Talk:William Lane Craig/Archive2

This is an archive page, last updated 23 March 2023. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>

, (new)(back)

Problem with the hawkings reference without posting contemporary disagreeance with the singularity

Quote: "About the one thing that we do know about a singularity like the big bang, however, is that nothing from before the big bang could have affected anything that came after it " - which is referenced from

Referencing source: "This means that the state of the universe, after the Big Bang, will not depend on anything that may have happened before, because the deterministic laws that govern the universe will break down in the Big Bang. The universe will evolve from the Big Bang, completely independently of what it was like before"

Counter-argument by Sean Carroll: "The idea that our universe started out as some infinitesimally small point, which expanded out to what we see today, makes a lot of sense. Except for one small thing. That initial point, called a singularity by physicists, is a physical impossibility. According to the models we have today, the temperature of the universe at that first moment would have had to be infinite, which mathematically makes no sense."

In fact there is an entire BBC documentary covering just this topic, as well as a book, the Hidden Reality, by Briane Greene.^{— Unsigned, by: Thistleknot / talk / contribs}

On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: on the toolbar above the edit panel. (You can indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line.) Thank you. Also, please put new comments at the bottom of the page, not somewhere in between the others.--JorisEnter (talk) 15:13, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

This appears to be based on reading the physics backwards. What Hawking is stating is not that there wasn't anything per se before the big bang that could've affected or created the big bang (assuming there even was something before the big bang — forgetting for a second that saying "was" prior to space itself coming into being, and saying "before" the beginning of time, are both logically inconsistent) as that would be an unfalsifiable argument from ignorance (just like all suggestions that there was something are). What he is saying is that; from our side of the big bang, we cannot ever reconstruct what may or may not have been prior to the big bang (again, disregarding that terms like "been" and "prior to" technically make no sense when used in this context).

Also, what Carroll is saying is not actually in conflict with any of this. By quoting him like you do, you make it seem like he is mistaking the map for the territory when he is in fact not. He is stating that according to our models, it's impossible. Obviously, reality supersedes our models. Also, regarding the suggestion that "the universe was infinitely hot" — while that may indeed break down particular equations, it can still make mathematical sense — atleast in the sense that mathematics can clearly handle infinities. We are worse at handling them, however, and they can be taken as a sign that an equation is broken. Fair enough. But we need to keep in mind that there's no specific law against infinities in real life. Again, the models are not equivalent to reality.

The point that Hawking and Carroll are both making is similar, if not identical — and it is a point of pedagogy, as you will notice that neither of these links are to physics papers, but to popularizations of physics. They both more or less term it that the laws of physics — or more precisely, the laws of physics as established from observations we've made here on Earth in the past couple of hundred years — break down in the big bang. You could say that "they break down in a singularity", but that is likely phrased incorrectly, since it seems to imply that a singularity is something (in contrast to just being a term for what could be any number of things that make perfect sense with more scientifically developed physics). The fact is rather that "a singularity means that the observed laws of physics break down", not the other way around.

"Singularity" is a placeholder term for "we don't know", and if our physics were better, we would likely be able to follow on in select cases where our current theories break down. It's not the real world physics that are inconsistent, it's our theories. We might know why we don't know (i.e. where in our equations it breaks down), but that's about it. Which is why it's always completely in error to see apologists referencing singularities when trying to peddle any of their points. Exactly one hundred percent of apologist mentions of singularities boil down to the following gambit buffét (add or take): mistaking the map for the territory, argument from ignorance, just a theory, science was wrong before, science doesn't know everything and shifting the burden of proof.

