[Walter]

In Reasonable Faith and On Guard, Dr. Craig takes God as the logical result of the cause of the universe. However in his debate with Dr. Harris, it seems Dr. Craig takes Anselm’s definition as a being of the greatest possible good. How do we connect these two? How could would we convince a skeptic who thinks we do not have a consistent definition of God.

I am not sure what you mean by “the logical result of the cause of the universe”. AFAIK, Craig believes that God is the cause of the universe.

So, I see no direct contradiction with Anselm’s definition. There is, however, a direct contradiction with Aquinas’ definition of God.

[Paul]

I agree, there’s no contradiction but there doesn’t seem an explicit connection either. I’ve heard skeptics argue we do not have a consistent definition of God. Perhaps God has a “divine character” of multiple attributes including goodness, omnipotence, etc that are inseparable.

[Fred]

Each argument is independent. Craig claims they collectively provide a “cumulative case” for God. In a way, they do – each argument identifies some specific attributes of God (e.g. Kalam: first cause; Contingency Argument: Necessary existent; Fine-Tuning: if the universe is designed, it needed a designer; Objective Morals: he’s the source of moral values…). However, they don’t actually support each other, because their conclusions aren’t the same.

Other’s have noted that these arguments don’t entail a God of Christianity, and that’s certainly true. He does point to the (questionable) historical argument for the Resurrection, but as others have pointed out this doesn’t even entail Christianity. Perhaps Craig would fall back on Plantinga’s all-purpose sensus-divinitatus: he “knows” his version of Christianity is true because of his keen sense of God.

[Johan]

Yes, wlc will simply say that he knows it to be true because of the “self authenticating witness of the holy Spirit”. Because of this it makes all of his arguments seem even more like sophistry.

The only reason it seems that he bothers with arguments is to try to show others that he is reasonable despite his unreasonable reason.

[The Beego (Moderator)]

It would be wiser to speak about things you are more familiar with.

Dr. Craig openly talks about his reasons for using specific approaches and arguments in many different places. It would behoove you to familiarize yourself with these things instead of just baselessly deriding Dr. Craig’s work and motives because you disagree with him.

[Johan]

And my view here is that the way in which I know Christianity is true is first and foremost on the basis of the witness of the Holy Spirit in my heart, and that this gives me a self-authenticating means of knowing that Christianity is true wholly apart from the evidence. And therefore, if in some historically contingent circumstances the evidence that I have available to me should turn against Christianity, I don’t think that that controverts the witness of the Holy Spirit.

https://www.reasonablefaith.org/videos/interviews-panels/dealing-with-doubt

Dr Craig has specifically said that though, so I don’t like the accusation that I don’t know what I am talking about.

[The Beego (Moderator)]

You should also be intimately familiar with the reasons why he’s also so adamant about using arguments and evidence as well, then.

Instead, you seem to show that you’re not familiar with these reasons by accusing Dr. Craig of sophistry and merely some kind of grandstanding with his work.

Or, if you are familiar, you seem to choose to couch your statements about him in the least charitable ways possible. I’m not sure why you would do that, especially here, on a site dedicated to his work and discussing it. You don’t have to like Dr. Craig, and you certainly don’t have to agree with his conclusions, but I recommend you don’t speak condescendingly and derogatorily about him as a person.

Show why he’s wrong if you want, but don’t be an ass. 👍

You won’t get many more warnings.

[Johan]

I don’t think I am being an ass though. I think you’re the one who has been the most rude and condescending in your responses here.

Also, I’ve spend over 10 years on this site explaining the various reasons that I think wlc is wrong in his arguments. Again I find it insulting that you would accuse me of not doing that when that is literally why I came to this site in the first place.

I get it though, you are the mod and you have all the power here, so you are free to say and do as you please, I am just not simply going to sit back and be quiet about it this time.

[The Beego (Moderator)]

I don’t think I am being an ass though. I think you’re the one who has been the most rude and condescending in your responses here.

Well, we can’t solve this subjective problem by just saying ‘nuh uh, you’ all day.

I don’t really know how you can spin accusing Dr. Craig of sophistry and implying his scholarly is a veil to stave off people calling him unreasonable as something non-ass-like, but I can’t control how you perceive yourself.

I’m just telling you it’s an odd and uncharitable thing to do, especially from one who has been around the forum for so long.

Also, I’ve spend over 10 years on this site explaining the various reasons that I think wlc is wrong in his arguments. Again I find it insulting that you would accuse me of not doing that when that is literally why I came to this site in the first place.

