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

[Bertuzzi]

I wouldn't call Neo's blog posts "scholarly" by any stretch.

[D. Alexander]

Bunyip,

How does a non-caused cause defeat the causal principle?

I'm not an expert on QM, but I really doubt there isn't any non-indeterministic interpretations of QM that are empirically equivalent with indeterministic interpretations of QM and because something coming into being uncaused is less axiomatic then it's negation, we have an intuitive reason to reject indertministic interpretations of QM.

[Hereorthere]

 I had never heard of WLC until I saw people upset with something he said. I had to see what was making people so angry. Started me on a whole new journey through material I didn't even know existed. So I thank god for people being critical of WLC.

[Lion IRC]

...All I did was invite attention to Neo's stuff on WLC.

It's OK
I understand you didn't write the stuff.

...youre just promoting it.

...I have never once said WLC lies.

You mean never said it here at RF? OK

... I am surprised to have struck such a sensitive nerve with this OP.

I'm not sensitive. I'm inviting anyone who agrees with neos "heavy and scholarly" blog stuff to bring it.
WLC has been called a liar more than once on this forum. (And Ravi Zacharias)
What HASNT happened is any "heavy and scholarly" validating of that accusation.

...Lion, your talk of Neo inevitably getting smacked if he brought his stuff to RFF is intriguing.  Neo actually HAS brought his stuff to RFF (See OP.).Perhaps you could start the smackdown with some substance?  Or are you going to hide behind pithy?

I said "bring it". (Irenic/Substantive) Are you going to or not?

Logic of an Apologist
...Accuses WLC of not understanding how to formulate a basic/valid sylogism.

Sweet Probability
...Probability smoke & mirrors. Gobbledygook.

Taxi Ride
...thinks there is no such thing as the taxi cab fallacy. Accuses WLC of channeling himself writing/answering his own fan mail. (The problem is, neo's blog has anonymous folks applauding neo.)

WLC's use of quotes
...More fixation on WLC's use of the term "taxi cab". Standard quibbling - he said/they said/no he didn't/yes he did.
...blah blah blah.

WLC's Historical Method
...Doesn't like WLC using the same widely-used historical methods as other folks.
But if WLC was an atheist/bible skeptic it would be OK.

Thats Not Evidence
...neo 'splaining' stuff to newbie counter-apologists in case they accidentally mistake not-evidence for evidence.

[Lion IRC]

I had never heard of WLC until I saw people upset with something he said. I had to see what was making people so angry. Started me on a whole new journey through material I didn't even know existed. So I thank god for people being critical of WLC.

Exactly my story too!
I wanted to find out who it was for whom I was being accused of being a 'fanboi'.

The funny thing is, WLC doesn't need/want fanbois. He wants people to find, friend and follow Jesus Christ.

[Friendly Banjo Atheist]

...All I did was invite attention to Neo's stuff on WLC.

It's OK
I understand you didn't write the stuff.

...youre just promoting it.

...I have never once said WLC lies.

You mean here at RF? OK

... I am surprised to have struck such a sensitive nerve with this OP.

I'm not sensitive. I'm inviting anyone who agrees with neos "heavy and scholarly" blog stuff to bring it.
WLC has been called a liar more than once on this forum.
What HASNT happened is any "heavy and scholarly" validating of that accusation.

...Lion, your talk of Neo inevitably getting smacked if he brought his stuff to RFF is intriguing.  Neo actually HAS brought his stuff to RFF (See OP.).Perhaps you could start the smackdown with some substance?  Or are you going to hide behind pithy?

I said "bring it". (Irenic/Substantive) Are you going to or not?

Logic of an Apologist
...Accuses WLC of not understanding how to formulate a basic/valid sylogism.

Sweet Probability
...Probability smoke & mirrors. Gobbledygook.

Taxi Ride
...thinks there is no such thing as the taxi cab fallacy. Accuses WLC of channeling himself writing/answering his own fan mail. (The problem is, neo's blog has anonymous folks applauding neo.)

