The premise that a god exists is not backed by anything

game over

And you are, of course, aware that an argument's validity doesn't necessarily prove said argument's truth, right?

Sure, all I have to do is force you to defend your premise that there are purple unicorns. If I can get the audience to just doubt that purple unicorns exist and they will reject your argument, allowing me to win the debate.

Of course, but you accused Craig of having poor logic.

Unfortunately his logic always takes the form of turning a debate into the WLC show. If you want to win a debate against him, you aren't allowed to use any of your prepared discussion points, you aren't allowed to present your own views, you have to tackle the 5 to 10 "proofs that god exists" that WLC presents -- or he just hammers over and over, "I gave X number of proofs, and he did not refute them."

All of his points have premises which beg the question or are at odds with observation, or have other problems; however, any one or two of them properly fleshed out by WLC and then rebutted by his opponent might take up all of the allotted time.

In my view, and I'm sure the view of some of his debate partners, some of his "proofs" are ludicrous, and it would make me feel like I was pandering and/or patronizing to discuss them as if they are reasonable.

Edit: I wonder what would happen if anyone going against him ever adopted his style, and listed off 5 to 10 things that WLC must refute or else he must concede that the god of the christian bible is pure fantasy.

Of course I did. He does. He starts with faulty assumptions and then builds, and he manipulates language very well in the process, and he's very good at that, and he's not all bad, mind you -- he's a very educated and intelligent man who seems to be up to no harm, so fair enough. I find him entertaining.

But if you think he's really a skilled logician, then that is where it becomes disturbing. One simply cannot throw out a premise that cannot be defended, and no it is not acceptable to do so and then challenge the other to prove the negative, as you seemed to suggest a few posts ago.

That's entertainment, but it sure as hell ain't logic. Craig specifically avoids logic for a very good reason -- it can only damn his position.

Of all the debates with WLC I've seen, Kagan did the best, and I thought WLC failed to respond to one point, but the idea he was demolished is absurd. Also, FWIW, WLC reports that the position Kagan took on morality isn't his real position - just an interesting point FYI.

Science is contentious. The crazy idea that only science discovers truth is contentious.

That the truth of the Bible is contentious is no argument that it isn't true.

And what do you mean by a known truth? Don't scientists incessantly tell us that science isn't fixed, that it is constantly subject to modification? Yesterday's truth is today's error. How is that truth in any sense?

What exactly would you expect science to do? We are constantly replacing false information with good. We don't know everything, but we are constantly building and knowing more, not less. What's your alternative? To just blindly pretend that whatever stories your ancestors happened to tell you about the world are all true? Cool story bro.

I've noticed this too, and it kills me. What is wrong with these atheists? Would a chess player go up against a challenging opponent without studying his prior games? Would a political candidate go into an important debate without studying videos of previous debates by the opponent, coaching from his campaign manager, etc?

Why do these atheist debaters think they can just waltz on stage and wing it? Are they that full of themselves?

First principles are never backed by anything. This is partly why it's a social game and popularity contest, not a logical matter. By definition, an axiomatic premise can't be logically supported (or attacked, assuming it doesn't contradict other premises).

So how can it be supported or attacked?

Rhetorically, that's how. If Craig can pretty up his axioms so they look reasonable, and dress up the axioms of his opponent so they look silly, then he automatically wins. The quality of the logic doesn't even matter - he could screw up his logic and still win, because at least his reasoning would be based on "the right" premises, while his opponent would be off in crazyville. But Craig doesn't go for many complex logical arguments - when he uses logic at all, he keeps it extremely simple.

And the atheists usually just sort of ignore Craig's premises. Or try to give reasons why they don't accept them - typically reasons rooted in total intellectual abstraction and presented in such a pretentious tone that even people inclined to agree may be turned off (or in such a dry tone that they'll be bored to sleep).

Sometimes they fall into the ultimate Socratic trap - they agree with his premises because they "sound reasonable" (and the atheists don't immediately see the implications) and then try to quibble with the conclusion after the fact. At this point, they have been owned as completely as possible in a debate setting. They are complete fish. It's like Craig gives off this aura that turns his opponents into drooling morons.

That's not the point I'm making. Of course science is full of living, ambiguous debates. But it has ALSO established an effectively infinite body of truths which are beyond contest. (Infinite in the sense that nobody can even touch them in a lifetime. E.g. I only hope to really understand what is known about several complex variables.)

Religion has not provided humanity with even one (1, a single) truth which is beyond contest. That's the difference; and it's qualitative. Religious "knowledge"(?) is not seriously comparable to scientific knowledge.

Also, there is an obvious difference in the value/usefulness of a truth which stands beyond contest and one which cannot even be explained clearly, much less substantiated.

E.g. the idea that a first century mystic actually caused the Big Bang. It's very unclear in what sense is this even meaningful, much less true. (We can just forget about substantiating it.)

Is it even possible for something to not be contested if it is not 100% empirically driven (other than mathematics)?

What Jib said.

Absolutely NOTHING is beyond contest, except perhaps the cogito, and that would only apply individually.

All science depends on unprovable assumptions.

And from whence comes the idea that something is only true, or only valuable, if it is uncontentious? Hard to think of an uncontentious statement that isn't also trivial.

Umm...what? For example, how do you intend to contest the double helix model of DNA, or the standard model in particle physics, or the Cauchy-Lipschitz theorem for first-order differential equations?

Up to (quite acceptable) idealizations, these ideas are simply true in an a very unshakable way.

What is an example of such an assumption? I don't have any idea what you mean here.

So you consider e.g. the fact I mentioned earlier (a person with a serotonin deficiency cannot feel purpose) to be trivial?

As in: well, duh, that's obvious to anyone paying attention, has no interesting implications, etc.?

The laws of physics will be the same tomorrow?

I think there are multiple points where kagan got the best of wlc...
1. no ultimate meaning does not mean no meaning
2. got craig to say "no true christian would behave that way" it was possibly a slip up, but this fallacy was clearly hat he believed in the specific case
3. position on treating animals

those are just the few i recall off the top of my head...

and i'm not sure why it matters if the objective morality that kagan discusses in the debate is the morality that kagan lives by....

i imagine in a debate setting where emotional reactions of the audience will be running high its easier to discuss social contract theory than consequentialism...

Hume, problem of induction, correct, just tip of iceberg.

If nothing is beyond contest then why do you believe in god? Clearly the existence of god is beyond contest to both of you, or you wouldn't be theists.

Good job revealing your biases.

What are you trying to say? That we must assume something about induction in order to say the standard model or Cauchy-Lipschitz theorem are true?

That doesn't make any sense. We have the conceptual flexibility to create epistemic paradoxes---the problem of induction being a venerable demonstration---but that doesn't prevent us from knowing germ theory is certainly true. (If you disagree, in what sense do you intend to introduce a doubt?)

And since you say this is just the "tip of the iceberg", why don't you list five or six more of these "unprovable assumptions"?

It seems bizarre to call that an "unprovable assumption" though. Why would it require proof? I mean, how would you introduce a doubt suggesting that things won't be the same tomorrow?

(I'm not asking, of course, "Could you imagine things falling apart?" One's imagination is irrelevant. Rather: "What could actually make us doubt the laws of physics will persist over the next 24 hours?")

Oh, nothing. Seems like a reasonable assumption to build upon.

Should I just go ahead and assume nobody is going to answer to this?

I wouldn't speak for them, but I don't see why I can't be a theist without being certain. God is clearly not beyond contest (in contrast to the laws of logic which I think are) but I happen to believe he exists.

I don't understand why the existence if god must be beyond contest in order for them (or anyone) to be a theist.