I couldn’t care less why you came to the forum. I’m talking about what you’re currently doing, and what you’re currently doing is acting inappropriately. Longevity here doesn’t give you license to act as you please. If you go back to charitably discussing why WLC is wrong about stuff, that is perfect. I’m telling you that you’re currently not doing that.

If you disagree, I can’t help you with that.

I get it though, you are the mod and you have all the power here, so you are free to say and do as you please, I am just not simply going to sit back and be quiet about it this time.

You can play this as moderation abuse if you would like, but I think many here would say I’m a pretty reasonable and nonintrusive admin. I’m not really sure what you think you’re going to accomplish by making this seem like I’m trying to martyr you, or critics of WLC, or something.

I’m not trying to silence you or anyone.

I’m trying to keep the discourse relatively charitable.

I noticed your comments weren’t aligning with that rule.

So I didn’t ‘sit back and keep quiet’ myself.

I’m just telling you to not play the fool. It’s not outrageous to expect people to interact with Dr. Craig’s work charitably on his own websites. If you disagree, absolutely feel free to leave. Otherwise, just…like…don’t act badly…🤷‍♂️

[The Beego (Moderator)]

Each argument does stand on its own since they do not share premises–they must be evaluated on their own merits.

However, I don’t see how it follows you can’t get a cumulative case from them since they ‘don’t share the same conclusion’.

As you yourself say, the arguments all get at different attributes of something that could be considered God-like. If that’s the case, how is that not cumulative by definition?

Also, the point is just incorrect because the conclusions of some of the arguments can be inserted or applied to key premises of others to bolster the premises. An obvious example–regardless of what you think of the arguments–is the Ontological argument’s first premise (A maximally great being possibly exists.) can be supported with the conclusions of the other arguments, like the Kalam providing reason to think a personal and powerful mind exists, the contingency argument providing reason to think a necessary, personal foundation for the universe exists, and the moral argument suggesting a good God exists. These arguments could make premise 1 of the ontological argument more plausible.

You might not be personally satisfied with these arguments, but the connections and cumulative case seems obvious to me.

[Fred]

“As you yourself say, the arguments all get at different attributes of something that could be considered God-like. If that’s the case, how is that not cumulative by definition?”

I noted that this IS a sort of cumulative case. My point was that it’s not cumulative in terms of epistemic probability. A first cause can exist without being a ground of morality, and vice versa. I’ve often said that each of Craig’s deistic arguments are POSSIBLY sound. But this means each has a probability < 1. Therefore the probability they’re ALL sound is is lower. To illustrate: suppose each argument has (P=.7) of being sound. The probability that 5 arguments are sound= .7^5=.17.

• This reply was modified 11 months, 2 weeks ago by  Fred.

[Johan]

I think the question was more like:

“If you follow the Kalam, you merely get a deist definition of God, however Craig accepts a Christian understanding of God. How do we bridge the gap between the deist God that results from accepting the Kalam, to the Christian conception of God?”

If that is the question, it is a good one. I don’t personally know any way to actually make that connection. I think the best the WLC does is that he argues for the truth of the resurrection, and from that infers that if the resurrection is true, then every other thing about Christianity must also follow. I think this is a massive unfounded leap in logic though.

[Paul]

This is part of where I am hung up. It seems we can either take God to be the greatest good imaginable as a definition, and then argue such a God created the universe. Alternatively, we can take God as the personal being implied by the Kalam (as Craig does in On Guard) and then argue about His character being god.

It seems we would need to start from one and then argue for the next. In On Guard, Craig says, “…the cause of the existence of the universe must be a transcendent Mind, which is what believers understand God to be.”

<font color=”rgba(0, 0, 0, 0)” face=”inherit”>But it also seems we take God to be goodness </font>embodied<font color=”rgba(0, 0, 0, 0)” face=”inherit”> too. </font>

<font color=”rgba(0, 0, 0, 0)” face=”inherit”>I think the Catholic doctrine of divine simplicity solves this problem, but I don’t know if Craig appeals to it, so I’m curious how Craig bridges these too. If a transcended mind is behind the universe and such a mind has a will, the </font>resurrection<font color=”rgba(0, 0, 0, 0)” face=”inherit”> becomes trivial to explain. Still, how do we get the definition of goodness from here? </font>

[Johan]

As far as I can tell, goodness is always simply assumed. People simply assume that goodness is “better” than evil and just assume that if god has goodness, then he has it to a maximal degree like everything else.

