debate

Bill Nye/Ken Ham debate

Standard

Bill Nye: Bible doesn’t tell Earth’s true history
Bill Nye: Bible doesn’t tell Earth’s true history
by Associated Press
Associated Press
Posted on February 5, 2014 at 3:32 AM
Updated yesterday at 11:52 AM
PETERSBURG, Ky. (AP) — True to his passionate and animated TV persona, “Science
Guy” Bill Nye tapped on the podium, threw up his hands and noted that science shows
the Earth is “billions and billions” of years old in a debate at a Kentucky museum
known for teaching that the planet’s age is only 6,000.
Nye was debating Creation Museum founder Ken Ham and promoting science in the
snappy way that made him a pop culture staple as host of “Bill Nye The Science Guy”2/6/2014 Bill Nye: Bible doesn’t tell Earth’s truehistory | kgw.com Portland
http://www.kgw.com/news/national/243641841.html 2/3
in the 1990s.
The event was meant to explore the age old question, “How did we get here?” from
the perspectives of faith and science.
Ham, an Australian native who has built a thriving ministry in Kentucky, said he trusts
the story of creation presented by the Bible.
“The Bible is the word of God,” Ham said. “I admit that’s where I start from.”
Nye delivered a passionate speech on science and challenged the museum’s teachings
on the age of the earth and the Bible’s flood story. Like most scientists, Nye believes
there is no credible evidence that the world is only 6,000 years old.
“If we accept Mr. Ham’s point of view … that the Bible serves as a science text and he
and his followers will interpret that for you, I want you to consider what that means,”
Nye said. “It means that Mr. Ham’s word is to be more respected than what you can
observe in nature, what you can find in your backyard in Kentucky.”
The event drew dozens of national media outlets and about 800 tickets sold out in
minutes. Ham said ahead of the debate that the Creation Museum was having a peak
day on its social media sites.
“I think it shows you that the majority of people out there, they’re interested in this
topic, they want to know about this, they don’t want debate shut down,” Ham said
before the debate.
At times, the debate had the feel of a university lecture, with slides and long-form
presentations.
Responding to an audience question about where atoms and matter come from, Nye
said scientists are continuing to find out.
Ham said he already knows the answer.
“Bill, I want to tell you, there is a book that tells where atoms come from, and its starts
out, ‘In the beginning …,'” Ham said.
Nye said there are plenty of religious people around the world who don’t question
evolution science.
“I just want to remind us all there are billions of people in the world who are deeply
religious, who get enriched by the wonderful sense of community by their religion,”
said Nye, who wore his trademark bow tie. “But these same people do not embrace the
extraordinary view that the Earth is somehow only 6,000 years old.”2/6/2014 Bill Nye: Bible doesn’t tell Earth’s truehistory | kgw.com Portland
http://www.kgw.com/news/national/243641841.html 3/3
The debate drew a few Nye disciples in the audience, including Aaron Swomley, who
wore a red bowtie and white lab coat. Swomley said he was impressed by Ham’s
presentation and the debate’s respectful tone.
“I think they did a good job outlining their own arguments without getting too heated,
as these debates tend to get,” he said.
Some scientists had been critical of Nye for agreeing to debate the head of a Christian
ministry that is dismissive of evolution.
Jerry Coyne, an evolution professor at the University of Chicago, wrote on his blog
that “Nye’s appearance will be giving money to organizations who try to subvert the
mission Nye has had all his life: science education, particularly of kids.” Coyne pointed
out that the Creation Museum will be selling DVDs of the event.
The debate was hatched after Nye appeared in an online video in 2012 that urged
parents not to pass their religious-based doubts about evolution on to their children.
Ham rebutted Nye’s statements with his own online video and the two later agreed to
share a stage.

Bill Nye the mannerly guy

Aside

I watched the televised debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham and was very disappointed at the incredibly ‘kid gloves’ approach that Nye used in his argument. I found him being overly careful in making his opponent feel comfortable and would have LOVED to see him break out into a more Hitchens-like surgical strike into the heart of Ham’s rebuttal! The gloves needed to come off in order to guarentee a more decisive victory on behalf of Evolution. Whereas Nye did furnish the required proof and Ham gave forth with the tired old ‘Young Earth’ bullshit, Nye still would have lost if not for subject matter only. As Hitchens was fond of pointing out, “That which can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.” and Ham, of course did no such feat in the proof department!

