Not So Polite Dinner Conversation – WLC has a new book, nothing new to say

William Lane Craig, famous and failed apologist, has a new book out, Systematic Philosophical Theology, Volume 1: Prolegomena, On Scripture, On Faith”.  It is literally just a new physical or electronic document since everything in it is just the same failed apologetics Christians have been using for the last two millennia.  Curious how these Christians keep making books and still have no evidence for their imaginary friend at all. The publishers have nicely given a preview that can be copied and pasted.

“As a result of the work of Christian philosophers genuine advance has been made on important issues like the epistemic status of belief in God, the coherence of theism, and the problem of evil, so that questions which dominated earlier discussions have been resolved or have yielded to new questions.38 For example, along with the alleged meaninglessness of religious language, the so- called presumption of atheism, according to which atheism is a sort of default position, which so dominated mid- twentieth century philosophy of religion, is now a relic of the past. Similarly, few philosophers today defend the so- called logical version of the problem of evil, which claims that God and the suffering in the world are logically incompatible. The discussion of the coherence of theism, which analyzes the principal attributes traditionally ascribed to God, such as aseity, necessity, simplicity, eternity, omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence, has been an especially fertile field of exploration by Christian philosophers, so that anti- theistic critiques of these attributes have proved to be positively beneficial.”

Unsurprisingly, there has been no “genuine advance” at all, with Christian apologists still resorting the same excuses. Their language is not meaningless, but Christians cannot agree on what they want something to mean, with each inventing what they call the truth. No evidence for his god, nor that it is necessary at all. Every cult/religion claims that just like this one does. No evidence of omnipotence, no evidence of omniscience, and certainly no evidence of “omnipresence”. A god, that Christians cannot even agree on when it comes to attributes is not simple. And curious how yet again, all cults/religions claim aseity for their imaginary friend.

” All of the traditional arguments for God’s existence, such as the cosmological, teleological, axiological, and ontological arguments, not to mention creative, new arguments, find intelligent and articulate defenders on the contemporary philosophical scene.39 The important Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology features lengthy defenses of the most prominent theistic arguments by leading philosophers of religion.40 Alvin Plantinga, perhaps the most important living philosopher of religion, has defended what he calls “two dozen (or so) theistic arguments.” (which also fails btw – vel) 41 Plantinga’s contribution to natural theology is now celebrated and advanced in a recent collaborative volume Two Dozen (or so) Arguments for God’s Existence.42 Of course, there are replies and counter- replies to all of these arguments, and no one imagines that a consensus will be reached. But theists welcome this debate. For the very presence of the debate is itself a sign of how healthy and vibrant a theistic worldview is today.”

as expected, Craig is wrong about these traditional arguments too, since they all fail to show his god exists at all. There are no “intelligent and articulate defenders” since again, they have tried these claims for 2000+ years and they still fail. N

No need for a god in the cosmological argument. And most, if not all other cults use the same argument Christianity does.

No evidence for design at all, and curious how these Christians will need to explain if their god is simply stupid or malicious when it comes to its supposed design of the universe. A sun that gives cancer? Really? Again, other cults use this. Why are they wrong and only one version of Christianity right?

The axiological argument is a baseless claim that God is valuable to the world, which is simply nothing more than opinion and any cult can use it. This is the first I have heard of this silliness, and I may have to revise my belief that the ontological argument is the stupidest argument for God to this one. 

“The existential question about God asks whether God exists, but the axiology of theism addresses the question of what value-impact, if any, God’s existence does (or would) have on our world and its inhabitants. There are two prominent answers to the axiological question about God. Pro-theism is the view that God’s existence does (or would) add value to our world. Anti-theism, by contrast, is the view that God’s existence does (or would) detract from the value of our world. Philosophers have observed that the answer to the axiological question may vary depending on its target and scope. For instance, assessments about God’s value-impact could made from an impersonal perspective without reference to individuals, or from a personal perspective with reference to the value-impact of God only for a particular person or persons. Axiological assessments can also take into account one, some, or all the purported advantages and downsides of God’s existence.”

Speaking of the ontological argument, the claim of “maximally great” when claimed by a Christian means nothing.  They have no idea what they want this to say.  As soon as a Christian offers a definition of what this means, anyone can make up something greater, and greatness is simply yet another opinion.  This is why so many Christians try to keep their god as vague as possible, so no one can say something is “greater” than it is. 

 I do love this nonsense “For the very presence of the debate is itself a sign of how healthy and vibrant a theistic worldview is today.””

Actually it shows just how theism, and Christianity in particular (since craig is convinced that only his version is the right one), is failing miserably.  Not one of these claims can be shown to be true.