tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post8577949645486999798..comments2024-03-08T07:31:03.679-08:00Comments on Templestream: 7 Reasons why Dawkins' Excuses for not Debating Craig are IllogicalRick Wardenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09689451026838986088noreply@blogger.comBlogger85125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-3461515507034366812012-12-11T20:35:42.131-08:002012-12-11T20:35:42.131-08:00In which of Craig's five most popular argument...<i> In which of Craig's five most popular arguments for God's existence is animal pain used once in a premise - let alone "regularly"?</i><br /><br />I believe you'll find Reynold was referring to facts as a general concept, not just these particular ones. However, that he uses bad facts on occasion for his premises undercuts the value of his logic in general.<br /><br /><i>Syllogisms are today's most commonly accepted form of logical reasoning, and are closely related to aspects of mathematical reasoning. </i><br /><br />Actually, calling them "closely related" to aspects of mathematical reasoning is a stretch -- they're no more so than many aspects of formal logic.<br /><br />Not to mention, they suffer, as Reynold is pointing out, from the weakness of any logical structure -- feed them bad premises, and you get bad results.<br /><br /><i>Do you know of any atheist apologists who tend to use syllogisms in their arguments?</i><br /><br />Yes. Including many on this blog, who dispute your fallacious or unsupported ones.<br /><br />However, "using syllogisms" and "using logic" are far from the same thing, as we've been over many times before.<br /><br />That Craig's logic is simplistic does not make him any more likely to be correct. And that Craig uses fallacious premises casts doubt on his integrity and trustworthiness in general, even if he does not make any *blatantly* false claims in his "5 main arguments".<br /><br />(He makes a lot of claims that are laden with assumptions, which make his logic far less simple and clear than his supporters claim -- but that's the problem with simplistic syllogisms -- they make it easy to smuggle in assumptions and biases in the premises.)<br /><br />imnotandreihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15850536340957506236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-71924682539161934532012-12-11T16:33:53.336-08:002012-12-11T16:33:53.336-08:00Reynold,
>If the facts (which are regularly us...Reynold,<br /><br />>If the facts (which are regularly used as premises) in logical arguments are wrong, then the conclusion will also be wrong.<br /><br />- In which of Craig's five most popular arguments for God's existence is animal pain used once in a premise - let alone "regularly"?<br /><br />For his arguments, Craig tends to use syllogistic logical arguments. Syllogisms are today's most commonly accepted form of logical reasoning, and are closely related to aspects of mathematical reasoning. Do you know of any atheist apologists who tend to use syllogisms in their arguments?<br />Rick Wardenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09689451026838986088noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-57375222957652731112012-12-10T16:05:24.905-08:002012-12-10T16:05:24.905-08:00Warden
You seem to be missing my point. Animal pai...<b>Warden</b><br /><i>You seem to be missing my point. Animal pain has nothing to do with the 5 major, logical arguments Craig offers in support of theism. As far as I'm aware this aspect of animal pain is not a central point in any of his main logically structured arguments. </i><br />You are missing MY point: Craig uses incorrect "facts" to try to back up his views. That was an example. <br /><br />If the facts (which are regularly used as premises) in logical arguments are wrong, then the conclusion will also be wrong.<br /><br />Plus, it shows that Craig, just like in the other examples I gave, only cares about "winning the argument" as opposed to having accurate, honest facts to do it with.<br /><br /><br />Also, if you had bothered to read my link, you'd have noticed that Craig used the "prefrontal cortex" argument in <b>his debate with Stephen Law</b>. I already <b>know</b> that Craig is trying to be more evasive in his newer essay about animal pain. Reynoldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07316048340050664487noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-32023080533724259652012-12-10T04:02:06.164-08:002012-12-10T04:02:06.164-08:00Reynold,