Laws are arrived to from observing the world. We can obviously observe our everyday conditions here on Earth with great detail (with the added ability to simulate some more extreme conditions in labs), thus, our physics describing the kind of stuff that goes on in the here-and-now is pretty great. That being said, is there any surprise we have less certainty and depth when it comes to understanding events further and further from our Earthly physics, both in terms of time, distance, scale and energies? I mean, guess why particle accelerators teach us things? Because even moving just a bit away from our everyday observable conditions teaches us vital new things — and may offer confirmation or falsification of others — and thus, affect our theories generally (because, again, our theories always follow from our observations). So, realise that the peak of that distance likely having to be the big bang itself. Thus, saying that (our models of) the laws of physics break down in a singularity is the same thing as saying that we cannot know from this side of a singularity what, if anything, affected it before it blew up — remembering once more that terms like "what" and "before" literally make no sense prior to the origin of spacetime itself. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:51, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Glad we are beginning to have a rational conversation.

"Singularity" is a placeholder term for "we don't know"

This was my point, but the way Hawkings is referenced makes it seem like we do know that nothing before can affect after, when it should be expressed that the singularity is where our math breaks down and we can't explain any further at that point. The way it reads on the talk page makes it come off that that is the definitive starting point, almost as if there is no cause for the big bang, which again the BBC documentary spends a whole hour talking about various theories such as Branes and Quantum Foam (of course which are all theoretical, and with recent discoveries at the LHC--those depending on multistring theory--are not finding supporting evidence for).

Also the "infinites existing in reality" I have a quote from a physicist (but not a paper) that directly contradicts this statement, will follow up later this afternoon when I have the source:

"the infinite in the sense of an infinite totality, where we still find it used in deductive methods, is an illusion... our principal result is that the infinite is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature nor provides harmony between being and thought." -"On the infinite," David Hilbert, quoted by Spitzer, New Proofs, pp. 201-2.

Thistleknot (talk) 16:21, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Leaving the discussion on the big bang, and instead pointing our attention towards the epistemology of the situation... What we do know is that: we cannot know what (if anything) "caused" the big bang. Therefore, we will never have a reason to assume that something did, as that would constitute an unfalsifiable argument from ignorance. Hawking is right to point this out. Positing that "something must have been the initial cause" only raises the question of what, in turn, caused the cause — and claims that this supposed cause was itself somehow uncaused only lets us save a step by simply concluding the big bang was uncaused (since suddenly we're allowing for uncaused causes). Thus, we can only concede that the big bang did happen (and not in any way that would suggest some benevolent architect, either). We're simply left with the world, as-is, as revealed to us by science. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:32, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I think the way the talk page is worded would lead people incorrectly to believe there is no research into what may have "caused" the big bang. Your appeal to Occam's razor seems unfitting. Your basically saying that theories that may explain (the events leading to) the "big bang/singularity" are not needed, instead relying on no explanation other than what is already here, which dead ends at no cause (due to lack of evidence?).

I suppose you are trying to avoid infinite causation (but what if that's how reality works). Why do we stop seeking explanations? Because there is nothing beyond, or because we do not have solid evidence of anything (i.e. logical positivism)? Well, I beg to differ. What do all these theories mean? They may not be "proof" and relied on as evidence, but they are theories that advance our understanding. I don't think science ever will accept a "it just is" argument, just like they reject god as a "just because" argument.

I believe these theories are falsifiable as well. They depend on math and research, I mentioned how Multistring theory has found contradicting evidence with the LHC (although I need to cite it), I saw it in a discussion Brian Greene was having with another physicist. If they were not testable, they wouldn't be taken seriously as theories. I'm not sure why we are having this argument. I'm just pointing out that ending at the big bang isn't the only contemporary opinion amongst cosmologists today.

As for the religious aspects of this discussion, I'm not addressing those, just that there are alternative theories that go beyond the singularity.Thistleknot (talk) 17:03, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Granted — there is theoretical research into what might have caused the big bang. But notice above how I point out that our theories are based on observable data? As you no doubt already know, any such research is pure speculation. Educated speculation, sure, and very fascinating at that. But there's no data to go on, and it's not at all clear that there ever will be. This is due ultimately to numerous known information horizons, including the one from the big bang (relative to "before" the big bang — again, an incoherent term), the ever-growing (yet, practically, ever-shrinking) cosmic horizon and the event horizons of black holes (the interiors of which count among the places and conditions where our models break down, thus earning them the "singularity" label).

