William Lane Craig Defeated Part 2 - The Existence of Contingent Beings

This is my response to the arguments for the "evidence for the existence of god," given by William Lane Craig in his debate with Lawrence Krauss at NCU. William Lane Craig's argument is below, and my refutation follows:

Craig's argument:

P1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence (either in its own nature or in an external cause)

P2. The universe exists.

P3. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is god.

C. Therefore the explanation of the universe is god.

My response:

Craig believes he has formulated a clever argument that will not fall prey to the usual cosmological counter--but it does. Adding the phrase "either in its own nature or in an external cause" does not help. Let's see how he intended to use this loophole. Adding the phrase "in its own nature" is an effort to fend off the question and infinite regress of, "What explanation can be offered to explain god?"  The answer would be, "Another god."  But that leads to an infinite regress, where the explanation of gods existence is explained by another god, and so on to infinity.  Craig wants to use the notion that the explanation of god is "in his own nature" to prevent the infinite regress. However, this move by Craig provides a counter to his own argument.  We can use the same explanation for the explanation for the existence of the universe, in that, it is "in its own nature."  Let me illustrate this for you.

One could say, "Well, god exists, therefore he must have an explanation." Then Craig could simply answer that God's explanation is "in God's own nature." Note, this is merely by description, and assertion, without any facts or evidence. Worse, we can say the same thing for the universe, but in this case, one explanation has been offered by Lawrence Krauss using Quantum Mechanics. Whether this is true or not is neither here nor there, but the fact of the matter is that we have more evidence for the universe being explained by "its own nature" than we do for any "gods or goddesses" as the explanation for its existence. Furthermore, the universe is considered circular and infinite by many religions; for example, Taoism, Buddhism and ancient African religions; and this is supported by the Second Law of Conservation of Energy, as well as Quantum Theory, as pointed out by Dr. Krauss.

So we see from examining P1, that Craig commits a fallacy worse than the fallacy of "False Dilemma," for, in P1, he gives a disjunction, with two disjuncts. One disjunct being "in its own nature" and the other disjunct is "an external cause." He goes on to P3, and limits the possible explanations of the universe ONLY being an external cause. There is no justification for such a limitation, as I have already shown.

Furthermore, I do not have to provide an explanation of how the explanation of the universe is "in its own nature." As Craig himself points out about the explanation of a "best explanation":

"...that can be left open for future inquiry... If the best explanation needs an explanation, we're left with an infinite regress."

Therefore, I do not have to provide an "explanation of my explanation" of the universe being "in its own nature." Clearly, this explanation is just as viable, if not more viable, and a better explanation, (due to scientific inquiry) than saying "Goddidit!!!" This shows that P3 is not justified, and the argument does not work, as it is an open question as to the explanation of the existence of the universe. William Lane Craig's ATTEMPT to prove god's existence as the best explanation for the existence of the universe in the above argument fails.

In defense of Atheism--A Critique of Richard Dawkins and William Lane Craig

Many know Richard Dawkins as an outspoken advocate of atheism and author of "The God Delusion." He is a well known speaker and has debated the subject of Christianity with many learned theists, including the Archbishop of Canterbury--but he refuses to debate the Christian philosopher, William Lane Craig. Because of this, Dawkins has been labelled by Craig and others, as a coward for not stepping up to take that challenge.