It gets a little worse than that though, because many define god as being the good not simply possessing it. This means that literally anything god does is good and therefore any question about it becomes moot. Committing genocide? Well god did it therefore it is good. You can no longer say that it is a bad thing to do. In fact, without god to examine, apart from the things he is said to have done in the bible, we would have no way at all to assess what is actually good or not. Is arguing with people on the I ternet good ? We shall never know because we don’t have a record of god doing it.

[Walter]

I think the Catholic doctrine of divine simplicity solves this problem, but I don’t know if Craig appeals to it, so I’m curious how Craig bridges these too. If a transcended mind is behind the universe and such a mind has a will, the resurrection becomes trivial to explain. Still, how do we get the definition of goodness from here?

Well, AFAIK, Craig does not believe in Divine Simplicity,, at least not the way it is defined by Catholic doctrine.

Now, according to the Catholic Doctrine of Divine Simplicity (DDS), God is His goodness, and God is Justice and god is His mercy etc. God does not have separate ‘attributes’. God is not a moral agent, his goodness follows from DDS because God is Pure Act and Pure Act has no imperfections.

There are lots of problems with this, and Johan has already pointed out a few, but the main point is that it is impossible to go from the creator of everything to moral goodness. God does not have any sort of morality.

[kravarnik]

Sorry to inform you, but that’s impossible. You either argue for Christ and His Gospel, or you argue for something else and try to “appropriate Christ” in the process by whatever possible means.

In WLC’s case, you see him arguing for an apathetic god – by deploying natural philosophy and Aristotlean metaphysics, – and then has Christ as an add-on, through the “minimal facts of the resurrection” argument.

Which, logically, doesn’t even lead to Christianity – which, in essence, is the Trinity and the Divinity of Christ. These two doctrine are the most fundamental and essential to the Gospel: personal God, existing in Three Persons, namely Father, Son and Spirit; and the Second Person of that Trinity, out of the love of the Trinity for man, come as man to save man.

None of what WLC argues leads to any of these conclusions. So, you either try to argue for Christ as God and Savior, thus God as Holy Trinity; or you don’t. There’s no possible way to have Christ, as understood in Christianity and preached and taught by His Apostles and early Church, as some kind of an add-on to Aristotlean metaphysics and to natural philosophy.

[kravarnik]

In other words, WLC doesn’t in any way specify his argumentation to lead to Christian conclusions: that is, teachings/doctrines that Christ Himself and His Apostles taught.

Even his Kalam is not arguing for Christ as Creator, which His Apostles clearly taught Him and preached Him as. And his argument for the resurrection does not yield to Christian conclusions: it could yield to Muslim ones as well(Christ being “great prophet”, but not “God Himself”); or gnostic ones(Christ was and is pure spirit); polytheistic ones(Christ is one god among all gods; and just because He was resurrected, it doesn’t lead to any Divine exclusivity – that He alone is Savior and He alone is Creator and He alone is Judge and He alone is Life and so on).

Put more simply, this scholastic mindset only leads to the further secularization of the faith, to the point of even our arguing being no longer connected to and done in Christ, but we make Christ and His doctrines as add-ons and subservient to natural philosophy.

This, in my understanding, is so unfaithful to Christ, because we, instead of arguing for our Christ as the most visible reality, as the One who clearly works and is the Truth, these people treat Him in their public ministry as some kind of unnecessary element, some kind of optional appendix, lying there in the corner, while we put the Pagan conceptions of God under the spotlight and argue for their understanding and metaphysics and teachings.

We should have the mindset of Saint Paul, and the other Apostles, but Saint Paul sublimely expresses the proper sentiment in regards to engaging in logical proceedings that concern the faith:

“We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.” 2 Corinthians 10:5

Notice the reversal that’s being done in the case of WLC, and other apologists of this nature(apologists that rely exclusively on natural philosophy): WLC borrows arguments from Pagan natural philosophers and tries to make Christ and His teachings “a captive” to this same “Pagan wisdom”. Because I’ve never seen him modify any of his arguments, that he borrows from Hellenic metaphysics, to EXPLICITLY lead to Christ as conclusion.

[Jabberwock]

Kalam is not an argument for the Christian God. For that Craig uses other arguments, such as the historical argument for the resurrection.

[kravarnik]

That’s not even an argument for the Christian God, but for a resurrection taking place, which can be done by any god, or even according to some worldview(if true, of course) it can be achieved by sufficiently advanced technology by “an alien race”.

