Logic of an Apologist
...Accuses WLC of not understanding how to formulate a basic/valid sylogism.
No I don't. I'm sure he knows and I even give most of his syllogisms the stamp of approval (structurally) - "Each of these arguments appears logically correct, with the exception of Argument 6." (Argument 6 is
the argument from absurdity.) And I accuse him of adding a "Bonus Conclusion" to Argument 2 (basically the first cause argument). For the most part, I object to the content, not the structure, but I discuss the content in other articles.
Note that, until recently, the single person complimenting me on this article used his real name.
Please try again.
Sweet Probability
...Probability smoke & mirrors. Gobbledygook.
I know probability is difficult, so you probably didn't read it. But you are right to an extent in that smoke and mirrors is precisely the approach that WLC uses in this case. I'm sorry that it's all a bit complex for you. Perhaps someone else can critique it in a more useful way.
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.)
Let me google that for you. Google tailors searches, of course, but my blog is #2 on the list when I search for this fallacy (and #5 when I go through lmgfy). There are more hits than when I first searched, but the point is that it's something that Craig borrowed from Schopenhauer without making it clear what he had done.
No anonymous people applauding this article. In fact, no-one applauding it at all.
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.
Hm, so looking at the facts behind Craig's claims in his debates is just blah blah blah, huh? No wonder you think he won them then. There's a lot more in there than Craig's taxi cab fallacy - how about you try again?
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.
You seem to misunderstand again, and this was by far the shortest article. The problem is not so much the explanatory method as used by historians, but more that Craig is misapplying this method in another field altogether. And the fact that his explanations often fail to simplify.
Thats Not Evidence
...neo 'splaining' stuff to newbie counter-apologists in case they accidentally mistake not-evidence for evidence.
I detect a trend here. No, this is not "neosplaining" (copywrite pending). It's me explaining that Craig has things back to front and, as I write, "is arguing that the probability of evidence is affected by the ability of a hypothesis to explain that evidence" - as if the hypothesis acts on the world.
But by now I'm guessing that you didn't read it, so I should not take your brief criticisms seriously. (And by no means should I put together a response in this thread, let alone write more words in response to your critiques than you put in those critiques.)