Applying Occam's razor is never unfitting; indeed, any time it could be applied, it ought to be (and it will be — by someone else, were you to refuse doing so yourself). It may only be invoked when unnecessary things are being implied, and its invocation results only in the removal of the unnecessary (if any). That being said, you misunderstand both me and the razor if you think that my point was that the philosophical speculation, which you above term as "theoretical research", on the question of what caused the big bang "is not needed". As far as I'm constrained by your own words here, I would argue that — to the contrary — it is needed. Now, I'm not going to rank philophy in the dichtonomy of "needed" or "not needed" in any universal sense; personally, however, I do believe in the pursuit of ideas and arguments for their own sake — so the suggestion that I'd brush a line of inquisition off the table for any reason other than due to it being a logical necessity is false.

One point of obvious misunderstanding you show here is the division between what actually happened and what we can know about what actually happened. I'm going to adress the latter, and in doing so, I will have adressed the former as well. Stephen Hawking is correct to say that we cannot know what — if anything — happened before the big bang, and which may have caused the bang. Any questions of "what existed" before the big bang falls flat, as space — in which things exist — did itself not exist. The contradictory use of the word "before" in "before the big bang" discards itself as well, as time itself began with the big bang. This is hard for our primitive three pound cerebrums to grasp, no doubt. That doesn't make it any less true, however.

Now, the fact that our models break down when approaching the conditions of the big bang doesn't mean that there is nothing to follow into the big bang (even to "before it"), were our models better. That being said however, it just as well doesn't mean that there is anything for us to follow into the big bang, regardless of how good a theory is. The big bang could — frankly, may even likely — remain a singularity, for all species of intelligent life, until the very heat death of the cosmos itself. But that's just what I imagine. And what matters is not what one could imagine — like Russel pointed out, the rules of logic for one hundred made-up tailors are no different from the ones governing a hundred real ones — but what we have data for. And therein lies the problem. We cannot ever know what, if anything, happened before the big bang. Though to this, you might retort; "But our physics in the universe atleast show chains of cause and effect? Surely that could be extrapolated to the big bang as well?".

Fine. For this exercise, I will ignore the fact that we cannot know (and thus, that we perpetually have no reason to accept any suggestions) about the conditions — never mind the very concept of — "prior to" the big bang, and instead I'll agree to simply submit to our current laws of physics — which, as you note yourself, include the laws of cause and effect. First one thing, then another, then another... On and on. Fair enough? That's proven in physics; causality is a thing.

However, respecting the observed laws of physics does not mean we're free to cherry pick which laws of physics to follow, and which not to. And just as I have to agree that: where there's matter and energy, things interact with each other in a way that — over time — forms a chain of causality? You have to agree that: where there's no time over which things may act, interactions per definition are not taking place. Note also that any suggestion that everything simply happens at once actually ruins everything as far as causality is concerned. Furthermore, you will have to agree that where there's no space either — for anything be able to exist in — not much could be going on, anyways. Save for, I suppose, if time somehow managed to keep running in the nothingness. Then over time, one could perhaps imagine that perhaps something would occur? Only, time doesn't exist. Neither does space. So much for this exercise, then.

