Total Posts:142|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

How respected is WLC?

Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2013 6:19:47 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I seem to get conflicting vibes on this. Sometimes contempt is shown, sometimes he's treated like a deity, even by hugely anti-religion people. I once heard Kinesis describe 'The Dawkins Delusion' as being "so bad that he thought Christians were completely stumped by the God Delusion."
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
Homosapien
Posts: 114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2013 6:26:55 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/12/2013 6:19:47 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
I seem to get conflicting vibes on this. Sometimes contempt is shown, sometimes he's treated like a deity, even by hugely anti-religion people. I once heard Kinesis describe 'The Dawkins Delusion' as being "so bad that he thought Christians were completely stumped by the God Delusion."

Hello Eitan_Zohar,

I would respect anyone who will enter an open debate with an opponent, particularly on the subject of faith/non faith, so while I do not agree with him on many issues, I still respect him as an ideological enemy.

Best Regards,
Ben
royalpaladin describing me in all my majestic glory -

"He has a cabal of votebombers behind him."
"I'll be informing airmax about you."
"It reveals that you want to look like you are intelligent, but actually are not."
"Stupid because you didn't warrant or impact your moronic arguments. That's all you will ever be good for."
"You're making stupid assumptions, as usual. "
"You really are an arrogant buffoon, aren't you?"
"You're just coming off as extremely arrogant and condescending."
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2013 11:57:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/12/2013 8:29:13 PM, Sargon wrote:
What does a book by Alister McGrath have to do with William Lane Craig?

I... may be confused.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2013 11:02:43 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/12/2013 6:19:47 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
I seem to get conflicting vibes on this. Sometimes contempt is shown, sometimes he's treated like a deity, even by hugely anti-religion people. I once heard Kinesis describe 'The Dawkins Delusion' as being "so bad that he thought Christians were completely stumped by the God Delusion."

What anti-religious person diefied WLC (or McGrath)?
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
DakotaKrafick
Posts: 1,517
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2013 11:12:26 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
As you evidently know based on your opening post, the answer largely depends on whom you ask. WLC has quite the following, but personally, I don't respect him.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2013 12:11:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I'd never heard of him until now, but a quick bit of research suggests I'd have no time for him. Anyone who still bangs on about the ontological argument is unlikely to get much respect from me, particularly when they load premises in the way he seems to.
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2013 1:06:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/13/2013 12:11:12 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
I'd never heard of him until now, but a quick bit of research suggests I'd have no time for him. Anyone who still bangs on about the ontological argument is unlikely to get much respect from me, particularly when they load premises in the way he seems to.

Yeah, I'm not aware of anything he's ever said that would be enlightening or useful to me.

I'm surprised people even know who he is. I guess religious people find him appealing because he talks about religion in a seemingly logical way and that comforts people who sense that their religion is based on irrationality.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2013 2:40:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Turns out he's also involved with the Discovery Institute. Terminal bit of news for pretty much any hope at credibility.
KeytarHero
Posts: 612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2013 9:45:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/13/2013 12:11:12 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
I'd never heard of him until now, but a quick bit of research suggests I'd have no time for him. Anyone who still bangs on about the ontological argument is unlikely to get much respect from me, particularly when they load premises in the way he seems to.

Standard ignorance of philosophy.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2013 9:47:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/13/2013 9:45:02 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 8/13/2013 12:11:12 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
I'd never heard of him until now, but a quick bit of research suggests I'd have no time for him. Anyone who still bangs on about the ontological argument is unlikely to get much respect from me, particularly when they load premises in the way he seems to.

Standard ignorance of philosophy.

You're asserting that WLC has a standard ignorance of philosophy? I've always just assumed he was dishonest, considering his credentials.