You seem to be missing my point. Animal ...Reynold,<br /><br />You seem to be missing my point. Animal pain has nothing to do with the 5 major, logical arguments Craig offers in support of theism. As far as I'm aware this aspect of animal pain is not a central point in any of his main logically structured arguments. <br /><br />Also, in his own description, I don't see him defending this issue of the pre-frontal cortex, but, rather, focusing on neural pathways, as noted:<br /><br />Animal Suffering<br /><br />http://www.reasonablefaith.org/animal-suffering<br /><br />Craig mentions blind sight as an example.<br /><br />This phenomenon challenges what we once believed to be true, that perceptions must enter consciousness to affect our behavior. Blindsight proves that our behavior can be guided by sensory information of which we are completely unaware.<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blindsight<br /><br />From a a summary on the Internet: What are the neural pathways involved in the automatic withdrawal of your hand before pain is perceived? A reflex would be the sensory neuron to an interneuron to a motor neuron, but that's just the initial response of pulling back the injured hand and doesn't include what makes you say ouch a millisecond later.<br /><br />Scientists acknowledge that different species have different neural circuit designs<br /><br />http://www.teleodynamics.com/wp-content/PDF/Humanbraindifferences.pdf<br /><br />Therefore, species-specific motor behaviour could, in principle, arise from small differences in the expression of ion channels or other proteins. In this way, the same anatomically defined circuit might exist in different species, but produce different patterns of neural activity. <br /><br />http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/366/1574/2086.full<br /><br />And the question of pain seems to be still open for debate, as even the nature of consciousness is:<br /><br />When an organism's neural pathways grow sufficiently complex, materialists insist, their firings are somehow accompanied by consciousness. But despite decades of effort by philosophers and neurophysiologists, no one has been able to come up with a remotely plausible explanation of how this happens--how the hunk of gray meat in our skull gives rise to private Technicolor experience. One distinguished commentator on the mind-body problem, Daniel Dennett, author of Consciousness Explained, has been driven to declare that there is really no such thing as consciousness--we are all zombies, though we're unaware of it.5<br /><br />http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/imageofgod.html<br /><br />Rick Wardenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09689451026838986088noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-82328690426216524912012-12-09T19:11:24.227-08:002012-12-09T19:11:24.227-08:00Here is another example of Craig tossing aside log...Here is another example of Craig tossing aside logic and common sense. His claim that animals don't feel pain.<br /><br />Stephen Law <a href="http://stephenlaw.blogspot.ca/2012/10/william-lane-craig-animals-arent-aware.html" rel="nofollow">takes him to task</a> on that one.<br /><br /><i>Actually, that's a load of pseudo-scientific rubbish, as scientists in this new video explain (the video has nothing to do with me btw).<br /><br />The first responds directly to what William Lane Craig said: "that's not true". (at 6 mins 20 secs)<br /><br />Another, Professor Bruce Hood, confirms that Craig's key "scientific" claim that animals other than higher primates don't have a pre-frontal cortex is just wrong (from about 8 mins)<br /><br />Indeed, Joaquin Fuster, the author of a classic textbook on the pre-frontal cortex, says about Craig's statement that it is "wrong on several counts", and explains that all mammals and some birds have a pre-frontal cortex (from about 9 mins 30)<br /><br />As the commentator points out, "that so many animals possess a pre-frontal cortex is just a google search away."<br /><br />Oh, and by the way, the source Craig quotes to back up his "scientific" claims is not a scientist - Michael Murray is actually a Christian apologist and philosopher.</i><br /><br />Why would Craig say something so stupid? It deals with the problem of evil, apparently. Reynoldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07316048340050664487noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-87732046055239042832012-12-08T22:00:26.454-08:002012-12-08T22:00:26.454-08:00Ok, Anonymous beat me to it.