We're left with the facts of the matter — firstly; that we will never have any sound rational reason to believe anything about that which we cannot, per definition, know anything about (a truth bordering on tautology). Secondly; that appeals to our observed "in-universe" physics do not serve the purpose of allowing anything to have "caused" the big bang, "before" the big bang (or otherwise). Not just because we may not infer the existence of pre-big bang physics from the existence of post-big bang physics. Not just because the reason our physics is any good in the first place is because it is so closely modeled on observation (keeping in mind that singularities are hidden behind information horizons), but because the same physics which dictates both casuality and the thermodynamical notion that "something can't be made from nothing" (two apologist favourites) also dictates that the model isn't even running when and where time and space do not exist. Not just, time and space "at a value of 0". I mean; there literally not being any such entities or properties in existence. The answer to the question "What time is it?" becomes "Time isn't". The answer to the question "Where is it?" becomes "Where isn't". Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:14, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Indeed, these quibbles over what the singularity was(n't) or if it was(n't) at all are utterly irrelevant to the core point of bringing up the singularity in this context: That Craig is falsely claiming that the continuing debate surrounding this "zero hour" of the universe's spacetime allows a gap into which he can shunt his particular deity. Craig tries to do this by appealing to an obviously and appallingly fallacious notion that it makes any sense to discuss causality prior to the beginning of time (the absurdity of the concept of anything prior to time should make this embarrassingly clear). The various singularity interpretations made by Hawking and Carroll don't change this and either point of view will do. Again, the topic of this article isn't how various physicists interpret the singularity, but that no matter which variation you choose, Craig's silly intuition pumped sophistry falls flat, not least because, to use Daniel Dennett's phrase, Craig takes our everyday gut feelings and "cantilevers them out into territory where they've never been tested in cosmology". ScepticWombat (talk) 23:39, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Craig's PhD in Philosophy

On his CV (just Google), Craig claims a PhD in Philosophy and not the "Philosophy of Religion". Which is it? Can someone contact the University of Birmingham to see what their take is on it? ^{— Unsigned, by: Jehanne / talk / contribs}

Good point. I think I added it, but as I can't find a source for it, I have removed it. That the University of Birmingham's centre named for John Hick is one dedicated to the philosophy of religion may be what I had in mind. Nevertheless, while Craig's thesis is, de facto, one of philosophy of religion (see Craig's own description of his motives), it seems that, de jure, it is simply designated as a philosophy thesis. ScepticWombat (talk) 22:50, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Craig's PhD is not in the Philosophy of Religion, Craig's PhD is simply in Philosophy, however his M.A. is in the Philosophy of Religion. These are two vastly different things and should be noted.Korvexman (talk)

Some thoughts on the article

This is an edited version of a response to ReverendBlackPercy regarding this article on my own talk page that I thought was important enough to put here as well, so, here goes.

I have long been worried that my extensive edits to the article have not been looked over by others and thus lacked the quality control of a second opinion. That said, I was not particularly thrilled with the Dawkins stuff about "who designed the designer?", especially the phrasing (which was why I removed what I regarded as superfluous exclamation marks).

I wholeheartedly agree with ReverendBlackPercy that we should definitely not be straw manning Craig, but I also worry that the revisions made since my last major overhaul of the article last year have mainly added to what is already an extremely long article, indeed one of the longest on RW(!), if I remember correctly. I'm conflicted about this, because, on the one hand, I like that we counter Craig's arguments in detail, but, on the other, the sheer length risks compromising the quality. I suspect that few editors will go through it from end to other, which will increase the likelihood that they will simply add new paragraphs on topics that may already have been covered elsewhere in the article, not to mention that such a long article is probably less reader friendly.

For instance, while I think the objections to Craig's apparently bizarre use of mathematics in the section on the number zero is probably relevant, I think it ought to fitted into the whichever debating section (i.e. Craig's arguments) it belongs to. Since Craig is mainly (in)famous for his debates and he generally sticks to the "5 arguments"- format (bar the resurrection debates, of course), I still think it makes sense to encompass the majority of the content within these sections. The number zero stuff thus probably belongs with the existing material on Craig's (mis)use of infinity in either the teleological or Kalam secion. The short paragraph on Craig and evolution is an exception as it falls somewhat outside the debate stuff (though Craig did discuss it in his debate with Lewis Wolpert), but is extremely relevant in relation to fundamentalist Christianity and apologetics (especially in the US).

