The Lielemma. William Lang Craig, Liar for Jesus, Just Stupid or in Between?
The purpose of this Thread will be to determine whether famed Liar for Jesus William Lane Craig (WC) is a Liar for Jesus or something worse. This Thread has many things in common with its little sister Thread Can Richard Carrier be trusted to write the truth? except that this Thread is based on evidence.
As opposed to famed rationalist Dr. Richard Carrier, WC fields that god sacrificed himself to himself conquering death by dying in order to put an end to his eternal Law. Specifically, WC argues that the supposed resurrection of that guy from the Christian Bible who's name escapes me at the moment but I think starts with a Y or J, is scientifically proven. Since resurrections are impossible (I tell you the truth, I never believed in any type of resurrection until I saw John Travolta in Pulp Fiction) WC is convicted of the sin of spreading falsehood. The only related question is the reason for WC's guilt:
1) Liar for Jesus?
2) Stupid?
3) In between (possibly the worst sin as WC accepts the impossible claims of Christianity but not the impossible claims of the other 1,001 religions = hypocrite)?
Joseph
TRUTH, n.
An ingenious compound of desirability and appearance. Discovery of truth is the sole purpose of philosophy, which is the most ancient occupation of the human mind and has a fair prospect of existing with increasing activity to the end of time.
JoeWallack wrote:As opposed to famed rationalist Dr. Richard Carrier, WC fields that god sacrificed himself to himself conquering death by dying in order to put an end to his eternal Law.
One criticism of C.S. Lewis' famous trilemma of Liar, Lunatic, Lord is that he doesn't allow a fourth, something like Myth (though I think Lewis said that his trilemma presupposes that the gospel story is historical). If only WLC were mythical.
I think Craig knows very well that he's obfuscating many things. This was pretty obvious in his debate with Sean Carroll. Follow the money?
Craig has published in some reputable philosophy journals, but many of his articles are in journals devoted more to religion or religion and philosophy. I think he's sort of a popularizing Alvin Plantinga.
ficino wrote:One criticism of C.S. Lewis' famous trilemma of Liar, Lunatic, Lord is that he doesn't allow a fourth, something like Myth (though I think Lewis said that his trilemma presupposes that the gospel story is historical). If only WLC were mythical.
I think Craig knows very well that he's obfuscating many things. This was pretty obvious in his debate with Sean Carroll. Follow the money?
Craig has published in some reputable philosophy journals, but many of his articles are in journals devoted more to religion or religion and philosophy. I think he's sort of a popularizing Alvin Plantinga.
To follow the alliteration - Lunatic, Liar, Lord or Legend
William Craig strikes me as the sort of person who would have been integral to the elaboration of early Christianity -
a lunatic-liar for the lord-legend.
Last edited by MrMacSon on Tue Oct 07, 2014 1:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
There are many people that are genuine and intelligent who believe that the evidence supports a resurrection moreso than not. To call someone a liar or something worse simply because you can't accept what I just wrote shows your own ignorance, or worse.
Since when does 'misinformed' or 'mistaken' just get dropped from the equation like a hot potato?
Yes, that inability to understand empirical, scientific knowledge, which all competent philosophers have grasped for nearly three centuries is what makes the Dude an embarrassment to the profession.
No competent philosopher would attempt to answer an empirical question that scientists collecting data for centuries have been discussing. His contribution of revising a 10th century Deductive argument by a Muslim Philosopher and arbitrarily declaring it the one and only true answer is radically ignorant, and not in the Socratic good ignorant way.
I'm having a hard time seeing what the Kalam Cosmological Argument has to do with God. It seems that the argument is simply trying to prove that the universe has a cause.
Let us say that scientists do find a cause for the universe - particle "X" moving at "Y" kilometers per second collided with particle "X1" moving at "Z" kilometers per second. That created the universe. How does this "cause" of the universe prove the existence of the imaginary God Yahweh?
"No competent philosopher would attempt to answer an empirical question that scientists collecting data for centuries have been discussing."...Jay
Just not so Jay! They do it all the time, likewise scientists look to philosophy to answer the hard questions. If they don't it ain't science for science is a method of Epistemology which is a branch of philosophy.
Epistemology is the study of truth or more precisely, how do we know something is true. Epistemology uses both rationalism and empiricism.
*********************************************************
"I'm having a hard time seeing what the Kalam Cosmological Argument has to do with God."...Jay
If true, then it clearly shows you are not a competent philosopher because all true competent philosophers know what William Craig's, Kalam Cosmological Argument is.
Since it is appears JoeWallck is not able to prove that Craig is a liar, how about Jay pick up the torch as a competent philosopher and prove Craig wrong.
John T wrote:Since it is appears JoeWallck is not able to prove that Craig is a liar, how about Jay pick up the torch as a competent philosopher and prove Craig wrong.
"As nothing begins without a cause, the universe cannot be without cause."
"As there cannot be an infinite chain of causes, the beginning must be uncaused."