Or are you asserting that thinking an invalid argument is invalid is somehow "ignorant"?
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
KeytarHero
Posts: 612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2013 9:50:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/13/2013 9:47:04 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 8/13/2013 9:45:02 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 8/13/2013 12:11:12 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
I'd never heard of him until now, but a quick bit of research suggests I'd have no time for him. Anyone who still bangs on about the ontological argument is unlikely to get much respect from me, particularly when they load premises in the way he seems to.

Standard ignorance of philosophy.

You're asserting that WLC has a standard ignorance of philosophy? I've always just assumed he was dishonest, considering his credentials.

Or are you asserting that thinking an invalid argument is invalid is somehow "ignorant"?

No, no! I'm a Dr. Craig fan. I mean that Gaincruncher has a standard ignorance of philosophy. The Ontological Argument is taken quite seriously at hotly debated in philosophical academia. Craig is not dishonest. He's a very intelligent man, taking very seriously by his peers, and is one of the leading philosophers of science and philosophers of time we have today.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2013 10:04:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/13/2013 9:50:46 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 8/13/2013 9:47:04 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 8/13/2013 9:45:02 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 8/13/2013 12:11:12 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
I'd never heard of him until now, but a quick bit of research suggests I'd have no time for him. Anyone who still bangs on about the ontological argument is unlikely to get much respect from me, particularly when they load premises in the way he seems to.

Standard ignorance of philosophy.

You're asserting that WLC has a standard ignorance of philosophy? I've always just assumed he was dishonest, considering his credentials.

Or are you asserting that thinking an invalid argument is invalid is somehow "ignorant"?

No, no! I'm a Dr. Craig fan. I mean that Gaincruncher has a standard ignorance of philosophy. The Ontological Argument is taken quite seriously at hotly debated in philosophical academia.

That it's hotly debated does not really affect its validity. It's not a valid argument, and it never has been in any of its formulations. It's sophistry.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2013 10:05:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/13/2013 9:50:46 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 8/13/2013 9:47:04 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 8/13/2013 9:45:02 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 8/13/2013 12:11:12 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
I'd never heard of him until now, but a quick bit of research suggests I'd have no time for him. Anyone who still bangs on about the ontological argument is unlikely to get much respect from me, particularly when they load premises in the way he seems to.

Standard ignorance of philosophy.

You're asserting that WLC has a standard ignorance of philosophy? I've always just assumed he was dishonest, considering his credentials.

Or are you asserting that thinking an invalid argument is invalid is somehow "ignorant"?

No, no! I'm a Dr. Craig fan. I mean that Gaincruncher has a standard ignorance of philosophy. The Ontological Argument is taken quite seriously at hotly debated in philosophical academia. Craig is not dishonest. He's a very intelligent man, taking very seriously by his peers, and is one of the leading philosophers of science and philosophers of time we have today.

I was looking for a reason to post this. It just came out too.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2013 10:07:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/13/2013 9:49:23 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
Doctor Craig is actually very well-respected by his academic peers.



Can you name any that aren't his co-apologists?
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
YYW
Posts: 36,305
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2013 10:16:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/12/2013 6:19:47 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
I seem to get conflicting vibes on this. Sometimes contempt is shown, sometimes he's treated like a deity, even by hugely anti-religion people. I once heard Kinesis describe 'The Dawkins Delusion' as being "so bad that he thought Christians were completely stumped by the God Delusion."

That very much depends on who you ask...

Some people think he's fantastic. Others think he's a quack. Most are indifferent. I am of the latter category.
Tsar of DDO
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2013 10:26:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/13/2013 10:07:03 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 8/13/2013 9:49:23 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
Doctor Craig is actually very well-respected by his academic peers.



Can you name any that aren't his co-apologists?

I mean, other than the ones in the video (now that I've watched it).

