William Lane Craig

  • 78 Replies
  • 15992 Views
William Lane Craig
« on: December 21, 2010, 06:28:28 AM »
Two things I want to point out about this video:

1. WLC unwittingly admits that abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution. This is important because creationists continue to claim that without an explanation for the origin of life evolution cannot be a valid scientific theory.

"In order to recognize that an explanation is the best you don't have to have an explanation for the explanation."

2. WLC's Kalam Cosmological Argument creates an infinite regress but then demands that it not be addressed. Let me explain:

The short version of his argument is that anything that had a beginning must have had a cause. He then claims that the Universe had a beginning, therefore, it must have had a cause. He then infers this cause to be an "Intelligent Designer". Then, illogically and arrogantly claims that this Designer had no beginning, therefore It had no cause. But why? Because his argument requires we accept this premise.

So... Richard Dawkins, rightfully so, has asked; who created The Designer? WLC's response is that we can't ask that question because it would "destroy science" and lead to an infinite regress of cause and explanation. Ignoring completely that science is ONLY concerned with explanation and in no way accepts unfalsifiable premises as explanations. So we have a circular line of reasoning which brings us back to square one and shows that the KCA does nothing more than infer design based on incredulity.

Here is WLC's complete reply:
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">
"None of you know what science is. That is why you argue over the net." ~ Truthseeker2

*

Beorn

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6543
  • If I can't trust my eyes, what can I trust?
Re: William Lane Craig
« Reply #1 on: December 21, 2010, 09:28:40 AM »
Wow that archeologists parallel is so bad.
Quote
Only one thing can save our future. Give Thork a BanHammer for Th*rksakes!

*

Ichimaru Gin :]

  • Undefeated FEer
  • Planar Moderator
  • 8931
  • Semper vigilans
Re: William Lane Craig
« Reply #2 on: December 21, 2010, 09:45:21 AM »
Perhaps Dawkins is too thick to understand science can't explain everything.
I saw a slight haze in the hotel bathroom this morning after I took a shower, have I discovered a new planet?

*

Beorn

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6543
  • If I can't trust my eyes, what can I trust?
Re: William Lane Craig
« Reply #3 on: December 21, 2010, 09:56:16 AM »
Opposed to direct censorial evidence ::)
Quote
Only one thing can save our future. Give Thork a BanHammer for Th*rksakes!

*

Ichimaru Gin :]

  • Undefeated FEer
  • Planar Moderator
  • 8931
  • Semper vigilans
Re: William Lane Craig
« Reply #4 on: December 21, 2010, 10:03:36 AM »
Nothing can exist unless we can scientifically test it ::)
« Last Edit: December 21, 2010, 10:11:01 AM by Ichimaru Gin :] »
I saw a slight haze in the hotel bathroom this morning after I took a shower, have I discovered a new planet?

Re: William Lane Craig
« Reply #5 on: December 21, 2010, 10:41:29 AM »
Nothing can exist unless we can scientifically test it ::)
No, but we do have to doubt the existence of things we have no evidence for.

"None of you know what science is. That is why you argue over the net." ~ Truthseeker2

*

Beorn

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6543
  • If I can't trust my eyes, what can I trust?
Re: William Lane Craig
« Reply #6 on: December 21, 2010, 10:47:01 AM »
Nothing can exist unless we can scientifically test it ::)

Non scientifically tested things can exist, but why believe in something that hasn't been seen a sign of? Fire breathing dragons might also exist, but I don't believe they do as there hasn't been a trace of them. 
Quote
Only one thing can save our future. Give Thork a BanHammer for Th*rksakes!

*

Ichimaru Gin :]

  • Undefeated FEer
  • Planar Moderator
  • 8931
  • Semper vigilans
Re: William Lane Craig
« Reply #7 on: December 21, 2010, 10:47:12 AM »
What does that have to do with realizing science can't explain everything?
I saw a slight haze in the hotel bathroom this morning after I took a shower, have I discovered a new planet?

*

Beorn

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6543
  • If I can't trust my eyes, what can I trust?
Re: William Lane Craig
« Reply #8 on: December 21, 2010, 10:48:09 AM »
Perhaps Dawkins is too thick to understand science can't explain everything.

with this. he doesnt
Quote
Only one thing can save our future. Give Thork a BanHammer for Th*rksakes!

*

Ichimaru Gin :]

  • Undefeated FEer
  • Planar Moderator
  • 8931
  • Semper vigilans
Re: William Lane Craig
« Reply #9 on: December 21, 2010, 10:56:12 AM »
Perhaps Dawkins is too thick to understand science can't explain everything.

with this. he doesnt
Why does he hold everything to a scientific standard then?
I saw a slight haze in the hotel bathroom this morning after I took a shower, have I discovered a new planet?

