Matt

  • **
  • 682 Posts
    • View Profile
Dr. Craig vs. Peter Millican: "Does God Exist?"
« Reply #15 on: October 31, 2011, 08:07:10 am »
blank wrote: Once again, the problems with the debate format and Craig's points in particular are made glaring during the direct interaction when Craig's arguments are directly countered showing their severe flaws.

I didn't see that at all. Could you be more specific?

1

blank

  • ***
  • 1330 Posts
    • View Profile
Dr. Craig vs. Peter Millican: "Does God Exist?"
« Reply #16 on: October 31, 2011, 01:45:15 pm »
silentmatt wrote:
Quote from: blank
Once again, the problems with the debate format and Craig's points in particular are made glaring during the direct interaction when Craig's arguments are directly countered showing their severe flaws.

I didn't see that at all. Could you be more specific?


Just take the first three questions that were asked on objective morality, the KCA and the free will argument. Then the errors he made on the theory of evolution while subtly pushing intelligent design creationism.

2

pinkey

  • **
  • 256 Posts
    • View Profile
Dr. Craig vs. Peter Millican: "Does God Exist?"
« Reply #17 on: October 31, 2011, 02:34:43 pm »
Then the errors he made on the theory of evolution while subtly pushing intelligent design creationism.


LOL. Pretty sure Peter Millican agreed with Craig that the theory of evolution is still unfinished buisness. Craig is agnostic about intelligent design in biology. And I can tell you're trolling by calling ID "intelligent design creationism".
"[A]ll such persons as I am speaking of, who profess themselves to be atheists not upon any present interest or lust but purely upon the principles of reason and philosophy, are bound by these principles to aknowledge that all mocking and scoffing at religion, all jesting and turning arguments of re

3

Gerald Ian Ford

  • **
  • 313 Posts
    • View Profile
Dr. Craig vs. Peter Millican: "Does God Exist?"
« Reply #18 on: October 31, 2011, 03:37:13 pm »

Hi Pinkey,


I'm pretty sure that Craig claiming something along the lines of "we can't know God's mind" was in relation to the problem of evil or the problem of hiddenness, not the moral argument.

Yes, possibly - but surely Craig has to pick a side here?  Either he knows God's mind or he doesn't.  He can't claim it is impossible for us mere humans to know God's intentions wrt one thing (e.g. problem of evil) but also claim to confidently guess at divine purpose for another thing (e.g. wrt morality).    


As for Craig saying that God "designed the universe for maximal salvation" I think that is fairly basic Christian theology.

Yes, agreed - but this is supposed to be a philosophical debate, not a Sunday school class.  Craig can't simply assert something as true because (his interpretation of) the Bible tells him so, unless he can also give a reason to believe the Bible in general.  He made no such claim during this debate - at most he defended a few specific claims from the NT.  This is what Millican's 'anti-God' point illustrates: nothing Craig said could not have been reversed to explain why anti-God allows goodness in the world.  As it stands, Millican can simply retort that 'anti-God made the universe for maximum suffering', and his argument is just as strong as Craig's position.  


Calling Craig's argument a "false dichotomy" is just wrong I think. He doesn't claim that "either you believe in God or you cannot believe in objective moral values" but rather that "Without God existing, there are no grounds for morallity to be objective".

Your wording is more accurate to Craig than mine, but I think my point stands.  There are other options for objective morality than a divine lawgiver.  So for Craig to insist that only two options are possible (God or subjective morality) is a false dichotomy.  

Another example of a false dichotomy in his arguing would be his possible solutions to the Cosmological Argument - either a disembodied mind or an abstract idea such as a number.  I can think of at least one other option: a non-material force such as gravity.  This fits his criteria (non-material, timeless, uncaused, etc - not 'personal being', but then again he didn't present any argument to back up that claim except the Cosmological Argument itself), yet is neither of the options he proposed.  (It's certainly not a mind, and he's defined 'abstract ideas' as being incapable of causing anything - forces can be causes, as in 'gravity made the apple fall'.)  