WLC's use of quotes
...More fixation on WLC's use of the term "taxi cab". Standard quibbling - he said/they said/not he didn't/yes he did.
...blah blah blah.

WLC's Historical Method
...Doesn't like WLC using the same widely-used historical methods as other folks.
But if WLC was an atheist/bible skeptic it would be OK.

Thats Not Evidence
...neo 'splaining' stuff to newbie counter-apologists in case they accidentally mistake not-evidence for evidence.

Now we're talking.  Thanks. 

(BTW, I do not think I am not "promoting" Neo's blog, just inviting responses to it. And I think it will be interesting to see those responses. Thanks for starting.)

[Lion IRC]

...All I did was invite attention to Neo's stuff on WLC.

It's OK
I understand you didn't write the stuff.

...youre just promoting it.

...I have never once said WLC lies.

You mean never said it here at RF? OK

... I am surprised to have struck such a sensitive nerve with this OP.

I'm not sensitive. I'm inviting anyone who agrees with neos "heavy and scholarly" blog stuff to bring it.
WLC has been called a liar more than once on this forum. (And Ravi Zacharias)
What HASNT happened is any "heavy and scholarly" validating of that accusation.

...Lion, your talk of Neo inevitably getting smacked if he brought his stuff to RFF is intriguing.  Neo actually HAS brought his stuff to RFF (See OP.).Perhaps you could start the smackdown with some substance?  Or are you going to hide behind pithy?

I said "bring it". (Irenic/Substantive) Are you going to or not?

Logic of an Apologist
...Accuses WLC of not understanding how to formulate a basic/valid sylogism.

Sweet Probability
...Probability smoke & mirrors. Gobbledygook.

Taxi Ride
...thinks there is no such thing as the taxi cab fallacy. Accuses WLC of channeling himself writing/answering his own fan mail. (The problem is, neo's blog has anonymous folks applauding neo.)

WLC's use of quotes
...More fixation on WLC's use of the term "taxi cab". Standard quibbling - he said/they said/no he didn't/yes he did.
...blah blah blah.

WLC's Historical Method
...Doesn't like WLC using the same widely-used historical methods as other folks.
But if WLC was an atheist/bible skeptic it would be OK.

Thats Not Evidence
...neo 'splaining' stuff to newbie counter-apologists in case they accidentally mistake not-evidence for evidence.

Now we're talking.  Thanks. 

(BTW, I do not think I am not "promoting" Neo's blog, just inviting responses to it. And I think it will be interesting to see those responses. Thanks for starting.)

As I said, I think neo's stuff will get 'smacked down' properly if it is debated here at RF in accordance with RFF rules and debate standards.

[Rostos]

Yet, he still wins debate after debate after debate..

Interesting

Wins what? How do you 'win' such debates? I have never seen him in a debate where his premises were even accepted, let alone were they established.

I have never seen a debate where his premises have even been refuted.
One such debater even had to lie to try and cut one of his premises.

Well take the Kalam for example:
Premis one: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

Well quantum physics disproved that more than a century ago. Cause and effect is a philosophical notion, it is not a scientific law.
We also have no other examples of anything beginning to exist ex-nihilo upon which to base that premis, not a single one. Hence it is not at all reliable.

Every time I have seen Dr Craig apply the Kalam in debate these objections are made, but never addressed.

Quantum physics has not disproved that.

Sure it has, cause and effect are not axiomatic. Quantum physics established that long ago. You also need an example upon which to draw a premis - as I said we have no examples of ex-nihilo creation known to have been caused upon which to base the first premis.

A premis needs to be based upon something known to be true - whether universes need to be caused or not is not known. And we have no experience of other universes for comparison.

How has physics PROVED that something can come from nothing?

Why would it need to? What did God come from?

God is eternal. He never began to exist, therefore he didnt come from anywhere.

Oh ok. So then the premis fails right? You just gave an example of a causeless cause, so cause and effect are disproven.

