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

[john doe]

I've taken the liberty of addressing some of these myself by crossing out what I disagree with and inserting bolded corrections.  And simply crossing out sets which seem irrelevant or just for fun.


Premiss - Things have a cause.
Counter premiss - No they don't.  Yes, they have many.

Premiss - Things are designed
Counter premiss - No they aren't, living things are shaped by natural selection.

Premiss - Boeing 747
Counter premiss - whirlwind/junkyard

Premiss - Shakespearean Sonnet
Counter premiss - a thousand monkeys typing random letters for a thousand years.

Premiss - The universe came into existence.
Counter premiss - No it didn't.  Sure it did .. by way of necessary and sufficient (though as yet) unknown prior causes.

Premiss - Objective moral values have a transcendent quality.
Counter premiss - OMV don't exist.  Please clarify the claim.

Premiss - I experienced a supernatural event. (Just like billions of other humans)
Counter premiss - No you didn't. (Neither did anyone else)  Define supernatural.

Premiss - Jesus appeared to have been Resurrected / Disciples were persecuted for their belief
Counter premiss - Jesus never may well have existed / Disciples were lying may be mistaken.  And anyway the resurrection story needn't have been historical to have significance.

So my complaint/question is this. Will you concede that in terms of "explanatory power" a premise succeeds - even if only partially - when it is more plausible than its negation?

Of course not.  A premise and its negation may both be irrelevant to a proper explanation.  The claim that it only rains when you wear your favorite tie and its negation both entirely miss the mark for explaining why it rains.

Is it really more plausible that we live in a past-eternal, perpetual motion, Groundhog Day universe where everything that has happened has already happened an infinite number of times over and over and over again in an infinite regress of unbroken cause/effect? (Still waiting for Marty McFly and Emmett Brown to show up any day now)

Because you'll go for ANY counter-premis rather than the God Conclusion.

Is it really more plausible that this universe is just one of an infinite number of multiverses - all different, all potentially full of alternate realities and possible worlds - yet none containing any supernatural divine beings?

Speaking only for myself a "God conclusion" is no explanation at all.  It is a kind of black box which one posits accounts for everything without having any clue how it does so - let alone why.  To then hold up an old book and claim "and this book tells us all about this all powerful genie and what He expects from us" with nothing to support that claim except fervent belief .. just seems preposterous.

[Philip Rand]

This portion of your post is interesting whateverist:

A premise and its negation may both be irrelevant to a proper explanation.  The claim that it only rains when you wear your favorite tie and its negation both entirely miss the mark for explaining why it rains.

Because, if this is the case concerning propositions then you accept that there is no one thing to which we refer when we use the term "proposition" that are wide-ranging and fundamental.

You have defeated your whole position with that comment...

[john doe]

This portion of your post is interesting whateverist:

A premise and its negation may both be irrelevant to a proper explanation.  The claim that it only rains when you wear your favorite tie and its negation both entirely miss the mark for explaining why it rains.

Because, if this is the case concerning propositions then you accept that there is no one thing to which we refer when we use the term "proposition" that are wide-ranging and fundamental.

You have defeated your whole position with that comment...

I don't understand what you're saying.  In disagreeing with me do you then find that every possible proposition or else its negation must be germane to the explanation of absolutely any topic whatsoever?

[neopolitan]

Having read whateverist's response and finding it comprehensive and accurate,  I don't find it necessary to respond further.

[john doe]

Well that's no fun.  What about the next bone of contention then, unless Lion has more on this one?  I'm finding the exchange interesting and will redouble my efforts to stand aside.

[Friendly Banjo Atheist]

Well that's no fun.  What about the next bone of contention then, unless Lion has more on this one?  I'm finding the exchange interesting and will redouble my efforts to stand aside.

Me too.  Philip, care to join us?

[Lion IRC]

Nah, I need all the help I can get against neopolitan.
...but if you and whateverist want to lurk that's fine.

Take a close look at how my example premisses were treated at reply #210

Premiss - Things have a cause.
Counter premiss - No they don't.