The standard still goes that you cannot make the ridiculous ever seem like other than what it is; ridiculous, and you would have to be living under a scientific rock to believe that you can’t find objects in a field that are older than 6-9.000 years. I have rocks in my posession that are WAY older than that and to refute that, you have to be living with your head in the sand. I could care LESS if the inventor of the MRI is a Young Earth Creationist, it doesn’t make the ridiculous any more valid! This is a religious OPINION and NOT one that is held in high regard by anyone of logic and reason. I cannot believe such nonsense and am amazed when I hear of educated people who do. As Nye said, you are ignoring what is in your own back yard  when you believe in Creation.  These thoughts are shared by many and, thank science, are spreading like wildfire as more people identify as ‘Nones,’ meaning affiliated with no religion or gods.

I certainly hope that our beloved ‘Science guy’ grows some debate testicles if he plans any further forays into argument, because he is a good speaker and his ideas are shared by the reasonable all over the world. The Milquetoast approach has got to go and the barracuda needs to emerge. Debate is about theatrics as well as facts and if you have the right formula then you can easily win the match. The late great Christopher Hitchens was a prime example of an opponent who crushed the opposition. His facts coupled with his incredible savvy kept many great debaters grabbing their flaming asses in pain. Hopefully Bill will take a few pages from Hitchens and blast the next opponent.

1 of 9 debate Harris vs. Craig

Video

I would love to actually see a factual account of Hitchens, Harris or Dawkins being owned by a believer in mythology! These empty claims surface on Youtube but are always proven wrong by critical analysis of the video, something that hysterical apologists can’t understand. Just because you debate ignorance well does not lend credibility to the fallacy of religion

Great Sam Harris video.

Video

I find it amazing how many video captions begin with false statements like ‘Sam Harris destroyed by Wm Lane Craig.’ By running the video you find that the ignorant have taken one of Craig’s unsubstantiated claims and labeled it a ‘win’ for the religious. This is NOT critical thinking and reveals the poster to be profoundly ignorant. Craig is great at theatrics only; debate. Anyone can beat an unskilled debater if they are an expert at argument, that is why the person armed with truth needs skills in debate. Craig and Cy Ten Bruggencate are apologist as are all other apologists, they can be defeated because they only have myth on their side.

Logic in argument

Standard

Logically disproving the Christian God

After the suggestion in one of this site’s comments stating that it required more faith to be an atheist than a theist, because the non-existence of a deity can never be proven, I thought it would be fun to see if we can logically disprove the existence of “God”. I picked the Christian God because I am more familiar with the Christian faith than any other, I’ve read the bible and have previously lived with devout Christians. I feel qualified. So let’s see where this goes…

For this to work, we have to agree on the following two statements, and accept that Christians believe them to the true: –

  • God is infallible
  • The Bible is the true word of God

These aren’t outrageous statements, and in fact, have been echoed on this very blog numerous times in the comments.

The two statements above are clearly interdependent. The Bible tells Christians that God is infallible, and Christians believe the Bible because they believe it was written by an infallible deity. Almost a self-fulfilling prophecy, almost. So the start of our logical deduction must be the Bible, so let’s concentrate on that.

Let’s take the Christian God’s greatest act, creating the world and all who live on it (indirectly). The start of all this, on God’s own words: “For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day”. Using genealogy, we can roughly estimate the age of the earth, as stated by the Bible, to be 6500 years. The very top estimate would be close to 10,000 years, but that’s a stretch. Science has proven that the earth is closer to 4.5 billion years old. Radiometric dating has shown us this, and has remained consistent with lunar and terrestrial samples. In other words, we haven’t just tested this once in one situation, it’s been extensively tested. This isn’t a guess, or a hunch, there’s a substantial amount of evidence to back this up.

And that’s the geological age of the earth. What about the creatures on the earth? We, as human beings, were created 6500 years ago, according to the Bible, starting with Adam and then Eve. The oldest discovered human fossil is approximately 1,300,000 (1.3 million) years old. That would have meant that humans lived on earth before God created either humans or the earth. In fact, depending on how much evidence you consider to be acceptable, and how you define us as a species, you could place humans at between 1.8 million and 130,000 years old. No one could sensibly claim that humans are less than 130,000 years old. There is simply too much evidence available for our inspection. Either way, much older than the Bible’s claims.

Let’s take another example. God decided that the earth needed cleansing, so he instructed Noah to gather up two of ever species to save. Everything other than Noah, his family (or part of his family) and the animals he chose to save would be killed. There are around 10 MILLION known species of animal on our planet. Male and female, that would be 20 million animals Noah saved. I’ve never seen a boat that big, even with modern engineering techniques. Noah also would have had to travel to different parts of the earth to collect the various animals. You rarely see a penguin and a scorpion living in the same location (zoos don’t count). He then, after the waters had receded, would have had to return them to their original locations. You also have to question to environment on board Noah’s Ark, an environment that could sustain animals that require intense heat and animals that require intense cold, as well as Noah and his family that required a more moderate climate. Impossible.