As regards my own more substantial contributions (as in original text, rather than editing), I'm still a bit in two minds about the Wikipedia stuff in particular; should it be axed? My concern is that it might come off as too bitter/bitching/ranting even if I still consider that the core point (weaknesses in the Wikipedia approach exploited by Craig's fans) is valid.

I'm less conflicted about the debating tactics section, due to Craig's public reputation owing so much to his supporters touting his debating skills and "wins". However, we should take care to keep it as succinct as possible, which is why I tried to either combine several related fallacies and sleazy debating tricks in each paragraph or focus on Craig's most prominent tricks. That is why I'm not too thrilled about the additions regarding "decision card mentality " (it's not a fallacy we deal with elsewhere on RW) and "gibberish statements" (it seems to me that this is simply one specific example of Craig's general rhetorical shiftiness and penchant for bullshitting). By contrast, I think the addition of Craig's "false dichotomy between atheism and agnosticism" is highly pertinent not only to Craig's debating BS, but also because it dovetails nicely with more general issues surrounding straw man atheists.

So, what do the rest of you think? ScepticWombat (talk) 00:59, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Jacobrobertson

For fixing my typo. Dawn Jehanne (talk) 14:45, 25 August 2017 (UTC)Jehanne

Kalam Cosmological Argument

The conclusion (C2) is a strawman. This is never part of his argument. Reference ^{— Unsigned, by: 14.203.10.183 / talk / contribs} 07:39, 24 September 2013

There is no '(C2)' in the main article; what are you referring to?Jehanne (talk) 10:39, 21 October 2017 (UTC)Jehanne

Hi, Jehanne. This BoN comment is old (2013 old), so it probably refers to an earlier version of the article. Like some of the other current talk page entries here this one has popped back up and I think something might have gotten mixed up by the archiving bot, because it archived my long, comparatively recent comment on the contents and structure of the article but has made these old entries (re)appear. ScepticWombat (talk) 08:29, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I suppose that someone probably should delete this section of the Talk page but I don't know what SOP is, and so, I'll leave that for someone who is more experienced to do.Jehanne (talk) 13:31, 24 October 2017 (UTC)Jehanne

No worries. Editors can of course manually move (cut ‘n paste) a section to the archive. Don’t know if that might mess with the Archivist bot, though. Anyway, I think I’ll do some manual shovel work to clear out the zombie entries here and restore (copy/paste) my long passage from August back from the archive. ScepticWombat (talk) 18:58, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

No cause is evident in the decay of a radioactive nucleus.

Since this wiki is for the laymen, can you expand on this? For one, isn't the decay correlated with the nucleus? Therefore the decay cannot occur without a nucleus. Giving the nucleus as the cause? Again, why I ask for a more expansive explanation, because I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "no cause". There seems to be a proximate cause, an owner of (the object which undergoes) the decaying. Maybe because we do not understand the process we say no cause? Again, asking for clarification on what is meant by "no cause".

You can read Quantum Mechanics (2nd edition) by Professor David Griffiths for a more detailed discussion of this phenomenon. If you do not say that there are things in the Cosmos that are uncaused at a fundamental reality, you simply get into infinite regresses. For instance, virtual particles are uncaused; they simply happen. If you are saying that they are caused, what is that cause? And, what was the cause of that cause, ad infinitum? This leads to infinite regresses. Jehanne 22:05, 21 September 2017

As I understand the parallel, the example of radioactive decay is one that challenges Craig’s simplistic cause/effect perspective (the classic analogy of this perspective being on billiard ball hitting another causing it to move).

Instead, as I read the text, radioactive decay is a probabilistic event where you cannot simply say that the nucleus directly causes radioactive decay, or, to be more precise, specifically when an atom decays (as is clearly set out in the lead of the RW article on radioactive decay that the text links to).

I think the problem is that Craig is in the habit of using simplistic intuition pumps to provide the answers he want to questions that are actually far more complex than his intuitive reasoning allows for.