*

Beorn

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6543
  • If I can't trust my eyes, what can I trust?
Re: William Lane Craig
« Reply #10 on: December 21, 2010, 11:00:35 AM »
Perhaps Dawkins is too thick to understand science can't explain everything.

with this. he doesnt
Why does he hold everything to a scientific standard then?

Because that's how you come closest to the facts.
Quote
Only one thing can save our future. Give Thork a BanHammer for Th*rksakes!

Re: William Lane Craig
« Reply #11 on: December 21, 2010, 11:06:16 AM »
What does that have to do with realizing science can't explain everything?
Who has ever said that it could? Why introduce strawmen?
"None of you know what science is. That is why you argue over the net." ~ Truthseeker2

*

Ichimaru Gin :]

  • Undefeated FEer
  • Planar Moderator
  • 8931
  • Semper vigilans
Re: William Lane Craig
« Reply #12 on: December 21, 2010, 11:09:20 AM »
Because the OP specifically referred to Dawkins.
I saw a slight haze in the hotel bathroom this morning after I took a shower, have I discovered a new planet?

Re: William Lane Craig
« Reply #13 on: December 21, 2010, 11:09:51 AM »
Perhaps Dawkins is too thick to understand science can't explain everything.

with this. he doesnt
Why does he hold everything to a scientific standard then?
Because he's a scientist, perhaps?

I think you're missing the point of the argument. The point is not that god does not exist but that the KCA is not proof of his existence.
"None of you know what science is. That is why you argue over the net." ~ Truthseeker2

*

Beorn

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6543
  • If I can't trust my eyes, what can I trust?
Re: William Lane Craig
« Reply #14 on: December 21, 2010, 11:11:18 AM »
Because the OP specifically referred to Dawkins.

still don't see the relevance
Quote
Only one thing can save our future. Give Thork a BanHammer for Th*rksakes!

*

Ichimaru Gin :]

  • Undefeated FEer
  • Planar Moderator
  • 8931
  • Semper vigilans
Re: William Lane Craig
« Reply #15 on: December 21, 2010, 11:11:48 AM »
Well nothing is proof in science either.
However, some theologians can use it as evidence.
I saw a slight haze in the hotel bathroom this morning after I took a shower, have I discovered a new planet?

*

Beorn

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6543
  • If I can't trust my eyes, what can I trust?
Re: William Lane Craig
« Reply #16 on: December 21, 2010, 11:16:05 AM »
Well nothing is proof in science either.
However, some theologians can use it as evidence.

Still you haven't explained why you think Dawkins thinks that science can explain everything.
Quote
Only one thing can save our future. Give Thork a BanHammer for Th*rksakes!

Re: William Lane Craig
« Reply #17 on: December 21, 2010, 11:17:37 AM »
Well nothing is proof in science either.
However, some theologians can use it as evidence.
Yeah, and?

There is no "proof of evolution". No one with any scientific integrity has ever suggested that there is because science does not deal with proof. There is only evidence in favor of evolution. Contrast that with the existence of god, of which there is no evidence.

That's the simple point of the OP. That the KCA is not evidence of god.
"None of you know what science is. That is why you argue over the net." ~ Truthseeker2

*

Ichimaru Gin :]

  • Undefeated FEer
  • Planar Moderator
  • 8931
  • Semper vigilans
Re: William Lane Craig
« Reply #18 on: December 21, 2010, 11:19:27 AM »
Well nothing is proof in science either.
However, some theologians can use it as evidence.
That the KCA is not evidence of god.
Why not? Theology is not restrained by scientific standards. Only science has to specifically be falsifiable and ideally repeatable.
I saw a slight haze in the hotel bathroom this morning after I took a shower, have I discovered a new planet?

*

Beorn

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6543
  • If I can't trust my eyes, what can I trust?
Re: William Lane Craig
« Reply #19 on: December 21, 2010, 11:22:52 AM »
Well nothing is proof in science either.
However, some theologians can use it as evidence.
That the KCA is not evidence of god.
Why not? Theology is not restrained by scientific standards. Only science has to specifically be falsifiable and ideally repeatable.
Yes if you redefine evidence you can.
Quote
Only one thing can save our future. Give Thork a BanHammer for Th*rksakes!

*

Ichimaru Gin :]

  • Undefeated FEer
  • Planar Moderator
  • 8931
  • Semper vigilans
Re: William Lane Craig
« Reply #20 on: December 21, 2010, 11:23:49 AM »
 ??? So the only evidence has to be scientific evidence?
I saw a slight haze in the hotel bathroom this morning after I took a shower, have I discovered a new planet?