Just so we’re clear, I’m establishing that that the Bible is inaccurate. Not just inaccurate, but massively inaccurate. There are more examples of course, some which make it clear that the author of the Bible thinks the world is flat, some which make it clear that the author thought the world did not move and then there are more considered examples, such as the value of pi being unknown at the time(surely God would have known it!?!).

So this is my statement, logically derived from the above.

“The Bible is inaccurate – therefore God is fallible – therefore the definition of God is incorrect – therefore God does not exist.”

To add a touch of justification to this, let’s break it down. We know the Bible is inaccurate, in fact the Bible is contradictory within its own pages. The Bible is the only place that defines God, and God is defined as being infallible. The Bible is also stated as being of God’s word (albeit written by man, see below). Seeing as we know the only source that defines the Christian God is inaccurate, and at least part of the definition is inaccurate (infallible), we can not trust the remainder of the definition. Therefore the definition of God in invalid and God does not exist.

There will come arguments from Christians that while God is infallible, and the Bible is the true word of God, the Bible was in fact written by man, who is fallible. This does not hold up when you examine the scale and volume of inaccuracies held within the Bible. I can understand man rounding down the value of pi, for example, but to get the entire creation story wrong is a bit of a stretch. Likewise, given that God is all powerful, he surely would not have left an obviously inaccurate account of his greatest work go to press, or was that just another sign of his fallibility?

I think I’ve made a stronger argument, based on Christian beliefs, for the non existence of God than there ever has been for the existence of such a deity.

Know the people that you disagree with!!

Standard

William Lane Craig

From RationalWiki

 

Jump to: navigation, search

Dr. WIlliam Lane Craig.

“”The person who follows the pursuit of reason unflinchingly toward its end will be atheistic or, at best, agnostic.
— William Lane Craig [1]

Dr. William Lane Craig, born August 23, 1949 in Peoria, Illinois, is an American Christian apologist, philosopher, and theologian. He received a Bachelor of Arts from theologically-moderate evangelical protestant Wheaton College in Wheaton, Illinois, a summa cum laude Master of Divinity from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, Illinois, a Ph.D. in Philosophy from the University of Birmingham (England), and a Ph.D. in Theology from the University of Munich. Craig claims that religious faith must be supported by reason and logic or atheism will triumph.[1] He has admitted multiple times that he will not change his faith no matter what the evidence points to, because he has “witnessed the Holy Spirit in his heart”.[2]

He has authored numerous books on subjects including cosmology, philosophy of science, theology, the Christian church, Christian apologetics, metaphysics and epistemology, and history.

He is best known for his attempted proof for the existence of God using the Kalām cosmological argument. His work is heavily dependent on the perspective of Reformed Epistemology, which, like presuppositional apologetics is criticized as circular for depending entirely on an unwarranted assumption of the existence of God.

Contents

 [hide] 

[edit] Profession

Since 1996, Craig has been a Research Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology. Since 2003, he has also been a Visiting Professor of Philosophy at Wheaton College.

Talbot University website includes a “Doctrinal Statement” that reads;

“”The Bible, consisting of all the books of the Old and New Testaments, is the Word of God, a supernaturally given revelation from God Himself, concerning Himself, His being, nature, character, will and purposes; and concerning man, his nature, need and duty and destiny. The Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are without error or misstatement in their moral and spiritual teaching and record of historical facts. They are without error or defect of any kind.[3]

As for Wheaton College, their “Statement of Faith and Educational Purpose” includes the following;

“”WE BELIEVE that God has revealed Himself and His truth in the created order, in the Scriptures, and supremely in Jesus Christ; and that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are verbally inspired by God and inerrant in the original writing, so that they are fully trustworthy and of supreme and final authority in all they say.[4]

Both of these statements would be an embarrassment to any legitimate academic institution. They are the very antithesis of what an academic institution should represent; namely the promotion of free discovery, understanding and learning.

The mere fact that Craig has associated himself with these two institutions, and only these two institutions, reveals a lot. This is especially clear when he openly admits he will dismiss all and any evidence no matter what because he believes Christianity is true because of the “Holy Spirit” in his “heart.”[5]

[edit] On morality

Craig argues in favor of objective morality. He defines objective morality as “to say that something is right or wrong independently of whether anybody believes it to be so.” His most common argument goes as follows:

  1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
  2. Objective moral values do exist.
  3. Therefore, God exists.

This is a common argument among Christian apologists and is logically valid as an instance of modus tollens. However, validity does not entail soundess — neither premise is well-supported. There are two assumptions smuggled into this argument. For one, there are numerous ways of formulating systems of morality that don’t require a god. Demonstrating that a god is a necessary condition for objective morality requires either one or more a priori arguments to discredit the various alternatives. Secondly, the argument assumes objective morality is consistent with the existence of god — this is challenged by the Euthyphro dilemma. Craig of course says that, according to divine command theory, god had goodness built into his character in such a way that everything god does and commands is good. However, that leaves us with nothing more than a tautology redefining good such that we are unable to truly judge what is good.