Actually, that video is pretty silly. Hitchens was basically echoing Sam Harris in saying he was a tough guy. They believe he is a tough debater. They've never said anything admiring about his actual work. Peter Millican and Steve Law said those things when they were about to debate him - it's usually a good idea to be polite in a potentially heated debate, right? I could go on but, isn't it a bit revealing that there is a video on YouTube trying to persuade people that WLC is taken seriously, and its editor was only able to find clips of people saying nice things about him before debates and whatnot?
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
KeytarHero
Posts: 612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2013 11:08:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/13/2013 10:04:15 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 8/13/2013 9:50:46 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 8/13/2013 9:47:04 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 8/13/2013 9:45:02 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 8/13/2013 12:11:12 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
I'd never heard of him until now, but a quick bit of research suggests I'd have no time for him. Anyone who still bangs on about the ontological argument is unlikely to get much respect from me, particularly when they load premises in the way he seems to.

Standard ignorance of philosophy.

You're asserting that WLC has a standard ignorance of philosophy? I've always just assumed he was dishonest, considering his credentials.

Or are you asserting that thinking an invalid argument is invalid is somehow "ignorant"?

No, no! I'm a Dr. Craig fan. I mean that Gaincruncher has a standard ignorance of philosophy. The Ontological Argument is taken quite seriously at hotly debated in philosophical academia.

That it's hotly debated does not really affect its validity. It's not a valid argument, and it never has been in any of its formulations. It's sophistry.

It's not sophistry. It's a logically valid argument, following the rules of modal logic (which many people seem to have a hard time grasping, understandably, since it's a pretty abstract argument).
KeytarHero
Posts: 612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2013 11:09:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/13/2013 10:07:03 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 8/13/2013 9:49:23 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
Doctor Craig is actually very well-respected by his academic peers.



Can you name any that aren't his co-apologists?

Did you even watch the video?
Sargon
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2013 11:11:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/13/2013 11:09:37 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 8/13/2013 10:07:03 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 8/13/2013 9:49:23 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
Doctor Craig is actually very well-respected by his academic peers.



Can you name any that aren't his co-apologists?

Did you even watch the video?

Being a tough debater does not mean your work is good. It means you're good at rhetorical skills.
KeytarHero
Posts: 612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2013 11:13:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/13/2013 10:26:57 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 8/13/2013 10:07:03 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 8/13/2013 9:49:23 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
Doctor Craig is actually very well-respected by his academic peers.



Can you name any that aren't his co-apologists?

I mean, other than the ones in the video (now that I've watched it).

Actually, that video is pretty silly. Hitchens was basically echoing Sam Harris in saying he was a tough guy. They believe he is a tough debater. They've never said anything admiring about his actual work. Peter Millican and Steve Law said those things when they were about to debate him - it's usually a good idea to be polite in a potentially heated debate, right? I could go on but, isn't it a bit revealing that there is a video on YouTube trying to persuade people that WLC is taken seriously, and its editor was only able to find clips of people saying nice things about him before debates and whatnot?

Irrelevant. Hitchens even said "I'm not saying that because I'm here, I really think that" (or something to that effect). Plus, some of those things he quoted were from letters and not before debates. Stop trying to explain things away just because you don't like the implications. It's undeniable that WLC is respected by his academic peers. It's only people on the street level, or scientists who are ignorant of philosophy (like Krauss and Dawkins) who disrespect him. Craig has earned the respect of Atheists who are actually trained in philosophy.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2013 11:18:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I'm ambivalent about him. On one level I can respect him, on another level I find most of his arguments astoundingly bad and am a bit incredulous about whether he actually believes them or not.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Sargon
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2013 11:20:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/13/2013 11:13:06 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 8/13/2013 10:26:57 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 8/13/2013 10:07:03 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 8/13/2013 9:49:23 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
Doctor Craig is actually very well-respected by his academic peers.



Can you name any that aren't his co-apologists?

I mean, other than the ones in the video (now that I've watched it).

Actually, that video is pretty silly. Hitchens was basically echoing Sam Harris in saying he was a tough guy. They believe he is a tough debater. They've never said anything admiring about his actual work. Peter Millican and Steve Law said those things when they were about to debate him - it's usually a good idea to be polite in a potentially heated debate, right? I could go on but, isn't it a bit revealing that there is a video on YouTube trying to persuade people that WLC is taken seriously, and its editor was only able to find clips of people saying nice things about him before debates and whatnot?