Craig's argument is ontological in nature

I don't remember this section too clearly, but I thought both participants agreed during the Q&A that they had not addressed the Ontological Argument(s).  Millican mentioned something about a 60-page paper...


I can tell you're trolling by calling ID "intelligent design creationism".

I've already mentioned that the same thought occurred to me.  Certainly Craig hardly went out of his way to deny the reality of Noah's Ark, did he?  My suspicion is that he knows doing this would alienate a large portion of his audience and avoided a tactical error, rather than that he actually believes in a literal Genesis.  
NB: http://h2g2.com/dna/h2g2/alabaster/A31738485

Incidentally, I had somehow managed to skip over another particular 'bright spot for Peter': in the process of defending a reasonably (small-'o') orthodox version of Christianity, Craig was forced to deny the Nicene Creed and that Jesus is the only way to salvation, that a relationship with God is impossible without the possibility of free will leading to sin, or that Jesus is God's only begotten son.  

Take all that away from Christianity, and it's hard to see how Craig could really claim victory - what he's left with is really quite different from what most people would recognise by the term.  To steal your own phrase, it is 'fairly basic Christian theology' he's had to discard.  

Gif 8)
http://giford.blogspot.com/

4

Gerald Ian Ford

  • **
  • 313 Posts
    • View Profile
Dr. Craig vs. Peter Millican: "Does God Exist?"
« Reply #19 on: October 31, 2011, 03:41:25 pm »
PS: I should probably add that Craig's first rebuttal was probably the best defence of the Cosmological Argument I have heard, and it was only during the Q&A session that it was seriously attacked again.  

Millican's presentation was poorly structured, seeming to flit back and forth between presenting his case and rebutting Craig's without regard to where in the debate we were.  He was already rebutting Craig during his opening statement, yet still responding to the Resurrection for the first time during his closing statement.  
Gif 8)
http://giford.blogspot.com/

5

Ray Mag

  • **
  • 35 Posts
    • View Profile
Dr. Craig vs. Peter Millican: "Does God Exist?"
« Reply #20 on: October 31, 2011, 09:18:18 pm »
Giford wrote: Another, better example of Craig's inconstant attitude to scepticism was his third point, the moral argument.  Essentially, he insisted that 'we cannot know God's mind'.  Yet he seems perfectly happy to make sweeping, unsupported claims about God's nature himself (e.g. that God has designed the Universe for maximum salvation).  I didn't think that Millican managed as successful an attack here as Law did last week, and I would probably judge that point as a draw.  Millican did do a good job of pointing out the false dichotomy Craig set up ('either you believe in God or you cannot believe in objective moral values'), which I didn't hear Craig respond to.  


If it is true that god designed the Universe for maximum salvation while knowing that many people won't be saved for various reasons, then I don't see how this solves the problem of evil.

God basically created creatures that he knows will be tormented in hell for eternity. This obviously posses serious problems for an all-loving, omnipotent, omniscient deity.

6

Ray Mag

  • **
  • 35 Posts
    • View Profile
Dr. Craig vs. Peter Millican: "Does God Exist?"
« Reply #21 on: October 31, 2011, 09:36:24 pm »
I believe I have discovered a knock-down argument against the KCA. I have never heard this used before, although I have to believe someone has mentioned it before.

In order for us to realize that a conclusion is true, a philosophical arguments premises must be true. This applies to both deductive and inductive arguments.

Craig says that the Universe had a finite beginning in the past and that space, time and matter came into existence ex nihilo. As a result the transcending cause of the Universe must be spaceless (hinting omnipresent), timeless (hinting eternal) and immaterial (hinting a spirit or unembodied mind). He then usually stats that this cause must be extremely powerful to give rise to the Universe (hinting omnipotence).

Well, here is the problem. Yes, it is true that the cause transcends the space, time and matter of our Universe, but that doesn't mean that this cause transcends these same properties that may exist in another realm of existence. Craig is making an "assumption" here. For all we know there could be an eternal realm with these same properties or some of them from which our Universe derives from.

In order for us to recognize a premise is true a certain degree of certainty about it must be established. Craig's assumption doesn't qualify and therefore the argument is rendered invalid.