In April 2011, on his Reasonable Faith site [6], Craig published an explanation for why the genocide and infanticide ordered by God against the Canaanites in the Old Testament was morally defensible. In summary: When guilty people get killed, they deserved it because they were guilty and bad. When innocent people get killed (including innocent babies), they went to Heaven. Here are some key points:

God had morally sufficient reasons for His judgement upon Canaan, and Israel was merely the instrument of His justice, just as centuries later God would use the pagan nations of Assyria and Babylon to judge Israel.[7][8]

And:

Moreover, if we believe, as I do, that God’s grace is extended to those who die in infancy or as small children, the death of these children was actually their salvation. We are so wedded to an earthly, naturalistic perspective that we forget that those who die are happy to quit this earth for heaven’s incomparable joy. Therefore, God does these children no wrong in taking their lives.[7][8]

And:

So whom does God wrong in commanding the destruction of the Canaanites? Not the Canaanite adults, for they were corrupt and deserving of judgement. Not the children, for they inherit eternal life.[7][8]

Please bear in mind that Craig is not some cruel dogmatic wingnut. He’s not some extremist Fred Phelps type, ranting about how God’s hateful vengeance is upon us for tolerating homosexuality. He’s not some itinerant street preacher, railing on college campuses about premarital hand holding. He’s an educated, widely-published, widely-read theological scholar and debater. When believers accuse atheists or non-believers of ignoring “sophisticated modern theology“, Craig is one of the people they’re talking about.

Modern theology cannot escape the dogmas of the cruel theology of the ancient times. Educated apologists like Craig must argue that as long as God orders such things to happen, it’s perfectly moral take the lives of these people. Killing bad people is tolerable, because they’re bad and they deserve it. This implies the problem of evil and the folly of attempting to understanding the motives of a capricious and inscrutable god.

Killing innocent and good people is just as tolerable, because they wind up in Heaven. As long as God approves it, it’s acceptable to systematically wipe out entire races, including babies and children.

Craig said —not essentially, not as a paraphrase, but literally, in quotable words— “the death of these children was actually their salvation.” This viewpoint is not something unique to Craig, but is one that apologists often choose to adopt when tasked with explaining the war crimes perpetrated under God’s command in the Old Testament. The ethical framework of the Old Testament, if taken in whole, is completely incompatible with most contemporary conceptions of morality. It is difficult to discern whether or not apologists such as Craig are devoted enough to this viewpoint to act on it, but it is safe to say that the objective morality that the apologetic likes of Craig support is anything but objective.

[edit] Divine command theory

Craig accepts the Divine Command, as he describes as follows;

But the transcendent and sovereign God sees the end from the beginning and providentially orders history so that His purposes are ultimately achieved through human free decisions. In order to achieve His ends, God may have to put up with certain evils along the way. Evils which appear pointless to us within our limited framework may be seen to have been justly permitted within God’s wider framework. [9]

So basically, God has ordered everything throughout history to unfold through free will. This means that God does not intervene with human life, otherwise freedom would be eliminated. This is also problematic because it begs the question and it does not answer any ethical problems. God allows necessary evil, it is all part of God’s plan. Divine command theory implies that whatever God commands must be the morally correct course of action. Therefore, if/when God endorses genocide, infanticide, animal sacrifice, slavery, or rape, those things are good, whereas if/when he forbids eating certain foods or working on certain days or having certain kinds of kinky sex, those things immediately become bad. This makes divine command theory a subjective theory of morals, one which is arbitrary and can change at God’s whim. Claims like “God wouldn’t do that”, but this doesn’t help at all. For one, in many religious traditions he does do such things. For another, if God is the source of morality, he can do whatever he wants and it would still be just as “good” as anything else.

Whether divine command theory is true or not (and there seems to be no reason to think that it is), it is often not an effective method of settling moral dilemmas. For one, it’s not clear which religious tradition is correct. For another, religious texts tend to contain many conflicting, arbitrary, or excessively specific rules. These rules rarely allow a clear method of generalizing these ideas to every possible situation, so a believer is forced to do much the same thing that an atheist does, which is to work out moral principles and ideas for herself. Often, the fact that the believer is bound to respect certain statements as absolute truth makes this process even harder, because those statements may not make good sense, or may make sense in most situations but be absurd in others. Divine command theory thus fails to provide moral guidance for much the same reason that religions often fail to provide moral guidance.

