How do you figure that there are “bogus standards established in this thread” where someone incorrectly attributing an argument to anyone else means they are lying?
The added descriptive "bogus" was only there to tone down the flat out conclusion of liar. It was not added to dismiss the proper pursuit of the burden of proof.
Also I did recognize your more civil approach, you seemed to treat it more as a mistake. Others flat out referred to it as a lie. Without complete knowledge of intent I lean towards mistake. I was attempting to hold cc the the same standard set by you and the others, while at the same time trying to tone down the liar assertion.
I don't think either lied, but I do have a strong sense that cc never observed the apologist argue against the notion of quantum with such a blatantly fallacious argument. Just like you didn't believe SC argued in the fashion cited by lion. I suspect that cc provided his incorrect interpretation of the argument rather than what was actually argued. So in order to determine cc's gambit correctly I asked him the provide the actual argument. In the same fashion you and others challenged Lion.
And, btw, here’s William Lane Craig talking like anyone’s being “misleading” with their terms, when it’s actually him taking exception to the terms being used in a way that doesn’t suit his own metaphysics — “out of nothing nothing comes” he declares because he believes in the necessity of a cause for the universe:
That is precisely what I suggested happened.
My observations of these technical debates purports that the apologist’s response to the purposed theory either addresses the notion that the quantum vacuum is material and not nothing or addresses the notion that just because the vp’s cause cannot be presently determined does not infer that they’re uncaused. But neither of those commonly addressed notions is a gotg argument.
But that is not the way cc said it went down. To be fair, perhaps this is not the debate he was referencing.
Second point.... the debate of terms is critical and important here for both sides. For WLC, I assume was presenting his version of the KCA which is an inductive argument and logically inherent to the debate is a discussion of terms. Precisely here I think WLC was addressing a counter that is often offered against the premises 1 and 2 of the KCA from the notion of quantum theory.
Third point. Is it rational to dismiss his point based upon your interpretation of his intent. What if your interpretation of his intent is wrong? I believe it is. He is trying to argue FOR the necessity of a cause for the universe not FROM the necessity of a cause for the universe. The latter would be circular reasoning.
We know where a theist who objects to the use of the word “nothing” is going with those objections.
So I ask you then .... Is the material quantum vacuum nothing or materially something?
I'm not trying to start a debate on this point ..... just wondering what your position on this point is. I think I my position is clear in the question.
It threatens the perceived “necessity” of God so he asserts a knowable (and for a believer it'd be a known) cause for absolutely everything including virtual particles.
Clearly that is not his assertion here. He is challenging the definition of a term being offered as a counter against a premise of his argument FOR (not FROM) the existence of God. He is not asserting that because God exists then the unknown cause of vp's are caused by God. That would be a gotg fallacy. Remember he is defending an argument FOR God not FROM God. So I assert you have misinterpreted argument here.
Think about what you are inferring here. Any ARGUMENT attempting to answer the call for evidence of God's existence is automatically dismissed from the start because its God you are trying to prove the existence of. You seem to have some kind of circular skepticism "gambit" going on here........
You can't argue FOR the existence of something if you have reasons to believe that something actually exists. You can only argue for the existence of objects that you don't believe exist.
But.....
Wait that means only you skeptics can argue for God's existence.
So assuming I don't have your skepticism correct please point out where I have it incorrect.