Worst William Lane Craig argument ever?

[Underseer]

William Lane Craig "disproves" Special Relativity using philosophy and theology.

I thought that "objective morality proves god" combined with Divine Command Theory was the dumbest thing he ever said, but this is the new low.

 

[thentian]

WLC is TOTALLY wrong! For does it not say in Genesis 2:3 that God resteth on the seventh day??? Therefore God was clearly at rest in that frame of reference! And could easily be so still!!!

WLC clearly doesn't know his own Bible! For shame!

 

[Underseer]

I think my favorite part of the argument is the "at rest" part.

Nothing shows that Craig doesn't understand the thing he is arguing against better than this part of his argument.

 

[Mageth]

Worst WLC argument ever? I dunno; it's up against some pretty stiff competition.

 

[Underseer]

Worst WLC argument ever? I dunno; it's up against some pretty stiff competition.

He's trying to disprove science with a syllogism.

 

[Underseer]

Sorry for the self-bump, but I still can't get over the fact that Craig tried to disprove special relativity with a syllogism.

Even elementary school children know enough about why things are true in science to know that any refutation of an accepted idea in science has to involve evidence. You can use fancy math or logic to generate your hypothesis, but evidence is why ideas are either accepted or rejected by science.

 

[BH]

I will never forget how Dr. Who made a fool out of Davros using syllogism to make Davros conclude elephants are pink.

Dr. Who:

Premise 1: Nellie is an elephant

Premise 2 : All elephants are pink

Conclusion: Nellie is pink

You know what a human would say ot that? Humans aren't pink

Davros:

FFFFTTTTT. Humans do not understand logic!

I think there was a youtube video where some science professor took segments of Craig using philosophy and the kalaam argument to "prove" God exists. The professor then used the same line of reasoning to show that Einstein was wrong about the speed of light even though science proves him right, and went on to show that the origin of the universe was simply an unknown ,philosophical gobbleygook aside.

It went something like this:

Premise 1: A moving object, when pushed, moves faster

Premise 2: A can of beans is an object

Conclusion: A can of beans moving at the speed of light when pushed moves faster.

Another one I read about was about a guy named Nu'uk, the Inuit man. He lives in Greenland back in the 11th century. All he knows is Greenland.

Premise 1: Jo is a bear
Premise 2: All the bears are white
Conclusion Jo is white.

The point is that the inuit man is only aware of the polar bears in Greenland. He has never seen another bear a different color and just assumed they were all that color. Yet there were bears of different colors he just did not get information about. If he had got in a boat and traveled south and landed in Maine he would have found bears of a different color. Again, this case primitive science would trump philosophical goobblygook.

 

[BH]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4u6Mz21jTaA


The above is the link the British scientist made about Craig and the speed of light. It's actually kinda funny.

 

[BH]

I have read parts of Craig's books and he admits many of his arguments do not actually prove God anyway. Why do people make such a big fuss about him.

I do remember reading he thought it was silly to think that a God made the God who made us, and then after Stephen Law gave him a good spanking on the evil god hypothesis turns around and say if an evil god made us then there must be a god above the evil god that is good, because the greatest possible being would be good.
.

 

[braces_for_impact]

I think arguments like this is what make so many suspicious of philosophy.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I think arguments like this is what make so many suspicious of philosophy.

I've long held the thought that things can neither be proven or disproven using a grammatical trick.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I think arguments like this is what make so many suspicious of philosophy.

I've long held the thought that things can neither be proven or disproven using a grammatical trick.

George Washington's Horse had an infinite number of legs.
The math is pretty straightforward.
In the painting of George on horseback, the horse had two forelegs and two hindlegs.
2 x hindlegs = 2.
2 x forelegs = 2 x 4 = 8 legs

2+8=10. Ten is an even number, but it's an odd number of legs for a horse, wouldn't you say?
And the only number that's both even and odd is infinity. So GW's horse had an infinite number of legs....