[edit] Apologetics

[edit] Kalam Cosmological Argument

Craig is well known for the Kalām cosmological argument (KCA). The KCA is a variation of the centuries old cosmological argument, originated in Islamic philosophy, that argues for the existence of a personal first cause for the universe. Cosmological goes back to Plato, but many are familiar with the Thomistic and Leibnizian forms. In 1979, Craig popularized this argument, and to many theists this has been a powerful tool to prove the existence of God. Craig presents the argument as the following:

  • (P1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
  • (P2) The universe began to exist.
  • (C) Therefore, the universe must have a cause.

The conclusion we are supposed to reach from this is that the God of the Bible created the universe. This is generally reached by a few additional sections of argument: that the cause must be a god, and furthermore that god must be the God of the Bible.

[edit] Why the Kalam Cosmological argument fails

The first premise of Craig’s argument is flawed.

In quantum mechanics, things happen that are not caused, such as radioactive decay, or when an atom in an excited energy level loses a photon. No cause is evident in the decay of a radioactive nucleus. Craig has said that quantum events are still “caused” just in a non-predetermined manner — what he calls “probabilistic causality.” Craig is thereby admitting that the “cause” in his first premise could be an accidental one, something spontaneous and not predetermined. He therefore destroys his own case for a predetermined creation. Even if the KCA was sound, why would the cause itself not be natural?

The second premise of his argument is also flawed.

The argument assumes that the universe has a beginning. Not enough is known about the early stages of the Big bang or about what existed before the Big bang. We don’t know what the universe was like before the first 10−43 seconds after inflation started to say with certainty that the universe had a beginning, various possibilities exist.

  1. Before the expansion started, the universe existed in a stable state eternally.
  2. The multiverse could have existed before our universe started.
  3. There could have been a Big crunch that finished occurring before the big bang
  4. Something else entirely could have existed.

Furthermore, the conclusion is inconclusive.

Even if we reason that the universe has a cause, we know nothing about the nature of this cause; certainly not enough to ascribe godhood (with properties such as awareness and intelligence) to it. The cause of the universe may very well lack mind or will. There is even less reason to assume the cause of the universe is the God of the Bible.

[edit] Begging the question

The KCA is invalid and refuted because it commits the logical fallacy of begging the question. The phrase “whatever begins to exist” is not presumed to accommodate anything other than God, and that puts God into the definition of the premise of the argument that was supposed to prove his existence in the first place. This is also most likely an example of special pleading, as the first premise, “Everything that begins to exist has a cause”, can be rewritten as “Everything that is not God has a cause”, unless there exists some other thing or things than did not begin to exist. However, if other things exist but did not begin to exist, then even accepting the other broken premises does not lead to God being the answer. As there is never any positive evidence offered for a god, but merely the asserting that god must have been the cause if there was one, the argument from ignorance is also heavily at play.

[edit] Compositional errors

The two premises that support the conclusion both commit compositional errors. This is because the premise, “Whatever begins to exist has a cause” commits the fallacy of composition because, to quote Francois Tremblay, “The first premise tries to infer a necessary causality on a whole, the universe, on the basis of observation of such attributed in the parts, the exist around us. The attribute being transposed here, being caused, is relational and therefore cannot be transposed. Thus the KCA cannot generalize from caused entities around us to the universe in this matter.” We have no reason to assume that “Whatever begins to exist has a cause” because we don’t know enough.

The second premise, “The universe began to exist” forces us to draw an inference between the items in the set (things within the universe) and apply it to the set as a whole (the universe itself). For that to be valid, one must fallaciously presuppose a realm beyond the universe, in which the universe can be taken as an item in a larger set itself, within which it is contained, limited, and defined.

Which gives away to the compositional error, via the fallacy of Begging the question, since such a realm beyond the universe, is entirely unproven and in question itself.

[edit] Defining essentials

The KCA fails to identify, either through its syllogism, or subsequent explanations for its syllogism, it is defining its essentials. And the word that is essential for it to define is the word universe.

The KCA depends upon the Big Bang Theory, being the beginning of everything because if it is not, then there’s a part of existence that is unaccounted for. That larger whole may be eternal, or may never have begun to exist, or caused our Big Bang, as a local inflationary expansion, or caused the rest of the multiverse in it’s overall entirety.

Even if the universe in the KCA is defined as the totality of existence, the argument is again rendered impotent and refuted, because the universe could not have been created by something outside itself, since for something to create the totality of that which exists, one can only appeal to that creating agent as being non-existent. Further, for the universe to be labeled the totality of existence, it can never be caused as a whole, since that would assert that at one point, existence, was non-existent, which is impossibly incoherent.

[edit] Who created God?

Another reason why the KCA is invalid and refuted is because it can be expressed in a competing syllogism.

  • (P1) Everything that has sentience has a cause.
  • (P2) The Abrahamic god is said to have sentience.
  • (C) Therefore the Abrahamic god has a cause.