7

Matt

  • **
  • 682 Posts
    • View Profile
Dr. Craig vs. Peter Millican: "Does God Exist?"
« Reply #22 on: October 31, 2011, 10:32:08 pm »
blank wrote: Just take the first three questions that were asked on objective morality, the KCA and the free will argument. Then the errors he made on the theory of evolution while subtly pushing intelligent design creationism.

I thought Craig handled those questions very well, actually.

revo74 wrote:

Well, here is the problem. Yes, it is true that the cause transcends the space, time and matter of our Universe, but that doesn't mean that this cause transcends these same properties that may exist in another realm of existence. Craig is making an "assumption" here. For all we know there could be an eternal realm with these same properties or some of them from which our Universe derives from.

This isn't even close to a "knock-down" argument. Positing a timeless, impersonal physical world or thing as the cause of our physical world would not yield the temporal universe we observe- if something exists in a timeless state, then any effect it causes in that timeless state, since sufficient conditions for it would timelessly exist, would also be timeless. However, our universe is temporal, not timeless, so it cannot be the effect of a timelessly existing set of impersonal sufficient conditions.

So, a timeless physical universe cannot be the cause of our universe, and a temporal physical universe would have a beginning, and thus, itself require a cause, so no kind of physical universe, really, can be the First Cause of temporal reality.

I think that Craig's option, of an immaterial, personal free will of great power is still the superior alternative.

8

Matt

  • **
  • 682 Posts
    • View Profile
Dr. Craig vs. Peter Millican: "Does God Exist?"
« Reply #23 on: October 31, 2011, 10:35:27 pm »

Your wording is more accurate to Craig than mine, but I think my point stands.  There are other options for objective morality than a divine lawgiver.  So for Craig to insist that only two options are possible (God or subjective morality) is a false dichotomy.

I think Craig would probably say that other options are false options. He already makes mincemeat of naturalistic accounts of objective morality, and the various kinds of Platonism or atheistic moral non-naturalism suffer from impersonal Platonic entities being unable to prescribe anything, and thus make moral demands or issue duties. Platonic moral "laws," therefore, could not ground duty or value, and therefore could not be the ground of objective moral values.



9

pinkey

  • **
  • 256 Posts
    • View Profile
Dr. Craig vs. Peter Millican: "Does God Exist?"
« Reply #24 on: October 31, 2011, 11:03:42 pm »
Hey Giford,

surely Craig has to pick a side here?  Either he knows God's mind or he doesn't


Now that's a false dichotomy. Surely it's not left to either knowing nothing about God's mind, or knowing everything about God's mind. I just don't see how a finite creature could know everything about his infinite omnicient Creator. Surely it's easier to know why God is (if He exists) morally perfect, then knowing what all of God's reasons are for allowing humans and animals to experience pain, and the unobviousness of God. I mean I can think of some reasons that God might allow evil and hiddenness, but not all because it's really hard to judge from our position. But it's easy to see that God if He exists has to be morally perfect and Holy, otherwise there is no point calling Him "God" rather than just "Creator Deity". So I don't think Craig was doing anything bad.

supposed to be a philosophical debate, not a Sunday school class.  Craig can't simply assert something as true because (his interpretation of) the Bible tells him so


You've got to understand that Craig (and the majority of philosophical theists) define God as "the greatest conceivable being" so God must be perfectly good and desire that all people will come freely into a saving relationship with Him. I'm not sure if he said this in his debate, but pretty much all professional philosophers know that this is what theists think of God, and Millican would be of no exception. Perhaps Craig should of explained/argued more for God's perfect nature.

As it stands, Millican can simply retort that 'anti-God made the universe for maximum suffering', and his argument is just as strong as Craig's position.