Now I have not accused Dr Craig of any form of deception, nor do I intend to - but like many other people I would like to better understand why what I see as such an ancient and long dead argument is so endlessly repeated, despite it's obvious shortcomings.
The Kalaam, Ontological and moral arguments as Dr Craig himself states are excellent tools for believers to consider, and to create for them a millieu in which their faith can be intellectually rigorous and rational. However when it comes to debate and discussion with those outside of the faith, they are all but useless.

The 1st premise is...everything that begins to exist has a cause....God is timeless, therefore eternal. If something is eternal then it did not begin to exist. If something doesn't begin to exist then it doesnt have a cause.

So your response is mis-directed.

[Rostos]

Yet, he still wins debate after debate after debate..

Interesting

Wins what? How do you 'win' such debates? I have never seen him in a debate where his premises were even accepted, let alone were they established.

I have never seen a debate where his premises have even been refuted.
One such debater even had to lie to try and cut one of his premises.

Well take the Kalam for example:
Premis one: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

Well quantum physics disproved that more than a century ago. Cause and effect is a philosophical notion, it is not a scientific law.
We also have no other examples of anything beginning to exist ex-nihilo upon which to base that premis, not a single one. Hence it is not at all reliable.

Every time I have seen Dr Craig apply the Kalam in debate these objections are made, but never addressed.

Quantum physics has not disproved that.

Sure it has, cause and effect are not axiomatic. Quantum physics established that long ago. You also need an example upon which to draw a premis - as I said we have no examples of ex-nihilo creation known to have been caused upon which to base the first premis.

A premis needs to be based upon something known to be true - whether universes need to be caused or not is not known. And we have no experience of other universes for comparison.

How has physics PROVED that something can come from nothing?

Why would it need to? What did God come from?

God is eternal. He never began to exist, therefore he didnt come from anywhere.

Oh ok. So then the premis fails right? You just gave an example of a causeless cause, so cause and effect are disproven.

Now I have not accused Dr Craig of any form of deception, nor do I intend to - but like many other people I would like to better understand why what I see as such an ancient and long dead argument is so endlessly repeated, despite it's obvious shortcomings.
The Kalaam, Ontological and moral arguments as Dr Craig himself states are excellent tools for believers to consider, and to create for them a millieu in which their faith can be intellectually rigorous and rational. However when it comes to debate and discussion with those outside of the faith, they are all but useless.

The 1st premise is...everything that begins to exist has a cause....God is timeless, therefore eternal. If something is eternal then it did not begin to exist. If something doesn't begin to exist then it doesnt have a cause.

So your response is mis-directed.

Cause and effect are temporal concepts, pre-time they are meaningless.

By definition, ANYTHING that is timeless is eternal...If something is eternal, then it ALWAYS existed. If something ALWAYS existed, then by definition it never began to exist.

That is why Atheists in the 60s and 70s always believed in an eternal universe so they wouldnt have to explain a beginning.

Unfortunately for them, all the evidence is that the universe began to exist.

[Rostos]

Yet, he still wins debate after debate after debate..

Interesting

Wins what? How do you 'win' such debates? I have never seen him in a debate where his premises were even accepted, let alone were they established.

I have never seen a debate where his premises have even been refuted.
One such debater even had to lie to try and cut one of his premises.

Well take the Kalam for example:
Premis one: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

Well quantum physics disproved that more than a century ago. Cause and effect is a philosophical notion, it is not a scientific law.
We also have no other examples of anything beginning to exist ex-nihilo upon which to base that premis, not a single one. Hence it is not at all reliable.

Every time I have seen Dr Craig apply the Kalam in debate these objections are made, but never addressed.

Quantum physics has not disproved that.

Sure it has, cause and effect are not axiomatic. Quantum physics established that long ago. You also need an example upon which to draw a premis - as I said we have no examples of ex-nihilo creation known to have been caused upon which to base the first premis.

A premis needs to be based upon something known to be true - whether universes need to be caused or not is not known. And we have no experience of other universes for comparison.