This syllogism can easily be ported to any god, since most, if not all gods, are said to be sentient in some form or fashion; and all referrals to reality, attest that sentience does not arise without antecedent causation.

[edit] Ontological argument

Craig defends Alvin Plantiga’s modal version of the ontological argument for the existence of God[10], rendering it thusly:

  1. It is possible that a maximally great being (God) exists.
  2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
  3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
  4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
  5. Therefore, a maximally great being exists in the actual world.
  6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists.
  7. Therefore, God exists.

This argument has been widely criticized on two main points.

  1. The modal ontological argument, in some presentations, relies on an equivocation between metaphysical and epistemic possibility. It may very well be that the existence of a maximally great being is epistemically possible (i.e. we don’t know that it’s false) but not metaphysically possible (i.e. non-contradictory). If the concept of a maximally great being is not self-consistent, then it is not metaphysically possible for such a being to exist. Compare: we don’t know whether the twin prime conjecture is true or not. Suppose it is false but we don’t yet know it; it follows that it is (metaphysically) necessarily false. We might nevertheless agree that it might be true because we don’t know its truth value.
  2. Premise 3 is questionable. If this is supposed to follow from the definition of “maximally great being,” then that definition needs substantial defense. Otherwise it is question-begging. It suffers from the same problem as St. Augustine’s: existence is not a real predicate. A being that exists in every possible world is not greater than a being who does not exist in every possible world.

Premise 2 follows from the definition of the possibility operator. Premise 4 follows from the definition of the necessity operator. Claims 5 and 6 follow from the initial premises. Claim 7 is generally taken to follow from the stipulated identity between the maximally great being and God, in keeping with the Christian tradition.

The issue with the metaphysical possibility as it relates to the first three premises can be clearly shown with a competing version of the argument:

  1. It is possible that a maximally great being (God) does not exist.
  2. If it is possible that a maximally great being does not exist, then there is some possible world where a maximally great being does not exist.
  3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
  4. A maximally great being does not exist in every possible world (from 2).
  5. Therefore, a maximally great being (God) does not exist.

This further highlights that the argument has two likely sources of error: with the construction of the argument in general (in which case the argument is not useful for proving anything) or a problem specific to the first premise (in which case the possibility of the existence or non-existence of the character God must be defended with further arguments). Of course it is also entirely possibly the problem lies in both areas, and it is neither possible to prove and actuality from a mere possibility or accept a possibility without supporting empirical evidence.

[edit] Circular evidence

The KCA is also dependent on the controversial A-theory (i.e “Tensed” Theory) of Time, which states the present moment is uniquely real. Craig quotes in The Nature of Time, “The moments of time are ordered by past, present, and future, and that these are real and objective aspects of reality. The past is gone, it no longer exists. The present is real. The future has not yet come to be and is not real.” The common objection to the A Theory comes from Einsteins theory of relativity, that states there is no absolute present moment and time is relative.

Craig has written a lot of books on the subject of time in which he puts in the interpretation of relativity that he calls the Neo-Lorentz interpretation, which includes an absolute present moment. Craig claims that his interpretation is observationally equivalent to special relativity. Of course this is seriously disputed, but even if this is the case there is no reason why we should prefer Craig’s interpretation (which is very complex) to Einstein’s interpretation (which is simpler and works completely fine by itself). In Craig’s book Time and the Metaphysics of Relativity he writes “we have good reasons for believing that a neo-Lorentz theory is correct, namely, the existence of God in A-theoretic time implies it, so that concerns about which version is simpler become of little moment” (pg. 179).

So it seems that Craig is saying the existence of God implies the Neo-Lorentz Aether Theory, which is needed for A-theory of time to be correct, which is then necessary for the KCA to work, so Craig can prove the existence of God. That is clearly circular.

Craig does have four other argument for God, such as the fine tuning argument. The common objection to the fine tuning is that it is a tautology, weakened by the multiverse theory (Craig never says a multiverse is impossible). Craig explains this in the debate book God?, “the hypothesis of a Cosmic Designer…is again the better explanation because we do have independent evidence of the existence of such a Designer in the form of other arguments for the existence of God.” {pg. 14). So now we cannot rely on the Kalam to tip the scale in favor of the cosmic designer hypothesis, because that just gets us in the same circle we were in before.

What about the resurrection of Jesus? The common objection is that any other naturalistic explanation, no matter how crazy it may seem, is much more probable than the resurrection story. But Craig addressed this an a debate with Bart Ehrman that the resurrection was a supernatural event caused by God. So he proves the existence of God by presuming God already exists to explain the resurrection. Again, circular.

