I like this one



Plantinga has a couple of jokes in there that made me laugh my ass off

he talked about fine tuning, no explanation for the big bang, no explanation of mathematics working as well as it does. he claimed these were evidence of god's existence. or that it's evidence that god more likely exists than not exists. god of the gaps.

Exactly my point. There's no way that a man who has been doing what he's doing for so long does not know how fallacious this argument is. He's a fucking liar.

apparently dawkins refuses to debate him on the grounds that he's a charlatan lol. it would be good to see him have a crack instead of just destroying random punters at events.

The argument is not fallacious. You'd be hard pressed to find many professional philosophers who offer fallacious arguments. Whether or not the premises are true is another story.

doesn't the history of the god of the gaps prove it to be an unreasonable position?




started watching but i can only stand a small amount of this crap every year. it's always the same points from everyone, even back in 2004.

This post was edited by Devil_kin on Aug 31 2015 02:40pm

I don't see where he espouses a "God of the gaps" position.

The whole "God of the gaps" thing is stupid anyway as there are arguments that could be called "God of the gaps" that are important and insightful.



The majority of Plantinga's research is original so I doubt you've heard any of it unless you've read him.

And the discussion at the end talks about a lot of stuff that isn't frequently discussed.

This post was edited by Voyaging on Aug 31 2015 02:46pm

i think i have read up on this platinga of yours

my memory is not that great so i can't remember what i read but i remember the feeling of disappointment so he probably didn't make very convincing arguments

So you read his Wikipedia page.

I don't know - therefore God.

I don't give a fuck how you or he spins it - that is a bullshit argument and to present it as anything other than ignorant rambling is either intellectually dishonest or monumentally stupid. As I don't think Craig is the latter I can only surmise that he is the former.

Either way he's an idiot or a scammer. There is no other option.