Sophistry
William Lane Craig is one of the best known contemporary Christian apologists. He is very intelligent, well read, articulate, disciplined and poised. He is a debate machine who has performed this role successfully for decades.
Seems to me it would be interesting to take some of Dr. Craig's arguments and identify where he has stacked the deck (logically). Conveniently Dr. Craig has penned an article discussing five arguments for the existence of God.
Here are his arguments (summarized in his own words) and my comments.
1. The Cosmological Argument from Contingency
- Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.
- If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
- The universe exists.
- Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence (from 1, 3).
- Therefore, the explanation of the universe’s existence is God (from 2, 4).
The Problem
Premise 2 simply inserts God. No surprise that the argument concludes God exists. If Premise 2 had stated - ' ... that explanation is a Purple Cosmic Unicorn' the argument would conclude that a Purple Cosmic Unicorn exists.
2. The Kalam Cosmological Argument
- Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
- The universe began to exist.
- Therefore, the universe has a cause.
The Problem
This argument is simply definitional; by definition everything that begins to exist has a cause. The argument implies that the cause is sentient but the universe could have been caused by natural forces. This argument does not establish a sentient cause so it accomplishes nothing (but sophistry). Dr. Craig fails to logically demonstrate that the cause of the known universe must be sentient (presuming he wishes to define God as sentient).
3. The Moral Argument Based upon Moral Values and Duties
- If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist
- Objective moral values and duties do exist.
- Therefore, God exists.
The Problem
Premise 2 must be proved. Dr Craig simply asserts that objective moral values exist.
4. The Teleological Argument from Fine-tuning
- The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.
- It is not due to physical necessity or chance.
- Therefore, it is due to design.
The Problem
Again Dr. Craig simply asserts in premise 2 that the precise nature of the universe is not due to physical necessity or chance and again one must ask that he back this up. This premise really is the argument.
5. The Ontological Argument from the Possibility of God’s Existence to His Actuality
Now in his version of the argument, Plantinga conceives of God as a being that is “maximally excellent” in every possible world. Plantinga takes maximal excellence to include such properties as omniscience, omnipotence, and moral perfection. A being that has maximal excellence in every possible world would have what Plantinga calls “maximal greatness.” Now Plantinga argues,
- It is possible that a maximally great being exists.
- If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
- If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
- If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
- If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.
- Therefore, a maximally great being exists.
The Problem
Who has logically proved that an omniscient, omnipotent being could exist? Premise 1 has been challenged by others as well due its self-contradiction. Omniscience means knowing everything - including the future - which means the maximally great being knows what it will do in the future and thus is deterministic (predictable). Dr. Craig must demonstrate such a being is indeed possible. The argument is stacked in premise 1.
Premise 2 presumes that all possible worlds (potential realities) exist. Given infinite time I will accept this.
Premise 3 is simply a declaration. This requires an argument. Dr. Craig stacked his deck again on this premise.
The rest of the argument is mechanical.
Conclusion
There is currently no logical proof for the existence of God. Professional philosophers like Dr. Craig nevertheless do an excellent job of making it seem as though God's existence is logically proven. But he and others deal from a stacked logical deck and far too many people do not practice the healthy skepticism that would stop such sophistry.
Tags
Who is online
80 visitors
Anyone up for a little formal logic?
I've destroyed every one of those fallacious arguments for the existence of a good before, but If you want me to do it again I will.
Anyone who is an apologist is not intelligent. You cannot be intelligent and also be a Christian apologist unless they enjoy playing devils advocate and like to try to trip up the unintelligent with sophistry.
Dr. Craig is brilliant epistte. To deny that simply because he is a devout Christian is IMO an emotional reaction rather than an impartial, rational analysis.
I disagree with Dr. Craig's logic. I think it is fallacious and I am convinced he knows it. That is why I label it sophistry. But my assessment that he is wrong does not lead me to snap-judge him as unintelligent. One can be brilliant and also be wrong, right?
Why would I want you to do it when the whole point of my article is to show the problems with his arguments? Did you read my article?
This one is short.
This argument takes the form of:
The first premise is definitional. It says that objective moral values and duties cannot exist without a supreme entity to define them. Okay, that makes sense. The only way to get truly OBJECTIVE anything (vs. subjective) is to have a supreme entity stating the highest rules. Human moral values are necessarily subjective - functions of the human mind. So God must exist for OMVD to exist. (Remember that.)
The second premise asserts that OMVD exist. Do OMVD exist? Premise one has stated that God must exist for OMVD to exist so Dr. Craig, by simply asserting that OMVD exist has ipso facto presumed that God exists.
The conclusion of God Exists follows directly from premise 2. If one asserts a condition (premise 1) that can only be true if God exists and then asserts in premise 2 that premise 1 is true then one has stated conditions that can only be true if God exists.
Dr. Craig sneaked in the condition that God exists in his second premise. Not really much of an argument. In short, it basically is:
Sophistry. X=true has not been proved, only declared
Craig's number 1 and 2 proofs are reasonable , imo. The other three are not as strong.
If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
It is more likely that the explanation for the existence of the universe is God than it is a Purple Cosmic Unicorn.
Existence is what we call "nature". If existence was "caused" , then it was caused super-naturally. This would fit the description of God also.
The existence of God cannot be proved imo, but neither can it be disproved.
Sorry for the delay, John, but this has been a very strange day.
... but importantly it is through the clogged drain and posting as it should.
The problem here is that Dr. Craig simply asserts that the explanation is God. The universe could have emerged as a consequence of natural forces. The cause (the explanation) need not be sentient and certainly need not be God. For example, an amazingly powerful alien could have created our universe but is that necessarily God? The universe has a cause (an explanation), sure, but one must prove -not simply assert- that the cause (the explanation) can ONLY be sentient and ONLY be God.
But Dr. Craig is only proving that things that come into existence have a cause. He is simply stating cause and effect. This is a proof that effects have a cause, not that God exists. It is only because this is called a proof of God that it seems to be such. Sophistry.
TiG,
I agree that taking the "Likely" approach is a smart move.....I don't think it is possible to Prove the Existence of God......but I do think that it is more likely that there is a God than not......JMO...(Of course I am biased)......because I know that he Exists....
I wonder if some smart Statistician has come up with the odds for and Against ......
1. A Creator
2. A God/Creator