't also and simultaneously be happy.

What's wrong with WLC's argument is not claiming that atheists don't have externally imposed values...

It's then claiming that without such externally imposed values we would all turn into Nazis...

We will all turn into Nazis ? I didn't hear that case be made.

That some could be Nazis with the rational that anything goes ? I may have heard that case made. Let's not exaggerate.

When you said you can make your reason for living anything you wish, I did not assume that doing evil things was your intention. I only pointed out that the anyone like a serial murderer can use the same rationale. Where does that put us ?


What about people who do believe in God ? Can't some of them be pretty evil ? I think the obvious answer is Yes. In fact to use what is true in order to dignify evil is the most destructive evil of all IMO.

This is not a statement on the non-existence of God. This is a statement of the depravity of sinful man. That is that he would utilize that which is most holy and true to dignify his evil.

So, then what happened to good morals because of a belief in an ultimate Moral Law Giver ?

Well, that's when we begin to talk about "ALL have sinned and come short of the glory of God" and the need for salvation from the failure to live up to the law of God. But that is moving into theology.

He came across to me as someone who had done a cursory read through some philosophy textbooks, failed to understand them or put them in context, and freaked out.

That is exactly the impression I get from you, if that, when it comes to Christian theology.

By the way, Craig has two Phds., one of which is in Philosophy. Your cavalier dismissal of him as a if he were a barely exposed loose college freshman to the subject, is a bit pretentious.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Ok back into the fray... been busy in RL...

[i]"[b]Argument from Authority
WLC is not citing anyone as an expert when he quotes members of society. Rather, he is pointing to their output as proof of where their stated lines of thought ultimately come out.
The proof, or authority, of the quotes is that they show the results of a certain type of ]

I really think not.

work graded C- ... Must try harder.[/b]

"Ad Hominem
An attack on the person. Nothing within the test quoted from WLC is remotely close to an attack on the atheist, just the atheistic position."

I am sorry but he claims that atheism leads inexorably logically to nihilism and then blames it for everything from teen suicide to Nazi concentration camps.
This is a blatant attempt to paint atheism as evil and bad on the flimsiest of grounds and then makes the argument that you should believe in god not
because it's true but because being an atheist is so sucky and evil.

That's an ad hominem, pure and simple.

[/i]

I think your projecting. That's the way you think about Christians.

Judging from the many posts I've seen you write, I'd say this is a "Takes one to know one" exposure of your own regular attitude. The Christians are a sad lot responsible for nothing but horrible negatives in society.

And I fully agree that the new age post-modernists morons who think that "everything (including knowledge) is subjective and that you can't 'know' anything or claim that any one persons opinion is any more valid than any other" are talking total and dangerous bunk and need some sense beat into them...

How is that different from you saying that you have no other reason than what you give yourself.

Isn't that totally subjective ?

Originally posted by Penguin
[b]Originally posted by VoidSpirit
if googlefudge did that, he would be as guilty of logical fallacy as craig. i think he made this point clear.

Why ?


I think the issue is that WCL committed an argument from authority fallacy. If Googlefudge quoted the Bible to support a counter-argument then he would be committing the same fallacy.

I ...[text shortened]... t doesn't. Only the validity of the argument can give weight to the conclusion.

--- Penguin.[/b]

googlefudge was asked to provide authority sources as a counter argument, hence my comment.

Originally posted by jaywill
[quote]"Ad Hominem
An attack on the person. Nothing within the test quoted from WLC is remotely close to an attack on the atheist, just the atheistic position."

I am sorry but he claims that atheism leads inexorably logically to nihilism and then blames it for everything from teen suicide to Nazi concentration camps.
This is a blatant attempt to paint ...[text shortened]... The Christians are a sad lot responsible for nothing but horrible negatives in society.

I'm sorry, but your attempted refutation to my claim that WLC was making an Ad Hominem attack on atheists is to launch an
Ad Hominem attack on me personally?

Are you trying to make my Irony-O-Meter explode?


And I think that Christianity is bad and evil... But I think that on the whole the majority of Christians are a lot better than their
religion. (same for most other theists and their religions).

However even if I did think that theists were as bad as their religions it still wouldn't effect the fact that WLC was launching an
Ad Hominem attack on atheists.
If you want to prove me wrong you are going to have to do better than launch your own Ad Hominem against me.

Originally posted by googlefudge
I'm sorry, but your attempted refutation to my claim that WLC was making an Ad Hominem attack on atheists is to launch an
Ad Hominem attack on me personally?

Are you trying to make my Irony-O-Meter explode?


And I think that Christianity is bad and evil... But I think that on the whole the majority of Christians are a lot better than their
rel prove me wrong you are going to have to do better than launch your own Ad Hominem against me.