Nevertheless, the text might need some clarification or perhaps even a better/more illustrative example(?) ScepticWombat (talk) 21:50, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Radioactive decay is a result of quantum tunneling, which is forbidden in classical mechanics but is permissible in Quantum Field Theory. Craig rejects all of modern physics (now, a century old), and with it, things like the electron tunneling microscope! And, perhaps even GPS, which relies upon Special and General Relativity.Jehanne (talk) 18:15, 25 October 2017 (UTC)Jehanne

Being overridden at Wikipedia

Trying to link to the RationalWiki article on Dr. Craig but my edits are being reverted! Anyone know how to appeal to Wikipedia management?

I was able to add a new section! Whew!! Took awhile but Craig's followers, under Wikipedia's guidelines, had to allow some "scholarly criticisms". Of course, they responded with the fact that "Craig has responded" to these criticisms, although, one of their citations was from Craig's debate with Sean Carroll.Jehanne (talk) 12:20, 3 October 2017 (UTC)Jehanne

Well done Jehanne!--Yisfidri (talk) 02:47, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I just think it's funny that the anti-theist side counts as "the article" and refutations of the misinformation therein has to go under "Talk".

Yeah, I will probably be banned for even mentioning it. But I just wanted to let SOMEONE know I've discovered exactly how IRrational "rationalwiki" truly is. ^{— Unsigned, by: Vic 2.0 / talk / contribs 08:50, 18 March 2018‎ (UTC)}

On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you.

If you believe there is misinformation in the article, then the talk page is the place to mention it. If you are specific and convincing the article will be edited. CowHouse (talk) 09:13, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Vic 2.0, if you could outline clearly where in the article Craig is either misrepresented or misunderstood, it might be a good start. As CowHouse suggested this could be done either in one or more new sections here on the talk page (I suggest a section devoted to each separate (counter) argument for easy reference and response) or by creating an essay (I think a side-by-side comparison format might work well).

By contrast, it’s not particularly useful to simply restate Craig’s claim(!) that he is presenting a cumulative case as it is not a refutation of the analysis in the article which quite clearly sets out why this is not the case. However, I will revise the article to make it clear that it doesn’t imply that the Kalam stands alone. Also, just rehashing Craig’s assertions(!) about the nature of God as an argument in defence of this deity’s supposed properties and shifting the burden of proof to anyone who does not believe in this (version of the) deity is also not going to get you (or Craig) very far.

As for the universe having a beginning, Craig has been criticised by the actual physicists/cosmologists he cites in his favour (e.g. Guth and Vilenkin). The issue is simply not as cut and dry as Craig presents it — and he has been told so on numerous occasions by actual scientists, such as Lawrence Krauss and, perhaps most unambiguously, by Sean Carroll. ScepticWombat (talk) 18:00, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Unarchived: Some thoughts on the article (sticky)

Start of reposted text:

This is an edited version of a response to ReverendBlackPercy regarding this article on my own talk page that I thought was important enough to put here as well, so, here goes.

I have long been worried that my extensive edits to the article have not been looked over by others and thus lacked the quality control of a second opinion. That said, I was not particularly thrilled with the Dawkins stuff about "who designed the designer?", especially the phrasing (which was why I removed what I regarded as superfluous exclamation marks).

I wholeheartedly agree with ReverendBlackPercy that we should definitely not be straw manning Craig, but I also worry that the revisions made since my last major overhaul of the article last year have mainly added to what is already an extremely long article, indeed one of the longest on RW(!), if I remember correctly. I'm conflicted about this, because, on the one hand, I like that we counter Craig's arguments in detail, but, on the other, the sheer length risks compromising the quality. I suspect that few editors will go through it from end to other, which will increase the likelihood that they will simply add new paragraphs on topics that may already have been covered elsewhere in the article, not to mention that such a long article is probably less reader friendly.