Well, if Craig only used the Kalam and Fine-Tuning then yes I would agree. But if Craig's moral argument works to show that objective moral values are grounded in God as the moral law Giver, and his argument from the ressurection of Jesus works, and also possibly the immediate knowledge of  God claim, then I don't see how you could claim this God, who is the source of objective good (which evil is seen of a depravation of the good, or the way things ought to be), who has revealed himself in Jesus of Nazereth and his validated His moral teachings (love God and love other people), and can be immediately known in a personal way (which I can just tell you from my own experience, and from everyone I know who claims this) is an experience with a profound moral dimension to it (convicted of sin, drawn to God's love and grace and love towards others) could be just as easily said to be an anti/evil-god. So 3 of Craigs arguments do point at the Good nature of this God, and also the classical theistic definition of God is that He has to be good because of his attributes, and if he is stripped of His goodness (or any other attribute), then he can't be God.

There are other options for objective morality than a divine lawgiver.  So for Craig to insist that only two options are possible (God or subjective morality) is a false dichotomy.  


Like what? It's Craig's argument that there are none. You have to argue against him that there are some good alternatives to God for objective morality, and he will argue back that they are not good. You have to win this to show that it's a false dichotomoy because it's not self-evident.

I can think of at least one other option: a non-material force such as gravity


Do you really think that gravity disproves strict physicalism? I'm pretty sure gravity is the type of thing that has to exist inside a physical universe. I think Craig would be able to argue well against gravity being immaterial, uncaused, timeless, spaceless etc. I don't know what it would mean for gravity to just exist by itself for all eternity not effecting anything and then at a finite point in time, producing a universe, which it then makes things fall to the ground, etc. Craig's argument that the cause of the universe must possess agent freedom of the will to exist for all eternity without it's effect, and then freely bring a finite universe into existence would come into play here. I'm a dualist and I think that an infinite mind is a wonderful explanation of the universe and it's cause. Now this is getting into complex territory so I'll stop here for now. The point is, that your arguments against Craig's have to work (which I don't think they do) before you can accuse him of presenting a false dichotomoy.

I don't remember this section too clearly, but I thought both participants agreed during the Q&A that they had not addressed the Ontological Argument(s).  Millican mentioned something about a 60-page paper...


You have misunderstood me. I was talking about the moral argument, how it's claim is partly ontological in nature, ontology is a philosophical word for being or the study of being, and Craig's claim is that objective moral values need to an ontological grounding, in some being.

Incidentally, I had somehow managed to skip over another particular 'bright spot for Peter': in the process of defending a reasonably (small-'o') orthodox version of Christianity, Craig was forced to deny the Nicene Creed and that Jesus is the only way to salvation, that a relationship with God is impossible without the possibility of free will leading to sin, or that Jesus is God's only begotten son.  
Take all that away from Christianity, and it's hard to see how Craig could really claim victory - what he's left with is really quite different from what most people would recognise by the term.  To steal your own phrase, it is 'fairly basic Christian theology' he's had to discard.  


Sorry, I didn't see this. Can you please elaborate because these are strong claims.

PS: I should probably add that Craig's first rebuttal was probably the best defence of the Cosmological Argument I have heard, and it was only during the Q&A session that it was seriously attacked again.  

Millican's presentation was poorly structured, seeming to flit back and forth between presenting his case and rebutting Craig's without regard to where in the debate we were.  He was already rebutting Craig during his opening statement, yet still responding to the Resurrection for the first time during his closing statement.  


I would agree with this. I really enjoyed the debate and thought they both did a good job. I really respect people like Millican.
"[A]ll such persons as I am speaking of, who profess themselves to be atheists not upon any present interest or lust but purely upon the principles of reason and philosophy, are bound by these principles to aknowledge that all mocking and scoffing at religion, all jesting and turning arguments of re

10

Ray Mag

  • **
  • 35 Posts
    • View Profile
Dr. Craig vs. Peter Millican: "Does God Exist?"
« Reply #25 on: October 31, 2011, 11:21:49 pm »
silentmatt wrote:
Quote from: blank
Just take the first three questions that were asked on objective morality, the KCA and the free will argument. Then the errors he made on the theory of evolution while subtly pushing intelligent design creationism.