Irrelevant. Hitchens even said "I'm not saying that because I'm here, I really think that" (or something to that effect). Plus, some of those things he quoted were from letters and not before debates. Stop trying to explain things away just because you don't like the implications. It's undeniable that WLC is respected by his academic peers. It's only people on the street level, or scientists who are ignorant of philosophy (like Krauss and Dawkins) who disrespect him. Craig has earned the respect of Atheists who are actually trained in philosophy.

Krauss and Craig have good reasons not to respect Craig, given that he 1) pirated their movie, and 2) distorted it at least three times during his podcast review.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2013 11:20:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/13/2013 11:13:06 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 8/13/2013 10:26:57 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 8/13/2013 10:07:03 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 8/13/2013 9:49:23 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
Doctor Craig is actually very well-respected by his academic peers.



Can you name any that aren't his co-apologists?

I mean, other than the ones in the video (now that I've watched it).

Actually, that video is pretty silly. Hitchens was basically echoing Sam Harris in saying he was a tough guy. They believe he is a tough debater. They've never said anything admiring about his actual work. Peter Millican and Steve Law said those things when they were about to debate him - it's usually a good idea to be polite in a potentially heated debate, right? I could go on but, isn't it a bit revealing that there is a video on YouTube trying to persuade people that WLC is taken seriously, and its editor was only able to find clips of people saying nice things about him before debates and whatnot?

Irrelevant. Hitchens even said "I'm not saying that because I'm here, I really think that" (or something to that effect). Plus, some of those things he quoted were from letters and not before debates. Stop trying to explain things away just because you don't like the implications. It's undeniable that WLC is respected by his academic peers. It's only people on the street level, or scientists who are ignorant of philosophy (like Krauss and Dawkins) who disrespect him. Craig has earned the respect of Atheists who are actually trained in philosophy.

Err...no. NOt really. There are quite a few atheists trained in philosophy who don't respect him and think he's a bit of a hack. He's nowhere near as high on the respect o meter as a Swinburne, Van Inwagen, or Plantinga.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2013 11:29:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/13/2013 11:13:06 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 8/13/2013 10:26:57 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 8/13/2013 10:07:03 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 8/13/2013 9:49:23 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
Doctor Craig is actually very well-respected by his academic peers.



Can you name any that aren't his co-apologists?

I mean, other than the ones in the video (now that I've watched it).

Actually, that video is pretty silly. Hitchens was basically echoing Sam Harris in saying he was a tough guy. They believe he is a tough debater. They've never said anything admiring about his actual work. Peter Millican and Steve Law said those things when they were about to debate him - it's usually a good idea to be polite in a potentially heated debate, right? I could go on but, isn't it a bit revealing that there is a video on YouTube trying to persuade people that WLC is taken seriously, and its editor was only able to find clips of people saying nice things about him before debates and whatnot?

Irrelevant. Hitchens even said "I'm not saying that because I'm here, I really think that" (or something to that effect).

Right. Hitchens, like Harris, seem sincere when they say they respect him as a debater. No doubt Hitchens respects him as a person. But so what? What matters is his work in philosophy.

Plus, some of those things he quoted were from letters and not before debates.

So your conceding that much of the video was pre-debate fluff, as I characterized it.

Well, what was your favourite letter? Where is the evidence that anything he has done in philosophy should be respected?

Stop trying to explain things away just because you don't like the implications. It's undeniable that WLC is respected by his academic peers. It's only people on the street level, or scientists who are ignorant of philosophy (like Krauss and Dawkins) who disrespect him. Craig has earned the respect of Atheists who are actually trained in philosophy.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2013 1:16:08 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/13/2013 1:06:58 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 8/13/2013 12:11:12 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
I'd never heard of him until now, but a quick bit of research suggests I'd have no time for him. Anyone who still bangs on about the ontological argument is unlikely to get much respect from me, particularly when they load premises in the way he seems to.