I'm sorry, but your attempted refutation to my claim that WLC was making an Ad Hominem attack on atheists is to launch an
Ad Hominem attack on me personally?

Are you trying to make my Irony-O-Meter explode?

No. I think you are trying to make the Pot-Calling-the-Kettle-Black meter explode.

And I think that Christianity is bad and evil... But I think that on the whole the majority of Christians are a lot better than their
religion.

Well, that is unexpectedly generous of you.

It is Christ. It is Christ in them.
It is only Christ who is for God and absolute for the will of the Father.
Good religious people cannot fulfill God's goal.
Only Christ living in people, living out of them, and them living through Christ that means anything to His eternal purpose.

William Lane Craig's debate with humanist Shelly Kagin is one of my favorite debates on the whole Internet. And I though I am partial to the Christian view, the other side was so good that I would not hesitate to take a class with Shelly Kagin.

In my opinion Kagin gave a good debate.


Is God Necessary for Morality - Craig vs Kagin

YouTube

I will note that kagin at the end admits that Atheism will not provide one a sense of cosmic significance. But he says still his day to day life is not made meaningless because of that. I do not disagree that temporarily we cannot live without this sense, if we wish to be functional.

"If you're looking for this kind of cosmic significance, Atheism is not going to provide it for you."

Look for it at about 2:52 and forward -

YouTube&feature=related


Putting the counter position in some light which is unflattering cannot always be thought of as Ad Hom. It is principles which are at fault rather than a personal matter.

Think over some of the things you have written about us followers of Christ over the months here.

Totally free of Ad Homs ? I doubt it just a little bit.

Originally posted by googlefudge[/i]
Ok back into the fray... been busy in RL...

"Argument from Authority
WLC is not citing anyone as an expert when he quotes members of society. Rather, he is pointing to their output as proof of where their stated lines of thought ultimately come out.
The proof, or authority, of the quotes is that they show the results of a certain type of thi ]

I really think not.

work graded C- ... Must try harder.[/b]

Excuse the long delay: I'd lost sight of the thread and it slipped my mind.

That being said, I think your grasp of argument types is sketchy, at best. Not everything that emits an odor is a skunk, or a rose, for that matter. Your painting is so broad, it seems you've lost the brush and have resorted to simply throwing the whole bucket. Very imprecise, and ultimately, just plain wrong.

Argument from Authority
Although WLC uses anecdotal and illustrative examples of the logical results of the atheistic position from the words of those within the atheistic fold themselves, he cites the logical conclusion as the authority. Those thinkers who came to the same conclusion, while authoritative as thinkers, can in no way be construed to be the authorities of atheism. Such a suggestion is flat out silly. Atheism is far too malleable than to be cornered by any one group of people, or any one set of rules... outside of the supposed non-existence of God, of course.

False Dichotomy
His false dichotomy is to claim that your only choices are atheism (which he is claiming is actually equivalent to nihilism) and biblical Christianity.
He wasn't presenting this to a group of undecided people! This presentation was specifically directed at Christians for their equipment when engaging atheists. In order to qualify as a false dichotomy, this would necessarily have to be in argument/debate form and put before a panel of impartial judges. Your critique of it otherwise is misplaced.
Using the link you provided, it takes but a few minutes of reading to hear his message's intent:

Indeed, in a sense it [the apologetic presentation he is about to unfold] does not even attempt to show in any positive sense that Christianity is true; it simply explores the disastrous consequences for human existence, society, and culture if Christianity should be false.

Now apart from the fact that he never actually demonstrates that atheism is equivalent to nihilism there are literally thousands of religions apart from Christianity that include creator gods that would fit his argument just as well as biblical Christianity.
Thousands!?!
Try 19 major religions in the world and less than 300 smaller off-shoots of those major 19.

Non Sequitur
The non sequitur is claiming that atheism as equivalent to nihilism, that because in atheism there are no externally imposed meaning, value, or purpose
(he uses the term 'ultimate'😉 that there can be no logically consistent or objective meanings values or purposes, and thus nihilism.
He states this as being 'evident' and true but it 'does not follow' logically and he didn't demonstrate that it did.
Actually, he spends several paragraphs supporting that position, thus "it follows."

Ad Hominem
I am sorry but he claims that atheism leads inexorably logically to nihilism and then blames it for everything from teen suicide to Nazi concentration camps.
Again, you misapply the argument type. Nothing within his apologetic says all atheists are evil and wont to run gas chambers. He attacks atheism, not the atheist. To qualify as an attack on the person, he would have to be addressing a person or group of people at the very least, not the thinking.

In light of your lack of qualifications, your grading system is meaningless, unfortunately.

Bump for googlefudge, if inclined.