My fantasy debate with William Lane Craig

[wiploc]

Imagining that I was debating William Lane Craig, I drafted this opening statement:

My Opening Statement

Thank you, my lord chamberlain. I thank the high council for inviting me here tonight, and the Crystal Chorus for providing encouragement. And I thank Dr. Craig for doing us the honor of contributing his valuable time and his powerful intellect to make the case for theism perhaps as well as it can possibly be made. Dr. Craig is the best – far the best – Christian apologist I have ever seen. He is so good that, for most of us here tonight, he is the best we will ever see. So if he doesn’t make you a Christian tonight, well … you can pretty well give up on that happening.

I smile to see so many come out tonight to see the great issues debated, issues debated for centuries, for thousands of years actually, and never resolved … until tonight. We will have resolution tonight, right? Dr. Craig didn’t act like these are difficult issues. He gave no indication that the questions are unclear, or that the answers are anything other than straightforward. And I – while there won’t be very many times tonight when I find myself in agreement with Dr. Craig – I have to agree with him on this. We can put these questions to bed. These issues are dead simple. I don’t see any reason for people to leave this room confused.

Snulbug

Anthony Boucher wrote about a demon named Snulbug. Snulbug is less than an inch tall. He has a cavity in one of his tusks. His snakes <gesture> are falling out; he has a receding snakeline. And he is miserably cold here because he is used to the temperatures of Hell. The only time he isn’t cold was when you smoke a pipe. Snulbug is small enough to snuggle down in the bowl with the burning tobacco and become very cozy. You know how you can put out a pipe by putting your thumb over the bowl? Well, Snulbug doesn’t like that. But the thing you really want to avoid is absentmindedly turning the pipe over and knocking the ashes out. Hates it when that happens. Snulbug: he’s my favorite demon.

I’m going to ask for a little audience participation now. I have three questions, and I’d like a show of hands. First question: <gesture> who here believes that Snulbug really exists? <pause> No hands? Wow, I’m in a room full of skeptics.

Second question: who here is willing to believe in Snulbug if presented with convincing evidence? <pause> Rationalist skeptics, very nice. So far, <smile and glance at Craig> everything is going my way.

Now, final question: We cannot prove that Snulbug doesn’t exist. Nobody can prove that; it’s impossible; but how many of you, in spite of that, have jumped to the conclusion -- at least the tentative conclusion -- that Snulbug does not exist?

Thank you. That is a reasonable conclusion. That conclusion is the fruit of rational minds. And that is my whole argument: we don’t believe in god because we don’t believe in the Easter bunny. Jupiter and the Easter bunny, Shiva and Santa Claus, Thor and the Great Pumpkin, in each case the reason for disbelief is the same. And those reasons apply with equal strength to Jehovah. Actually, there is an extra reason to disbelieve in Jehovah, but I’ll have to come back to that. For now, let it suffice to say that you have just as good a reason to disbelieve in Jehovah as to disbelieve in the Great Pumpkin.


Atheists and Agnostics

Let me take just a moment here to distinguish between atheists and agnostics. I say “distinguish,” but in fact I think of them as the same people. If you don’t believe in god, you are not theistic. You are an a-theist. Using the broadest definition of atheism then, agnosticism is a subcategory of atheism. If you want to emphasize that you are willing to believe in god if you are presented with a good reason to believe, then you may choose to call yourself an agnostic. If you prefer to emphasize that nobody has ever given you that reason, you may call yourself an atheist. Atheists and agnostics: same people, different emphasis.

Now, if you want to use the words differently, that’s fine. The dictionary has more that one definition per word. The way I have used them is perfectly legitimate, and is handy for most purposes.


Claims Of Varying Plausibility

How does a rational mind handle an unusual claim? Let’s look at some examples:

Suppose I told you that I had $30 in my pocket. There wouldn’t be anything particularly strange about that claim. We can call that a mundane or normal claim. You’d probably take me at my word if I made that claim.

If, however, I said I had $30,000 in my pocket, you might think that a little strange. I could be telling the truth, but you might reserve judgement, draw no conclusions.

What if I said my pocket, this pocket here, contains $3,000,000 in cash? That would be deep weirdness. Most of you would just assume I was lying.

And if I claim that I have three hundred trillion dollars in my pocket, and add that I have been to Mars seventeen times, and that on Mars I found the body of President Lincoln, and that I revived it to life? That would be beyond weird; that would be whacko! You would no longer think I was just lying. If you thought I was serious at all, you would assume I was sick, deranged.

This is how the rational mind works. The weirder a claim is, the less credence it is given.

The principle I illustrate is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Rational people dismiss extraordinary claims as false. That is the rational position. That dismissal is the fruit of a rational mind. There is nothing wrong or illogical about dismissing whacko propositions as false.

What would be wrong would be to close your mind entirely. If you do look at the evidence for an extraordinary claim, you have to weigh that evidence objectively. You can’t twist the evidence so as to allow you to reach whatever conclusion you are comfortable with. No, so long as there is any possibility that a claim is true, you cannot entirely write it off.

The only claims that we can be certain are false are those claims which involve contradiction. Dr. Craig has already spoken to us about contradiction. Dr. Craig is death on contradiction. If something contradicts itself, then we know: it is not true. Contradictions cannot be true. Therefore, they are not true. No amount of evidence could even begin to support a contradiction.

There we have it, a continuum, a range of possible claims, from the mundane through the strange, and the weird, and the whacko -- with each additional level of weirdness requiring an additional level of proof -- until we finally reach the claims that are logically impossible, where no amount of proof can suffice.


A range of gods

Gods, also, range from the mundane to the impossible. There are an infinity of possible and impossible gods, so I cannot refute them one by one. As Dr. Craig would be sure to point out, we don’t have that much time. So I’ll have to take them by categories.

Let’s look at the mundane gods. I have a friend who wonders whether hydrogen is god. Another friend thinks maybe nature is god. And lots of people believed the Egyptian pharos were gods. I am not concerned to disprove the existence of hydrogen. I will not stand here tonight and tell you that nature does not exist. And I cannot disprove the pharos because I personally believe in the pharos. I just don’t know any reason to think they were gods.

Why don’t we think they were gods? Technically speaking, they are just not weird enough. You have to have at least whacko powers to be a god. If you behave normally, then you are a normal person; you do not deserve the title “god.” Well, actually, as Clint Eastwood said to Gene Hackman in Unforgiven: deserving doesn’t come into it. If you don’t have whacko powers, you simply aren't what we mean by the word “god.” By definition, you are not god.

So there is a continuum, a variety of things-that-might-be-called-gods that range from the mundane to the impossible. What generalization can we make about this entire smorgasbord of divinity? They range from the mundane to the impossible, from the non-god-like to the non-existent. The weirder something is, the more likely it is to be a god, but the less likely it is to exist. In short, if something is weird enough to be called a god, it presumptively non-existent.


The Problem Of Evil

There’s another way to tackle this, of course. I can just prove that Jehovah doesn’t exist – and let the Christians stipulate that none of the other gods exist.

Jehovah is easy, because of what we call the Problem Of Evil. Jehovah is supposed to be all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good, but he is not good enough, not smart enough, or not strong enough to prevent our suffering. We still have earthquakes and volcanoes and hemorrhoids, drought and floods and birth defects, tidal waves and lightning strikes and Alzheimer’s.

An all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good god who doesn’t do anything about these tribulations is a walking self-contradiction, an affront to logic. He does not exist because he cannot exist. No evidence can even tend to support the existence of such a god. If logic means anything, if humans have any knowledge at all, then this god does not exist.


The Possible Non-refutations

That’s an ice cold fact. If ever there was an irrefutable argument, this is the one. The logic is solid, so there can be no refutation. And yet … Dr. Craig isn’t going to just roll over here, is he? So let’s look at what he can try. There are only five moves he can make, so he will make one or more of these five:

He can say that god can’t relieve our pain. Childbirth has to be painful, and it is not within god’s power to allay that pain. If Dr. Craig says that, he will be conceding my point, he will be saying that the all-powerful Christian god does not exist.

He can say that god is not smart enough or good enough to relieve our pain. Again, that concedes my point that the all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good god of Christianity does not exist.

He can say – are you ready for this – he can say that we do not suffer. How many of you <gesture> are going to buy that one? And it is a linguistic impossibility anyway, since what we think is suffering is what we mean by suffering. If words have meaning, then we do suffer.

There is one way left, his last chance. Dr. Craig may choose to say that logic is not the proper playing field. Again, that concedes my point, because my point is that it is not logical to believe in the Christian god.

These are the possible responses to the argument known as the problem of evil: He can say god is not strong, not smart, or not good; he can say we do not suffer; or he can abandon logic. We know he will come back with something, and we know it will be one of these. It will be interesting to see which one he chooses.


Gresham’s Law Of Argumentation

Gresham’s law says that bad money drives good money out of circulation. Back in 1700s America, if people could get you to take payment in tobacco, they wouldn’t make payment in gold. And if they could get you to take payment in bad tobacco, they wouldn’t make payment in good tobacco. The result was that gold went out of circulation, and good tobacco became a rarity too. Bad leaf became the medium of exchange.

In argument, it works just the opposite way. This is what I call Gresham’s Law Of Argumentation: good arguments drive out bad. For example, if you want to ask your boss for a raise, and you have both a good reason and a bad reason, which one are you going to use? If you have a good argument, you aren’t going to use a bad argument.

That fact allows us to draw inferences when someone uses a bad argument. Suppose your child wants a bicycle. Suppose he lobbies for the bicycle with this argument: suppose he says, “The sun will rise tomorrow; the sun will not rise tomorrow; therefore you must give me a bicycle.” What can we learn from such an argument – if the child is not stupid, and not clowning around – what do we learn? First, we learn that he really really wants that bicycle, because nobody would embarrass himself with such an argument unless he was desperate. Second, we learn that he didn’t have a good argument. The only person who will resort to a really bad argument is a highly motivated person who doesn’t have a good argument.

A highly motivated person who doesn't have a good argument, do we know anyone like that? <the eyes – only the eyes – move briefly toward Craig. Pause for laughter> Surely not!


The Parable Of The Gold Chains

Let me tell you a story. I call this the parable of the gold chains. I call it a parable, but you need to know this is true. I was a pawnbroker, and this happened to me.

A man came into my store. He dipped into his pocket with his right hand, and he brought out a necklace. He said, “I’d like to sell this fine gold chain.” I put a file on the necklace, I notched it, and I showed the man the brass or whatever at the core of that necklace. The necklace was made of some base metal, which was plated over with gold.

I gave him back his necklace, and I was ready for him to leave. As far as I was concerned, he had attempted to defraud me. But he didn’t leave. He dropped the chain into his left-hand pocket. He reached into his right-hand pocket, and he pulled out another chain. “This one’s the real thing,” he told me. I have to say I was skeptical, but I put the file on it for him; and I showed him the base metal at the core.