Now, in my view the debates are moot anyway, since the arguments have already been refuted long ago, and I too have offered refutations to WL Craig's arguments on this blog. In his defense, Dawkins claims he does not want to debate anyone who is willing to defend the slaughter of the Canaanites as being necessary --yet he has already debated others who have these same beliefs, including two archbishops of Canturbury--so this excuse makes no sense.  It makes no sense because as Christians, they cannot "disown" as Dawkins puts it, the parts of the bible that reveal the god ordained slaughtering of the innocents. (Deuteronomy 20: 13-15,) To do so would be to negate the authority of the bible--and it would become meaningless. Many scholars however, acknowledge that much of what is written about in war, and in other circumstances, is exaggerated hyperbole--and especially in the case of the slaughter of the Canaanites, the language used is full of bravado, is exaggerated, and is said to be hypberbolic.  Why, as the authors of "The Bible Unearthed" have shown, using  archeological evidence, the battles probably never even happened in the first place.   Jesus however, never "disowned" any part of the Old Testament, and did not claim the OT to be anything but the word of God.  He did not "disown" the so called word of God--and neither can Christians, or they would not be Christains.   Christians seem to be stuck between a rock and a hard place concerning this issue, because if we consider some of the bible to be hyperbole, then all of it comes into question and can be considered as such. We have no way of knowing what is hyperbole and what is not. But if they take it literally, then their bible reveals a god who is not at all "all-loving" as he orders the slaughter of innocent women and children. Hmmm.... If Christians disown the slaughter of the innocent Canaanites, they might as well disown the torture and murder of the innocent Jesus as well--perhaps that is hyperbole too. That is, if Christians claim the story of the slaughter of the Canaanites is merely "hyperbole"--then we can say the same thing about the supposed torture and death of Jesus on the cross, and his so-called "resurrection." Perhaps it is just hyperbole too--it never really happened.

Furthermore, according to Christians, Jesus used hyperbole many times, such as when he said "prayer moves mountains." We know that doesn't happen either. Perhaps it is also his use of hyperbole when he claims to be the son of god.  When Jesus said that "me and the father are one"--that too could just be hyperbole--as when I say that "me and my grandmother are one. "  I say this because my grandmother and I share the same philosophy--just as Jesus claimed that he shares the same philosophy with his father. But, it would not mean that I am my grandmother, nor that Jesus is God.

Nevertheless, WL Craig, whom I now label as the "king of strawmen, " (as that is his favorite fallacy) offers weak arguments that can easily be taken apart; but what sets him apart from other apologists is his rhetorical skills. He does not win debates on whether what he is arguing for is the truth or not--it is purely by rhetoric. Now, if Dawkins can be criticized for not being willing to defend his position--so can the apologists. To illustrate how hypocritical many so-called apologists for Jesus are, note what the Christian blogger "Wintery Knight" --the blogger that does not take critical comments on his blog--mentioned in a recent post:

"I don't mind that atheists think atheism is true, and that theism is irrational. That's their view, and they are entitled to hold it and speak it and teach it. But I think that Came is right to say that they should also be willing to defend it in public. Dawkins is clearly not willing to defend his views, and that tells me that he has no reasons to believe them."

Wintery Knight is a blogger who will NOT take comments against his own views, and edits comments to suit his fancy. In other words, he too does not defend his views against criticism. Talk about hypocrisy--but he is not the only one. There are quite a few Christian bloggers out there that are unwilling to post comments from people such as myself because I know how to take apart their arguments and make them look ridiculous. Some of them are Tom Gilson at "Thinking Christian", "Wintery Knight"--and my favorite, JW Wartick, at "Always Have a Reason." Now, there are a few, such as Bill Pratt at "Tough Questions Answered" and Ray Comfort at "Atheist Central" that still do take my comments, and I commend them for that, but for those that do not--they are no different than Dawkins and WL Craig. You see, Craig has also refused to debate certain scholars, as he will not take up the challenge of debating his former student, John Loftus over at "Debunking Christianity", because Craig knows that Loftus knows what he knows!!  Craig has no problem debating people he feels have less knowledge than he does, or weaker rhetorical skills, but Craig refuses to debate Loftus--why? Because he knows Loftus would make a fool out of him.  Craig claims he does not want to debate a former student--which, like his arguments, is just a weak excuse. Craig et al. are hypocrites and cowards, and have no business "defending" their faith against criticism--when they cannot take criticism.

As my mother said long ago--if the theists can't take the heat, they should get out of the kitchen. I would debate Craig anytime, and I know I would make him look ridiculous. And to show I am not interested in the publicity, I would do it over the internet as a podcast--anonymously. Would Craig take up the challenge? If he has read my blog--he knows that it would be in his best interest not to take up the challenge because his weak arguments would be defeated.

Theists need to step up their game if they wish to keep up with scholars such as myself--because the cracks in their armor are showing, and I see feathers peeking through.

Dr. William Lane Craig Defeated - No God is Required for Objective Morality

Yesterday, at NCU, William Lane Craig and Lawrence Krauss took it upon themselves to debate the possible evidence for God. Dr. Craig lists 5 premises which he believes points to the existence of a god, with #5 pointing to the existence of his particular god.  These premises are:

1. The existence of contingent beings.

2. The origin of the universe.

3. Objective moral values and duties in the world.

4. The fine tuning of the universe.
5. The historical "facts" of Jesus' resurrection.

For this post, I am concentrating on number 3, although I would like to mention that Dr. Krauss is wise enough to admit that science does not understand the beginning or the cause of the universe, just that it did begin, and it began with a bang, and he claims that using god as explanation for that which we do not understand is "intellectually lazy"--which I fully agree with.  I myself do not claim to understand how the universe came into existence.

This is Dr. Craig's argument for morality in the world:

P1.  If god does not exist, objective moral values and duties would not exist.

P2.  Objective moral values and duties do exist.

C.   Therefore, god exists.

This argument commits the fallacy of necessity as it assumes that objective moral values are contingent on a god existing, when this is not necessarily so.  No gods or goddesses for that matter are required for morality to exist, as ethics and morals in reality come from Normative Ethical Theories such as Utilitiarianism--which means doing what is right for the overall good.

One can make any wild claim as Dr. Craig does in his argument.  Let me make a substitution in Dr. Craig's argument to illustrate:

P1.  If humans do not exist, objective moral values and duties would not exist.

P2.  Objective moral values and duties do exist.

C.   Therefore, humans exist.

Just like William Craig's argument, there is no proof for P1.  The argument is valid, but whether it is sound or not is questionable.  In the case of Craig's argument, as I have already shown, we have another viable option for objective moral values, and that is the use of Normative Ethical Theories.

On another note, my argument is valid, but is contingent on humans existing, so it too commits the fallacy of necessity, as we have no way of knowing whether or not morality and duty is dependent on the existence of humans.  Many animals have exhibited moral behaviors, so it is not necessarily so that morality only exists in the realm of humanity.

For the sake of argument, let's assume his argument works.  Dr. Craig himself admits that this argument alone does not prove the Christian god. The reason for this is that every non-Christian culture, has/had their own standards and moral guidelines that they follow, and therefore their morals and duties are not contingent on the christian god Yahweh existing.   Hindu's have a moral code.  Sumerians had a moral code. The Native Americans had moral codes long before the White Christians came along, and many Christian missionaries made note of the fact the Indians had "no sin. " Orthodox Buddhists do not even posit a god, but they too have a moral code/standard etc. William Lane Craig uses premise #5 as being the "best" explanation for the Christian god being the one true god.--I will refute this below.

  

As I already mentioned, we use Normative Ethical Theories (NET's), which are devices used to produce specific moral judgments.  One of these NET's is the Divine Command Theory, which  in ethics states that whatever god says is right is right.  This seems to be the NET that Craig says is necessary for objectivity and morality.  As I have already shown, this is not the case as we have many competing NET's.  In fact, the Divine Command Theory is one of the weakest NET's because it has an epistemological problem as we have no way of knowing what a god has said, if he has said anything at all.  For example, in the case of Hinduism, Manu was given the Dharma which was given to him by the god Vishnu, and it gives instructions which uphold private and public life, and establishes social, moral, and religious order.  So who are we to believe; Moses or Manu?  How do we know whether a god told Moses, or a god told Manu, or a god told any other human anything at all for that matter?

The answer is that we do not; hence we have an epistemological problem.

