Tuesday, September 26, 2017

William Lane Craig helps a new convert develop the argument from reason

Here. 

2 comments:

Ron said...

It seems more like Craig is arguing for the validity of logic, rather than developing the AFR. He is arguing against the idea that logic can't be trusted, or is not necessarily true, rather than the idea that an inference can be made from logic to theism.

Stardusty Psyche said...

OP If they think that logic and reason are unreliable because “logic and reason is due to chemical compositions in the brain,” then ask them, “How did you arrive at that conclusion?” If they used logic and reason, then their assertion defeats itself. If they did not, why believe what they say? These poor, deluded souls are mired in incoherence and don’t even realize it.

--Craig is vastly overrated. In fact his arguments are pedestrian, sophomoric, and easily dispatched.

OP"How did you arrive at that conclusion?”"
--Provisionally.
The principles or logic are provisionally postulated. Therefore conclusions based upon them are provisionally true. No attempt is made to claim absolute certainty so there is no self defeat.

Craig is not entirely an idiot, he is palpably highly intelligent, but his arguments are idiotic.

OP"But that doesn’t imply that 2+2 did not equal 4 prior to people’s grasping this truth."
--Math is not known to be true, only postulated to be true. Craig long ago said so on Firing Line, but has forgotten his own words.

OP"When they tell you “to stop assuming logic is true,” the reductio ad absurdum is complete. You might ask them if they think that that statement is true rather than false, in which case they’re assuming the logical Law of Contradiction is true, "
--The statement is provisionally true because the principle of non-contradiction is provisionally postulated. Duh.

OP"But you may well be right that when someone is so mired in irrationality, it’s pointless to argue further. Here is where, perhaps, just being a loving friend is the best evangelism."
--The best evangelism is to advocate for rationality and publicly disdain irrationality, such as Christianity, Islam, Judaism, immaterialism, and the very notion of intrinsic randomness.