He dropped it in his left pocket, and pulled a third chain out of his right pocket. He told me that this one was good. I said, “Nobody puts this kind of clasp on a real gold necklace,” but he insisted. So I showed him the stamp. Real gold might have said “14K,” for 14 karat, where this one said “14KEP,” for 14 karat electroplate. But he still insisted, so I notched it for him. Whattaya know, it was another fake. There was base metal at the core.

He pulled out a fourth chain. <gesture> I have to tell you that I did not think this one was going to be real. I expected this one to be a fake. How about you? How many of you think this chain was – in fact, he showed me a total of seven or eight chains that day – how many of you think they were all of them fake? <gesture and pause> I can’t believe it! Halleluiah, I am blessed with a room full of skeptics!

Five Golden Arguments

Dr. William Lane Craig has presented us tonight with five solid gold arguments. He says they are solid gold. To me they seem suspiciously lightweight.

I don’t have much time; let me just run through these quickly. When it is my turn for rebuttal, then I can put my file to them.

His First Cause argument: It is almost a parody of the bicycle argument: Everything has a precursor; not everything has a precursor; therefore you must buy my religion. Would a man with a good argument make an argument such as this?

His moral argument: People disagree about morals. From *this* Dr. Craig concludes that there must be a “transcendent moral anchor.” Now, if it worked the other way, if people didn’t disagree, if individuals and cultures could all agree on what was right and what was wrong, don’t you know that Dr. Craig would be saying that this proved the existence of his transcendent moral anchor? By saying that moral disagreement proves objective morality, Dr. Craig reveals that anything that happens will be taken as evidence of that which he wishes us to believe.

His design argument: If we find mold in a refrigerator, do we assume that the refrigerator was designed for the mold? If not, then why is it that just because we find people in the universe, we assume the universe was made for people? This is the quality of argument one might expect from egotistical refrigerator mold.

His Empty Tomb argument: It is a story. You cannot prove a story is true by citing the people in the story. If that were a legitimate tactic, I could prove that Apollo exists by citing Aphrodite as a witness.

His argument from the personal knowledge of god: People who have subjective experiences which they interpret as personal knowledge of god are likely to contradict each other. I have a friend who believes Jesus is not god because when god entered her body he was alone. She did not experience a trinitarian god. She experienced god as a single person. Now, I’m sure Dr. Craig could find us someone who has <gesture> “personal knowledge” that Jesus is god. The two visions contradict each other. But if “personal revelation” leads to contradiction, then it is *not* knowledge. We know how Dr. Craig is about contradiction. If follows that these contradictory mystical experiences cannot be regarded as meaningful evidence – not as evidence of god. In some cases, of course, they may be evidence that people forgot to take their medication, but they not evidence of god.

Dr. Craig has presented us tonight with five terrible arguments as justification for believing in god. He says they are solid gold, but real gold wouoldn't be corroded like that. So what are we to think?

Dr. Craig is a scholar; and this is his field, his chosen career, his calling; we can assume that if there were a better arguments available, we would have heard them tonight. These, then, are the among the best arguments that Christian culture has been able to raise up in two thousand years.

We can conclude two things. The first: since they rely on really bad arguments, it is fair to conclude that Christians are motivated believers who don't have any good arguments.

The second is that we have seen enough of these electroplated arguments to be able to form a logical opinion about whether the next one will be legitimate. Just like it was logical to form an expectation that the next "gold" chain would be bad, it is logical to form the expectation that the next "proof" of god will be bad. In other words, we will be surprised if anyone presents us with a real reason to believe there is a god.

Atheism, then, is a reasonable response to the arguments of William Lane Craig.

[Ganymede]

This is well worded and entertaining, but I suspect it would ultimately fail. My guess is that the people who entered the room as believers would leave as believers, those who began the evening as skeptics, would end it that way, and the best you could hope for is to sway a few of the undecided.

The problem is not with your logic or your presentation (although I'm sure Craig would find a few exploitable flaws), it is that you are appealing to your audiences rationality, while he is appealing to their hearts.

Deep down people want to believe, perhaps are even genetically predisposed to do so, and logical argument will rarely overcome such a deep seated need.

I often wonder if we make a tactical error in trying to convince people of the non existence of god. Perhaps we would be better served by trying to encourage a more liberal thiest viewpoint than by trying to convert the unconvertible.

Good speech though :notworthy

G

[Bumble Bee Tuna]

Wow. That was very impressive. I would love to hear this debate take place...
You pretty much summed up the reasons for my atheism.

-B

[beastmaster]

Great great [fantasy] speech. I can't resist a few comments, however.

Originally posted by wiploc
The principle I illustrate is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

The trouble I have with this argument is that, for most theists, the fact of existence *itself* is extraordinary evidence for something like god.

You say god is a whacko idea.

Well, "I exist" is a pretty fucxking whacko idea too if you try to get your mind around it!

The problem with theism is *not* that they lack extraordinary evidence. Rather, the problem is that their conclusion that god exists does not follow from that evidence.

Originally posted by wiploc
The Problem Of Evil

I've never bought the Problem of Evil as a refutation of theism.

Maybe god's "tough love" is the perfect reconciliation of perfect intelligence and perfect goodness. How the heck do I know?

Edited to add: Actually, I think there is a more powerful variation on the Problem of Evil that I call the Problem of Heaven. If there is a perfect place called Heaven, why didn't god just put us there in the first place? Why imprison us, even temporarily, in this flawed universe? I know, the answer is supposed to be Adam and the apple and the Fall, and all that mythological BS, but none of it makes much sense if you poke it with a stick.

Originally posted by wiploc
Gresham’s Law Of Argumentation

Why do you introduce this confusing nonsense about tobacco, give it a name, and then apply the principle in *reverse*?

Much clearer if you just tell the bicycle story rather than killing your momentum by explaining what the heck Gresham's Law is.

Originally posted by wiploc
A highly motivated person who doesn't have a good argument, do we know anyone like that? <the eyes – only the eyes – move briefly toward Craig. Pause for laughter> Surely not!

These cheap shots just build sympathy for your opponent.

Besides, earlier you praised Craig as the best Xn apologist around, and now you don't give him credit for having a *single* good argument -- are we to presume you were also being sarcastic before?

Originally posted by wiploc
Atheism, then, is a reasonable response to the arguments of William Lane Craig.

You are delivering less than you promised.

Otherwise, good solid rhetoric. You are a good storyteller.

[Clutch]

wiploc, very nice. I wouldn't say it all exactly that way, but a lot of the moves are pure gold. Thanks for posting this.

As for Craig, he would simply reply via straw men and Argument from Vicarious Authority at 1000 MPH. Eg, uttered at absurd speed: "Wiploc tries to tell us that a perfectly good and powerful god is logically inconsistent with the existence of any suffering. But even atheist philosopher Kai Neilsen rejects this idea. No reputable philosopher or theologian believes this anymore, so there is no reason to regard this as a good argument."

[Phanes]

:notworthy

That was easily the best speech ever. Fun for the whole family!

[wiploc]

Thanks, everybody.

Clutch:
Argument from Vicarious Authority at 1000 MPH.

How apt! I love it. In the debate I saw, he claimed to have established that the universe had a beginning -- by citing Hawking and Hoyle. :D

I'd try to mimic his style of citing convenient authorities, while pointing out the leaps he makes between his quotes and what he wants us to think they proved.

And where he really got going 1000 mph is in the rebuttals, where he ticks off every point raised by both sides and claims to have prevailed on each of them. I figure I could use that trick as well as he could, and I can name errors in the bible faster than he can refute them.


But even atheist philosopher Kai Neilsen rejects this idea. No reputable philosopher or theologian believes this anymore

Imagine my chagrin. Philosophers cited. I could just die. I might say, "If every philosopher in the world opined that god didn't exist, would that shake William Lane Craig? Of course not. So how should he expect me to be intimidated by the authority of philosphers when he isn't himself? Now if these philosophers had a good argument, Dr. Craig could have shared that argument. But he didn't give an argument. He has not actually defended this point, has effectively conceded this point."


beastmaster: Why do you introduce this confusing nonsense about tobacco, give it a name, and then apply the principle in *reverse*?

Excellent point. Thanks.


Besides, earlier you praised Craig as the best Xn apologist around, and now you don't give him credit for having a *single* good argument -- are we to presume you were also being sarcastic before?

I don't think he has a single good argument.

I do think he is the best of the Christian apologists. The rest of them don't have good arguments either.

My introduction, where I praised him so highly, was done with humorous intent. I was having fun with Craig's own style of highly praising his opponents in order to take credit for having beaten the best.


Ganymede
I'm sure Craig would find a few exploitable flaws

This was just an opening statement. In some places I was inviting him to come back at me. We know he's going to attack every point anyway. My goal was to imitate his style of confidently and plausibly claiming total victory on every point at each round of combat.

The two places I actually felt weak were the cosmological problem and the PoE (Problem of Evil).

In the cosmological argument, "Everything has a precursor," feels to me like it will be taken for a misrepresentation of his position. But if I get more detailed, I lose succinctness. I'm ready to refute his position in detail during the rebuttal, but I'm not happy with this first statement of it in my opening statement.

As for the PoE, I just don't know how it ends up. The argument seems absolutely sound to me, but Craig says that philosophers have disposed of it. He doesn't say how they did it. I've been directed to Plantinga. I'm reading Plantinga, and it's so far unenlightening. I suspect I'm in the wrong book. If anyone can recommend a shorter-than-book-length treatment of the PoE by Plantinga, that would be cool.

Seems to me his line comes down to this: First, we demote god from omnipotent to omnipotent-except-that-he-can't-violate-logic. Then we attribute any apparent failures of his omnibenevolence to secret laws of logic which benevolence would violate.

It's frustrating. On the one hand, it seems to me no stronger than the argument that there may be a secret law of logic which makes two plus two equal seven. In other words, we should be able to ignore it as being an argument of no weight.

On the other hand, with regard to the PoE, I'm actually taking the affimative position, claiming to have proved something. The burden of proof is on me. And Plantinga points out that that the case for his secret rule of antibenevolent-logic need not be persuasive. It needn't even be plausible. It needs only to be possible. If it is merely possible that a secret rule of logic frustrates god's benevolent intentions, then I have overstated my case in my opening statement.

Thus my frustration: not knowing whether I can be logically stymied by an argument no stronger than, "Two plus two may equal seven."

crc

[Clutch]

The point of the PoE is not to show a logico-mathematical inconsistency in Christianity. The idea is to embarrass Christianity by showing its moral vacuousness -- something especially ironic given the Christian fondness for describing the religion as a moral foundation.

In other words, you needn't find some moves in reasoning that make it impossible for the Christian to reply "Somehow, the slaughter of the Amalekites was morally perfect, and somehow, the slow death of infants in the ruins of earthquakes is all for the best". What you want is to get the audience to actually listen to such morally degenerate statements, and get the Christian to say them over and over.

It is logically possible, I suppose, that famine and disease are all for the best, just as it's logically possible that the solar system is geocentric. But only someone willing to give up their integrity in defense of some cherished belief would defend either assertion.