I thought Craig handled those questions very well, actually.

revo74 wrote:

Well, here is the problem. Yes, it is true that the cause transcends the space, time and matter of our Universe, but that doesn't mean that this cause transcends these same properties that may exist in another realm of existence. Craig is making an "assumption" here. For all we know there could be an eternal realm with these same properties or some of them from which our Universe derives from.


This isn't even close to a "knock-down" argument. Positing a timeless, impersonal physical world or thing as the cause of our physical world would not yield the temporal universe we observe- if something exists in a timeless state, then any effect it causes in that timeless state, since sufficient conditions for it would timelessly exist, would also be timeless. However, our universe is temporal, not timeless, so it cannot be the effect of a timelessly existing set of impersonal sufficient conditions.

So, a timeless physical universe cannot be the cause of our universe, and a temporal physical universe would have a beginning, and thus, itself require a cause, so no kind of physical universe, really, can be the First Cause of temporal reality.

I think that Craig's option, of an immaterial, personal free will of great power is still the superior alternative.


You have created a straw man argument – I have not proposed a "timeless" world, but an eternal world.

You said a "timeless physical universe cannot be the cause of our universe". Why is this impossible? I don't believe this is the case, but I don't see how a non-physical anything could be a more reasonable causal explanation.

The fact of the matter is we simply do not posses enough information. The KCA makes "assumptions" and that doesn't make for a sound argument.

By the way I am a deist of sort and the KCA would prove nothing more than a deistic creator(s). I however see too many flaws in it for me to get behind it. The teleological argument from fine-tuning is Craig's only argument that I see which stands strong against counter argumentation.



11

blank

  • ***
  • 1330 Posts
    • View Profile
Dr. Craig vs. Peter Millican: "Does God Exist?"
« Reply #26 on: November 01, 2011, 01:12:09 am »
pinkey wrote:
Then the errors he made on the theory of evolution while subtly pushing intelligent design creationism.


LOL. Pretty sure Peter Millican agreed with Craig that the theory of evolution is still unfinished buisness. Craig is agnostic about intelligent design in biology. And I can tell you're trolling by calling ID "intelligent design creationism".


That wasn't all Craig said on the theory of evolution. Also, he isn't agnostic on intelligent design in biology which is why I said he was subtly pushing it in his response.
Intelligent design is creationism in new clothes.

12

pinkey

  • **
  • 256 Posts
    • View Profile
Dr. Craig vs. Peter Millican: "Does God Exist?"
« Reply #27 on: November 01, 2011, 01:35:16 am »
That wasn't all Craig said on the theory of evolution. Also, he isn't agnostic on intelligent design in biology which is why I said he was subtly pushing it in his response.
Intelligent design is creationism in new clothes.


Baseless assertions .
"[A]ll such persons as I am speaking of, who profess themselves to be atheists not upon any present interest or lust but purely upon the principles of reason and philosophy, are bound by these principles to aknowledge that all mocking and scoffing at religion, all jesting and turning arguments of re

13

blank

  • ***
  • 1330 Posts
    • View Profile
Dr. Craig vs. Peter Millican: "Does God Exist?"
« Reply #28 on: November 01, 2011, 06:11:58 am »
pinkey wrote:
That wasn't all Craig said on the theory of evolution. Also, he isn't agnostic on intelligent design in biology which is why I said he was subtly pushing it in his response.
Intelligent design is creationism in new clothes.


Baseless assertions .


How are they baseless?

14

pinkey

  • **
  • 256 Posts
    • View Profile
Dr. Craig vs. Peter Millican: "Does God Exist?"
« Reply #29 on: November 01, 2011, 09:07:35 am »
How are they baseless?


You did not back up what you said at all. Let's talk about Craig v. Millican and the related arguments, which have nothing to do with ID, which I know you don't understand, because you call it creationism. If you want to discuss Craig's views on ID and if it's creationism, then start a new thread and I'd be happy to discuss it with you.
"[A]ll such persons as I am speaking of, who profess themselves to be atheists not upon any present interest or lust but purely upon the principles of reason and philosophy, are bound by these principles to aknowledge that all mocking and scoffing at religion, all jesting and turning arguments of re