How has physics PROVED that something can come from nothing?

Why would it need to? What did God come from?

God is eternal. He never began to exist, therefore he didnt come from anywhere.

Oh ok. So then the premis fails right? You just gave an example of a causeless cause, so cause and effect are disproven.

Now I have not accused Dr Craig of any form of deception, nor do I intend to - but like many other people I would like to better understand why what I see as such an ancient and long dead argument is so endlessly repeated, despite it's obvious shortcomings.
The Kalaam, Ontological and moral arguments as Dr Craig himself states are excellent tools for believers to consider, and to create for them a millieu in which their faith can be intellectually rigorous and rational. However when it comes to debate and discussion with those outside of the faith, they are all but useless.

The 1st premise is...everything that begins to exist has a cause....God is timeless, therefore eternal. If something is eternal then it did not begin to exist. If something doesn't begin to exist then it doesnt have a cause.

So your response is mis-directed.

Cause and effect are temporal concepts, pre-time they are meaningless.

By definition, ANYTHING that is timeless is eternal...If something is eternal, then it ALWAYS existed. If something ALWAYS existed, then by definition it never began to exist.

That is why Atheists in the 60s and 70s always believed in an eternal universe so they wouldnt have to explain a beginning.

Unfortunately for them, all the evidence is that the universe began to exist.

'Timeless' and 'eternal' are just words, you are trying to spin a premis from semantics alone. Atheists in the 70's like atheists now do not even need to have an opinion on how the universe began - that is a question for cosmology and not even related to atheism.
Do you have a single example of anything that began to exist ex-nihilo and has an established cause? No right?

Whether the universe had a beginning or not is irrelevant to atheism, it is a question for theoretical physicists. What made Dr Craig imagine it was associated with atheism is a complete mystery.

What do you mean they are just words? They are descriptions of states.

What do you mean if i have an example of something that begins to exist ex-nihilo and has an established cause?

All the evidence we have is that space, time and energy BEGAN to exist. If cause and effect only exist in temporal situations, then how on earth did space time and energy come into being?

[Rostos]

Yet, he still wins debate after debate after debate..

Interesting

Wins what? How do you 'win' such debates? I have never seen him in a debate where his premises were even accepted, let alone were they established.

I have never seen a debate where his premises have even been refuted.
One such debater even had to lie to try and cut one of his premises.

Well take the Kalam for example:
Premis one: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

Well quantum physics disproved that more than a century ago. Cause and effect is a philosophical notion, it is not a scientific law.
We also have no other examples of anything beginning to exist ex-nihilo upon which to base that premis, not a single one. Hence it is not at all reliable.

Every time I have seen Dr Craig apply the Kalam in debate these objections are made, but never addressed.

Quantum physics has not disproved that.

Sure it has, cause and effect are not axiomatic. Quantum physics established that long ago. You also need an example upon which to draw a premis - as I said we have no examples of ex-nihilo creation known to have been caused upon which to base the first premis.

A premis needs to be based upon something known to be true - whether universes need to be caused or not is not known. And we have no experience of other universes for comparison.

How has physics PROVED that something can come from nothing?

Why would it need to? What did God come from?

God is eternal. He never began to exist, therefore he didnt come from anywhere.

Oh ok. So then the premis fails right? You just gave an example of a causeless cause, so cause and effect are disproven.

Now I have not accused Dr Craig of any form of deception, nor do I intend to - but like many other people I would like to better understand why what I see as such an ancient and long dead argument is so endlessly repeated, despite it's obvious shortcomings.
The Kalaam, Ontological and moral arguments as Dr Craig himself states are excellent tools for believers to consider, and to create for them a millieu in which their faith can be intellectually rigorous and rational. However when it comes to debate and discussion with those outside of the faith, they are all but useless.

The 1st premise is...everything that begins to exist has a cause....God is timeless, therefore eternal. If something is eternal then it did not begin to exist. If something doesn't begin to exist then it doesnt have a cause.