[Phanes]

Even if you are forced to turn the PoE into an inductive argument, I think it's still a darn good one. In a public debate even more so, because your average person really doesn't give a hoot about logical possibilities. Like Cluth said, even if it doesn't follow mathematically, it will bother a fair number of would-be-Christians.

[gcameron]

But if you bring up the PoE primarily to generate an emotional response, isn't this rather dishonest? I mean, it either stands or falls on logical grounds... the emotional component should be irrelevant.

[Clutch]

It's not dishonest, and it is certainly not an appeal to emotion. It is a way of forcing the Christian to publicly elucidate that religion's conception of moral truth and moral epistemology, in light of observed facts about suffering and the statements made elsewhere in the bible.

The point is, holding that if God says the slaughter of infants is okay, then it's okay, is not to assert a contradiction. It's just crazy, is all. You could try to render it in the form of a contradiction subsequently -- eg, pointing out that, by these standards, for all we know, child murderers act on divine command and hence their actions are good; but it's a datum that we know child murders to be evil; hence such standards are defective. But I'd just let folks draw their own conclusions at that point. It's enough to point out the irony in saying with one breath that Christianity grounds morality, and with the next breath that, on Christianity, the slaughter of children can be commanded by the arbiter of perfect goodness.

[Jobar]

Truly an excellent presentation, wiploc, and a damn fine idea for a thread, too. Might we continue to refine this, by having someone familiar with his arguments and style attempt Craig's refutation? There are no truly new arguments for EoG, only refinements on old ones; it seems to me possible to tailor the most powerful argument against theism, and Christian belief in particular, in this manner. Though complex, a debate of this type has far fewer 'moves' than a chess game, and given the flawed nature of Christian theology it would seem that we should be able to come up with a strategy that would allow even a duffer playing atheism, to defeat a grandmaster playing Christianity.

And I quite agree that using emotional arguments is not only fair but necessary for a convincing presentation. Touch their hearts and minds too!

[wiploc]

Originally posted by Jobar
Might we continue to refine this, by having someone familiar with his arguments and style attempt Craig's refutation?

I would love that.
crc

[Ojuice5001]

Wiploc,

Could you elaborate on your point about all god-concepts being strange? I happen to think that the concept of a god, as I define it, is not that strange at all. As I define a god, it is "an immaterial being, with at least the intelligence of a human, that affects indeterminate natural events." I realize that atheists find such a being strange, but I don't. After all, the concept of size is immaterial, humans have human intelligence, and the wind affects chance events; why couldn't there be beings that have all three qualities?

Is there an objective fact of the matter about whether gods are strange entities? If not, any conclusion based on the idea that gods are strange is subjective; if so, I challenge you to prove that my concept of a god is strange.

[wiploc]

Originally posted by Ganymede
This is well worded and entertaining, but I suspect it would ultimately fail. My guess is that the people who entered the room as believers would leave as believers, those who began the evening as skeptics, would end it that way, and the best you could hope for is to sway a few of the undecided.



You have to decide who your audience is. Obviously you are not going to convert Craig. (Though I suppose you could retire him if we teach enough people to debate him effectively.) Nor will you persuade the organizers of the event. Nor the preachers, nor their ramrods who packed the busses with Christians in order to pack the auditorium with Christians in order to see that Craig is judged to have won the debate (based on audience response). So the question is, who did they pack the bus with?

I imagine one teenage girl. Her parents are bible beaters. She's one herself, really, expects to grow up to be one anyway. She has some questions though, that she daren't ask of her preacher or parents or friends. Silent doubts. She has heard terrible things about atheists. Atheists are bad people who believe there are no moral rules. Her parents have packed her into this bus to go see the bad atheist.

She's my archetypal audience. The audience is full of her really, various "hers" of both genders and all ages and situations; and if I do a good job for her, I'll have reached the people who can be reached.

Will she leave the room unconverted? Almost certainly. You'll not see even a handfull of cases in your life where someone enters a room with one opinion and leaves with another. That's not how conversions work. But if I am personable, if I seem to her moral in spite of my atheism, if I am confident in my position, and if I make good points, points that Craig doesn't refute, points that get past her defenses, then I'll have done my job. I'll have allowed her to see that atheists are not demons. I'll have given her permission to entertain her doubts.

She will leave the debate as a Christian, but two years later she may ask somebody a question she would not have asked otherwise. How can Hellfire be good, maybe; or how can the Fall be fortunate; or how, if Jehovah can have freewill without sinning, can the freewill defense be sound?

If the Christians pack the debate auditoriums with their young vulnerables, those auditoriums are where we can offer hope to a generation of people who would otherwise grow up preaching hatred and Hellfire.





The problem is not with your logic or your presentation (although I'm sure Craig would find a few exploitable flaws), it is that you are appealing to your audiences rationality, while he is appealing to their hearts.

I appeal to their minds by refuting without being refuted.

I appeal to their hearts by being light-hearted, even-keeled, unimpeachable. A nice guy in a defensible position. A guy you'd like to have living next door.

You have to do both. At the same time. Nobody is converted by either one separately.





Deep down people want to believe, perhaps are even genetically predisposed to do so, and logical argument will rarely overcome such a deep seated need.

I often wonder if we make a tactical error in trying to convince people of the non existence of god. Perhaps we would be better served by trying to encourage a more liberal thiest viewpoint than by trying to convert the unconvertible.

I can't help you there. I have no standing to tell people that there is a right way to believe in a non-existant god.





Good speech though :notworthy

G

Thanks.
crc

[wiploc]

Originally posted by Clutch
The point is, holding that if God says the slaughter of infants is okay, then it's okay, is not to assert a contradiction. It's just crazy, is all. You could try to render it in the form of a contradiction subsequently -- eg, pointing out that, by these standards, for all we know, child murderers act on divine command and hence their actions are good; but it's a datum that we know child murders to be evil; hence such standards are defective. But I'd just let folks draw their own conclusions at that point. It's enough to point out the irony in saying with one breath that Christianity grounds morality, and with the next breath that, on Christianity, the slaughter of children can be commanded by the arbiter of perfect goodness.

This is wonderful!

crc

[Steven Carr]

Originally posted by gcameron
But if you bring up the PoE primarily to generate an emotional response, isn't this rather dishonest? I mean, it either stands or falls on logical grounds... the emotional component should be irrelevant.

The Problem of Evil does not stand or fall on logical grounds, mainly because Plantinga's defense is pure sophistry.

An article above says 'As for the PoE, I just don't know how it ends up. The argument seems absolutely sound to me, but Craig says that philosophers have disposed of it. He doesn't say how they did it. I've been directed to Plantinga. '

And another article says 'Wiploc tries to tell us that a perfectly good and powerful god is logically inconsistent with the existence of any suffering.But even atheist philosopher Kai Neilsen rejects this idea. '

Who the hell cares if the existence of a perfectly good and powerful god is logically consistent with the existence of suffering?

Everybody would laugh if I tried to argue that people have only one leg. They would say 'But I can see that almost all people have two legs.'

If I then pointed out that their seeing people with two legs was logically consistent with people only having one leg, they would regard me as crazy, but this is, in effect, what Plantinga argues.

Yes, Plantinga is correct, but his rebuttal does not make it *reasonable* to believe people only have one leg.

As Wiploc points out 'And Plantinga points out that that the case for his secret rule of antibenevolent-logic need not be persuasive. It needn't even be plausible.'

Plantinga is talking gibberish.


------------------------------------------
For those interested , there is no logical contradiction between the statements
1) I can see that people generally have two legs
2) People only have one leg.

For those statements to be logically inconsistent, they must be inconsistent in all possible worlds.

Imagine a world where people's eyes are systematically deluded when looking at legs (some strange optical illusion is at work, or whenever they have looked at legs they have been so drunk or drugged that they are seing double)

or a world where the only people I have seen with two legs are those who were wearing an extremely good prosthesis.

As wiploc says about Plantinga's defense 'It needs only to be possible. ' It doesn't need to be plausible.

There are any number of possible worlds which make statements 1 and 2 both true, so there is no Problem of Legs.

Just as theists argue that there is no Problem of Evil!


Can we see theists rushing to defend a claim that people have only one leg? Why not, they make exactly the same stupid defence when it comes to the Problem of Evil!

[Ganymede]

Originally posted by wiploc
I imagine one teenage girl. Her parents are bible beaters. She's one herself, really, expects to grow up to be one anyway. She has some questions though, that she daren't ask of her preacher or parents or friends. Silent doubts. She has heard terrible things about atheists. Atheists are bad people who believe there are no moral rules. Her parents have packed her into this bus to go see the bad atheist.

She's my archetypal audience. The audience is full of her really, various "hers" of both genders and all ages and situations; and if I do a good job for her, I'll have reached the people who can be reached.

I'm sure this is a very good way to present. I do understand that you are not setting out to instantly convert your audience, but I do question the effectiveness of public debate in changing people’s points of view. While I concede that getting even one person to question what they have always held to be true is positive, I think what I intended to say was that this was the best one could reasonably hope for.

Originally posted by wiploc
Thanks.
crc

You're welcome!

[Asha'man]

Well done, wiploc.

:notworthy

[wiploc]

Originally posted by Jobar
Might we continue to refine this, by having someone familiar with his arguments and style attempt Craig's refutation?

Have you got someone in mind?
crc

[luvluv]

I hope you would not expect to trot off that example of the P.O.E. as an argument and expect to get away with it. I hope you do not think that Craig has never heard, or been asked to address, whether or not the cosmological argument is special pleading for God.

As for the PoE, I just don't know how it ends up. The argument seems absolutely sound to me, but Craig says that philosophers have disposed of it. He doesn't say how they did it. I've been directed to Plantinga. I'm reading Plantinga, and it's so far unenlightening. I suspect I'm in the wrong book. If anyone can recommend a shorter-than-book-length treatment of the PoE by Plantinga, that would be cool.

How about this one:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0802817319/qid=1044570109/sr=2-3/ref=sr_2_3/002-1252997-5387227

It's called God, Freedom, and Evil. I have it, it's only about 100 pages, but it's pretty good. You know, it's not necessary that someone present a full-blown theodicy to refute the problem of evil. They can simply show that there is no explicit contradiction and as such it does not disprove anything.

I agree with beastmaster that the existence of a universe seemingly fine-tuned for life out of nothing and for no reason is just as whacky an idea as theism, so why do you accept that notion without evidence? That is an extroidinarily whacky claim, yet you swallow that without a qualm. Existence in itself is whacky. Ordered existence, out of nothing and for no reason, is even more whacky. Necessary (needing no cause) ordered existence out of nothing and for no reason is even more whacky. And finally (because Craig loves him some kalaam) a necessary, ordered entity BEGINING to exist out of nothing and for no reason is totally out to lunch.

Yet, if you do not believe the theistic account you either believe this or you believe nothing. And why should people believe nothing? Because you say they should only believe things which have evidence? Who are you, God?

Craig can tie you in knots here because what science has revealed about nature is just as whacky and absurd as what Craig claims God has revealed about himself. So you are going to paint yourself into one heck of an embarassing corner with this tactic. He's going to probably force you to concede that your ideas are just as whacky as his, and after that opening if he succeeds in that you are buttered toast.

I would walk around his website, if you haven't already, and make sure he doesn't already have a response to the questions you are asking. He has a lot of his debate transcripts online here:

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/index.html

[luvluv]

Edited to add: Actually, I think there is a more powerful variation on the Problem of Evil that I call the Problem of Heaven. If there is a perfect place called Heaven, why didn't god just put us there in the first place? Why imprison us, even temporarily, in this flawed universe? I know, the answer is supposed to be Adam and the apple and the Fall, and all that mythological BS, but none of it makes much sense if you poke it with a stick.

I've read him respond to this before. Actually, if you go to his website and read the debate transcripts, he's answered most of the stuff that has been brought up on this thread before. The people he debates with are not dummies, folks.

[Phanes]

Originally posted by luvluv
I've read him respond to this before. Actually, if you go to his website and read the debate transcripts, he's answered most of the stuff that has been brought up on this thread before. The people he debates with are not dummies, folks.

Of course he's answered these questions before. "Pie" is an answer to "What's 2+2?" It just doesn't happen to be a very intelligible one.

[Steven Carr]

Originally posted by luvluv



How about this one:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0802817319/qid=1044570109/sr=2-3/ref=sr_2_3/002-1252997-5387227

It's called God, Freedom, and Evil. I have it, it's only about 100 pages, but it's pretty good. You know, it's not necessary that someone present a full-blown theodicy to refute the problem of evil. They can simply show that there is no explicit contradiction and as such it does not disprove anything.



As I pointed out there is no explicit contradiction between the statements

1) Almost everybody I have seen has 2 legs
2) People generally only have one leg.

Therefore, saying that there is observed to be lots of 2 legged-people in the world is pointless 'there is no explicit contradiction and as such it does not disprove anything.'

Of course, fine-tuning simply says 'It would be a miracle if we were alive and the universe did not allow life. No miracle has happened, as the universe *does* allow life. Therefore , God exists.'

Fin-tuning simply means an omnipotent God was hit by a priori constraints on what he could do, and these constraints came literally out of nowhere.

This disproves the Christian idea of an omnipotent God.

[Bumble Bee Tuna]

Craig can tie you in knots here because what science has revealed about nature is just as whacky and absurd as what Craig claims God has revealed about himself.
(Emphasis mine)

How is this a point for Craig? Science has provided evidence of some things that would be considered crazy without the evidence...and Craig has claimed some things that are considered crazy because he has no evidence.

You've got some of it right- Science and Craig both make some pretty extraordinary claims. Science has the added advantage of having the extraordinary evidence to back it up, whereas Craig has nothing. I honestly do not understand what you're trying to say here.

-B

[Clutch]

Science has provided evidence of some things that would be considered crazy without the evidence...and Craig has claimed some things that are considered crazy because he has no evidence.
DING!!

Bell rings at top of pole. BBT lays down sledgehammer, rolls down sleeves, walks away calmly.

:D

[luvluv]

As I pointed out there is no explicit contradiction between the statements

1) Almost everybody I have seen has 2 legs
2) People generally only have one leg.

Therefore, saying that there is observed to be lots of 2 legged-people in the world is pointless 'there is no explicit contradiction and as such it does not disprove anything.'

Okay, but generally speaking if you're going to title something a disproof you might want it to, you know, DISPROVE SOMETHING.

The problem of evil FAILS, as an explicit disproof. That is pretty much common knowledge. You can use it as a premise to suggest that the existence of God is unlikely, but unless most of the people in the audience already hold that to be the case it really does you no good in an debate. Craig will just grind you down to conceding that you conceding that the existence of evil doesn't really disprove the existence of a God having all the attributes of the God of theism. As unappealing as the UPD is to atheists, there is absolutely nothing more natural to the minds of most people than the notion that an omniscient being might know some things we don't know. wiploc is welcome to use the P.O.E. in his debate, but he might want to look at all the other world class philosophers who have also tried to use it against him and failed to really convince anyone who was not already convinced.

Fin-tuning simply means an omnipotent God was hit by a priori constraints on what he could do, and these constraints came literally out of nowhere.

This disproves the Christian idea of an omnipotent God.

Untrue, God could have any number of reasons for fine-tuning. The constraints need not be a priori if He had reasons for limiting the domains under which life might flourish. He might have wanted to limit the spread of life, for whatever reason, or He might have wanted to provide evidence for His existence.

Bumble Bee Tuna:

How is this a point for Craig? Science has provided evidence of some things that would be considered crazy without the evidence...and Craig has claimed some things that are considered crazy because he has no evidence.

The things I'm talking about science has no evidence for, and these would come up during the discussions of the cosmological argument. wiploc would claim it is ridiculous for there to be a necessary being, and then he would have to concede (with NO EVIDENCE mind you) that the universe was a necessary being. He would have to concede that the begining of the universe was CAUSELESS, a notion for which he could provide no evidence.

What I'm really critiquing here is wiploc's technique. He opens with a style which seems to suggest "this is counter-intuitive, and therefore should not be believed without the strongest evidence." I think Craig can very easily turn this back around on him and force wiploc to either admit ignorance about the origin of the universe (which wiploc would be smart to do) or admit that he holds a positive belief that the universe is a necessary being which exists in an ordered state, with no cause either for it's existence, it's order, or it's necessary natur, and that he holds this to be the case WITHOUT EVIDENCE. It will be pot, kettle, black time and the main focus of his opening will be turned back on his head. I'd suggest a less sarcastic opening.


You've got some of it right- Science and Craig both make some pretty extraordinary claims. Science has the added advantage of having the extraordinary evidence to back it up, whereas Craig has nothing. I honestly do not understand what you're trying to say here.

I'm referring to the cause of the big bang, which will almost certainly come up. Science doesn't have a lick of evidence to the effect that it was causeless.

[Gary Welsh]

Originally posted by luvluv
The problem of evil FAILS, as an explicit disproof. That is pretty much common knowledge.

I disagree. I think what is pretty much common knowledge is that if you have a contradiction, something has to give. What is NOT common knowledge are the sometimes esoteric, philosophical explanations intended to show the rest of us how "this really isn't a contradiction" and we just think it is. Unless we redefine one or more of the terms involved, like evil, omniscience, omnipotence, etc. we are left with a contradiction. So, logically, it is a disproof.

But I agree that wiploc should tone down the sarcasm and the smugness a bit. I don't like the way that comes across. Too many people already buy into the stereotype that atheists are arrogant and condescending, and there's no need to reinforce that. If you ever get the chance to debate a widely read apologist like William Lane Craig, I think it would be best to be polite, succinct and clear.

[wiploc]

Originally posted by Gary Welsh
But I agree that wiploc should tone down the sarcasm and the smugness a bit. I don't like the way that comes across. Too many people already buy into the stereotype that atheists are arrogant and condescending, and there's no need to reinforce that. If you ever get the chance to debate a widely read apologist like William Lane Craig, I think it would be best to be polite, succinct and clear.

Thanks. It's good to see how I'm coming across thru other people's eyes.
crc

[Clutch]

luvluv,wiploc would claim it is ridiculous for there to be a necessary being, and then he would have to concede (with NO EVIDENCE mind you) that the universe was a necessary being. I suppose he'd have to concede this if there was a sound argument for it. Since there isn't, though, I think he'd be fine.

You seem moreover to confuse a disproof with the establishment of an accepted contradiction. One can rationalize away all the apparent evidence for a Keplerian solar system (some quite sane people do this as a hobby, constructing the epicycles necessary to account for the telescopically observable planetary motions) without accepting any contradictions, by telling a weird enough story about epicycles, atmospheric illusions, and what have you -- a story every bit as weird as "God is morally perfect and commands the slaughter of infants".

Do we have a disproof of the Copernican solar system, notwithstanding? (Hint: Yes.)

[Tercel]

Hi Wiploc,
Some comments on your OP:
Dr. Craig is the best – far the best – Christian apologist I have ever seen. He is so good that, for most of us here tonight, he is the best we will ever see. So if he doesn’t make you a Christian tonight, well … you can pretty well give up on that happening.Hmm, from what I've read of his debates I'm not sure I agree there...

The weirder a claim is, the less credence it is given...

You have to have at least whacko powers to be a god. If you behave normally, then you are a normal person; you do not deserve the title “god.” Well, actually, as Clint Eastwood said to Gene Hackman in Unforgiven: deserving doesn’t come into it. If you don’t have whacko powers, you simply aren't what we mean by the word “god.” By definition, you are not god...

The weirder something is, the more likely it is to be a god, but the less likely it is to exist.I can't say I think much of your logic here. Basically what you are saying is that the existence of God is intrinsically an unlikely claim and therefore requires substantial evidence. Despite your appeal to the gigantic authority that is Clint Eastwood, you haven't actually proved this assertion that God is intriniscally unlikely to exist. I think the question of the existence of God is a very very non-extraordinary one: A very ordinary question indeed. 99% of people in human history have apparently thought so too and believed that a god exists. If you want to convince us you have to actually present an argument rather than an assertion.

With your argument from suffering the likely response (the one I would give anyway) is going to be that God is (according to you) "not good". That is, he possesses sufficient power to stop suffering but chooses not to for <insert one or more "more important goods" than than prevention of suffering here> reason.

If you have a good argument, you aren’t going to use a bad argument.Not true at all. I've done this many many times myself. Many other considerations come into it apart from wanting to "win the argument": time, effort, KISS (keep-it-simple-stupid) etc. I often don't have enough time for writing anything remotely resembling my best argument on the subject (eg what I consider the best argument for the existence of God I have *finally* gotten round to drafting after two years of posting here and is currently 20 pages long with no end in site) or am not prepared to make the effort of research I know would be required for my best, or know that the person I am talking too is simply not intelligent or well informed enough to appreciate the best argument if I was to give it so I have to keep it simple. Craig is certainly affected by the time constraint of the debate as he apparently points out regularly and is likely affected by KISS as well.
(Not to mention that I don't think Craig actually knows the best arguments for God, so your later assumption that Craig must have given the best arguments is fallacious for that reason too)

His First Cause argument: It is almost a parody of the bicycle argument: Everything has a precursor; not everything has a precursor; therefore you must buy my religion. Would a man with a good argument make an argument such as this?Can't say I agree with you here, but since you present nothing worthwhile I can only say: :rolleyes:

His moral argument: People disagree about morals. From *this* Dr. Craig concludes that there must be a “transcendent moral anchor.” Now, if it worked the other way, if people didn’t disagree, if individuals and cultures could all agree on what was right and what was wrong, don’t you know that Dr. Craig would be saying that this proved the existence of his transcendent moral anchor? By saying that moral disagreement proves objective morality, Dr. Craig reveals that anything that happens will be taken as evidence of that which he wishes us to believe.Be careful: Does Craig argue that disagreement about morals => "transcendent moral anchor" or that agreement that there are a such thing as morals even if they are disagreed about => "transcendent moral anchor"? (I honestly don't know which - I haven't read Craig's stuff recently enough to remember) But your objection would be rubbish against the second (which seems to me to be more likely to be his argument if he's using run-of-the-mill arguments like it appears).

