Has Anyone Noticed Neopolitan's "Craig's Top Errors"?

[neopolitan]

Neo, you also asserted that the moral argument isn't specifically an argument for Gods existence.
What then IS it an argument for?

Can you point to the actual wording that you are paraphrasing here.  I didn't use those words so I'm not sure what you have, specifically, misunderstood.

Sure.
You wrote;
"...The fact is, the argument is a null argument for God in that even if the opponent argues successfully for the non-existence of moral values and duties, that won't touch Craig's God"

If it's not an argument for God, what is it arguing for?

Ah, you see, I wrote "a null argument for God" not "not an argument for God".  You really need to be more careful when misrepresenting other people.  It clearly is an argument for god, but of a "null" kind.  In other words, your null hypothesis is that your god exists.  Any argument for your god like this one is just faffing around at the edges to disguise that fact.  That's why the argument doesn't touch Craig's god.

Shall I explain?

The argument goes like this:

(Craig's cloaked premise) If god existed, then objective moral values and duties would exist.
(Craig's twisted premise) If God did not exist, then objective moral values and duties would not exist.
(Craig's dubious claim) Objective moral values and duties do exist.
(Craig's triumfantalist conclusion) Therefore, God exists.

The cloaked premise is the one that atheists could agree with.  If an atheist agrees with the twisted premise, then that atheist has either misunderstood the premise or maintains a subtly different premise to the cloaked premise name "Objective moral values and duties would exist if and only if god existed."  Now, as an atheist, this person could agree with this premise but would find Craig's dubious claim to be false, based on the conclusion that god does not exist (arrived at via other considerations).  Such an atheist would have, I imagine, little issue with the notion that some people think that objective moral values and duties exist.  But people think all manner of crazy things, despite clear evidence.

As to why the argument does not touch Craig's god, we have to look at the cloaked premise, the one that atheists actually could agree with.  The idea that the existence of god could lead to objective moral values and duties isn't contested.  However, this mere statement does not remove the possibility of objective moral values and duties arising naturally.  This is important for Craig's argument at this point, because if you contest this then the argument becomes entirely circular:

(1) If god did not exist, then things that cannot exist without god could not exist.
(2) But things that cannot exist without god do exist.
(3) Therefore god exists.

This is just a wordy way of saying "If god, therefore god" or "there is evidentiary proof of god, therefore god".  If the latter, then why not quit the word-play variant of apologetics altogether and just wheel out the evidentiary proof?

We all know why, because there is no evidentiary proof.

[Lion IRC]

Bunyip, do you agree that the KCA applies solely to things which come into existence?
You have 3 options if you want to avoid me misunderstanding your answer.

1. Yes
2. No
3. Don't understand the question.


Bunyip, do you agree that the KCA makes no claim as to the possibility of a thing having always existed?
You have 3 options if you want to avoid me misunderstanding your answer.

1. Yes
2. No
3. Don't understand the question.



Bunyip, do you agree that the KCA makes no claim as to the possibility of a thing having never existed?
You have 3 options if you want to avoid me misunderstanding your answer.

1. Yes
2. No
3. Don't understand the question.

[neopolitan]

Can I play too?

Bunyip, do you agree that the KCA applies solely to things which come into existence?
You have 3 options if you want to avoid me misunderstanding your answer.

1. Yes
2. No
3. Don't understand the question

.

No.  In your world god didn't come into existence.   In my world, the same applies, but for a different reason.

Bunyip, do you agree that the KCA makes no claim as to the possibility of a thing having always existed?
You have 3 options if you want to avoid me misunderstanding your answer.

1. Yes
2. No
3. Don't understand the question.

No.  There's a clear implication that your god fills that criterion, having existed for all time and even (incoherently) before time.

Bunyip, do you agree that the KCA makes no claim as to the possibility of a thing having never existed?
You have 3 options if you want to avoid me misunderstanding your answer.

1. Yes
2. No
3. Don't understand the question.

Yes.

Do I win a prize?

[Lion IRC]

neo, I'm sorry, I still I don't understand the difference between
"a null argument for God" and "not an argument for God".

What IS it an argument for if not for God?
And if you concede that it is an argument for God, what's the problem?

I don't understand what you mean when you say that an argument - presented by William Lane Craig - doesn't "touch" the very same God which his argument is about.