Counter premiss not defended. I'll take that as a win.

Premiss - Things are designed
Counter premiss - No they aren't.

Counter premiss simply modified with semantics. Not defended. I'll take that as a win.

Premiss - Boeing 747
Counter premiss - whirlwind/junkyard

Counter premiss not defended. Just dismissed as irrelevant/irreverent. I'll take that as a win.

Premiss - Shakespearean Sonnet
Counter premiss - a thousand monkeys typing random letters for a thousand years.

Ditto. I'll take that as a win.

Premiss - The universe came into existence.
Counter premiss - No it didn't.

Counter premiss not defended. I'll take that as a win.

Premiss - Objective moral values have a transcendent quality.
Counter premiss - OMV don't exist.

Counter premiss not defended. Apparently not even understood. I'll take that as a win.

Premiss - I experienced a supernatural event. (Just like billions of other humans)
Counter premiss - No you didn't. (Neither did anyone else)

Counter premiss not defended. Apparently the naturalist doesn't know what supernatural means.
I'll take that as a win.

Premiss - Jesus appeared to have been Resurrected / Disciples were persecuted for their belief
Counter premiss - Jesus never existed / Disciples were lying.

Counter premiss not fully defended. I'll take that as a win.

[Lion IRC]

Now, of course some non-theist folks (like whateverist) might say that those counter premisses are strawmen to the extent that they personally don't make such assertions.

But plenty of atheists do deny these premisses in an entirely contradictory way - negation.

[neopolitan]

Well that's no fun.  What about the next bone of contention then, unless Lion has more on this one?  I'm finding the exchange interesting and will redouble my efforts to stand aside.

I've just had emergency surgery to get my appendix out, so you are more than welcome to step into the fray.  I'm worried that as the balance between pain and pain relief changes I might make the occasional miswording that'll be held over my head forever by the less charitable of our interlocutors.  But this paranoia could be drug related too (j/k).

It's nice to note that even in my diminished state, LionIRC apparently still needs help.

[Lion IRC]

An intelligent designer (and owner of intellectual property) creating a Shakesperean Sonnet
is much more plausible than this;

[Lion IRC]

Hey neo, sorry to hear your hospital woes.

Get well soon.

[john doe]

Yeah, get well buddy.  Unless you're bending the actuarial tables you must be college aged.  So assuming it didn't burst you should mend well. 

I'm no debater.  Baiter yes (careful I don't get your goat), debater no.  In fact some have said I was a master baiter. 

It took me a while to find the post numbers.  So were referring to my post and are claiming to win points (however that works) because the corrected claims I made were undefended - or were you referring to the negations you offered?  In either event, I fail to see how yours were any more supported.  Please clarify.

You don't seem to have addressed my point that not every proposition or else its negation must be true.  At the very least they need to be relevant to the discussion at hand and even then it isn't a given.

Sorry if I am being dense here.  Maybe BanjoGuy would care to wade in as Neo's second until he gets back on his feet.

[neopolitan]

Yeah, get well buddy.  Unless you're bending the actuarial tables you must be college aged.  So assuming it didn't burst you should mend well.

Oh it burst, but not long before they opened me up.  And I might be bending the charts a bit.

[john doe]

Yeah, get well buddy.  Unless you're bending the actuarial tables you must be college aged.  So assuming it didn't burst you should mend well.

Oh it burst, but not long before they opened me up.  And I might be bending the charts a bit.

Be careful.  My poor wife's burst when she was forty.  Four operations in all including getting the gall bladder removed.

[neopolitan]

Yeah, get well buddy.  Unless you're bending the actuarial tables you must be college aged.  So assuming it didn't burst you should mend well.

Oh it burst, but not long before they opened me up.  And I might be bending the charts a bit.

Be careful.  My poor wife's burst when she was forty.  Four operations in all including getting the gall bladder removed.

I'm ahead of the curve on that, gall bladder came out last year and I felt much worse when I woke up.  But I was out by this time.  Anyway, enough about me and back to LionIRC.

I guess part of your previous post was to him?