His design argument: If we find mold in a refrigerator, do we assume that the refrigerator was designed for the mold? If not, then why is it that just because we find people in the universe, we assume the universe was made for people? This is the quality of argument one might expect from egotistical refrigerator mold. :D Your first good argument in my estimation. Can I plaguerise?

His Empty Tomb argument: It is a story. You cannot prove a story is true by citing the people in the story. If that were a legitimate tactic, I could prove that Apollo exists by citing Aphrodite as a witness.??? Which people does Craig cite who are non-existent? I imagine Craig would put you through the blender for this response - I know I would.

As regards personal experience of God, your blanket assertions that experiences can contradict doesn't really cut it. Presumably claims of experiences can be of different believability depending on the exact claim and what is known about the person making it. (You've already discussed this point earlier so it seems strange that you're ignoring it now) Presumably Craig thinks that claims in support of his beliefs are more believable than others, or maybe he thinks that claims of any mystical experiences whatever their content are evidence for the occurances of actual mystical experiences which implies the supernatural which is evidence of God. Neither of which you deal with.

Dr. Craig is a scholar; and this is his field, his chosen career, his calling; we can assume that if there were a better arguments available, we would have heard them tonight.Dr Craig is an apologist, a debater - we can assume that Dr Craig has chosen to use these particular arguments and presented them in such a way that he thinks is most appealing to the masses - we can assume that if Dr Craig had a choice between presenting an argument he thinks is fallacious but which sounds good and is simple he would choose it over a better but not as convincing sounding and/or more complex argument when doing a public debate.
We can also assume that what is a good argument is heavily subject to personal judgement and knowledge and there is no compelling reason to think that Dr Craig's choice or knowledge of good arguments is any better than anyone else who is familiar with the widely used arguments.

The first: since they rely on really bad arguments, it is fair to conclude that Christians are motivated believers who don't have any good arguments.Probably true for 99% of Christians and probably true for 99% of atheists too.

[Vorkosigan]

Hmm, from what I've read of his debates I'm not sure I agree there...

Gotta back you here, Tercel. Craig is not the most effective apologist in my view either. There's a coldness and distance to him that I find offputting, and it is too easy to punch holes in his arguments. He is an effective rhetorician, no more. I find people like Kenny or Polycarp here at Infidels to be much more attractive apologists. Additionally, the kind of people who make religion attractive, at least to me, are people like Dorothy Day or Francis of Assisi or similar, people who experience it as a calling to service and beautiful love for others, or people like Yeats or Merton, who find in religious symbolism the stuff of mythic beauty and power. Wm. Craig will never have that kind of effect.

Vorkosigan

[HRG]

Originally posted by Tercel
Hi Wiploc,
Some comments on your OP:
Hmm, from what I've read of his debates I'm not sure I agree there...

I can't say I think much of your logic here. Basically what you are saying is that the existence of God is intrinsically an unlikely claim and therefore requires substantial evidence. Despite your appeal to the gigantic authority that is Clint Eastwood, you haven't actually proved this assertion that God is intriniscally unlikely to exist. I think the question of the existence of God is a very very non-extraordinary one: A very ordinary question indeed. 99% of people in human history have apparently thought so too and believed that a god exists.

It is interesting that you switch here from "God" (which usually denotes the Christian god if capitalized) to "a god". You achieve your figure of 99% only by throwing together Yahweh and Tezcatlipoca, Brahma and Perkunas, Zeus and Ra etc. into a big box and label it "Diverse gods".

I wonder how the existence of disembodied entities with unbounded minds and limitless powers can not be regarded as an extraordinary claim. Vox populi is not decisive on that question.

Regards,
HRG.

[Hobbs]

Originally posted by Ojuice5001
Wiploc,

Could you elaborate on your point about all god-concepts being strange? I happen to think that the concept of a god, as I define it, is not that strange at all. As I define a god, it is "an immaterial being, with at least the intelligence of a human, that affects indeterminate natural events." I realize that atheists find such a being strange, but I don't. After all, the concept of size is immaterial, humans have human intelligence, and the wind affects chance events; why couldn't there be beings that have all three qualities?

Is there an objective fact of the matter about whether gods are strange entities? If not, any conclusion based on the idea that gods are strange is subjective; if so, I challenge you to prove that my concept of a god is strange.

How is the concept of an "immaterial being" not strange? Events (which would include thoughts or ideas) are not material, but they are performed by material beings (such as brains). What could be a being other than something, some thing, some matter, stuff, material? How could a process or event occur without some being to perform it? Then there is the point about having at least the intelligence of a human. Since our intelligence is a function of our brains, how can God think if he does not have a brain? As for the wind, it consists of material, so that is not a good analogy for you. How could something immaterial have any affect on matter?

I would say that there is not an objective fact of the matter about whether gods are strange entities, because "strangeness" is a subjective evaluation. But I don't see how thinking carefully about an immaterial being, or thought without a brain to do the thinking, does not end up being as strange as talking about square circles.

[wiploc]

Originally posted by Tercel
Hmm, from what I've read of his debates I'm not sure I agree there...


Craig is far the best that I've seen; but that hardly matters in parody. Craig's lavish praise of his opponents made me angry. He praises them so he can take advantage of having beaten a goliath. Then I realized I didn't have to be angry, I just had to point his technique back at him. :)

Good post, thanks.
I'll respond to more of his points later.
crc

[wiploc]

Originally posted by Tercel
I can't say I think much of your logic here. Basically what you are saying is that the existence of God is intrinsically an unlikely claim and therefore requires substantial evidence. Despite your appeal to the gigantic authority that is Clint Eastwood, you haven't actually proved this assertion that God is intriniscally unlikely to exist. I think the question of the existence of God is a very very non-extraordinary one: A very ordinary question indeed. 99% of people in human history have apparently thought so too and believed that a god exists. If you want to convince us you have to actually present an argument rather than an assertion.


If I said I could feed a hundred people with seven Big Macs, would you believe it? If I said I used to be dead, but I had risen from the dead after three days, would you believe it? If I said I had a friend who is stronger than anyone else in the world, would you believe it? How about I know somebody who lives on top of the sky and rides tornadoes and pillars of fire as transport? My friend is strong enough to do anything, anything at all, but he cannot defeat iron chariots? My friend is the most fair person imaginable, but he makes up imaginary crimes and metes them infinite punishment? I can make the sun stop in the sky?

The only way you can fail to recognize these stories as unlikely is by abandoning your sense of what is likely.




With your argument from suffering the likely response (the one I would give anyway) is going to be that God is (according to you) "not good". That is, he possesses sufficient power to stop suffering but chooses not to for <insert one or more "more important goods" than than prevention of suffering here> reason.


Bingo! That's a consession that the traditional Christian god does not exist.




Not true at all [That people with good arguments don't use bad arguments]. I've done this many many times myself. Many other considerations come into it apart from wanting to "win the argument": time, effort, KISS (keep-it-simple-stupid) etc. I often don't have enough time for writing anything remotely resembling my best argument on the subject (eg what I consider the best argument for the existence of God I have *finally* gotten round to drafting after two years of posting here and is currently 20 pages long with no end in site) or am not prepared to make the effort of research I know would be required for my best, or know that the person I am talking too is simply not intelligent or well informed enough to appreciate the best argument if I was to give it so I have to keep it simple. Craig is certainly affected by the time constraint of the debate as he apparently points out regularly and is likely affected by KISS as well.
(Not to mention that I don't think Craig actually knows the best arguments for God, so your later assumption that Craig must have given the best arguments is fallacious for that reason too)


Sure, we slip up and use bad arguments. If Craig wants to say, "Oops, these were bad arguments," that's okay with me.
Christianity has had 2000 years to come up with an argument. Craig's are as good as anybody's, and his stink.




Be careful: Does Craig argue that disagreement about morals => "transcendent moral anchor" or that agreement that there are a such thing as morals even if they are disagreed about => "transcendent moral anchor"? (I honestly don't know which - I haven't read Craig's stuff recently enough to remember) But your objection would be rubbish against the second (which seems to me to be more likely to be his argument if he's using run-of-the-mill arguments like it appears).


He says it the second way. My point is that they aren't agreeing about morals, and he's claiming that proves that there is a "transcendant moral anchor." That's like saying that the disagreement over which language to speak in Quebec somehow proves that god has a "true language" that we all should be speaking. If we had a transcendent moral anchor, we should see some agreement about morals.




[responding to the refrigerator mold argument:]
:D Your first good argument in my estimation. Can I plaguerise?


Thanks. Feel free.




??? Which people does Craig cite who are non-existent? I imagine Craig would put you through the blender for this response - I know I would.


Well, without going back to read him at this point, I think he's relying on the veracity of all those people mentioned in the resurection story. If they didn't agree that this story, written 60 to 100 years after the fact, was true, wouldn't they have said something? Wouldn't we have heard about it?

If I can be put thru the blender on any of these, I'd like to find it out. Would you like to do Craig's side of this debate?





As regards personal experience of God, your blanket assertions that experiences can contradict doesn't really cut it. Presumably claims of experiences can be of different believability


Oh now we have our sense of what's probable and improbable back?




depending on the exact claim and what is known about the person making it. (You've already discussed this point earlier so it seems strange that you're ignoring it now) Presumably Craig thinks that claims in support of his beliefs are more believable than others, or maybe he thinks that claims of any mystical experiences whatever their content are evidence for the occurances of actual mystical experiences which implies the supernatural which is evidence of God. Neither of which you deal with.


He's free to make these points in his rebuttal. I wasn't trying to close out argument in my opening statement. It's not like these moves can't be dealt with, but there is no point in trying to deal with them before they are raised.




Dr Craig is an apologist, a debater - we can assume that Dr Craig has chosen to use these particular arguments and presented them in such a way that he thinks is most appealing to the masses - we can assume that if Dr Craig had a choice between presenting an argument he thinks is fallacious but which sounds good and is simple he would choose it over a better but not as convincing sounding and/or more complex argument when doing a public debate.
We can also assume that what is a good argument is heavily subject to personal judgement and knowledge and there is no compelling reason to think that Dr Craig's choice or knowledge of good arguments is any better than anyone else who is familiar with the widely used arguments.


I'm not saying his are better than the other arguments. The others are exactly as good as his since they are all worthless. In two thousand years of trying, Christianity has yet to come up with a good reason to believe in god. That's a pretty good reason to believe they aren't going to come up with one this season.




Probably true for 99% of Christians and probably true for 99% of atheists too.