Yeah, I'm not aware of anything he's ever said that would be enlightening or useful to me.

I'm surprised people even know who he is. I guess religious people find him appealing because he talks about religion in a seemingly logical way and that comforts people who sense that their religion is based on irrationality.

Lovely how quickly you can shoot down discussion. Avoid my threads in the future unless you don't feel like slapping a quick ad hominem down and then retreating back into your bubble of absolute truths.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2013 1:16:41 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/13/2013 11:20:14 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 8/13/2013 11:13:06 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 8/13/2013 10:26:57 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 8/13/2013 10:07:03 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 8/13/2013 9:49:23 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
Doctor Craig is actually very well-respected by his academic peers.



Can you name any that aren't his co-apologists?

I mean, other than the ones in the video (now that I've watched it).

Actually, that video is pretty silly. Hitchens was basically echoing Sam Harris in saying he was a tough guy. They believe he is a tough debater. They've never said anything admiring about his actual work. Peter Millican and Steve Law said those things when they were about to debate him - it's usually a good idea to be polite in a potentially heated debate, right? I could go on but, isn't it a bit revealing that there is a video on YouTube trying to persuade people that WLC is taken seriously, and its editor was only able to find clips of people saying nice things about him before debates and whatnot?

Irrelevant. Hitchens even said "I'm not saying that because I'm here, I really think that" (or something to that effect). Plus, some of those things he quoted were from letters and not before debates. Stop trying to explain things away just because you don't like the implications. It's undeniable that WLC is respected by his academic peers. It's only people on the street level, or scientists who are ignorant of philosophy (like Krauss and Dawkins) who disrespect him. Craig has earned the respect of Atheists who are actually trained in philosophy.

Err...no. NOt really. There are quite a few atheists trained in philosophy who don't respect him and think he's a bit of a hack. He's nowhere near as high on the respect o meter as a Swinburne, Van Inwagen, or Plantinga.

What do you think of Leftow?
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2013 2:13:28 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/13/2013 11:08:53 PM, KeytarHero wrote:

It's not sophistry. It's a logically valid argument, following the rules of modal logic (which many people seem to have a hard time grasping, understandably, since it's a pretty abstract argument).

Well, the Ontological Argument is not necessarily a modal argument. If you think that, it would seem, if you'll forgive me for throwing your own words at you, a standard ignorance of philosophy.

WLC uses a specific form of the Ontological Argument (OA), the Modal Ontological Argument (MOA); we have been discussing him specifically, however, the ontological argument is not inherently modal in all its formulations.

The MOA that Craig uses relies on transworld identity and universal necessity. This is one of its biggest failings and a reason why it's not sound (and I admit that I said valid earlier. I'll be technical now)--it does nothing to establish that transworld necessity except assert it. It argues that some clearly possible worlds (possible under the general possible world framework that he's appealing to) are impossible because of the possibility of other possible worlds. It's incoherent on those grounds, and defeats the entire concept of "possible world" framing. If one world can make other worlds impossible, it can trivially be said that the inverse is true, and that if there's a possible world in which god doesn't exist, then therefore he necessarily does not exist. I don't think one can validly buy into the idea of this universal necessity being based on nothing more than assertion...it cannot be a premise used to establish God's existence.

It's sophistry because he should know that the argument is flawed in a dramatic fashion. He has a doctorate in philosophy, yet he attempts to ignore those flaws with much hand-waving. That it's abstract does nothing to establish its validity. That it's arguably complicated to understand likewise doesn't necessitate it's being valid. The fact remains that his premises fail on their merits. Modal or not, it's still another attempt to simply define God into existence.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2013 6:34:13 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
He's taken a degree in philosophy, a controversial subject, and the fact that reality is theologically ambiguous and turned it into a ton of money and fame.

I respect that.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater