Okay. In that case my demonstration of yet another of Craig's error son this front stands quite nicely.Thanks for your input. Shame it wasn't something useful.
Personally I think you are an arrogant, educated fool, judging by your silly dismissals of a world class philosopher as having an "error rate" of near or at 100% in probabilities. I do have my concerns about your "answers regarding probabilistic reasoning," but I don't wish to discuss them with you because I'm fairly certain your inevitable disagreement would be heavily motivated by your incredible bias and I don't have enough knowledge about the subject to do it justice by clarifying pointed obfuscations. This bias is easily apprehended when looking at your unrealistically poor assessments of Dr. Craig. Futhermore, as I already have alluded to in my very last post, I am posting this to let this thread's participants know of Dr. Craig's response because it is a direct response to this very thread. I didn't say "Hey guys, this answer totally destroys Kevin Scharp's laughable Divine Psychology objection. Take a look a Dr. Craig's unbeatable logic."I never claimed to have a response of your rebuttal above, lol. I never claimed to have a position on this issue at all. My "personal attack" was merely an objection to your assessment, using the same logic and criteria as you did in your appraisal of Craig being like Oprah. In other words, if Craig is like Oprah, is "cnearing" like "Jar Jar Binks"?If you want to throw down with someone about this so very badly, you're barking up the wrong tree, as I have no interest in doing so.
"World class" seems a gross exaggeration. I am willing to grant that Craig is brilliant and highly skilled in philosophy. However, he does seem to have some weak spots, one of which is dealing with probability claims.Although, when cnearing says that "his error rate in that arena is at or near 100%," that is also a gross exaggeration. But cnearing does have a point: Craig is not trustworthy in that area, and he makes some bad mistakes from time to time.That said, Craig's response in the Q&A link is still inadequate. When Scharp says that we don't have any insight into divine psychology, he is not saying that P(LPU|T) could be absurdly small, as Craig believes is required to defeat the fine tuning argument on this point. Instead, Scharp is saying that we have no expectation at all of what God would do. To put it in symbolic terms, P(LPU|T) is just undefined---it has no value at all.Remember, Collins' argument trades in epistemic probability. So, P(LPU|T) is supposed to measure the degree of belief we should have that LPU obtains given that T obtains. Scharp points out that there is no such degree of belief that we "should" have! And this is because the mystery of divine pyschology means that theism is utterly uninformative on whether LPU obtains or not. So, P(LPU|T) fails to take any value at all.