The Christians take the affirmative position. They need a good argument. If we merely recognise that they don't have a good argument for believing in god, then we have a good reason for not believeing in god.
crc

[Tercel]

Originally posted by wiploc
If I said I could feed a hundred people with seven Big Macs, would you believe it? If I said I used to be dead, but I had risen from the dead after three days, would you believe it? If I said I had a friend who is stronger than anyone else in the world, would you believe it? How about I know somebody who lives on top of the sky and rides tornadoes and pillars of fire as transport? My friend is strong enough to do anything, anything at all, but he cannot defeat iron chariots? My friend is the most fair person imaginable, but he makes up imaginary crimes and metes them infinite punishment? I can make the sun stop in the sky?No, no, agnostic (you may be friends with the most recent Olympic weightlifting champion - or similar, but your claim is not sufficient to convince me in itself - well when you give it in a list of things you intend to be false like this I'm convinced it's false), no, no, no, no respectively.

The only way you can fail to recognize these stories as unlikely is by abandoning your sense of what is likely.Agreed.

I assume you think some sort of parallel to the Christian God/Jesus applies? There we disagree. Hume's argument in Of Miracles forms a good reason for ignoring your claims, while the same does not applies to Christian claims since they were alledged to be the fulfillment of (and occured within) an already existing religious tradition and context.

Bingo! That's a consession that the traditional Christian god does not exist.No. I'm a Christian (if a liberal one who's being called "not a Christian" at various times by fundies), I'm hardly going to concede that! :p
God possesses the power to stop suffering but He does not do so. He does not do so because He does not want to. God is benevolent. I think very few Christians would disagree with that.

The assumption you have introduced is that God's single greatest desire is to completely prevent our suffering. I think very few Christians would agree with that.

Christian theology teaches that we are NOT the centre of the universe: We are among the lowest of the low, perhaps the lowest of all beings in creation. Why should God's greatest goal be to prevent our suffering now?
Christian theology teaches that suffering can produce good things: Endurance, compassion, love, selflessness, spiritual growth. Why should God's greatest goal be to completely prevent that? (Who can say how much he prevents it in part?)
Christian theology teaches that suffering is temporary. It will not last forever. It is not some impossibly black blight on the face of the world: It is like a buzzing fly that God will swat when it's time, something no one will care about after it's gone. Why should God's greatest goal be to prevent our suffering now?
Christian theology teaches that God has given us and other spiritual beings free will: The power to do right, the power to do wrong, the power to make of ourselves what we choose for good or evil, the power to help others and the power to harm others. If God desires to have free willed beings that do not suffer then logically his desire for free will is "greater" than his desire for no suffering since free willed beings much exist before they cannot suffer and their existence necessitates the possibility of suffering until they have conformed themselves completely to good or evil as they choose. Hence God's greatest desire cannot be that we do not suffer.
Christian theology teaches that God is beyond complete comprehension. To categorically state such a specific thing as your assumption outlined above is dodgy in the extreme.

Hence I conclude the argument from suffering does not succeed to disprove the Christian God, nor does it even give us good reason to doubt His existence.

Sure, we slip up and use bad arguments. If Craig wants to say, "Oops, these were bad arguments," that's okay with me.
Christianity has had 2000 years to come up with an argument. Craig's are as good as anybody's, and his stink.Atheism's had plenty of time to come up with good arguments. The argument from evil's generally considered one of the best. I think it stinks. Is the only reasonable response therefore Christianity?
Not that the argument from evil is even relevant against a non-benevolent God such as that of many Calvinist Christians, Muslims and Jews.

He says it the second way. My point is that they aren't agreeing about morals, and he's claiming that proves that there is a "transcendant moral anchor." That's like saying that the disagreement over which language to speak in Quebec somehow proves that god has a "true language" that we all should be speaking. If we had a transcendent moral anchor, we should see some agreement about morals.They disagree over language in Quebec, but I imagine they all agree that they should have a language. People disgree about morals, but most seem to agree that there are things that are truly right and things that are truly wrong. Whether or not people agree about what those things are is utterly irrelevant. If there are things that are truly right and things that are truly wrong, then it is necessary to explain why. A "transcendent moral anchor" is therefore necessary, the alternative being that there is nothing truly right or truly wrong only subjective feelings about how you would personally like people to act.

Well, without going back to read him at this point, I think he's relying on the veracity of all those people mentioned in the resurection story. If they didn't agree that this story, written 60 to 100 years after the fact, was true, wouldn't they have said something? Wouldn't we have heard about it?

If I can be put thru the blender on any of these, I'd like to find it out. Would you like to do Craig's side of this debate?I'm not going to argue for Craig. I don't think the historical evidence surrounding the resurrection story is enough to show anything more than that the resurrection may have happened if you're philosophically prepared to accept a supernatural event.
If you try and assert that the people mentioned in the resurrection story (eg the disciples Peter and John) didn't exist then I'm going to laugh at you. There is a huge number of apparently independent multiple attestations of the existence of those two men. If we can know anything in history for "fact" then we know that they existed. Of course, there are those that say "all history is bunk" or similar... :rolleyes:

If you want to argue against the resurrection you're much better off taking the line that the resurrection was originally made up by Jesus' disciples to console themselves upon seeing his crucifixion. The original thought being something like "Yeah he died, but God raised him back to life and he's now in heaven with God". And later one of them claimed a vision of the risen Jesus, and later it was claimed that Jesus was risen in the flesh and walked about lots etc. I don't know, something like that. Okay, so I suck at making up BS off the top of my head but you're much better off arguing against the supernatural element in the story as opposed to a natural element like the existence of people (especially when that existence is pretty damn well evidenced).

Oh now we have our sense of what's probable and improbable back?It never went away. Don't worry.

The Christians take the affirmative position. They need a good argument. If we merely recognise that they don't have a good argument for believing in god, then we have a good reason for not believeing in god.Really? Simply failing to proof something is evidence against it?

Are you demanding absolute logical proof or just *some evidence*? There's plenty of *some evidence*:
Hundreds, thousands, of claims of the supernatural in the world throughout human history; Consciousness; Free will; Concepts; Parsimony; Cosmological argument considerations.
No evidence? :rolleyes: Wake up and smell the coffee: When are you atheists going to stop ignoring the evidence?

[Vorkosigan]

Christian theology teaches that we are NOT the centre of the universe: We are among the lowest of the low, perhaps the lowest of all beings in creation. Why should God's greatest goal be to prevent our suffering now?
Christian theology teaches that suffering can produce good things: Endurance, compassion, love, selflessness, spiritual growth. Why should God's greatest goal be to completely prevent that? (Who can say how much he prevents it in part?)
Christian theology teaches that suffering is temporary. It will not last forever. It is not some impossibly black blight on the face of the world: It is like a buzzing fly that God will swat when it's time, something no one will care about after it's gone.

Tercel, this is so amoral it is practically nihilistic. The difference between me and god is that I do not permit things in my presence to needlessly suffer when I clearly have the power to stop it, regardless of how low they are. In fact, I take the opposite tack -- it is more incumbent upon the strong to help the low than to help the strong, since presumably the strong can help themselves.....

You're so rational sometimes, and then sometimes you just leap off the deep end like this. I can't read a passage like this without a strong feeling of genuine distress: have you completely lost your moral bearings?

We are among the lowest of the low, perhaps the lowest of all beings in creation. Why should God's greatest goal be to prevent our suffering now

I mean, this is incredible. Should things be allowed to suffer when they are low? And "low" in what sense?

Further, it is just silly. It doesn't matter whether reducing suffering is "god's greatest goal" or not. The relative importance of god's actions is not the issue. The issue is that everywhere in the real world pointless suffering is recognized as an evil and normal people seek to alleviate it. An omnipotent being has the power to eliminate all pointless suffering from the world. Some suffering does teach; but most does not. And the kind of lessons one learns from suffering are mostly unnecessary -- one only needs them because there is suffering in the first place.

If God desires to have free willed beings that do not suffer then logically his desire for free will is "greater" than his desire for no suffering since free willed beings much exist before they cannot suffer and their existence necessitates the possibility of suffering until they have conformed themselves completely to good or evil as they choose.

If "free will" really entails suffering -- and it most certainly does not -- then there can be no free will in heaven. If there is free will in heaven, then obviously the world could be a better place.

In any case the whole "free will" argument is asinine: god creates people, gives the ability to torture each other, then, already knowing from the beginning who is going where, he assigns them to their place in Hell or Heaven. Why not save the suffering and send us where we belong in the first place?

Further, your argument does not address a core issue: that much suffering bears no relationship to the free will of the sufferer, and that there is far more suffering in the world than necessary for people to learn that suffering is wrong.

Consciousness; Free will; Concepts; Parsimony; Cosmological argument considerations.
No evidence? Wake up and smell the coffee: When are you atheists going to stop ignoring the evidence?

When you get some. The things you cite there are not evidence of anything except your impoverished worldview and overheated imagination. If they are evidence of god, why is atheism so widespread among scientists, the people most familiar with them?

Vorkosigan

[wiploc]

Originally posted by Tercel
I assume you think some sort of parallel to the Christian God/Jesus applies? There we disagree. Hume's argument in Of Miracles forms a good reason for ignoring your claims, while the same does not applies to Christian claims since they were alledged to be the fulfillment of (and occured within) an already existing religious tradition and context.


Religious claims have inherent plausibility; but the same claim made by the non-religious should be dismissed?




God possesses the power to stop suffering but He does not do so. He does not do so because He does not want to.

Bingo! He's not omnibenevolent. The PoE only rules out the possiblity of omnibenevolent deities. It makes not attempt to disprove your personal pretty-nice-but-not-perfectly-nice god.



God is benevolent. I think very few Christians would disagree with that.

The assumption you have introduced is that God's single greatest desire is to completely prevent our suffering. I think very few Christians would agree with that.


He can have no greater desire and still be called omnibenevolent. If he has no greater desire, then he would accomplish this if he could. And the Christian god can accomplish anything he wants. Therefore, he cannot exist in a world that has suffering.




Why should God's greatest goal be to prevent our suffering now?


Hey don't look at me for the why of it. I'm only saying that if he felt that way, and if he could do what he wanted, then we wouldn't hurt. That's the whole point.

If your point is that, even though this god doesn't exist, you can still believe in some other god, a pretty-nice god, that's fine with me. But your god is not the "perfect" god of traditional Christian theology.





Christian theology teaches that suffering can produce good things: Endurance, compassion, love, selflessness, spiritual growth.

Ah, "dental goodness." Yes, the dentist inflicts pain in order to prevent greater pain. God is like a dentist, inflicting (or allowing) pain in order to prevent greater pain --- but only if he can't achieve the same goal without the pain. An omnipotent god could get what he wanted without the pain.

If my dentists were omnipotent, if they could do for me what they did without hurting me --- but they went ahead and hurt me anyway --- then they would be terrible people. Bad. Nowhere close to omnibenevolent.

The standard Christian god is supposed to be omnipotent, able to accomplish anything he wants. Therefore, no appeal to dental goodness is reasonable.




Why should God's greatest goal be to completely prevent that? (Who can say how much he prevents it in part?)


Make the question who says god is all-good, all-merciful, all-loving, like a good father, etcetera. The answer, though I hate to be the one to break it to you, is the Christians.