[neopolitan]

neo, I'm sorry, I still I don't understand the difference between
"a null argument for God" and "not an argument for God".

What IS it an argument for if not for God?

It's an argument for god of the type "null".  I presume that you know what a "null hypothesis" is.

My implication here, somewhat tongue in cheek, is that the null hypothesis for theists is that god exists.  This is manifested in the theist's demand that atheists prove the non-existence of god.  In other words, the null argument is "god exists, therefore god exists".  It's an argument, but you'd surely agree that it's not a very good argument.

I don't understand what you mean when you say that an argument - presented by William Lane Craig - doesn't "touch" the very same God which his argument is about.

Craig presents this premise:

(Craig's twisted premise) If God did not exist, then objective moral values and duties would not exist.

Untwisted, this is not equivalent to the cloaked premise, but rather to this:

(Craig's twisted premise - untwisted) If objective moral values and duties exist, then god exists.

Think about that for a moment.  We can both see that, given the claim that objective moral values and duties do exist, that it would logically follow that a god exists.  But what if objective moral values and duties did not exist?

This would have no impact on Craig's god at all.  As I helpfully explained in the original article, "even if the opponent argues successfully for the non-existence of moral values and duties, that won't touch Craig's God since, in the strict framing of the argument, the existence of God isn't contingent on the existence of moral values and duties - only the reverse".  That's what I mean when the argument doesn't touch Craig's god - note very, very close which argument I am talking about here.  I'm guessing that you missed it.

I never implied that "an argument - presented by William Lane Craig - doesn't 'touch' the very same God which his argument is about".  You were misrepresenting me - or simply misunderstanding me.

[Emuse]

If Craig holds that objective moral values and duties are impossible under atheism then it follows that if they exist then theism must be true.  This would give us ...

P1. O -> G
P2. O
C. G

Which in turn gives us ...

P1. ~G -> ~O
P2. O
C. G

The latter is the structure of the moral argument.

I don't see a problem.  We can of course disagree with his view that OMV's are impossible under atheism but Craig is not being inconsistent.  And does he hold that the existence of God entails OMV's?  If not then he's not going to argue ...

P1. G -> O
P2. G
C. O

Or ...

P1. ~O -> ~G
P2. G
C. O

His view seems to be that if OMV's don't exist then God could not be argued for on that basis but given there are good reasons to think they do, then there is good reason to think God exists because they could only obtain under theism.

I don't agree with Craig on all this but I don't see an inconsistency or a problem with his logic on this particular issue.

[Philip Rand]

You are wrong neopolitan:

(Craig's premise) If God did not exist, then objective moral values and duties would not ALWAYS exist.

(neopolitan's twisted premise) If God did not exist, then objective moral values and duties would not NEARLY ALWAYS exist.

[neopolitan]

If Craig holds that objective moral values and duties are impossible under atheism then it follows that if they exist then theism must be true.  This would give us ...

P1. O -> G
P2. O
C. G

Which in turn gives us ...

P1. ~G -> ~O
P2. O
C. G

The latter is the structure of the moral argument.

I don't see a problem.  We can of course disagree with his view that OMV's are impossible under atheism but Craig is not being inconsistent.  And does he hold that the existence of God entails OMV's?  If not then he's not going to argue ...

P1. G -> O
P2. G
C. O

Or ...

P1. ~O -> ~G
P2. G
C. O

His view seems to be that if OMV's don't exist then God could not be argued for on that basis but given there are good reasons to think they do, then there is good reason to think God exists because they could only obtain under theism.

I don't agree with Craig on all this but I don't see an inconsistency or a problem with his logic on this particular issue.

Objections to my objections will take two broad forms: claims that Craig's logic is actually correct as written (which is not being contested) and special pleading <snip>

I don't see the point in going over and over and over the logical validity of Craig's argument as written when it's not being contested and isn't what was being argued.

[neopolitan]

You are wrong neopolitan:

(Craig's premise) If God did not exist, then objective moral values and duties would not ALWAYS exist.

(neopolitan's twisted premise) If God did not exist, then objective moral values and duties would not NEARLY ALWAYS exist.

Please provide a reference in which Craig overtly argues the premise that you claim for him.  It seems to me that you are putting a word in his mouth.

Was it intentional that the words that you put in my mouth make up a particularly tortured syntax?

I've not argued that premise, so this is another example of a theist arguing by misrepresentation.  Will this ever stop?  You guys are supposed to love the truth.  You can't win the fight for truth though endless duplicity.  Please lift your game.

