[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 282 KB, 400x466, craig-smiling.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3381463 No.3381463 [Reply] [Original]

What does /sci/ think of Craig?
I mean, I'm sure most reasonable people would respond with "contempt" but do you have any particular shit that bothers you about him?
I hate when he talks about physics as if he knows what's what, when it's so obvious he doesn't. Same with maths.
He just panders to the faggots that already buy into his special brand of bullshit without expecting them to be able to do any thinking for themselves.

>> No.3381478

Some people find him to be charismatic. But I can't tell anyway. His arguments are extremely flawed. Krauss should have won.

>> No.3381498

He does not argue in good faith.

>> No.3381499

William Lane Craig is a disingenuous faggot.

His entire arguments are a different way of saying "you can't prove God DOESN'T exist".

>> No.3381504

>wants particular shit
>claims craig doesnt know physics
>doesnt state particular examples of this

ok its obvious youre a butthurt faggot, and i can guarantee you he knows more about physics than you do at least

>> No.3381525

All his arguments presuppose God exists. Presupposes that god is the only thing that can be without a creator, then rambles on about some bullshit in order to say. Therefore, God.

>> No.3381548
File: 62 KB, 506x662, 20100311.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3381548

>>3381499

He starts with 'you can't prove god doesn't exist', which the opponent either quickly or circuitously admits.

Then he takes the huge leap to arguing about the things he knows about what god is and what god wants.

You can't make this leap in one step. God might exist does not mean your favorite god does exist.

>> No.3381550

>>3381504
not understanding quantum mechanic's implications on causality, various things he says about special relativity. You know you're just trying to stir up shit.

>> No.3381568

1. Objective morality exists. Therefore God exists.
2. Free will exists. Therefore God exists.
3. Jesus performed miracles. Therefore God exists.
4. Fine tuning exists. Therefore God exists.
5. God is the only thing that does not have a cause.

I shouldn't even need to outline why these arguments are based on false or at least unproven premises.

>> No.3381581

his standard 5 arguments are laughable, one of them is something along the lines of "people will die for it, it must be true"

He's just a debtor who'd been doing what he's been doing for years.
If anything he's a perfect example of why debates are stupid, they're not about the truth, they're about who can score more cheap points the fastest.
We should all watch one of his debates, his actual points are crap, he just coats them in layers and layers of pseudo intellectual fluff.

>> No.3381583

Craig is your classic moronic sophist.

I dont understand why he gets ANY RESPECT in intellectual circles.

>> No.3381591

He looks a lot like Kent Hovind, and has that same constant smile that all those creepy over the top Christians have.

>> No.3381614

>>3381568
>1. Objective morality exists. Therefore God exists.
If your argument for objective morality hinges on finding an example of something most people would agree to be moral, then you don't really understand the terms.

>2. Free will exists. Therefore God exists.
If your argument for free will hinges on arguments from consequences and the necessity for a persons accountability, then you don't really understand the terms.

>3. Jesus performed miracles. Therefore God exists.
If you don't account for the falsehood of more well documented and impressive miracles that are commonly held to be false, and how you came to these conclusions without assuming your god is the only real one, then you can't possibly be serious about this argument.

>4. Fine tuning exists. Therefore God exists.
Anthropic Principle. The universe is not fine tuned for us, we are fine tuned to the universe.

>5. God is the only thing that does not have a cause.
Special pleading for god. And in the absence of any evidence god exists and has these properties, then it's also just a fiction.


But he mixes it up, so you are left untangling very convoluted arguments that mix two or more of these together in order to get at him. And when you address one of these, he dodges the question and moves onto another. And if you really paint him into a corner, he simply starts to preach about how much satisfaction and happiness accepting Christ has given him and can give you.

The best minds of apology are devoted to convincing people they have the truth. The best minds of science and rationality are devoted to finding out what the truth is.