For instance, while I think the objections to Craig's apparently bizarre use of mathematics in the section on the number zero is probably relevant, I think it ought to fitted into the whichever debating section (i.e. Craig's arguments) it belongs to. Since Craig is mainly (in)famous for his debates and he generally sticks to the "5 arguments"- format (bar the resurrection debates, of course), I still think it makes sense to encompass the majority of the content within these sections. The number zero stuff thus probably belongs with the existing material on Craig's (mis)use of infinity in either the teleological or Kalam secion. The short paragraph on Craig and evolution is an exception as it falls somewhat outside the debate stuff (though Craig did discuss it in his debate with Lewis Wolpert), but is extremely relevant in relation to fundamentalist Christianity and apologetics (especially in the US).

As regards my own more substantial contributions (as in original text, rather than editing), I'm still a bit in two minds about the Wikipedia stuff in particular; should it be axed? My concern is that it might come off as too bitter/bitching/ranting even if I still consider that the core point (weaknesses in the Wikipedia approach exploited by Craig's fans) is valid.

I'm less conflicted about the debating tactics section, due to Craig's public reputation owing so much to his supporters touting his debating skills and "wins". However, we should take care to keep it as succinct as possible, which is why I tried to either combine several related fallacies and sleazy debating tricks in each paragraph or focus on Craig's most prominent tricks. That is why I'm not too thrilled about the additions regarding "decision card mentality " (it's not a fallacy we deal with elsewhere on RW) and "gibberish statements" (it seems to me that this is simply one specific example of Craig's general rhetorical shiftiness and penchant for bullshitting). By contrast, I think the addition of Craig's "false dichotomy between atheism and agnosticism" is highly pertinent not only to Craig's debating BS, but also because it dovetails nicely with more general issues surrounding straw man atheists.

So, what do the rest of you think? ScepticWombat (talk) 00:59, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

End of reposted text ScepticWombat (talk) 19:27, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Most individuals in Western Civilization overcome any difficulties with the number zero somewhere between preschool and first grade. The fact that Craig is on record as having denied its existence, in my opinion, deserves its own section, however minor it would be. I think that this shows Craig's modality, and perhaps, why he should not have been awarded a PhD in the first place.Jehanne (talk) 18:09, 25 October 2017 (UTC)Jehanne

Then I’d suggest a subsection with it’s own headline under the relevant argument in which Craig used this number zero stuff. I suspect it can incorporate or replace the existing material in the section on The applicability of mathematics which is currently very poorly sourced, may be covering the same topic (though I don’t know if it actually is), and certainly shouldn’t be a section of its own (either).

I think it’s more useful to put Craig’s zero antics in the context of his apologetics, rather than having it slapped on as a loose, separate section because the context will clearly indicate why Craig might be taking this approach (similar to how he is trying to prop up his Kalām by resorting to peddling the A-theory of time). Also, it will strengthen the point about Craig’s deceptivey simple list of 5 arguments actually being a “stealth Gish Gallop” due to the many hidden premises behind them and the additions Crags will slap on them during debates.

Indeed, the current zero section already overlaps with the Vilenkin and Neo-Lorentzian parts of the Kalām argument and I’m pretty sure I’ve heard Craig use the Hilbert’s Hotel illustrations during his “infinities can’t exist in real life”-shtick, which is part of his attempt at preempting an eternal universe objection to his “began to exist” premise (leading to his absurd contortions in (re)defining God as “timeless”, an ad hoc term designed to avoid his preferred deity falling into the pit Craig has dug for the eternal universe). ScepticWombat (talk) 05:34, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

If you want to rework things, that is fine with me. The "applicability of mathematics" was raised by Craig during his (first, I think) debate with Dr. Daniel Came, an English philosopher, on the UK Unbelievable radio show.Jehanne (talk) 01:38, 29 October 2017 (UTC)Jehanne