Re: William Lane Craig
« Reply #21 on: December 21, 2010, 11:24:18 AM »
Well nothing is proof in science either.
However, some theologians can use it as evidence.
That the KCA is not evidence of god.
Why not? Theology is not restrained by scientific standards. Only science has to specifically be falsifiable and ideally repeatable.
Because the syllogism is incorrect.
"None of you know what science is. That is why you argue over the net." ~ Truthseeker2

Re: William Lane Craig
« Reply #22 on: December 21, 2010, 11:26:09 AM »
So the only evidence has to be scientific evidence?
No, but when someone presents an argument that is supposed to be based on logic, and the logic fails, it cannot be regarded as evidence no matter how you define it.
"None of you know what science is. That is why you argue over the net." ~ Truthseeker2

*

Ichimaru Gin :]

  • Undefeated FEer
  • Planar Moderator
  • 8931
  • Semper vigilans
Re: William Lane Craig
« Reply #23 on: December 21, 2010, 11:30:18 AM »
Well nothing is proof in science either.
However, some theologians can use it as evidence.
That the KCA is not evidence of god.
Why not? Theology is not restrained by scientific standards. Only science has to specifically be falsifiable and ideally repeatable.
Because the syllogism is incorrect.
Proof?
I saw a slight haze in the hotel bathroom this morning after I took a shower, have I discovered a new planet?

*

Beorn

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6543
  • If I can't trust my eyes, what can I trust?
Re: William Lane Craig
« Reply #24 on: December 21, 2010, 11:30:42 AM »
??? So the only evidence has to be scientific evidence?

Scientific evidence is the strictest, and thus most reliable evidence. Theological evidence might be historical evidence but you can't find evidence on something else in a book of myths.
Quote
Only one thing can save our future. Give Thork a BanHammer for Th*rksakes!

Re: William Lane Craig
« Reply #25 on: December 21, 2010, 11:33:01 AM »
If your argument is that science cannot explain everything and evidence of a theological nature is not confined to scientific scrutiny then why present arguments based on logic (science)?

If you want to believe in god based on whatever it is that you consider evidence that's fine by me. But when someone creates a syllogism and claims that it is evidence of god's existence I think it's only right that it's shown to be incorrect (when it, in fact, is).
"None of you know what science is. That is why you argue over the net." ~ Truthseeker2

*

Ichimaru Gin :]

  • Undefeated FEer
  • Planar Moderator
  • 8931
  • Semper vigilans
Re: William Lane Craig
« Reply #26 on: December 21, 2010, 11:34:35 AM »
??? So the only evidence has to be scientific evidence?

Scientific evidence is the strictest, and thus most reliable evidence. Theological evidence might be historical evidence but you can't find evidence on something else in a book of myths.
You act as if theology doesn't change.
Why does strictest automatically=most reliable?
I saw a slight haze in the hotel bathroom this morning after I took a shower, have I discovered a new planet?

*

Beorn

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6543
  • If I can't trust my eyes, what can I trust?
Re: William Lane Craig
« Reply #27 on: December 21, 2010, 11:41:52 AM »
??? So the only evidence has to be scientific evidence?

Scientific evidence is the strictest, and thus most reliable evidence. Theological evidence might be historical evidence but you can't find evidence on something else in a book of myths.
You act as if theology doesn't change.
Why does strictest automatically=most reliable?


Do I really need to point out the obvious? "We believe that this and this happens" vs "We believe that this and this happens, we test it under strict conditions, we repeat the test, we give it to peer review and let others repeat the test and if it all gives the same result we can reasonably say that this and this happens."
Quote
Only one thing can save our future. Give Thork a BanHammer for Th*rksakes!

*

Ichimaru Gin :]

  • Undefeated FEer
  • Planar Moderator
  • 8931
  • Semper vigilans
Re: William Lane Craig
« Reply #28 on: December 21, 2010, 11:42:31 AM »
North Korea has the strictest media guidelines. Therefore they must be the most reliable.
I saw a slight haze in the hotel bathroom this morning after I took a shower, have I discovered a new planet?

Re: William Lane Craig
« Reply #29 on: December 21, 2010, 11:43:11 AM »
Proof?
Well, first of all, the 1st premise automatically excludes god.

"Everything that began to exist" becomes a meaningless premise when you have already concluded that god did not begin to exist. Why exclude god?

Secondly, the Universe as we know it may have "began to exist" at some unknown instant but this in no way implies that it came from nothing. It's like saying that you began to exist the moment of conception while ignoring that the constituents of "you" have existed prior to your existence. In other words, we don't know what existed prior to the Big Bang so this premise is also flawed.

Third... the conclusion cannot follow from two flawed premises.
"None of you know what science is. That is why you argue over the net." ~ Truthseeker2