>> No.3381611 [DELETED] 
File: 63 KB, 750x600, 1308620824086.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3381611

>> No.3381618

1. Objective morality exists. Therefore God exists.
Does objective morality exist? only if we go by some strict definition of the word that's adhered to for some reason.
If so, then that in no way implies God.
2. Free will exists. Therefore God exists.
Lol free will, even Dan Dennet (A man whom I very much respect) made me cringe when he talked about how free will exists.
3. Jesus performed miracles. Therefore God exists.
Dat's just dumb.
4. Fine tuning exists. Therefore God exists.
Fine tuning doesn't exist, only so that life can exist in the first place, it's not that nice from there on out, lots of variables could be changed to give life a better chance.
Even so, anthropic principle, we don't know if there's only one universe.
5. God is the only thing that does not have a cause.
Baseless assertion, unless you're trying to define something causeless as God, which is cheating.


That's obviously very brief, but I doubt his arguments could persuade any rational person who doesn't have a strong confirmation bias.

>> No.3381620

>>3381581
>been doing what he's been doing for years.

The problems with his arguments are so obvious sometimes I wonder the only reason people don't pull them apart is because the guy relies on them and his entire world view would be completely shaken up.

>> No.3381634

>>3381611
That image is dumb, simply because atheists reject the veracity of holy books (for good reasons), doesn't mean it's hypocritical to read other books with ideas in them, I as an atheist, and a fan of Dawkins haven't even read the God Delusion, seeing as I don't believe in God anyway.

>> No.3381639

>>3381618
>>3381614
I'm grateful to you guys for specifying the absurdities in the argument.

>> No.3381645

>>3381620
I don't actually think he believes the crap he says, he might not even be Christian.

You've never played Devil's (or rather, God's) advocate with your atheist friends to show them you're better at arguing than them?

>> No.3381664

>>3381614
>4. Fine tuning exists. Therefore God exists.
>Anthropic Principle. The universe is not fine tuned for us, we are fine tuned to the universe.
The weak anthropic principle doesn't really work imo. It presupposes that there are infinite universes, so that there would be one fine tuned to support galaxies and complex molecules. That's no better than presupposing God.

>5. God is the only thing that does not have a cause.
>Special pleading for god. And in the absence of any evidence god exists and has these properties, then it's also just a fiction.
I don't buy this argument. The causlessness of god arises from him being defined as eternal and immutable, not from special pleading.

>> No.3381668

>>3381645
>You've never played Devil's (or rather, God's) advocate with your atheist friends to show them you're better at arguing than them?
That's what 4chan, or at least /sci/, is all about.....

>> No.3381670

>>3381611
> Insulting others by saying they do what you do. Except they don't actually do it and that's a lie you tell about them to not feel so bad about what you do.
Cool story, bro.

>> No.3381674

>>3381645
Oh no. I am certain that he believes. I can troll people for a thread or two, but basing entire life/career off it? nah I'd rather base my life on something I honestly agree with. And I'm sure he does too.

>> No.3381690

>>3381664
>The causlessness of god arises from him being defined as eternal and immutable, not from special pleading.

I'm glad there are assigned characteristics to a thing absolutely unknown, but, no special pleading because god surely isn't exempt from our logic.

>> No.3381707

>>3381664
>The weak anthropic principle doesn't really work imo. It presupposes that there are infinite universes, so that there would be one fine tuned to support galaxies and complex molecules. That's no better than presupposing God.

I don't remember mentioning anything about infinite universes. And it's not necessary, and it's utterly unfounded.

Only one is necessary for the anthropic principle to be a satisfactory answer. And we are adapted for that universe. If no agencies were possible in that universe, none would be these to experience it. If agencies are possible, some may be there to experience it. And it seems finely tuned to us because we are in fact finely tuned by the laws of nature and by natural selection to exist within it.

>I don't buy this argument. The causlessness of god arises from him being defined as eternal and immutable, not from special pleading.

If he is simply to be defined into being, then you are using an ontological argument, no? We can invent anything with any traits we like, that may be internally consistent, but without some kind of real evidence for their existence, they are just fictions. If they say god is just that which is eternal and immutable, then they must account for how they know it has any other traits at all.

>> No.3381710

>>3381664
>It presupposes that there are infinite universes

How does it??? also you assumed fine tuning right there.