 

[BH]

But if one of Washington's horse's legs gets shot off by a British cannonball how many legs does the horse have now? )P

 

[Keith&Co.]

But if one of Washington's horse's legs gets shot off by a British cannonball how many legs does the horse have now? )P

Well, we know it had an infinite number of legs before, so if one was shot off, infinity minus one in some threads here has equaled infinity. In other threads infinity minus one equals don't ask stupid questions.

 

[Atheos]

I've checked your math and discovered an anomaly:

2 x hindlegs = 2
2 forelegs = 24 legs.
2 + 24 = 26, which is an odd number of legs for a horse but it is an even number, so ....

Still get to infinity, but you get there a lot faster.

 

[dystopian]

I've checked your math and discovered an anomaly:

2 x hindlegs = 2
2 forelegs = 24 legs.
2 + 24 = 26, which is an odd number of legs for a horse but it is an even number, so ....

Still get to infinity, but you get there a lot faster.

Sleipnir is a horse with eight legs.

If there is a horse with 8 legs, then surely a horse with 10 legs isn't all that odd, whats 2 more legs when it comes to oddities? If a horse with 10 legs isn't all that odd, then a horse with 26 isn't very odd either, even if a bit peculiar.

Therefore, a horse can not have an infinite number of legs.

 

[Atheos]

What's sad about this is that the intelligence of this tangent is actually superior to the intelligence exhibited by WLC in the video.

 

[Underseer]

I've checked your math and discovered an anomaly:

2 x hindlegs = 2
2 forelegs = 24 legs.
2 + 24 = 26, which is an odd number of legs for a horse but it is an even number, so ....

Still get to infinity, but you get there a lot faster.

Sleipnir is a horse with eight legs.

If there is a horse with 8 legs, then surely a horse with 10 legs isn't all that odd, whats 2 more legs when it comes to oddities? If a horse with 10 legs isn't all that odd, then a horse with 26 isn't very odd either, even if a bit peculiar.

Therefore, a horse can not have an infinite number of legs.

That is a hilarious parody of Craig's argument against infinity.

- - - Updated - - -

What's sad about this is that the intelligence of this tangent is actually superior to the intelligence exhibited by WLC in the video.

That's not saying much.

Even schoolchildren know enough about why things are true in science to know that you have to go after the evidence to undermine a well-established theory.

Even Ray Comfort knows enough about why things are true in science to either lie about the evidence or pretend the evidence doesn't exist.

Only Craig is dumb enough to think the evidence doesn't matter, and that he can therefore disprove special relativity with a syllogism.

 

[thentian]

Every day, editors of science magazines all over the world are swamped with "contributions" from people who think they can disprove Einstein. Maybe it should be given a name if it doesn't have one already. "Einsteinoid Syndrome" or something, maybe? It is the idea that "If only I can disprove Einstein somehow, then the world will recognize me as an even greater genius than him". Looks like WLC has succumbed to it, too, poor fellow!

 

[Underseer]

Every day, editors of science magazines all over the world are swamped with "contributions" from people who think they can disprove Einstein. Maybe it should be given a name if it doesn't have one already. "Einsteinoid Syndrome" or something, maybe? It is the idea that "If only I can disprove Einstein somehow, then the world will recognize me as an even greater genius than him". Looks like WLC has succumbed to it, too, poor fellow!

WLC is worse.

He's denying relativity in a desperate attempt to salvage his Kalam Cosmological Argument, which didn't have a leg to stand on anyway. It's been shown that every single step of the Kalam is wrong in multiple ways, but he genuinely believes he can prove god if he can just get people to stop believing in that silly relativity stuff.

He dug himself into this hole by trying to use physics to prove the existence of god, only he doesn't understand the first thing about physics. Little by little, people have been using his bad grasp of physics against him, and that's how he got backed into a corner where he now has to disprove relativity to keep his KCA afloat.