Craig takes one question a week and answers it on his web site. Not too long ago he answered an interesting question from Jib. As I was reading this weeks question I had to keep reminding myself I was on his web site, not RGT, reading a post from one of our atheists. Here's the question:

This letter represents most of the arguments constantly raised by the atheists on RGT. He even brings in the "theists are stupid" approach.

Needless to say, Craig demolishes this silliness very efficiently. I've left it for those who are interested to check it out for themselves.

Thanks for posting this NR.

Jib, what did you think of Craig's reply to your question?

God is one bad poker player IMO

Meh, was not really happy with it. I mean it is kinda what I expected but I thought that he either has a misunderstanding of Boyd's view or that he is arguing against other weaker forms of open theism. Which in either case I was a little disappointed. I thought about responding, but just never did.

If open theism is something that could be discussed here I would love to do that, but unfortunately I do not feel that many theists here would participate as it is a little more on the extreme theological side of things.

If any of the theists disagree I would love to start a thread on the subject.

Also, I just to point out that even though I disagree with Craig on this point I hold him in high regard and have a lot of respect for him and what he does.

If you think that the molinist version of God is smart, check out the neo-molinist view!

Ok, I understand the difference between the two but I have a (serious) question:

If the molinist version of God were to play the neo-molinist version of God HU, would the neo-molinist God have an advantage?

I understand the extra benefit of knowing "might-counterfactuals", but if both views of God contain the "would-counterfactuals", doesn't that make the "might-counterfactuals" irrelevant?

Do you understand what I'm asking? Or am I missing something? Even if you know what "might" happen, does that give you an advantage over an opponent that still knows what "would" happen?

Destroyed his arguments? I read his response and your right it was just like any of our seemingly infinite arguments, and within these argument heard you spouting off similar replies only to have them repeatedly and repeatedly and repeatedly and repeatedly shown to be nonsense.

No, because what might happen is not the same as what would happen. Might counterfactuals are the logical antithesis of would counterfactuals.

So that means that the NM God knows all that would happen and all that might happen, while the M God only knows what would happen.

So what I am saying is that would counterfactuals do not exhaust all possible counterfactuals.

Here is an essay from Boyd that I quoted from in the Craig question,

Neo-Molisism

From the link:

Um...that's, generously, a half-truth. It's definitely misleading and incomplete.

Nietzsche used 'nihilism' as a cultural diagnosis*; of apathy, of wanton conformity, of lost joy. In the "Death of God" parable, he warned that nihilism would overtake Europe unless the failed values of Christianity were remade into a new humanism. (A prophetic warning, obviously.)

So Craig should have written: "I quoted Nietzsche to the effect that the death of God implies nihilism for a post-Christian society. That is what he believed and said."

From the quote above, we can only surmise that Craig is either (1) dishonest; (2) ignorant of Nietzsche's actual philosophy; (3) incapable of understanding N.; or (4) some combination of the above.

* See Chapter 3 of Walter Kaufmann's definitive criticism; Nietzsche: Philosopher, Psychologist, Antichrist.

Why does he have to understand Nietzsche to the same degree or same conclusions as you draw.

From Craigs perspective it could be enough that Nietzsche's perspective sets a "nihilistic" cart in motion by the first stages of his philosophy with or without a proper understanding of the later stages of it.

If you unhinge one or two crucial foundational links you may have already acted nihilistically.

I heard Ravi Zacharias once taking exception to Nietzsche. Apparently his "God is Dead" statement is pretty radical. He might as well have waved a red flag and asked every theist in the world to charge him because that's what his statement is apt to incite.

As noted, I based my comments on Walter Kaufmann's Nietzsche.

Read the wiki on Kaufmann. He is probably the foremost Nietzsche scholar in history. (Thomas Mann, for example, called his Nietzsche, "A work of great superiority over everything previously achieved in Nietzsche criticism and interpretation.") If you have any specific objections (based on, you know, actual passages from Nietzsche), then feel free to bring them up. But for our purposes, Kaufmann is authoritative.