And finally, the moral argument, another favorite of Craig. Craig says if God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist. Craig argues that objective moral values do exist. Basically that our personal experiences of morality makes it true, which is another argument for God. Craig says (in his own words)

“”The way in which I know Christianity is true is first and foremost is the basis of the witness of the Holy Spirit in my heart. And this gives me self-authenticating means of knowing Christianity is true wholly apart from the evidence. And therefore, even if in some historically contingent circumstances the evidence that I have available to me should turn against Christianity, I do not think that controverts the witness of the Holy Spirit.
—[11]

This makes it seem that all of Craig’s arguments for God are tied to personal experience that are dependent on the existence of God, which he uses to support the moral argument to prove the existence of God. Again, circular.

[edit] Craig’s debating tactics and criticism of opponents

Craig likes to boast that he is a “professional philosopher” and engage in “academic” debates that concentrate on the arguments, not on personalities. Despite this, Craig states that while Richard Dawkins may be a good scientist, he is a “layman” in philosophy and theology and The God Delusion is a “very unsophisticated book. As a philosopher, I was just appalled by the arguments he offers in that book. It is an embarrassment, really, I think.” A classic example of his tactics can be seen in his debate with Bart Ehrman, in which most of the listed tactics are used very successfully.

  1. Within debates, Craig uses the Gish Gallop, presenting a hailstorm of misrepresentations and dubious statements, wrapped up in a few obvious facts. Since rebutting statements takes up more of his opponents time than it took him to deliver them, he later is able to list out those statements of his which were not replied to, owing to the strictly controlled format and time limit in most debating environments.
  2. He strawmans his opponents arguments and responds to them with an undertone of humour, thereby lessening the credibility of both. He also uses arguments from authority. In friendly audiences, this convinces the public of his upstanding honesty.
  3. He quote mines extensively. This allows him to present his opponents past statements out of context, and out of line of any recent historical and scientific developments. Indeed, it is clear that he uses public resources (eg. Youtube) to gauge public opinion about his opponent, and this allows him to subtly attack his opponents reputation and character. For example, he praises Bart Ehrman for a minor shift in opinion that he made years before the debate date, and he is thus able to convince the audience that the morally and scientifically proper thing for Ehrman to do is to continue to shift towards Craig’s position.
  4. He appeals to emotions, and as in his debate with Bart Ehrman, tries to paint his opponent as a bumbling moron while he’s the supposed academic scholar. When his opponents take objection to his tactics, he can accuse them of bluster. He disses New Atheist authors like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris as
    • Non-intellectual.
    • Angry and bitter against religion.
  5. He twists or ignores the rules of the debate (if any) and this gives him an advantage over his opponent, who is usually civilized enough to stick to the format. He takes a very brief part of his opening statement to state his own views, and takes the majority of the time speaking against his opponent. This has the following effects –
    • He is able to misrepresent his opponents views before his opponent has had the chance to present them himself.
    • By the time his opponent presents his points, the audience already has Craig’s rebuttals in their mind, and hence they cannot truly analyze them objectively.
    • He is able to start his rebuttal period with a statement to the effect that he has not heard any rebuttals to his points, completely ignoring the fact that the time period for his opponents rebuttals is yet to arrive.
    • By the time his opponent begins his rebuttal, he is virtually back to his starting position in the audience’s mind, due to Craig’s double rebuttal.
    • Since he states his arguments very briefly, his opponent lacks sufficient ammunition to rebut them in any detail. Indeed, this lack of detail in his initial arguments allows him to present qualifications for them after his opponents have presented counterarguments. This provides the illusion of an adequate rebuttal and makes it looks as if his opponent has misunderstood or misinterpreted his points.
  6. After he strawmans and misrepresents his opponents views, he then sets down his own set of points that he feels his opponent must prove in order to support his position. In most cases, those views have nothing to do with his opponents position and are completely different from what his opponent was going to assert. These points are usually absurd and in principle unassertable.
    • If his opponent chooses not to toe Craig’s line and instead asserts his own points, Craig can then later list out his own twisted caricatures of his opponents views as points his opponent has failed to assert.
    • If his opponent chooses to try and prove Craig’s points, he can rebut them easily as he frames them in an extremely biased way which makes them difficult or impossible to support.
  7. Thanks to the way in which the propositional statements of most controlled debates are framed, Craig is almost never in a position in which he has to simultaneously prove the existence of a god, and the assertion that the god is in fact the Abrahamic god. This is advantageous for him because most of his arguments – the Kalam Cosmological argument, the Ontological argument, the assertion of the existence of Objective Morality, the Divine Command theory, the Fine Tuning argument etc. – do not point to the existence of the Abrahamic god, and can in principle, be used to prove the existence of any given supernatural entity. Since his arguments for the Abrahamic god are extremely weak compared to his general arguments for a god, he never uses that line of argument against competent opponents like Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens, and only unleashes them against opponents who, at least in principle, believe in a higher power.
  8. Craig frequently name drops, referring to the works of famous historians, theologians and apologists, in lieu of presenting an actual rebuttal to his opponents statements. This usually takes the form of “My opponent’s arguments have already been replied to by XYZ famous writer, hence I will just make a statement that it is invalid, without actually telling you what that rebuttal is.” This is the height of intellectual dishonesty because,
    • He completely ignores the facts that he is the one who is debating, not some long dead writer.
    • Some vague reference to a rebuttal is not an actual rebuttal, but in the eyes of the spectators, it is valid.