In reality, WLC has no argument that conclude Holy Trinity, or Christ as the Son of God, who is Divine Himself.

Christ being resurrected is completely consistent with Islam; with gnostics; with post-modern occult movements that buy into highly technologically advanced aliens; with polytheists and idolaters; and so on. It in no way arrives at God being the Christian God, let alone that God exists(the argument presupposes that God exists).

What exactly, in the argument, establishes the “Christian” God? As far as I know, the argument concludes “therefore, Christ was resurrected”. At best, it establishes that a resurrection took place, but not by whom and how; and how that means Christ is God.

For example, you can take jayceei. He’s probably someone, who believes that Christ was resurrected, but he isn’t a Christian at all: he does not believe the Trinity; he does not believe in the Church; he does believe that Buddha also gives Salvation and that there are other “Divinities” and “Saviors” that act.

[Johan]

This is one of the rare times that I actually agree with you Krav. The resurrection is necessary for Christianity, but it is not sufficient for it.

[kravarnik]

If anything, the argument only ups the ante, in that even if successful, it would make the dialogue of “OK, we have a reality where resurrections take place – people coming back from the dead do happen,” – but that doesn’t show the Christian God any more, than it shows Kabbalah, necromancy and so on.

So, it only ups the ante and forces the conversation to be about who is responsible for resurrection happening. But the necromancer will come and be like “My Beelzebub gives life to da peoples!” and, then, Luciferieans will be like “the pesky Christians disdained the pristine Holiness of my Satan, who in reality is the one who gives life, alongside with his sister – Lilith, – but the Christians hijacked the powers of my lovely Satan and started claiming that it is Christ, by His Father, that gives Life!!”.

And, then, a materialist atheist will be like “what if the resurrections are not true resurrections, but actual transitions of people between alternate realities that exist in multiple universes, whereby the Jesus that died is the one that existed here, but the one that came back is an alternate Jesus from another universe, hmhmhm???!!?!?! So, it doesn’t prove Christianity, but materialistic multiverse!”.

Basically, it does not explicitly affirm that Jewish understanding of resurrection is happening.

Only a resurrection in specific sense, according to a specific view, establishes Christ as God, which resurrection WLC doens’t argue for, but argues for a general miracle. Proving a general miraculous occurrence does not show a specific God, but rather a specific miraculous occurrence within particular context – Jewish/Christian teachings, – prove it.

But WLC has managed to secularize even the resurrection and only argues that “it happened”. He once again assumes – or presupposes,- that IF it took place, then “Christ is God”, but a resurrection is completely consistent with many other views, and religions, and not only Christ’s teachings.

[The Beego (Moderator)]

You don’t have to agree that Craig’s argument for the resurrection is successful, but holy crap @kravarnik

This is such a wild series of claims that I don’t even know where to start with it.

In fact, I don’t even really know if it deserves a serious response.

You really don’t know why Dr. Craig thinks his resurrection case actually gets you the Christian God?

You really think he doesn’t have a response to an accusation like ‘the resurrection of Christ is compatible with Islam.’?

Bro, this is wild stuff.😅

[kravarnik]

“You really don’t know why Dr. Craig thinks his resurrection case actually gets you the Christian God?

You really think he doesn’t have a response to an accusation like ‘the resurrection of Christ is compatible with Islam.’?

Bro, this is wild stuff”

I never said he doesn’t think the resurrection gets you to Christ – he obviously thinks so. And I never said he doesn’t have a response to such accusations – he obviously does.

It’s simply that these are illogical, thus I treat them as untrue, therefore I assert the state in which these arguments/responses/thoughts TRULY are, not what WLC, or you, a moderator of his online forum, think about those.

Rather, it is the case that he THINKS the case for the resurrection leads to Christ as God – and it actually doesn’t; and it is the case that he DOES have legitimate and valid responses to Muslim, or any other valid candidates that explain the particular facts he brings up – but these responses are not actually good.

Here’s a revelation:

WLC’s arguments are specifically designed within the paradigm of naturalism, which is a faulty paradigm. This paradigm erects a faulty epistemological understanding, which further corrupts the entire scheme of his argumentation, which ends up faulty. Since his understanding of logic is borrowed from atheists/naturalists, or theistic natural philosophers(Aristotle, Plato, secular analytic philosophers, etc.), then since source is corrupt, then he flow coming out of the source is stained as well.