My premise would be something far closer to "objective moral values and duties do not exist".  That's why am more than happy to accept the premise "If god were to exist then objective moral values and duties would exist".

[Philip Rand]

neopolitan...

It is you twisting Craig's premise... I have simply shown you how you appear to be interpreting his premise...

Your argument concerning his premise only holds if one considers the "sample" of objective morals nearly always existing, i.e. discontinuous, NEARLY ALWAYS... this is pretty obvious logically...

But, Craig is saying that the "sample" of objective morals is continuous... the ALWAYS refers to "sample size"...so I have not put words into Craig's mouth...

It is your dislike of Craig that is the "cause" of reading his premise incorrectly... this undervalues your argument... this is pretty clear...

I don't expect you to see this... on account you think like Stephen Law...

[Emuse]

You are wrong neopolitan:

(Craig's premise) If God did not exist, then objective moral values and duties would not ALWAYS exist.

(neopolitan's twisted premise) If God did not exist, then objective moral values and duties would not NEARLY ALWAYS exist.

And on this, you appear to be mistaken.

Craig's position appears to be that if God doesn't exist then objective moral values and duties don't exist full stop.  IOW, they can't exist under atheism.

[Philip Rand]

And on this, you appear to be mistaken.

Craig's position appears to be that if God doesn't exist then objective moral values and duties don't exist full stop.  IOW, they can't exist under atheism.

Ah...but Emuse... now we are dealing with subtlety...

Remember, Craig has used the word "If" in his premise... this makes this premise hypothetical not real...

Which makes sense on account Craig believes God does exist... so he has no other option than to posit the premise in the manner he does, i.e. use the word "If"... this is consistent...

neopolitan's issue is that Craig is being dishonest... and he isn't...

neopolitan's problem is that he does not understand double negation nor does he understand sample size...

[Philip Rand]

I think it is pretty clear from what Craig writes that he is not out to "persuade" unbelievers...

This is because unlike most Atheist philosopher's... Craig understands that philosophy does not concern "knowledge", the remit of science... but rather philosophy concerns "understanding"...

Craig is correct here...

[Philip Rand]

A philosophical argument that is sound and valid would be persuasive to all.

Really?

Then why are your own philosophical arguments not persuasive to all?

[neopolitan]

You are wrong neopolitan:

(Craig's premise) If God did not exist, then objective moral values and duties would not ALWAYS exist.

(neopolitan's twisted premise) If God did not exist, then objective moral values and duties would not NEARLY ALWAYS exist.

Please provide a reference in which Craig overtly argues the premise that you claim for him.  It seems to me that you are putting a word in his mouth.

Was it intentional that the words that you put in my mouth make up a particularly tortured syntax?

I've not argued that premise, so this is another example of a theist arguing by misrepresentation.  Will this ever stop?  You guys are supposed to love the truth.  You can't win the fight for truth though endless duplicity.  Please lift your game.

My premise would be something far closer to "objective moral values and duties do not exist".  That's why am more than happy to accept the premise "If god were to exist then objective moral values and duties would exist".

neopolitan...

It is you twisting Craig's premise... I have simply shown you how you appear to be interpreting his premise...

Your argument concerning his premise only holds if one considers the "sample" of objective morals nearly always existing, i.e. discontinuous, NEARLY ALWAYS... this is pretty obvious logically...

But, Craig is saying that the "sample" of objective morals is continuous... the ALWAYS refers to "sample size"...so I have not put words into Craig's mouth...

It is your dislike of Craig that is the "cause" of reading his premise incorrectly... this undervalues your argument... this is pretty clear...

I don't expect you to see this... on account you think like Stephen Law...

Note that I asked for a reference in which Craig made the statement that you claim he does.  You have failed to do that.  Instead you introduce a new claim, that Craig is talking about some continuous "sample" of objectives and that the capitalised word "ALWAYS" refers to "sample size".  Ok, I acknowledge these claims on your part and ask, humbly, for evidence that these concepts are really a part of Craig's argument.  Please provide references.

Once you have shown evidence that Craig is actually arguing the way you say he is arguing, then we can move one.

Thank you again for the compliment regarding my mode of thinking being like that of Stephen Law.  And no, I don't see what you see, for reasons that will likely be obvious to a number of third parties.