[edit] Craig and Creationism

Some good ‘ol common sense!

Standard

As many people do, I look forward to Halloween because it is one of the few times that we atheists get to worship The Lord Satan! Just kidding! I have nothing against people who keep their religions to themselves and I don’t antagonize the believers just to make myself feel better because that is a rather immature thing to do. As you well know, I have said in the past that an atheist that is an atheist because of a beef with GOD is just a disgruntled Christian awaiting re indoctrination. I am an ex christian who lost my faith and WAS angry about it because of the incredible guilt that it brought me, but I got over it. I went through my antagonistic phase but tired of it quickly and moved on to building a solid free thinking life without god or gods. My christian friends are very valuable to me because they do not judge me and they are true giving thoughtful people, therefore I treat them with reciprocal respect. I do not guide them to my thebraveatheist Facebook page or to this blog due to the fact that my atheist activism is only for those interested and for the hypocritical believers out there. I do not wish to throw my stance into the face of good people just because their belief system does not jibe with my own. 

I am an atheist because I cannot be anything else. I see religion as a refuge for the weak and as a crutch for those unwilling to trust themselves and conquer their innate fear of the dark. When presented with religious argument, I automatically counter with fact based data and established scientific theory. Believers naturally counter with pointing out that theories are just theories while failing to recognize the thousands upon thousands of hours invested in the complex experiments that helped to establish those theories. This is where the refuge of ignorance comes in, just like those who ask simple questions over and over because they cannot fathom the magic of Googling! It’s easier to ask someone else and lay that responsibility on someone else than to use the grey matter in your own skull. Human laziness, human ignorance. When 20 million viewers watch the Kartrashians then how can I buy into what 80-90% of Americans say that they believe in? 

I always found it disturbing to think that their might actually be an almighty being out there who sits on his hand while bad things happen down on Earth. I am not gullible or ignorant, so I have to question this delusional crap just because it is so fucking far fetched! Hell, Harry Potter is more believable than the christian GOD! Harry, at least, springs into action when evil is afoot and actually tries to combat it instead of remaining silent while still demanding adoration! I believe in Harry, why? Because Harry puts his money where his mouth is and kicks ass on HIS devils. In the end, he doesn’t expect to just bend Hermione over a stump and collect his winnings, he’s humble! He asks just for support in the ongoing war against bad shit! He’s like an English Samuel L. Jackson, he kicks a fair amount of ass and stays cool while doing it! As things go, I believe in the goddamned X-Men more than an old man in the sky!

The best advice that I can give to anybody is to believe in your doctors if you are sick, faith healing is bullshit but the power of prayer is effective due to the strength of the human mind, not a fairy spirit. Believe in your nurses to help you heal and your firemen to deliver you from the fire. Believe in your tax man to get you the best refund and believe in the soup kitchen to feed the poor. The food came from donations from real hands not from a magical delivery by God, no matter what denomination is represented on the door. Catholics have decent social services and hardly ANY of them actually still believe in God. For them it is a cultural thing that is deeply ingrained and is to them as blood is to life. It is the same with Jewish people. The religion is thousands of years old but many of them do not actually believe anymore, it’s more of a cultural thing that they must adhere to to be accepted in their communities. I truly feel for them because they are in a very difficult position for all of the bullshit that they have to observe. 

My tiny mind tends to come up with these foolish observations and irrational counter arguments in regard to religious debates such as, ‘if I, as a nurse, allowed a patient to seriously injure themselves and did nothing, would I be considered a moral person? Would I be worthy of praise?’ This is the statement that I use for the ‘Free will’ argument when children are massacred on ‘God’s’ watch and ‘He’ of course as usual, sits back and does nothing, thus proving that he is either impotent or doesn’t give a flying fuck, or as we atheists know, just does not exist! Every Christian debater uses the tired old ‘free will’ argument to explain their god’s inaction, but these are convenient arguments used by the weak to keep believing in something that you can surrender personal responsibility to. As I said before, thank that cop that worked tirelessly to find that missing child when prayer didn’t work! Two hands working can accomplish much more than a thousand clasped in prayer!

Well, I’m out for this evening. I will be back soon to throw more sense in the face of fable! Peace and love to my blog people!