As long as he operates within the paradigm of evidentialism and foundationalism being true, which are then to be applied within the ontological scheme of naturalism – empiricism and materialism being assumed as true, – then his entire argumentation goes to Hell.

This why his arguments are bad: because he assumes his counterparts’ position, which is itself faulty and untrue, to try to convince them out of naturalism, while using naturalism coupled with natural philosophy.

[The Beego (Moderator)]

You think Dr. Craig ‘assumes’ naturalism, empiricism, and materialism is…true?

Are you a presupper?

[kravarnik]

And you think this argument is made within the paradigm of Christianity, where God’s existence is a given; Christ being resurrected is a given; Christ being God is a given; God being Holy Trinity is a given?

But if that is the paradigm, then why is an argument needed, when these are the assumptions being made? And if not, then what paradigm, or set of assumptions about the state of reality, of epistemology and of man, is needed to be in place in order to have a requirement to make an argument that Christ did resurrect from the dead and Christ is God and God is Holy Trinity – Father, Son(pre-incarnate Christ) and Spirit?

[Johan]

To be fair, if you are trying to create arguments that will convince someone else of the truth of a proposition, you cannot begin with the assumption that the conclusions of those arguments is true. That is literally begging the question, and is fallacious reasoning.

In the world of logical arguments, this is not something that can be done, for any position. If you start with your conclusion, then the arguments become irrelevant.

[kravarnik]

“To be fair, if you are trying to create arguments that will convince someone else of the truth of a proposition, you cannot begin with the assumption that the conclusions of those arguments is true. That is literally begging the question, and is fallacious reasoning.

In the world of logical arguments, this is not something that can be done, for any position. If you start with your conclusion, then the arguments become irrelevant.”

But that’s exactly what the “world of logical arguments” is doing: taking particular assumptions in regards to epistemology and ontology and erects arguments on the basis of it.

For example: assuming that induction is a reliable method of arriving at truth; and truth does really exist – there are beliefs and knowledge that do ACTUALLY have relation to reality and describe it accurately – is just as much of an assumption, as me saying that my argument is issued within the worldview of “Christ is real and He is God and He is exactly as the Ecumenical Councils define Him as”.

Assuming logical principles as a given(especially as an atheist, who cannot ground universals and immaterial entities existing) is itself an assumption as much as me assuming Christ exists as God is an assumption. Why you get to have your assumptions untouched and unexamined and provided as a given; but when I insert mine, all of a sudden, I have to argue for them, otherwise I’m outside the world of logical argumentation?

[The Beego (Moderator)]

I’m not an epistemologist, and I don’t really know what Dr. Craig is trying to take as his ‘paradigm’ when constructing his arguments from natural theology, but I can assure you that, as you seem to suggest, naturalism, empiricism, and materialism are not granted as givens in his approach.

You’ve greatly misunderstood Dr. Craig’s apologetic endeavors.

@Jbiemans is exactly right:
…if you are trying to create arguments that will convince someone else of the truth of a proposition, you cannot begin with the assumption that the conclusions of those arguments is true. That is literally begging the question, and is fallacious reasoning.

I don’t really know how to help you shift your perspective on this, but you know some logical misstep has occurred when your conclusion involves thinking Dr. Craig’s assertions involve (or his position entails) the aforementioned ‘paradigms’.

[kravarnik]

“I’m not an epistemologist, and I don’t really know what Dr. Craig is trying to take as his ‘paradigm’ when constructing his arguments from natural theology, but I can assure you that, as you seem to suggest, naturalism, empiricism, and materialism are not granted as givens in his approach.

You’ve greatly misunderstood Dr. Craig’s apologetic endeavors.”

I’ve understood them perfectly. You’re the one, unable to actually see the case presented before you. The Doc is a full-blown scholastic, where natural reason is assumed true and the faith is assumed false; thus articles of faith have to be demonstrated through using natural reason according to our best knowledge and application of it – usually, Aristotlean and analytic philosophy.

I’m not saying the Doc is empiricist and a skeptic in his actual convictions and beliefs. I’m saying that in his apologetic works he stoops down to the terms of the naturalist and the atheist, whereby the atheistic and naturalistic worldview is assumed(can only appeal to facts from natural philosophy and natural science – but not to Divine Revelation, nor make assumptions drawn from Divine Revelation).