Christian theology teaches that suffering is temporary. It will not last forever. It is not some impossibly black blight on the face of the world: It is like a buzzing fly that God will swat when it's time, something no one will care about after it's gone. Why should God's greatest goal be to prevent our suffering now?


I get it. Right now he's on break. He'll be omnibenevolent tomorrow?




Christian theology teaches that God has given us and other spiritual beings free will: The power to do right, the power to do wrong, the power to make of ourselves what we choose for good or evil, the power to help others and the power to harm others. If God desires to have free willed beings that do not suffer then logically his desire for free will is "greater" than his desire for no suffering since free willed beings much exist before they cannot suffer and their existence necessitates the possibility of suffering until they have conformed themselves completely to good or evil as they choose. Hence God's greatest desire cannot be that we do not suffer.

God made the garden of Eden with no suffering until Eve fell. He could have put Mary or Ruth there instead of Eve. He could have put the tree outside the garden. He could have given the snake bad breath and a lisp. He could have sent the snake on a day when Eve was stronger. He could have made the world on the Day of Judgement, creating only those bound for Heaven.

If god can do anything he wants, then he can get his happy result without all this suffering.




Christian theology teaches that God is beyond complete comprehension. To categorically state such a specific thing as your assumption outlined above is dodgy in the extreme.


Do not bring in illogic to bolster logic.

The PoE only proves god cannot logically exist. The fact that he might illogically exist is not a logical argument.

But if we accept your premise that we don't understand god, then among the things we don't understand about him is whether he is good.

If logic does work, if reason leads to truth, if humans can have knowledge, then it follows that a god cannot be omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient if he lets suffering exist. That is logically impecable. If you abandon logic, then you are saying there is no logical reason to believe in god.




Hence I conclude the argument from suffering does not succeed to disprove the Christian God, nor does it even give us good reason to doubt His existence.


The PoE's disproof of the standard Christian god is stone cold fact. It is unassailable. It is a valid sylogisym; this means we know it to be true as well as we know anything. Anything at all.




Not that the argument from evil is even relevant against a non-benevolent God such as that of many Calvinist Christians, Muslims and Jews.


That's my point. Their gods are not perfectly benevolent. Since you recognise that, you can use the PoE to prove it to them.

Your god isn't entirely benevolent either. I get to use the PoE to prove this to you.




They disagree over language in Quebec, but I imagine they all agree that they should have a language. People disgree about morals, but most seem to agree that there are things that are truly right and things that are truly wrong. Whether or not people agree about what those things are is utterly irrelevant. If there are things that are truly right and things that are truly wrong, then it is necessary to explain why. A "transcendent moral anchor" is therefore necessary, the alternative being that there is nothing truly right or truly wrong only subjective feelings about how you would personally like people to act.



Stay focused. If disagreements about language do not prove that there is one true language, why do disagreements about morality prove that there is one true morality?




Really? Simply failing to proof something is evidence against it?


If I say there is a lion in your closet, you are going to disbelieve unless I give you a reason to believe. That is a reasonable reaction. If you tell me you have an invisible friend, then I am going to disbelieve unless you give me a reason to believe. That too is reasonable.




Are you demanding absolute logical proof or just *some evidence*?

Just some evidence.



There's plenty of *some evidence*:
Hundreds, thousands, of claims of the supernatural in the world throughout human history;

Much of it proven false. Much of it proven mental illness. Much of it proven lies. Much of it mutually contradictory. If there is any signal amongst the noise, it has not been detected.



Consciousness; Free will; Concepts; Parsimony; Cosmological argument considerations.

I'd think that if there really was a good argument I'd have heard it before this. But I'll be happy to listen to your arguments. If there's a real reason to believe, I want to know it.

crc

[Gary Welsh]

Originally posted by Tercel
There's plenty of *some evidence*:
Hundreds, thousands, of claims of the supernatural in the world throughout human history; Consciousness; Free will; Concepts; Parsimony; Cosmological argument considerations.
No evidence? :rolleyes: Wake up and smell the coffee: When are you atheists going to stop ignoring the evidence?

Hmmm... Yeah, when are we atheists going to stop being so unreasonable? When faced with a list like yours, we must all be insane. I mean, "Concepts" is on your list of evidence, for Pete's sake! How can we possibly deny something that obvious? We atheists must not want to believe in God. That is the only possible explanation.

I think you're finally getting through to me, Tercel. I'm smelling that coffee.

[Clutch]

It's interesting that all this amazing evidence for theism resists expression in the form of actual sound arguments.

That's Tercel's real affinity with Craig; they both think highly of the idea that chaining a bunch of failed arguments together somehow adds up to a good one.

[Tercel]

Originally posted by Clutch
It's interesting that all this amazing evidence for theism resists expression in the form of actual sound arguments.Says who? You?
I only say that there is no utterly conclusive logical proof of God's existence yet. There is only sufficient evidence to make the existence of God beyond reasonable doubt IMO.

That's Tercel's real affinity with Craig; they both think highly of the idea that chaining a bunch of failed arguments together somehow adds up to a good one.I think most people would agree that adding together a lot of not-utterly-conclusive arguments can create a cumulative case.
Our disagreement lies in how weak we consider those arguments to be.

[Tercel]

Originally posted by Gary Welsh
Hmmm... Yeah, when are we atheists going to stop being so unreasonable? When faced with a list like yours, we must all be insane. I mean, "Concepts" is on your list of evidence, for Pete's sake! How can we possibly deny something that obvious? We atheists must not want to believe in God. That is the only possible explanation.

I think you're finally getting through to me, Tercel. I'm smelling that coffee. Judging an entire argument based on a one word description of it? How presumptuous is that!? :eek:

[Clutch]

Says who? You? Well, yes, I said it. You quoted me.

But you needn't take my word for it -- in case you were on the verge of doing so. You can feel free to prove me wrong: for each word or phrase that you tossed in as "evidence" on your above list, show me a sound argument for theism. My point was just that a non-sequiturish list of words hardly bears out "smell the coffee".

Finally, I'm not talking about not-utterly-conclusive arguments, if by that you mean something like the arguments that smoking causes cancer. I said failed arguments; invalid arguments, question-begging arguments, arguments with false premises, and the like. If you have arguments for theism that fail only inasmuch as they render their conclusion probable but not necessary, you should produce them.

[Tercel]

Originally posted by Vorkosigan
Christian theology teaches that we are NOT the centre of the universe: We are among the lowest of the low, perhaps the lowest of all beings in creation. Why should God's greatest goal be to prevent our suffering now?

Tercel, this is so amoral it is practically nihilistic. The difference between me and god is that I do not permit things in my presence to needlessly suffer when I clearly have the power to stop it, regardless of how low they are. In fact, I take the opposite tack -- it is more incumbent upon the strong to help the low than to help the strong, since presumably the strong can help themselves..... I am not saying "we are worthless therefore God shouldn't help us". I'm saying we are not the centre of the universe and the universe does not revolve around us therefore it is unlikely that God's single greatest desire is to remove our suffering.

99% of defences of the argument from suffering take the route that there is something God wants more than to prevent our suffering (which He wants also) but that this something more is mutually exclusive with the prevention of our suffering. Thus explaining why a God who could prevent our suffering and wants to prevent our suffering, does not in fact do so.
Hence my argument that it seems extraordinary unlikely in light of Christian teachings that God's single greatest desire is to completely prevent our suffering now. Only if the atheist can establish all four of those points does the argument from suffering succeed.

You're so rational sometimes, and then sometimes you just leap off the deep end like this. I can't read a passage like this without a strong feeling of genuine distress: have you completely lost your moral bearings?Thanks for the compliment anyway...

Further, it is just silly. It doesn't matter whether reducing suffering is "god's greatest goal" or not. The relative importance of god's actions is not the issue. The issue is that everywhere in the real world pointless suffering is recognized as an evil and normal people seek to alleviate it. An omnipotent being has the power to eliminate all pointless suffering from the world.The elimination of suffering would have pretty far reaching consequences. All else being equal, I'm sure God would eliminate suffering. The point is, that all else is extremely unlikely to be equal.

If "free will" really entails suffering -- and it most certainly does not -- then there can be no free will in heaven. If there is free will in heaven, then obviously the world could be a better place. I think it does entail suffering. Free will entails the God imposing self-limitation on his own will in order to give us the power to affect ourselves and others. Free will necessarily allows us to destroy ourselves, and hurt others.
There is no conflict between free will and heaven in Orthodox theology (which if you haven't noticed by now, I mostly accept with regard to the doctrines of Salvation). Using our free will we will be eventually conformed to one extreme or the other as good or bad in nature. Only the good people will be present in heaven (wherever or whatever that is) and thus there won't be any suffering.

In any case the whole "free will" argument is asinine: god creates people, gives the ability to torture each other, then, already knowing from the beginning who is going where, he assigns them to their place in Hell or Heaven. Why not save the suffering and send us where we belong in the first place?Because He didn't and couldn't know where we would go prior to our creation. He only knows everything that can be known, not everything that can't as well!
We are self-determining beings - not some sort of causal system who's future state can be predicted as if it were a mechanical system! :eek:

Further, your argument does not address a core issue: that much suffering bears no relationship to the free will of the sufferer, and that there is far more suffering in the world than necessary for people to learn that suffering is wrong.I agree with you that is an issue, but I disagree that my argument does not address it. In considering that we are not the centre of the universe, I hold the door open for God to be constrained by commitments or considerations that relate to other beings nor goals in the universe. It's the "unknown purposes defense" combined with "there's some damn good reasons why God might have unknown purposes". ;)

Consciousness; Free will; Concepts; Parsimony; Cosmological argument considerations.
No evidence? Wake up and smell the coffee: When are you atheists going to stop ignoring the evidence?

When you get some.I'm working on my gigantic argument which combines all these things: 20 pages so far with probably about the same again to come...

The things you cite there are not evidence of anything except your impoverished worldview and overheated imagination.Impoverished worldview? And that's coming from someone who's worldview likely consists of one or more of the following:
*that the True Explanation for our singular awareness that we all have, is to explain it away by a miscellany of materialistic and non-aware particles which are magically giving rise to it
*that conscious perception -outside of which nothing has ever been observed, nor could it be- the most fundamental and undeniable fact of human experience should be explained in terms of a miscellany of somethings which cannot even be proven to even have any real existence of their own outside that perception.
*that explaining the single entity of awareness in terms of a miscellany of entities is somehow more parsimonious that the alternative.
*that despite the fact that you believe that everything which exists can be explained by these materialistic particles, they themselves are subject to natural laws, which are neither particles nor can be explained by them: there is no inconsistency or problem.
etc.

And that's just extremely brief outlines of the objections I can remember off the top of my head regarding a naturalistic interpretation of consciousness (the first on list you quote).

If they are evidence of god, why is atheism so widespread among scientists, the people most familiar with them?Because Scientists by nature spend their time doing empirical mesurements at the external world. Funnily enough God, not being a material being, doesn't measure very well: And the more you pay attention to external measurements which don't say anything about God the less likely you are to think God exists. (And similarly if you don't think God exists, you're probably more likely to become a scientist and look for explanations of things in purely natural terms)
Philosophers, on the other hand, pay much more attention to important things (with regard to God existence) such as ourselves and types of evidence etc.