Dr. Craig provides premise 5 to distinguish his god as the one true god as opposed to all the others. Number 5 however, also fails, as there are multiple gods who are claimed to have been resurrected from the dead.  In fact, numerous gods such as Bacchus, Hercules were said to have been resurrected from the dead.  Also,  Asclepius, was killed by Zeus only to be resurrected and transformed into a major deity. Achilles, after being killed, was taken from his funeral pyre by his divine mother Thetis, and resurrected, brought to an immortal existence in either Leuce, the Elysian plains, or the Islands of the Blessed. Memnon, who was killed by Achilles, was said have experienced  a similar fate. Alcmene, Castor, Heracles, and Melicertes were also among the figures sometimes considered to have been resurrected to physical immortality.  Quetzalcoatl, a South American god, is also claimed to be resurrected; and in Hinduism Krishna was resurrected, and in fact, according to Hinduism, EVERYONE is claimed to be resurrected. The concept of resurrection is found in the writings of some ancient non-Abrahamic religions in the Middle East. Some Egyptian and Canaanite writings claim there are dying and rising gods such as Osiris and Baal.  Therefore, premise 5 does not provide sufficient evidence for the Christian god, as opposed to any other gods or goddesses.  The fact that the bible CLAIMS there were "eyewitness" accounts is no more proof of the fact than the claims made by other non-Christian sources for their gods and goddesses.  The other religions could also "cherry pick" their scriptures in a similar fashion.

Let's assume however, that Yahweh exists and that we received moral values from this particular god.  Let's say for example that a father murders his children because he claims god told him to in order to save them from Satan.  Most christians would claim that Yahweh would never tell anyone to do such a heinous thing, and the man who killed his children is just crazy.  The reasoning that concludes that it was not Yahweh who told the man to kill his children allows another conclusion to be drawn.  This would be a moral test in which the conclusion that was drawn came from our own moral knowledge, and not from what a god said. Yahweh has, after all, according to the bible, spoken through others, ordering them to slaughter the innocents, so it would be inductively valid to assume that Yahweh ordered the man to murder his children. (Hosea 13:16)

Are actions in any case right or wrong then because god says they are; or are they right or wrong because they are right or wrong?  The Divine Command theory in ethics states that whatever god says is right is right--in this case the Christian god Yahweh-- which would mean the slaughter of innocent children, pregnant women and their unborn fetuses would be considered right.  If this is the case then, there is no standard for good, as murder would be considered "good."  Therefore, true objective morality cannot come from such a god.

The "Fear of Atheism"--according to Dr. William Lane Craig

Dr. William Lane Craig and Dr. Sam Harris

-->

I recently read a post by the Christian blogger "Wintery Knight," who quoted Dr. William Lane Craig after the April 7, 2011 debate with Sam Harris at Notre Dame University. Dr. Craig is apparently trying to do the old "switcheroo" by claiming that the "new atheists" are "blue collar, and uneducated." I had to lol.....

This is what Dr. Craig said:

"I wonder is something culturally significant is going on here. Several years ago, I asked the Warden at Tyndale House in Cambridge why it is that British society is so secular when Britain has such a rich legacy of great Christian scholars. He replied, “Oh, Christianity is not underrepresented among the intelligentsia. It’s the working classes which are so secular.” He explained that these folks are never exposed to Christian scholarship because of their lack of education. As a result there is a sort of pervasive, uninformed, village atheism among them. I wonder if something like this could be happening in the States. I was surprised to see the number of blue collar folks from the community buying Harris’ book and thanking him for all he has done. They didn’t seem to have any inkling that his views had just been systematically exposed as logically incoherent. The intelligentsia have almost universally panned Harris’ recent book (read the reviews!). Yet it is lapped up in popular culture. Wouldn’t it be amazing if unbelief became the possession mainly of the uneducated?"

The reason why I began this blog, and I go to conferences, and write papers, and talk to people in general at Socrates cafes, book stores, or to anyone anywhere interested in religion and philosophy, is to give everyone the opportunity to learn what religion, and Christianity in particular, is all about--the educated and the uneducated alike.  Note, that I am offended that Dr. Craig implies that the uneducated are too ignorant to understand what is going on.  Oh, quite the contrary.  Once, on the way to a conference, I was invited to stay at a bishop's home, and I did.  It was a beautiful home, and he took me around to show me all the beautiful things in it--from marble floors to exquisite art work.  He tried to enlist me to join his ranks, as I would have much more power, money, and influence to change society in the direction that I was working towards, such as equality, and rights for women.  I told him that it was my duty and goal to inform as many people that I could of all the arguments and explanations as they relate to religion, and Christianity in particular, and philosophy in general, to invoke reflectivity, with the hope that people would choose the truth for themselves once they heard all the arguments and explanations.  The bishop said to me, "Oh, the poor ignorant peasants don't need to know too much.--and that is is why the Bible was translated into Latin in the first place, and was not translated into other languages, so that less people could read and understand it.  The poor ignorant peasants would be too confused, and it is for their own good not to know."  He offered me the opportunity to earn a PhD of theology at their seminary, and said I could choose ANY church in his domain, including Jamaica!!--lol.  Of course, I rejected this, and told him that he should be ashamed of himself for deceiving the masses.  The so-called "uneducated peasants" ARE able to understand and choose the best arguments and explanations when they are provided with all the information.  This is my goal, and I have converted many educated and uneducated people. 