He stoops down to argue in the terms of the naturalist. That’s the point. Much like all the Roman Catholic scholastics weren’t actual non-Christians in their life; but in their academic endeavors, they assumed particular articles of faith as false(hypothetically), so that they can THEN use natural “reason” to show true these tentatively false articles of faith, that are ASSUMED AS FALSE in the process. In doing so, in that process of secularizing reason(by saying it isn’t informed by faith, but by natural philosophy), they stoop down to the level of natural philosophers, a-la Aristotle, Plato, Avicena, Boethius and so on.

This is exactly what the Doc is doing. While engaging skeptics and unbelievers, the Doc pushes Christ and His Revelation back to the corner, enters Aristotle mode – where he can only cite natural facts, but no articles of faith drawn from the Revelation of Christ, – so that he can demonstrate this generic Deity, in hope that if they become deistic, or theistic, at some point this may EVENTUALLY AND HOPEFULLY lead them to Christ.

And I’m saying this is wrong, because by condescending to these levels of confusion and spiritual inadequacy stains your argument, since they are made within an impoverished worldview, or set of assumptions. Just argue for Christ, dude. What is so shocking about it? We Christians must argue for Christ. Not for generic Deity. Not for generic First Cause of all movement. Not for some “moral source”. For Christ, mate. Christ, the root of the word “Christian”, you know? The One that we love and follow? Just argue for Him, mate.

[Jabberwock]

You do not have to convince me that Craig’s argumentation does not succeed 🙂

[wonderer]

Jabber,

Come to [url=https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussions]the dark side[/url]. There is so much more diversity in the irrational thinking to respond to. 😉

(And some extremely well informed people.)

Edit: …and the formatting works!

• This reply was modified 11 months, 3 weeks ago by  wonderer.

[Walter]

I would love to join The Dark Side, but it seems an invitation is required and I do not know any Sith Lord personally.

[wonderer]

You’ve trained with Darth Relativist of Fred, Darth Art, and Darth GRW. (Might not want to mention Darth wonderer1 though. That guy may be developing a reputation for not properly sithing.) The fact that you are from the planet Notmerican might be considered a plus as well.

I was under the impression that it was simply a matter of emailing and asking to join. Although, when I did so recently, I found out I already had an account that I had created years ago and forgotten about. So I don’t really know if there is any screening, beyond filtering out bots.

• This reply was modified 11 months, 3 weeks ago by  wonderer.

[wonderer]

And there’s Darth Jabberwock.

[Paul]

I would advise against joining ThePhilosophyForum. I was on it for months and found too many bad and uncharitable arguments for it to be worth my time. There are some very well read and well informed people there, but I got tired of sorting through the trash and left.

[wonderer]

I would advise against joining ThePhilosophyForum. I was on it for months and found too many bad and uncharitable arguments for it to be worth my time. There are some very well read and well informed people there, but I got tired of sorting through the trash and left.

Nonbelievers who have spent a lot of time in discussions on the old RF Forums are quite adapted to bad and uncharitable arguments. You might say it’s our environmental niche at this point. 😛

[wonderer]

I hang out there from time to time, under the name “Relativist”. I wonder if we’ve butted heads there. There is a lot of nonsense there, but there’s also a number of contributors with philosophy degrees.

I knew you had done some posting there, but until recently I had only posted one time there, years ago.

The top of the list of new members is impressive. There’s Walter, Noam Chomsky, and Jabberwock.

• This reply was modified 11 months, 2 weeks ago by  wonderer.

[Fred]

I hang out there from time to time, under the name “Relativist”. I wonder if we’ve butted heads there. There is a lot of nonsense there, but there’s also a number of contributors with philosophy degrees.

[Jabberwock]

The invitation thread has an email where you can ask for an invitation, if you introduce yourself properly.

I did join and it seems nice, although Chomsky as a guest speaker gave me a pause…

[wonderer]

Do you have any good questions for Chomsky? I think they are closing the window for asking questions pretty soon.

Unfortunately my knowledge of his thinking is fairly superficial.

[Jabberwock]

I would rather not begin my stay on the forum with confontational questions, like ones concerning his stance on Ukraine…

[wonderer]

Gotcha. I haven’t looked into his thoughts on Ukraine, but I know his political thinking tends to what I see as unrealistic.

I was thinking that differing views on linguistics might be what was giving you pause.

[Paul]

Well, looks like Craig has already answered this:

https://www.biola.edu/blogs/good-book-blog/2020/675-must-god-be-good

[Jabberwock]

Still, Kalam does not argue for that being.

[Charles]

Craig seems to address the significance of the resurrection to Christianity here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4iyxR8uE9GQ&t=3160

54:27

[Brent]

Thank you for posting this!