Well, that and Rick ...Ok, <b>Anonymous</b> beat me to it.<br /><br />Well, that and Rick is being hypocritical when he says that <b>I</b> am being disingenuous. Rick is the one who's trying to excuse Craig's throwing away of logic while pretending that Craig values it. Even though I gave several examples that show that Craig considers logic to be at best only a secondary, discardable tool.Reynoldhttp://www.skepticfriends.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-41791574896318955712012-12-08T09:37:29.105-08:002012-12-08T09:37:29.105-08:00R:Dawkins, however, really does not seem to have m...R:Dawkins, however, really does not seem to have much of an excuse. There does not seem to be any underlying logic for his avoidance of logical principles in his formal arguments. <br /><br />It is tiresome to repeat the same things, but nontheless... Dawkings has no reason or obligations to debate Craig in the first place, hence he is free to dismiss him as he pleases.<br /><br />R:It means that there should not be an idolatry of logic over the transcendent relationship with God. And if God does in deed offer divine insight into questions, then logic and reason are not necessarily the best means of understanding the deepest mysteries of the universe. <br /><br />Logic is one of a tools to invetigate truth. What you and Craig are telling is that you do not need tools to establish truth, since you already assume the outcome. Whatever the results of the investigations are you will dismiss it and throw out anything, including logic, that goes against your superstitions.<br /><br />Yes, that means "logic goes out the window" as Reynold has put it. You cannot both consider logic as important and claim that "divine inspiration" overtrumps logic.<br /><br />R:Many great understandings and inventions have come through dreams and have not been arrived at through a methodological process.<br /><br />You have even less understanding of the dreaming process than you do with logic, but that is besides the point. It does not matter what inventions or ideas a person has in their dreams if they cannot present them in a feasible systematic way to themselves (if they want to construct the machine) or to others if the want to share their idea. <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-66255567790042660912012-12-07T17:40:49.471-08:002012-12-07T17:40:49.471-08:00Reynold
Someone like Dawkins uses reason as a buz...Reynold<br /><br />Someone like Dawkins uses reason as a buzzword in his rhetoric and then fails to use reason and logic in his formal arguments.<br /><br />Someone like Craig downplays the importance of reason in his rhetoric, but then emphasizes both reason and logic in his formal arguments. <br /><br />Craig has a reason for his attitude. He believes in a transcendent reality that is not fully understood by human knowledge and reasoning. However, at the same time, logic is still considered important in its proper place. Because he believes in divine revelation, he can say, "...The fact is we can know the truth whether we have rational arguments or not." That is completely consistent with the logic of Christian revelation.<br /><br />Dawkins, however, really does not seem to have much of an excuse. There does not seem to be any underlying logic for his avoidance of logical principles in his formal arguments. <br /><br />The types of interpretations Reynold offers are disingenuous:<br /><br /><br />And finally, "…as long as reason is a minister of the Christian faith, Christians should employ it." In other words: Craig only "embraces logic" so long as he thinks it can be made to support his belief. Once it doesn't, logic goes out the window.<br /><br />to have "reason as a minister of the Christian faith" does not mean "logic goes out the window" when it cannot support Christian faith. It means that there should not be an idolatry of logic over the transcendent relationship with God. And if God does in deed offer divine insight into questions, then logic and reason are not necessarily the best means of understanding the deepest mysteries of the universe. Many great understandings and inventions have come through dreams and have not been arrived at through a methodological process.<br />Rick Wardenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09689451026838986088noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-74178035454431408942012-12-06T16:07:43.185-08:002012-12-06T16:07:43.185-08:00Apologies: Format fail
Craig...embraces logic? ...<b>Apologies: Format fail</b><br /><br />Craig...embraces logic? Are you kidding? Look at <a href="http://www.jcnot4me.com/Items/contra_craig/contra_craig.htm" rel="nofollow">this</a>. (Have to scroll way down though):<br /><br /><i>I once asked a fellow seminary student "How do you know Christianity is true?" He replied "I really don't know." Does that mean he should give up Christianity till he finds rational arguments to ground his faith? Of course not! <br /><br /> ...The fact is we can know the truth whether we have rational arguments or not.3</i><br />=================<br /><br /><i>We've already said that it's the Holy Spirit who gives us the ultimate assurance of Christianity's truth. Therefore, the ONLY role left for argument and evidence to play is a SUBSIDIARY role.2 </i><br />==================<br /><br /><i>Some people... say that reason can at least be used... at least by the unbeliever. They ask how else could we determine which is true, the Bible, the Koran, or the Baghavad-Gita, unless we use argument and evidence to judge them? Now I've already answered that question: the Holy Spirit teaches us directly which teaching is really from God...4</i><br />=====================<br /><br /><i>"Thus, although arguments and evidence may be used to support the believer's faith, they are never properly the basis of the faith."5 </i><br /><br />These next two are kickers:<br /><b>"Should a conflict arise between the witness of the Holy Spirit to the fundamental truth of the Christian faith and beliefs based on argument and evidence, then it is the former [i.e. "Holy Spirit"] which must take precedence over the latter [i.e. "argument & evidence"], not vice versa."2</b><br />==================<br /><br /><b>"The ministerial use of reason occurs when reason SUBMITS TO and SERVES the gospel. ONLY the ministerial use of reason can be allowed… Reason is a tool to help us better understand and defend our faith."2 </b><br /><br />And finally:<br /><i>…as long as reason is a minister of the Christian faith, Christians should employ it.1</i><br />In other words: Craig only "embraces logic" so long as he thinks it can be made to support his belief. Once it doesn't, logic goes out the window.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Reynoldhttp://www.skepticfriends.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-77728099927162550492012-12-06T16:05:42.605-08:002012-12-06T16:05:42.605-08:00Craig...embraces logic? Are you kidding? Look at...Craig...embraces logic? Are you kidding? Look at <a href="http://www.jcnot4me.com/Items/contra_craig/contra_craig.htm" rel="nofollow">this</a>. (Have to scroll way down though):<br /><br /><i>I once asked a fellow seminary student "How do you know Christianity is true?" He replied "I really don't know." Does that mean he should give up Christianity till he finds rational arguments to ground his faith? Of course not! <br /><br /> ...The fact is we can know the truth whether we have rational arguments or not.3</i><br /><br /><i>We've already said that it's the Holy Spirit who gives us the ultimate assurance of Christianity's truth. Therefore, the ONLY role left for argument and evidence to play is a SUBSIDIARY role.2 </i><br /><br /><i>Some people... say that reason can at least be used... at least by the unbeliever. They ask how else could we determine which is true, the Bible, the Koran, or the Baghavad-Gita, unless we use argument and evidence to judge them? Now I've already answered that question: the Holy Spirit teaches us directly which teaching is really from God...4</i><br /><br /><i>"Thus, although arguments and evidence may be used to support the believer's faith, they are never properly the basis of the faith."5 </i><br /><br />These next two are kickers:<br /><b>"Should a conflict arise between the witness of the Holy Spirit to the fundamental truth of the Christian faith and beliefs based on argument and evidence, then it is the former [i.e. "Holy Spirit"] which must take precedence over the latter [i.e. "argument & evidence"], not vice versa."2</b><br /><br /><b>"The ministerial use of reason occurs when reason SUBMITS TO and SERVES the gospel. ONLY the ministerial use of reason can be allowed… Reason is a tool to help us better understand and defend our faith."2 </b><br /><br />And finally:<br /><i>…as long as reason is a minister of the Christian faith, Christians should employ it.1</i><br />In other words: Craig only "embraces logic" so long as he thinks it can be made to support his belief. Once it doesn't, logic goes out the window.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Reynoldhttp://www.skepticfriends.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-56973990799808549862012-12-05T16:30:33.256-08:002012-12-05T16:30:33.256-08:00>This is something I have always been aware of ...>This is something I have always been aware of despite not been a religious person myself. In fact, it has always been evident to me (and many other people) that without his anti-religious work -especially his book ‘the god delusion’- Richard Dawkins would really be just another assistant professor who just happens to have a proclivity for writing pop science books for laymen.<br /><br />- Dawkins's is basically a religious zealot for secular humanism, verified as a religious movement in John Dewey's Humanist Manifesto I:<br /><br />"EIGHTH: Religious Humanism considers the complete realization of human personality to be the end of man's life and seeks its development and fulfillment in the here and now."<br /><br />www.americanhumanist.org/Humanism/Humanist_Manifesto_IThe distinction between the sacred and the secular can no longer be maintained. <br /><br />What's ironic is that, void all the rhetoric, Dawkins is a religious zealot who shuns logic while religious theists such as Craig embrace logic.<br />Rick Wardenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09689451026838986088noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-43066558453497108242012-12-05T03:56:45.521-08:002012-12-05T03:56:45.521-08:00Quote from Richard Dawkins (Why I refuse to debate...Quote from Richard Dawkins (Why I refuse to debate with William Lane Craig):<br />“He parades himself as a philosopher, but none of the professors of philosophy whom I consulted had heard his name either. Perhaps he is a "theologian".”<br /><br />What sort of nonsensical statement is this coming from an adult in his seventies, and a scientist for that matter? I used to have some respect for Richard Dawkins, but this childish behavior on his part is becoming too ridiculous. <br /><br />Is William Craig not indeed a philosopher as well as a theologian? Why does Dawkins feel the need to pretend that he does not know that Craig has a PhD in philosophy (as well as a PhD in theology) and that he is a widely acclaimed philosopher particularly in the area of cosmology and religion? Who does Dawkins think he is fooling (other than his rabid followers)?<br /><br />What makes the statement even more ridiculous is the fact that it carries the assumption that a philosopher has to be known by every other philosopher on the planet in order to be truly considered a philosopher. The fact that Dawkins can write such nonsense (and, very likely, lies) is as clear an indication as can be that his academic status as well as his own intellect has been severely exaggerated by the secular media in its desire to hold the most visible crusader against religion in an esteemed light. This is something I have always been aware of despite not been a religious person myself. In fact, it has always been evident to me (and many other people) that without his anti-religious work -especially his book ‘the god delusion’- Richard Dawkins would really be just another assistant professor who just happens to have a proclivity for writing pop science books for laymen. However, because of my support for his anti-religious crusade, I have always shoved that uncomfortable thought out of my mind. But Dawkins’ immature behavior and self-aggrandizing rhetoric (“I am much too important to debate him”) has finally forced me to admit what I have always known.<br /><br />Don’t get me wrong. I respect, and even agree with, his decision not to debate Craig. But here is the question: if he does not want to debate the man because he is an experienced and formidable debater or because he believes that he is morally reprehensible, why not just SAY so? Why make up silly, childish and dishonest excuses and engage in equally silly, childish and dishonest disparagement of his qualifications? Why not just be straight with people once and for all?<br /><br />V.T.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-49555143611105522542012-11-08T18:33:56.549-08:002012-11-08T18:33:56.549-08:00CE:Thus to have a discourse with a Christian is to...CE:Thus to have a discourse with a Christian is to accept for the time being that a Christian cannot be held accountable by you for an action they deem is right due to the fact that God is the one who commanded it.<br /><br />That reminds me of the Nuremberg trial. Nazi generals could not be held accountable for the attrocities since they were just following orders. And the word of Hitler was also considered perfect and infallible by his subordinates.<br /><br />CE:Ergo you have Richard Dawkins book and we cannot have the Bible as to use it would be to admit that we are wrong from the outset of the argument because the belief that the Bible is entirely factual and good in nature<br /><br />Most atheists do not rely on books, they rely on reason and science. The word of Dawkins is not infallible and inerrant. When in doubt atheists can double check assertions because they are based on scientific premises. <br /><br />That is not the case of the bible. You have admitted that the line between sound doctrine ans apostate is very muddied. But like Rick you fail to offer any objective criteria to differentiate one with another. I am sure that there are diligent bible scholars that are just as smart as you, but do not accept your interpretention of the holy book. So why your point of view is right if you just like them a human being that can make mistakes? What if the holy spirit is speaking through them while you were deceived by the devil?<br /><br />You also need to prove that the Bible in entirely factual and good in nature. You also need to explain why many claims from the bible contradict science (like no evidence for the global flood and so on). You also need to explain why the murder of children, rape and slavery is acceptable or even commendable in some cases. You cannot just assume from the start that those actions are good in nature. <br /><br />CE:Frankly it comes down to allow these men to believe what they wish and if God calls them to himself at some time they would at that time really understand what was being stated. <br /><br />Then why bother with preaching and trying to influence politics because of religion? If christians are unable to make others understand the word of Christ, why do they try in the first place? Why would you try to force your lifestyle on others if you are unable to explain why it is beneficial? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-37776339666792468672012-11-08T18:00:59.282-08:002012-11-08T18:00:59.282-08:00>The point of this is why does Rick attempt to ...>The point of this is why does Rick attempt to debate such men when they attempt to strip him of the Bible as his defense. If you succeed in stripping the Bible as a defense then you cannot argue Christianity.<br /><br />- It's interesting that you would state this opinion because the very post you are commenting on underscores it is not true. W L Craig does not use belief in the Bible as a support for his arguments at all, yet, top atheist apologists are so afraid of a philosophical debate with him that they feel the need to come up with all kinds of illogical excuses. <br /><br />I would agree, however, that it is often a waste of time to attempt a logical debate with people who are spiritually blind and in a state of rebellion against God because no matter how logical the argument may be, they will still reject it. One of the points of my blog is simply to point out how many atheists demonstrate their avoidance of truth by their avoidance of logical principles. About 200 people a day come to read the posts and they can see, if they are open minded, who is standing on solid logical ground and who is not. You never know who is seeking philosophical truth at any given moment. Isaiah offered, "Come let us reason together" and I offer the same proposal today, as does William Lane Craig and all the many Christians who offer that when Jesus said he was the "Logos made flesh", full of all wisdom and truth, that this has wide ramifications.Rick Wardenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09689451026838986088noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-34272448700483032912012-11-08T12:03:26.016-08:002012-11-08T12:03:26.016-08:00So in this post, boiled down is the two primary re...So in this post, boiled down is the two primary reasons for disagreement. Between a Christian apologist and a few Atheists one of which is apparently rather famous? First visit here just thought the back and forth was interesting although it beat around the bush quite a bit.<br /><br />First let me state that theirs a few things that you must concede to have a discourse with any Christian about theology. This makes certain that non-believers or at least those that don't understand a valid interpretation of the bible are excluded. Unfortunately over the many centuries the lines between sound doctrine and that which would have in the past been considered apostate is very muddied. I could expound upon this but diligent study of the bible by a non-believer will end up getting us no where since by their very nature they cannot understand it. Of course you should understand that it is not because I wish to insult anybody that I say this but because this is a biblical doctrine also that any learned Christian would believe. So even if you don't concede the above which I'm certain you won't at least concede that any Christian that adheres to the belief that "The bible is the infallible and inerrant word of God." Which by the way is all of true protestantism. This means that if God does something or commands something it is acceptable as it is his right to do so. As the Bible is true and God is the creator of all so he will do as he wills. Now obviously an Atheist won't believe that however understand that any true Christian will. Thus to have a discourse with a Christian is to accept for the time being that a Christian cannot be held accountable by you for an action they deem is right due to the fact that God is the one who commanded it. If you accept this then you can have a discourse if not your argument seals away any chance of a discourse with any Protestant Christian which is mighty convenient. Considering even among apostate church bodies this is the historical stance used to commit evil against the truth. So if you strip the only defense of a person from them based on the fact you don't like their material you in fact negate their ability to have a defense in the first place. Ergo you have Richard Dawkins book and we cannot have the Bible as to use it would be to admit that we are wrong from the outset of the argument because the belief that the Bible is entirely factual and good in nature. Which from a non-christian standpoint cannot be argued. The point of this is why does Rick attempt to debate such men when they attempt to strip him of the Bible as his defense. If you succeed in stripping the Bible as a defense then you cannot argue Christianity. Frankly it comes down to allow these men to believe what they wish and if God calls them to himself at some time they would at that time really understand what was being stated. As they know your point of view at this point and refuse to even hear it out don't waste your time.Christopher Evanshttp://nsystemsolutions.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-82175286663037239332012-10-17T08:30:29.306-07:002012-10-17T08:30:29.306-07:00And, Havok, it's the usual cycle: "New co...And, Havok, it's the usual cycle: "New commenter comes in; new commenter discovers Rick's ways of stretching & ignoring the truth, arguments, etc. New commenter accuses Rick of lying. When new commenter hits close enough to the bone, or goes one step too far*, Rick decries them as a "slanderer" and stops talking, claiming all he gets are liars."<br /><br />It's really remarkably predictable, now that I've seen it happen three times.<br /><br /><br />* I called Rick a liar for *weeks* before he found one statement where, in retrospect, I was technically incorrect; at which point I became a "slanderer" and all I said became, to Rick, invalid and not worthy of response. Were he held to the same standard, no one would talk to him past his first few replies on most posts.<br />imnotandreihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15850536340957506236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-72427808345187836302012-10-17T08:24:34.539-07:002012-10-17T08:24:34.539-07:00As usual, Havok comes to post falsehoods
Point ou...<i>As usual, Havok comes to post falsehoods</i><br /><br />Point out the false statement in his above post. Otherwise, this is once again the argument ad hominem, which you *used* to disclaim and decry.<br /><br />Otherwise, this statement is a lie. Which makes you what?<br />imnotandreihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15850536340957506236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-19373447042676440902012-10-17T03:08:19.073-07:002012-10-17T03:08:19.073-07:00As usual, Havok comes to post falsehoods. It is Ha...As usual, Havok comes to post falsehoods. It is Havok who failed to provide any answers when asked to justify his slanderous claims that I had provided inadequate or illogical responses to comments. When asked to provide one such example, he was unable to.<br /><br>Beginning in December 2011, Havok became so frustrated with his lack of answers that all he could apparently do was to post <a href="http://templestream.blogspot.com/2011/11/health-and-logic-of-being-thankful.html?showComment=1323355318051#c1860720556545525580" rel="nofollow">unsubstantiated slander against me.</a> If he had an actual instance where I did offer an inadequate or illogical response in that article, he certainly has had enough time to produce it. Imnotandrei is a little different, he has admitted that he had slandered me, yet, he immediately began to do the exact same thing <br /><a href="http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-muhammad-movie-and-hegelian.html?showComment=1347733954146#c6347959713308953040" rel="nofollow">again.</a> <br /><br>If there are any civilized atheists out there who would like to attempt to defend these time-wasters, you are welcome to try.<br><br /> As for Stephen Law, I'm still waiting for a plain answer on whether or not he believes Dawkins' God Delusion offers logical consequence in the central argument in his opinion.Rick Wardenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09689451026838986088noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-58641182173932650542012-10-16T18:40:20.934-07:002012-10-16T18:40:20.934-07:00What is funny is that everyone who is remotely a r...What is funny is that everyone who is remotely a regular commenter here is waiting for a response from Rick on at least one specific question, and Rick seems to do all he can to avoid answering. He then has the gall to hector someone else about not providing a response (even though Stephen Law DID provide a response).<br /><br />Hypocrisy at work! :-)Havokhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05770427187548083625noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-56326684629087364392012-10-09T08:13:59.580-07:002012-10-09T08:13:59.580-07:00Funny, Rick -- Stephen was talking about the subje...Funny, Rick -- Stephen was talking about the subject of the post -- WLC's argument -- when he identified things "down to the second". You were posting about sidetracking nonsense that was of primary interest to you. I seem to remember you complaining in the past at great length about how people should post "where it was appropriate", and here you are doing no such thing.<br /><br />Why should Law post in response to your hectoring when you've failed to understand any of his previous posts on the matter? He is not obliged to "clarify" everything until you understand it, especially since anyone who has read you at any length realizes that you are quite capable of massive willful misunderstanding.<br />imnotandreihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15850536340957506236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-71822096825220397272012-10-09T06:16:14.191-07:002012-10-09T06:16:14.191-07:00What's interesting about Stephen Law is his re...What's interesting about Stephen Law is his refusal to clarify whether or not Richard Dawkins' simple argument in his God Delusion book offers a sound sense of logical consequence in its conclusion. <br /><br />Law had first offered a glowing synopsis at his blog, calling the chapter with Dawkins' central argument "impressive." When asked to clarify the logical consequence of the argument, whether it was valid or not, Law either did not understand the question or sidestepped it. Her answered the following:<br /><br />Rick - I think Dawkins argument is non-scientific, and probably flawed (which is not to say he doesn't do a fairly good job of dealing with some lines of objection - hence my "rather more impressed than was on first reading comment). (October 7, 2012 10:34 AM)<br /><br />I clarified my question for Law: "I had asked you specifically about the logical consequence incorporated in his argument. The question regarded more the logic of the argument not so much the truth of the claims." (October 7, 2012 11:14 AM)<br /><br />And he still avoids it. Today I offered one more chance for him to comment at his blog (October 9, 2012 1:13 PM)<br /><br />>I identified the relevant clips for you down to the second, Rick. <br /><br />- I'm sorry, Stephen, I did not see that comment of yours. What date and time was that posted?<br /><br />I had asked you twice about the logic of Dawkins central summarized argument foe the God Delusion. the following are the dates and times of comments in this post:<br /><br />October 6, 2012 2:44 PM <br />October 7, 2012 11:14 AM <br /><br />So far, you have not expressed your opinion as to whether or not Dawkins' summarized argument offers a sense of logical consequence or not. The scientific validity of his points is quite another subject.<br /><br />As a professional philosopher, do you think it would be possible for you to offer your opinion on this subject?<br /><br />http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=1905686568472747305&postID=765556352863734884&page=1&token=1349788433512<br /><br /><br />Rick Wardenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09689451026838986088noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-81515938102718408492012-10-06T09:41:30.976-07:002012-10-06T09:41:30.976-07:00R:No, I am addressing the "backbone" of ...R:No, I am addressing the "backbone" of the argument<br /><br />Nope, you are addressing a straw man as imnotandrei has pointed out.<br /><br />R:So which is it? If theodices are not a central aspect of his argument, then his argument contains inaccurate statements. If theodices do help to form the backbone of the argument then law's latter comments have basically nullified the argument<br /><br />"All this comes from the use of logical summary, which introduced an inaccuracy. I used the statement that theodicies were such arguments, Law disagreed. You are complaining that two different people using two different modes of argument using two different meanings of a phrase are not in agreement. This is hardly an issue with the logic of the argument, but rather your ability to follow the difference between people, styles, and times."<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-91714912914085041822012-10-06T09:12:33.380-07:002012-10-06T09:12:33.380-07:00I'm going to comment here, and perhaps at Law&...I'm going to comment here, and perhaps at Law's blog as well.<br /><br />I note that in a thread about Dawkins' unwillingness to debate Craig, you're willing to write off Craig making a factually inaccurate statement in a debate as "an off-the-cuff remark".<br /><br />Why should DAwkins feel obliged to waste his time with someone who makes inaccurate "off-the-cuff" remarks, and if debate remarks are "off-the-cuff", what importance, if any, do they have in determining truth and value in an argument?<br /><br />This is a larger subset of why many scientists refuse to debate apologists -- their casual relationship to facts makes them pointless to debate with.<br />imnotandreihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15850536340957506236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-36734149366824863702012-10-06T09:09:52.183-07:002012-10-06T09:09:52.183-07:00No, I am addressing the "backbone" of th...<i>No, I am addressing the "backbone" of the argument. </i><br /><br />In other words, you've created a straw man you now wish to beat up.<br /><br /><i>However, Law in his comments offers that the interpretation of theodices is not only illogical, they are not even a supportive aspect of his argument:<br /><br />"And there are some logical problems too, e.g. the claim in the conclusion that the arguments for a good God are mirrored by args for an evil God is not supported by the premises (the theodicies are not such arguments)".</i><br /><br />All this comes from the use of logical summary, which introduced an inaccuracy. I used the statement that theodicies were such arguments, Law disagreed. You are complaining that two different people using two different modes of argument using two different meanings of a phrase are not in agreement. This is hardly an issue with the logic of the argument, but rather your ability to follow the difference between people, styles, and times.<br /><br />imnotandreihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15850536340957506236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-4958154163537934152012-10-06T08:05:54.168-07:002012-10-06T08:05:54.168-07:00>instead of addressing the argument...
No, I a...>instead of addressing the argument...<br /><br />No, I am addressing the "backbone" of the argument. <br /><br />According to the text of the argument, theodices are the primary means of supporting the claim that evil mirrors good in theology:<br /><br />"Notice how the evidential problem of evil mirrors the evidential problem of good." ..."The three reverse theodices introduced above to deal with the evidential problem of good obviously mirror the three theodicies we looked at earlier."<br /><br />- According the the structure of the argument presented, Law did not deny that theodicies are a valid aspect of the argument:<br /><br />Premise 5: Premise 2 and Premise 3 are equally true of the Evil God and the Good God hypotheses ('the problem of good" and "some reverse theodicies"<br /><br />However, Law in his comments offers that the interpretation of theodices is not only illogical, they are not even a supportive aspect of his argument:<br /><br />"And there are some logical problems too, e.g. the claim in the conclusion that the arguments for a good God are mirrored by args for an evil God is not supported by the premises (the theodicies are not such arguments)".<br /><br />http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/09/7-reasons-why-dawkins-excuses-for-not.html?showComment=1349079039457#c1465957146129438801<br /><br />So which is it? If theodices are not a central aspect of his argument, then his argument contains inaccurate statements. If theodices do help to form the backbone of the argument then law's latter comments have basically nullified the argument.<br /><br />Law does not seem to be able to explain himself and you do not seem to have a logical response either. So much for the "logic" of Laws arguments.Rick Wardenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09689451026838986088noreply@blogger.com