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

[neopolitan]

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...

Hm.  It would appear that you don't understand logic, which makes me feel little embarrassed for you (the Grand Pixie knows that you are unlikely to take on the responsibility).  The "if ... then ..." structure (although Craig sometimes leaves out the "then ..." for reasons that are not immediately obvious) is a staple of logic.

If you don't understand that then you are ... well, let's not go there, right.  Irenic.  Always remain irenic, despite the provocations.

Yes, I do have an issue with Craig being dishonest.  I detail when, how and why he is being dishonest in numerous articles written over a long period of time (not so much on "why" really, but it's there sometimes).  You're fanboi claim that Craig is not being dishonest isn't particularly convincing.  You have to provide the defence, not just a bald claim.

As for not understanding double negation, I can say with great sincerity that I do not have a lack of understanding with respect to double negation (and I do understand subtlety, even if the preceding will zoom over the heads of some).  I asked two random people whether they believe that you understand "sample size" and they both said no based on the evidence provided, so that's pretty convincing to me, with a 100% failure rate for you.  I asked them if I understood "sample size" as well.  One said that they didn't know, and I said "yes" - so that's a 50% success rate for me, so I am way ahead of you buddy.  (You might wonder why I was in my random sample, that might be because I'm a little vague as to meaning of that term, so I just used the two nearest people.  That'll work, right?  It's like a random sample of "scholars" being asked about Jesus by Craig.  Amazing, most of them believe in Jesus!  No way that sample is contaminated, right?)

Yes, I am mocking you, Mr Rand.  But now that that is our of my system, do you have any evidence that I don't understand double negation and/or sample size?  This will be a common refrain if our conversations continue, so you might want to get into the habit of providing the evidence up front.

[Philip Rand]

neopolitan

Yes, I am an arsehole... but that is because I drive an AUDI...

Evidence?

Well, look at Craig's premise... the premise is "predictive" not "attributive"... that should be "evidence" enough surely?

Or are you saying that it is not a predictive premise?

[Emuse]

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...

Craig's arguments serve at least two purposes from his POV.

For the believer, they serve as a double warrant to belief alongside the primary warrant which is the inner witness of the Holy Spirit.  For the non believer they serve an apologetic purpose insofar that syllogisms with premises that are prima facie more plausible than not and where God existing is the conclusion can serve to break down the prima facie barriers to belief which cause a person to resist the Holy Spirit.

[Philip Rand]

Yes, and in that regard I think he acheives his aims very well. Making a reasonable case for faith.

Interesting Bunyip... so you disagree with neopolitan and consider Craig honest rather than dishonest?

[D. Alexander]

p implies q is equivalent to ~q implies ~p. I'm sure we all agree with that and that Craig probably believes that if not objective moral values and duties, then not God.

You agree (as do we all) that the syllogism takes a valid form but you don't like the way it's structured because to deny objective moral values in this case is to affirm the consequent and to affirm the antecedent would probably be question begging.

Did I sum it up correctly?

[Philip Rand]

What makes the Craig syllogism interesting is that Richard Carrier has come to the conclusion that objective moral values & duties do in FACT exist.

[neopolitan]

p implies q is equivalent to ~q implies ~p.

Agreed

I'm sure we all agree with that ...

Not sure that we all agree.  I can't speak for others.

... Craig probably believes that if not objective moral values and duties, then not God.

This is reasonable, but it's irrelevant since it's not a premise of the argument that Craig uses in this case (he may use it elsewhere, I suppose).

You agree (as do we all) that the syllogism takes a valid form ...

Yes, I do.  Take out the content and it works perfectly.  Put in the content, as Craig does, and it is logically valid.  Within the limitations of logic, it continues to work perfectly.  Nonsense in, nonsense out.

but you don't like the way it's structured because to deny objective moral values in this case is to affirm the consequent and to affirm the antecedent would probably be question begging.

What?  No.  Perhaps this is someone else's objection.  But it would be wrong.  The problem has nothing to with the two fallacies you mention.  Affirming the antecedent isn't a fallacy, just in case someone is misremembering "denying the antecedent" (a fallacy that is hinted at, but isn't the actual problem either).

Did I sum it up correctly?

Not for me, no.  Perhaps for someone else, but I hope not.

[D. Alexander]

p implies q is equivalent to ~q implies ~p.

Agreed

I'm sure we all agree with that ...

Not sure that we all agree.  I can't speak for others.

... Craig probably believes that if not objective moral values and duties, then not God.

This is reasonable, but it's irrelevant since it's not a premise of the argument that Craig uses in this case (he may use it elsewhere, I suppose).

You agree (as do we all) that the syllogism takes a valid form ...

Yes, I do.  Take out the content and it works perfectly.  Put in the content, as Craig does, and it is logically valid.  Within the limitations of logic, it continues to work perfectly.  Nonsense in, nonsense out.

but you don't like the way it's structured because to deny objective moral values in this case is to affirm the consequent and to affirm the antecedent would probably be question begging.

What?  No.  Perhaps this is someone else's objection.  But it would be wrong.  The problem has nothing to with the two fallacies you mention.  Affirming the antecedent isn't a fallacy, just in case someone is misremembering "denying the antecedent" (a fallacy that is hinted at, but isn't the actual problem either).

Did I sum it up correctly?

Not for me, no.  Perhaps for someone else, but I hope not.

Neo,

I wasn't mentioning affirming the antecedent was a formal fallacy. Just that affirming the antecedent “God does not exist” in the argument as a defeater of the argument is just to deny the conclusion and is question begging to assert it as a defeater.

Do you take this syllogism to have a “cloaked” premise and a twisted structure:

(1) If cars do not exist, then car shops do not exist.