Serious mistakes in begging the question section

This section claims that 'Craig presumes that the phrase "whatever begins to exist" is God.', but this is absolutely wrong. Not only is "whatever begins to exist" not supposed to be God, it is literally supposed to be everything *except* God. According to most theist, God has always existed (and therefore there is no point in which he began to exist. This whole passage needs to be fixed or else just deleted. ^{— Unsigned, by: 72.208.64.67 / talk / contribs 00:34, 19 August 2018‎ (UTC)}

if you read the rest of the article (in particular the Who created God? section) and/or have read/listened to Craig’s shtick, you’ll see that in his terminology, God is the only entrant into the “beginning to exist” category. Indeed, as stated clearly by Craig (and in this article), he explicitly disavows the notion of an eternal God in favour of a timeless one. As already pointed out in the Who created God? section, Craig claims that being eternal (as in having an infinite past) is impossible in reality. This is Craig’s attempt at preempting an eternal universe scenario as a counter to his Goddidit scenario, but this also means that he can’t define God as eternal, otherwise God could not, according to his own logic, actually exist in reality. Finally, it doesn’t matter how ”most theists” define these terms, because this article is about how Craig defines his concepts and frames his arguments. ScepticWombat (talk) 02:21, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

I think I mixed together two different lines of Craig’s BS in my initial answer; specifically his timelessness/eternity and beginning-to-exist shticks. I agree that’s the begging the question section was wrong or at least confusingly worded (I’m pretty sure I didn’t write this bit originally, btw), but the core is sound, as the first premise does indeed contains everything but God.

Thus, Craig’s argument can be restated as: “Everything needs a cause, apart from God”, which clearly writes God into the premise of the argument, as well as including the special pleading that God is conveniently exempt from the rules Craig asserts apply to everything else. This also begs the question of why only Craig’s preferred deity is free to evade the rules that Craig sets up. ScepticWombat (talk) 20:22, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I think you've still got this wrong. The argument isn't supposed to prove God at all. The idea that it is God is a theistic extrapolation that is based on a variety of supporting arguments. All the Kalam argument is meant to prove is that there is an eternal uncaused entity from which all other things are derived. I believe that Craig goes into detail as to why he believes that the first cause must be a disembodied mind in his book on the Kalam Cosmological argument, but it is not a direct consequence of the KCA. ^{— Unsigned, by: 213.205.241.109 / talk / contribs 20:02, 27 May 2019}

That may be how Craig presents things in his books (not that I find such a vague “Oh, there are many good reasons why I’m right”-spiel from Craig persuasive in the least...), but he is best known for his debate appearances where he always presents the KCA as one of his key arguments for the existence of God (or a god or several gods; hard to know with Craig’s love of equivocation...); not merely as a sort of “minimal first cause” piece of waffling. But Craig being rather, eh, skimpy, when it comes to presenting his arguments “warts and all” in his debates would hardly be out of character... Anyway, Arif Ahmed (see note 6 in the article) has busted Craig’s reasons for the first cause being a disembodied mind (short version: Craig is relying on outdated Cartesian mind/body dualism; again, this kind of recycling being something of a trend with Craig, as seen in his use of outdated physics). ScepticWombat (talk) 14:48, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Quotation at beginning

The quotation at the beginning of this article is completely out of context. I understand that that is kind of the point, but it's not really that funny to quote someone while they are stating the views of their opposition. ^{— Unsigned, by: Trmyers / talk / contribs} 03:52, 18 January 2013

proposal about other debaters

Ahmet Deedat, Sam shamoun, Dawid wood, Shabir Ally comes into my mind. for me, Deedat and Shabir seem to be sincere honest debater rather than a showman trying to score a point in whatever way. They deserve to be written about. Sam and Dawid seem to be someone like Harun Yahya.

btw, it would be good to analyse Zakir Naik as well. Sometimes he acts like Sam and Dawid, sometimes his critics act like the 3. for example, Nabeel Qureshi accuses him of making 25 mistakes but I think less than 5 of them were mistake.^{— Unsigned, by: Sir artur / talk / contribs} 11:52, 18 August 2016