[wiploc]

Originally posted by Tercel
99% of defences of the argument from suffering take the route that there is something God wants more than to prevent our suffering (which He wants also) but that this something more is mutually exclusive with the prevention of our suffering. Thus explaining why a God who could prevent our suffering and wants to prevent our suffering, does not in fact do so.


If he wants something else more than he wants our happiness, then he is not omnibenevolent. That's okay, you aren't required to believe in an omnibenevolent god. Your demotion of god to near-omnibenevolence works; it get you out from under the PoE. But it is not a refutation of the PoE. The PoE doesn't even try to disprove any gods other than the traditional Christian god.




Because He didn't and couldn't know where we would go prior to our creation.

Bingo! If you don't believe in an omniscient god, then you don't have a problem with the PoE. In fact, you can turn the PoE to your advantage, using it to prove to other Christians that god cannot know the future.

But don't think you have refuted the PoE. The PoE doesn't even try to prove that your limited-knowledge god doesn't exist.

If you want to argue against the PoE, you have to argue that if god did know the future, and if he did want our happiness at least as much as he wants other things, then we could still have suffering.

crc

[wiploc]

Originally posted by Tercel
Judging an entire argument based on a one word description of it? How presumptuous is that!? :eek:

We use inductive logic --- based on every so many data points --- to infer that the arguments won't get better when you add more words. ;)

But we'll be happy to learn we're wrong. If you can make any of these into an argument of greater-than-zero weight, we want to know about it.
crc

[Tercel]

Originally posted by wiploc:
Religious claims have inherent plausibility; but the same claim made by the non-religious should be dismissed?Basically, yes. A claim of a miracle is by definition a claim that God or a supernatural entity has intervened into the natural world in order to do something or cause something that does not usually happen. An alledged "miracle" that provides no obvious reason for that alleged intervention significantly lowers the probability that it is indeed a miracle compared to circumstances which provide an obvious motive for supernatural intervention. "God magically transported me to Jupiter and back last night" has an intrinsically low probability value because even given that God exists and was capable of transporting people to Jupiter, experience strongly suggests he is not in the habit of doing so and lacking a credible reason why God should have done something he is not in the habit of doing, the claim is completely dismissible out of hand.
If a claim occurs within an existing religious framework and claims to have significant theological significance and to be part of a continuation on-going revelation from God, then the claim no longer may be dismissed out of hand but must be assessed on the evidence.

Bingo! He's not omnibenevolent.The question is: what does omnibenevolent mean exactly? If it means is that God has no ill-will whatsoever towards us -which is the way I interpret it- then it is perfectly fine by me to say that God is omnibenevolent. To me, to be omnibenevolent is to be all-benevolent: ie having no non-benevolence: ie not being at all malevolent.

If you take it to mean that God's single greatest desire is our personal comfort then I doubt a single Christian in the history of the world would agree with you. It is absurd to then claim you have disproved the "Christian God". You have not. You have disproved a God no one believes in.

The PoE only rules out the possiblity of omnibenevolent deities. It makes not attempt to disprove your personal pretty-nice-but-not-perfectly-nice god.Then it would appear that the PoE is irrelevant to the Christian God.

If your point is that, even though this god doesn't exist, you can still believe in some other god, a pretty-nice god, that's fine with me. But your god is not the "perfect" god of traditional Christian theology.My God is not the God of modern fundamentalists who will say "yes" without thinking to any question that makes God sound greater. But I am reasonably conversant with traditional Christian teachings and as far as I am aware my God fits squarely in that slot: He cannot do the logically impossible, He cannot know the logically unknowable, His single greatest desire is not our personal comfort, He is: Omniscient, Omnipotence, Omnipresent, Free, Loving, Eternal, Creator, Sustainer, Knowable, Beyond-Complete-Comprehension etc.

Yes, the dentist inflicts pain in order to prevent greater pain. God is like a dentist, inflicting (or allowing) pain in order to prevent greater pain --- but only if he can't achieve the same goal without the pain. An omnipotent god could get what he wanted without the pain.Omnipotence does not magically entail the ability to do everything, only things that are possible. Why should I believe your assertion that it is possible that God could acheive the same goal without pain? That would require you having complete knowledge of God's goals and possible methods of acheivement. I have been a Christian for many years and have read many Christian writings and I believe I have in that time gained some inkling of God's goals. (Which I have attempted to convey in part rather briefly in this thread)

Make the question who says god is all-good, all-merciful, all-loving, like a good father, etcetera. The answer, though I hate to be the one to break it to you, is the Christians. Er actually they don't entirely. The Bible has God doing all sorts of nasty things, Calvinists have God happily predestining people to eternities of suffering, fundies have God passing judgement on the evil atheists, gays and whoever else takes their fancy.
Only liberals such as myself and yes-to-every-question fundies have such a God.

God made the garden of Eden with no suffering until Eve fell. He could have put Mary or Ruth there instead of Eve. He could have put the tree outside the garden. He could have given the snake bad breath and a lisp. He could have sent the snake on a day when Eve was stronger. He could have made the world on the Day of Judgement, creating only those bound for Heaven.I'm a liberal: please don't attempt to make your points by references to the details of 4000 year-old creation myths.

But if we accept your premise that we don't understand god, then among the things we don't understand about him is whether he is good.No, we can understand some things about God, just not everything. In the PoE you must assert that God has no valid reason or goal for allowing evil in the extent to which it is present. To do that is to claim knowledge of all possible goals, reasons and motives of God: Christian theology denies God is comprehendable to this degree. To claim he has revealed that he is Good, is by contrast an extremely small claim to knowledge.

If disagreements about language do not prove that there is one true language, why do disagreements about morality prove that there is one true morality?I thought you'd notice that. But do you think anyone thinks there is one true language? By contrast there are plenty of people who thinks some things are truly right or truly wrong.
Again:
If there are things that are truly right and things that are truly wrong, then it is necessary to explain why. A "transcendent moral anchor" is therefore necessary, the alternative being that there is nothing truly right or truly wrong only subjective feelings about how you would personally like people to act.

If you have a third possibility between true right and wrong and subjective feelings about what we would like then I'm all ears.

If I say there is a lion in your closet, you are going to disbelieve unless I give you a reason to believe. That is a reasonable reaction.That is because the event of a lion in your closest is sufficiently improbable that even given the evidence of your claim it is still unlikely.

If you tell me you have an invisible friend, then I am going to disbelieve unless you give me a reason to believe. That too is reasonable.If by invisible friend you mean a human who is invisible then yeah, I'd agree.

The event of the existence of God (just God, not the Christian God) though is not improbable at face value.
The question of whether God exists is simply the question of whether Ultimate Reality has the attribute of being Purposeful or not. There is not one single good reason to consider the negative answer more probable than the positive, and every possible consideration that I have ever looked at regarding the nature of Ultimate Reality suggests the positive answer the more probable
eg Extraordinarily briefly since I don't frigging well intend to type out 40 pages of argument here, you can read that when I finish it, but I know you'll all moan if I just list them:
Consciousness (elaborated upon in brief earlier).
Free Will - we appear to have free will (you're welcome to believe that we don't in the face of the evidence of every single person ever's experience if you like...) and be self-determining systems. Self-determination is not explainable under a mechanical system which only allows for causality and acausality. A good explanation for our self-determination is that Ultimate Reality has the attribute of self-determination - ie it has a Will: aka a Purpose.
Concepts - Using similar considerations as given earlier for consciousness, it is a priori more likely that concepts (by which I mean simple unified ideas such as things like the meaning of words, the idea of the colour Red, that which is present in a geometry puzzle which makes it more than just chalk molecules on a blackboard.) have an ontological existence of their own (Think "Platonism" and see further elaboration later on with regard to Information) and hand-waving explanations in terms of the materialistic should not be sought. The failure of hard materialism leads to a nice slippery slope which terminates in Ultimate Reality dealing with things conceptual in nature, a good explanation for which is: It's a mind.
Quantum stuff - Quantum Physics, from what I understand of it and have read of it (and yes, I have done a course in it, and plan to attend more this year) seems to place value on Information as the important characteristic of quantum reality: A request for information initiating the collapse of the quantum wave function... etc. This view also explains how non-material natural laws can interact with matter: If matter is viewed as information controlled by informational laws governing it (natural laws) passed between informational processing units (minds/awareness). A good explanations for which is that Ultimate Reality could be a informational self-processing system. (ie a mind)
Cosmological stuff - If we wander all the way back to the First Thing or Ultimate Reality (if you're one of these annoying people who pipes up at this point and says "what about an infinite chain of events?", then your Ultimate Reality is the entire infinite chain) then what can be known about it? It seems likely that it must be a Necessity, for it lacks anything to be Contingent upon. As a Necessity there must be something about it that has to be, that is: it contains the idea that it has to be. But if the idea is part of it then it must be informational in nature - it must be the place where reality and theory meet, where theory is the reality (to put it poetically). In other words it must be an informational self-processing system. We call those minds.
An alternative line of attack would to consider the method of causality that this Ultimate Reality uses. It cannot invoke mechanicalistic causality for there is nothing external to itself that it can invoke that on - if anything outside Ultimate Reality that was real then it would be inside Ultimate Reality. The idea that Ultimate Reality is self-determining is a good explanation. Self determination is the same as a Will or Purpose.

If anyone found any of that interesting or challenging, then I recommed Langan's (http://www.megasociety.net/CTMU/CTMUpapers/Langan_CTMU_092902.pdf) paper on the subject (from which I admit to pilfering the words "self-determining") though I think he does commit the occasional fallacy (though nothing major) and assumes too much that he needs to prove. (though I think his assumptions can be proved) and is too Panentheistic for my tastes. Warning: His paper is somewhat over 30,000 words and contains very technical and big words especially when it comes to computational grammers. (I'm a computer scientist and I simply don't know what some of the words mean)
:eek: In searching for the link to Langan's article (I can't believe I didn't have it bookmarked!) I just found and read this good much shorter and simpler article (http://www.leaderu.com/ftissues/ft9511/articles/revessay.html) which convers several of the same points as I covered above with a bit greater length. (I wonder what the "bizarrely heterodox chapter on God's foreknowledge" contains and whether I would agree with it completely? :p )

All these considerations seem to me to point in the same direction towards the Purpose possibility which appears to provide a huge amount of explanatory power and provide a simple unified solution to numerous considerations (the alternatives taken in sum seem to me to involve pretty horrendously miscellaneous explanations): So at this point I would like to solicit Occam's Razor in a very very big way on my behalf.

Your demotion of god to near-omnibenevolence works; it get you out from under the PoE.Glad you agree. Does that mean you have no arguments against the existence of my God? I seem to recall that your original post was target at "Theism" rather than the "Christian" God. Even if you don't agree with my "Christian" God (I'm rather amused at that btw...) my God is still a Theistic one. As an atheist you're supposed to dis-believe in all theistic Gods not just the "traditiona