Total Posts:8|Showing Posts:1-8
Jump to topic:

Dr Craig vs Scott Clifton

unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2011 4:07:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Recently, Dr Craig responded to an argument made by popular atheist youtuber TBS on the Kalam argument:

http://www.youtube.com...

(Watch 3rd video after reading Craig)

Craig responds here: http://rf.convio.net...

and here: http://hr-hr.facebook.com...

TBS responded:

I think Craig badly needs to respond to this criticism of his argument, as his first attempt at it is somewhat of a botched job, and the fact his tone is so condescending just makes him look foolish. Anyway, just thought I'd ask for thoughts. Cheers.
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2011 9:10:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I attempted to watch that 20 minute video the other day as it was mirrored, it is a long rant which is basically - I am great and wise, he is silly and ignorant. That is all fine, opinions are not overly significant but that is not how to have serious academic discourse, and neither is calling yourself TBS. Does he actually present an argument alone in any of the videos?
TheSkeptic
Posts: 1,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2011 9:34:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/1/2011 9:10:47 PM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
I attempted to watch that 20 minute video the other day as it was mirrored, it is a long rant which is basically - I am great and wise, he is silly and ignorant. That is all fine, opinions are not overly significant but that is not how to have serious academic discourse, and neither is calling yourself TBS. Does he actually present an argument alone in any of the videos?

How far did you go into "attempting" into watching the video then? Because you would know the answer to your own question - a good half to 2/3rd of the video he talks about the argument, primarily about a specific premise.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2011 10:11:16 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I'd ask tbs whether he believes that absttact entities like properties come into existence, and if so what they are made of...
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2011 10:13:10 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/2/2011 10:11:16 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
I'd ask tbs whether he believes that absttact entities like properties come into existence, and if so what they are made of...

Which is kind of a moot point from craig's perspective since he's a nominalist (which is crazy to me but hey....)
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2011 12:32:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/1/2011 9:10:47 PM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
I attempted to watch that 20 minute video the other day as it was mirrored, it is a long rant which is basically - I am great and wise, he is silly and ignorant. That is all fine, opinions are not overly significant but that is not how to have serious academic discourse, and neither is calling yourself TBS. Does he actually present an argument alone in any of the videos?

A long rant? Interesting that you make no such descriptions of Craig's post, titled "Another Hopelessly bad objection", and he employs his usual tone when addressing atheists, but, who cares - tone isn't the important point here.

I thought Craig botched the response for a couple of reasons, the first one being he attacked an argument seemingly without any context at all (which is immediately clear given the way he goes after P1 and especially P5, which was addressed in one of the videos above, because of the confusion it caused when Scott first released the video about a year ago):

Scott on clarifying P5 (about a year ago):" In P5, I even grant that God caused the universe to exist, but I only do this to illustrate a point, not because it's an actual reflection of my views. I was so stunned to see so many people . . . trying to argue with me as if I actually believe that a non-existent God is what caused the universe to begin existing. "

Craig's recent post: "For (P5) is taken to be true! So the argument concludes that God is a non-existent object which caused the universe to begin to exist!
"

Given this, either Craig has straw-manned the argument completely, or he has put up post ridiculing an argument which he hasn't even bothered to check out properly, and this Cliff is a far more serious charge to an academic than a name you don't like.

Secondly, Scott's point about Craig's equivocation between Creation ex nihilo and Creation from material is the strongest part of the video, yet Craig's response to P1 of Scott's argument is to conflate Creation ex nihilo (the causation relevant to Kalam) with Creation from material (the only causation ever observed):

"The problem is that that claim is patently false. I, for example, began to exist. Did I do so without a cause?"

So after Craig gets to the right interpretation of P1 (which he would have gotten to straight away if he had been aware of the support given for it), this equivocation is his only response to it, yet the fact that he had been supporting Kalam with creation from material, when it explicitly rests on creation ex nihilo was the entire point! All Craig does here is provide another example of equivocating between the two.

The fact that he has (seemingly) not bothered to source the argument, has used an equivocation to hand-waive it, and has no idea of the support for P1 is all bad enough, but he's so arrogant about it:

"Can you imagine that it is poppycock like this that internet atheists are expecting us to swallow in order to avoid theism?"

Being arrogant and and unpleasant is not attractive at the best of times, but if you crash and burn while doing it, you just look like an idiot.