>The causlessness of god arises from him being defined as eternal and immutable

yeah that's interesting but you're not thinking it all the way through for some reason. The arguments of apologists are only half thought out. because of what you said, this cosmological argument of theists does nothing but tell us to call whatever created the universe "God".

>> No.3381736

>>3381664
one universe exists, we don't know of any mechanism preventing others from existing, but that doesn't really matter, life has taken a long time to get this complex on the planet earth, surely that's not fine tuning, if it were fine tuned, the variables of the universe would be such that life would spring about very fast and have a good stable pocket.

The argument that things are fine tuned for us is really silly, we are here, therefore the mechanism for us to exist must be here.
It doesn't imply god whatsoever, it's logical tautology, consciousness isn't that special, it's like saying rocks are here, therefore the universe is fine tuned for rocks. There's more rocks than there is life, presumably.

The whole fine tuning thing is so meaningless, I find. moreover, many constants could be changed to benefit human life, but at the detriment of other things, if you want to pursue this further, then that's clear evidence that if the universe was fine tuned, it wasn't for us.

>> No.3381751

Universe has a speck of life in it.
> It's fine-tuned for sentient people to know and worship god.

A rock has a speck of iron in it.
> It's fine-tuned to be a Honda Civic.

>> No.3381764

Craig wins by semantics, for example, in one debate, can't remember which, the question (can't think of the proper word, it isn't motion) was "is belief in God delusional"
Basically Craig said that something is delusional if it is a false belief, and you can't prove god is false.
Of course he covered his as from the whole "same goes for leprechauns" by doing his ussual bullshit routine of "there's good reasons to believe in god".

>> No.3381783
File: 8 KB, 493x402, 1274217689626.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3381783

I'd just like to remind you that Craig believes in the Christian God of the bible.

>> No.3381796

>>3381783

That's weird. 90% of his arguments are about showing that a deistic god is not impossible. A task wholly unrelated to proving the bible.

>> No.3381800

>>3381664
>Therefore Jesus Christ of Nazareth.

I don't understand this aspect of Christian thinking. They can be brought to the most basic level of argument possible, and make their point to maybe-sort-of-prove-God-exists-if-you-ignore-logic-in-some-way-or-another, and then by some magic, the Christian story is deemed correct. Down to the explicit details.

Wut?

>> No.3382891

Lol, isn't this guy claiming to be religious?

I wonder how much the clans are paying him..

>> No.3382902 [DELETED] 

>>3381796
>>3381783 is a troll. Ignore.

>> No.3384271

>>3382902
What?
No, WLC really does believe in the Christian God, otherwise he wouldn't talk about Jesus' miracles.

>> No.3384321

Wow, this thread is still up?

>> No.3384340

stop bumping seven hour threads, douche bag.

>> No.3384342

Craig has no style. His arguments are just flat out terrible, and there is mass contradiction throughout his various statements.

Such a turd.

>> No.3384349

>>3381796

>Implying Craig isn't a Christian
>Implying he doesn't assert the existence of the Christian god in his arguments

>> No.3384360

Objective morality doesn't exist. When people say something is wrong, they mean they don't like it or they think it detracts from something else they do like.

>> No.3384371

Craig argues in a very childish way, in terms that aren't useful at all. So much of his stuff is literally in the category "you can't prove I'm wrong". I wonder if he actually just doesn't understand why that's a problem, or if he's just a fraud.

>> No.3384428

>"Herp derp bunch of assumptions because I said so"
>"THEREFORE GOD"
Yeah, no.

Although I fucking loved when he said something about 2 + 2 != 5 and Lawrence Krauss showed his t-shirt. Fucking amazing.

Polite-yet-slightly-annoyed sage for not science.

>> No.3384487

>>3381548
>It seems like some kind must've
>some kind must've
Nice typos, SMBC.

>> No.3384503

>>3384428
the science board is the closest thing to a place to discuss discourse and logic, it's relevant enough.

>> No.3384506

>>3384487
>yfw there's nothing wrong with it

>> No.3384514

>>3384487
"It seems like something of some kind must've"

There's nothing wrong with that sentence.

>> No.3384584

>>3384487

>must've
>must have
>trolling