Besides the fact I have already exposed some of Dr. Craig's arguments as being fallacious in this blog (and I will continue to do so as time allows) Dr. Craig obviously did not read Ravi Zacharias' book "Beyond Opinion" as another prominent theist, Alister McGrath, said quite the opposite. Mr. McGrath made the comment that the increased atheism in the West is due to the "Enlightenment" i.e. EDUCATION and knowledge. It is only in oppressed nations such as those in Africa, where Christianity is gaining new converts by giving followers what I claim is "false hope":

""Interestingly, atheism has very limited influence outside Western culture. The only African nation in which it has any significant presence is South Africa, predominantly among the white population. This is a telling indicator of its Western roots, and therefor its predominantly Western appeal. But there is more to this observation than at first seems to be the case. It is not simply that atheism is a Western product/ It is actually a product of one specific area in Western culture: The Enlightenment, or modernity."

(Beyond Opinion, Ravi Zacharias, p. 27)

In fact, I was a theist myself, until I went to college and took every religion course offered. I also took philosophy, where I learned logic, and how to think critically and reflectively, and I believe small children should be taught this skill as well. Today, children and adults go by the rote method, and most do not have the skills to think reflectively or critically, which is why people believe and do things without questioning why--which is dangerous.

While in college, I also learned multiple explanations for biblical text, and the inconsistencies, interpolations, and contradictions, led to the realization that it is nothing but badly written mythology--plagiarized mythology at that. According to Wintery Knight's blog, theists would like their mythology taught as fact in schools, and are encouraging educated Christians to become part of the system to create a "theocracy" in the US:

"It seems that if we had a individuals …with full-on Christian worldviews who have risen to the highest levels of authority in places like the educational system, that they could make just as much impact as what is happening now."

--We cannot allow that to happen if we wish to continue to "evolve."

Christianity became mainstream due to "the sword, or the noose, or various methods of torture" around the world in areas such as Africa*, South America, and of course North America** and Europe***; but now we have a different methodology--education.  Education is a factor that can lead to atheism--I am living proof of that. Western culture and the "Enlightenment" is also showing this to be true. Keep it up people.  Let's put the "fear of atheism" into them....lolol.....

*"European Christianity and the Atlantic Slave Trade: A Black Hermeneutical Study," By Robinson A. Milwood, p.30

**"Introduction to Christianity" By Mary Jo Weaver, David Brakke p. 164
***"The dark side of Christian History" - Helen Ellerbie 


 Addendum--Wintery Knight has not published the comment I made to his posting--I don't wonder why.....

Against JW Wartick--Why Arguments are so Important

Recently, I made comments on the Christian blogger, JW Wartick's blog concerning the debate between William Lane Craig and Lawrence Krauss-- he refused to post my last comment which illustrated that my argument against Craig was successful, and that he had not provided any counter argument to that point otherwise.  JW Wartick also read my blog posting on  The Existence of Contingent Beings. and referred to my post on his blog.  I kept a record of the entire conversation.  JW Wartick resorted to ad hominem, by asking for my credentials, and claiming that I am not a professor of philosophy and religion--which is neither here nor there, as it is the arguments that count--not whether or not I have a diploma on the wall.  When I consider an argument, I judge it by whether it is valid and sound.  In the course of our discussion, JW Wartick would not stick to the argument at hand, so I continued to call him out on it, and asked him for his counter arguments, but all he did was circumvent the issue.  Instead of sticking to my arguments, and offering counter arguments, he merely continued to say "You cannot say that"--without providing any arguments to back it up.