So your response is mis-directed.

Cause and effect are temporal concepts, pre-time they are meaningless.

By definition, ANYTHING that is timeless is eternal...If something is eternal, then it ALWAYS existed. If something ALWAYS existed, then by definition it never began to exist.

That is why Atheists in the 60s and 70s always believed in an eternal universe so they wouldnt have to explain a beginning.

Unfortunately for them, all the evidence is that the universe began to exist.

'Timeless' and 'eternal' are just words, you are trying to spin a premis from semantics alone. Atheists in the 70's like atheists now do not even need to have an opinion on how the universe began - that is a question for cosmology and not even related to atheism.
Do you have a single example of anything that began to exist ex-nihilo and has an established cause? No right?

Whether the universe had a beginning or not is irrelevant to atheism, it is a question for theoretical physicists. What made Dr Craig imagine it was associated with atheism is a complete mystery.

What do you mean they are just words? They are descriptions of states.

What do you mean if i have an example of something that begins to exist ex-nihilo and has an established cause?

All the evidence we have is that space, time and energy BEGAN to exist. If cause and effect only exist in temporal situations, then how on earth did space time and energy come into being?

No, they are not scientific terms. How can effect be a consequence of a cause without time? Do you have an example of anything that began to exist from nothing that was caused?
What I am asking for is a single example to support the first premis.

That doesnt make sense at all.
So if space, time and energy ALL came into being, how did they come into being if there is no cause and effect outside space, and time?
In terms of your second question, that also doesnt make sense.

[Rostos]

You want an example of something that came into being that was caused? Are you serious?

The better question is, give an example of something that came into being UNCAUSED.

IN terms of the universe, if all space, time and energy came into being, then by logical deduction, space, time and energy were all caused.

[Hereorthere]

To simplify the principle failing of the first premis of the Kalam:

Premis 1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

The response: Really? Ok, what makes you think so? What is known to have begun to exist and has a cause?

Other than the universe, what began to exist? And what caused it?

Everything began to exist.. do we know of anything that didn't begin to exist? What you are asking doesn't make sense.

[Hereorthere]

To simplify the principle failing of the first premis of the Kalam:

Premis 1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

The response: Really? Ok, what makes you think so? What is known to have begun to exist and has a cause?

Other than the universe, what began to exist? And what caused it?

Everything began to exist.. do we know of anything that didn't begin to exist? What you are asking doesn't make sense.

Well God (according to Dr Craig) did not begin to exist, so there is your example.
Paintings do not begin to exist, they are formed from existing material - as is everything else man made. Animals do not begin to exist, they are also formed from existing materials.

It's fascinating to me how whenever the first premis is challenged by simple asking for a single example of anything known to have begun to exist that was caused, nobody defending Dr Craig's Kalam ever seems to even understand the question.

Everything (the universe) may well have begin to exist, what makes you think it was caused? Why would it need to be caused?

I freely admit that I didn't get the question. With your last post I get it now.

[Hereorthere]

To simplify the principle failing of the first premis of the Kalam:

Premis 1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

The response: Really? Ok, what makes you think so? What is known to have begun to exist and has a cause?

Other than the universe, what began to exist? And what caused it?

Everything began to exist.. do we know of anything that didn't begin to exist? What you are asking doesn't make sense.

Well God (according to Dr Craig) did not begin to exist, so there is your example.
Paintings do not begin to exist, they are formed from existing material - as is everything else man made. Animals do not begin to exist, they are also formed from existing materials.

It's fascinating to me how whenever the first premis is challenged by simple asking for a single example of anything known to have begun to exist that was caused, nobody defending Dr Craig's Kalam ever seems to even understand the question.

Everything (the universe) may well have begin to exist, what makes you think it was caused? Why would it need to be caused?

I freely admit that I didn't get the question. With your last post I get it now.

Cheers. And thanks. I am not here to be combative, I sincerely want to understand these arguments better.

Me too. Why couldn't I just say that matter began to exist for your example?