   Cloaked:

(1) If car shops do exist, then cars exist (sneaky bastard)

WAIT!!!!!!! (The lightbulb struggling to flicker shines brightly with incandescence at its epiphany)

The cloaked premise in my example syllogism and your Craig syllogism aren't the equivalent of the actual premise.

In your Craig's cloaked premise, you've got the consequent and antecedent backwards.

It goes from:

(1) If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.

      Proper cloaked:

(1) If objective moral values and duties exist, then God exists.

Mine:

(1) If cars do not exist, then car shops do not exist.

       Proper cloaked:

(1) If car shops do exist, then cars exist.

So, how did you arrive at your cloaked premise?

If you take issue with Craig's argument, then you should take issue with mine because they're both “twisted”.

[neopolitan]

I wasn't mentioning affirming the antecedent was a formal fallacy. Just that affirming the antecedent “God does not exist” in the argument as a defeater of the argument is just to deny the conclusion and is question begging to assert it as a defeater.

What?  Are you trying to hide your misrepresentation of my argument in a confusing mess of words?

Do you take this syllogism to have a “cloaked” premise and a twisted structure:

(1) If cars do not exist, then car shops do not exist.

   Cloaked:

(1) If car shops do exist, then cars exist (sneaky bastard)

No.  That a perfectly valid obverted contraposition.

WAIT!!!!!!! (The lightbulb struggling to flicker shines brightly with incandescence at its epiphany)

You're getting me excited here, building the suspense beautifully.  Perhaps, just perhaps, someone from the theist side of the fence will finally make the connection!

The cloaked premise in my example syllogism and your Craig syllogism aren't the equivalent of the actual premise.

In your Craig's cloaked premise, you've got the consequent and antecedent backwards.

It goes from:

(1) If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.

      Proper cloaked:

(1) If objective moral values and duties exist, then God exists.

Mine:

(1) If cars do not exist, then car shops do not exist.

       Proper cloaked:

(1) If car shops do exist, then cars exist.

So, how did you arrive at your cloaked premise?

What?  No.  The above is not related to what I wrote.  I wrote (in context):

(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.

There's a very good reason for Craig to have the "cloaked premise".  This premise is something that an atheist can agree with, so in his debates he sows doubt by implying that the cloaked premise and the twisted premise are the same (he does that by saying that atheists agree with it), but as you point out, they are not the same.  Thanks for confirming that.

If you take issue with Craig's argument, then you should take issue with mine because they're both “twisted”.

No, they are not twisted.  I don't take issue with the argument as written.  I've said that over and over and over again.

[troyjs]

It is important and relevant to remember, that Dr Craig' s apologetic ministry is paid far smaller attention by him, than his scholarly work.

If anyone is interested in his replies to objections, one should go to his scholarly published material. I am not talking about his book 'Reasonable Faith'. I am talking about his peer-reviewed journal articles and theses. The issue about QM Refuting P1 of the Kalam is more than addressed in his material, even if one disagrees with what he says about QM and his preferred interpretstion of QM.

FBA, if you want hard-hitting critiques of Craig's work, then you would find stronger material by professional philosophers of religion.

[neopolitan]

You actually DID say that a light can turn itself on by means of a (pre-programmed) timer switch.

To me that sounds like intelligent design.

Ermm...lights can turn themselves on by means of a pre-programmed switch. You are trolling so fast, you are not even thinking through your silly digs.
Why not just stop?

You two are talking at cross-purposes.  Look at the design document for a lighting arrangement in a room.  LionIRC would take a felt-tip pen, draw a box around the socket into which a lightbulb fits, and the lightbulb itself - or indeed just the lightbulb - and say that that is the light.  To him, the switching might be external stuff, not actually part of the light.

Even if you embodied the switching into the lightbulb (very dangerous and inefficient from a design standpoint because you'd be providing power the bulb at all times, not intelligent at all), there would still be a conceptual division between the light part of the lightbulb and the switching part of the lightbulb.

In any event, the light arrangement is clearly an example of design, which is the only thing that LionIRC is going to see here.  Any point you make about lack of design, using a system which is clearly designed, is going to suffer from the same problem.

And the original question seemed to be aimed at agency.  The light itself, even if programmed to turn itself on under certain conditions, is not "deciding" anything.  Personally, I think the argument probably goes the other way, rather than awarding programmed lights with agency, removing agency from humans or at least downgrading it a few notched - ie by pointing out that free will is an illusion (a la Sam Harris and this).

It is interesting that you got him close to a revelation that he is an Intelligent Design advocate.  Scratch most of them, and it's there.

And I'm not denying that he's being silly.  He seems to prefer the shorter, content free posts than anything with any meat in them - an intellectual vegan.

[neopolitan]

I guess we'll see if he calms down and tries to make any effort at clarification, rather than continuing the mindless tit-for-tat.  For example, he could clarify that he was specifically talking about agency and you could both head off in that direction, until he decides that it's time to misrepresent you.

Or he could address my post to him

[john doe]

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.

Common misconception.  A mega-god, if it exists, would have created your local version.  So He is certainly not eternal.  For all anyone knows, it is mega, mega and more mega all the way down. 

Try again?

[neopolitan]

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.

Common misconception.  A mega-god, if it exists, would have created your local version.  So He is certainly not eternal.  For all anyone knows, it is mega, mega and more mega all the way down. 

Try again?

Interesting argument, could you unpack it a little?

[john doe]

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.

Common misconception.  A mega-god, if it exists, would have created your local version.  So He is certainly not eternal.  For all anyone knows, it is mega, mega and more mega all the way down. 

Try again?

Interesting argument, could you unpack it a little?

Honestly, I don't do debate.  Be my guest.