I'm aware of that, they just failed anyways.
Logical fallacy, argument by assertion.
You cannot give any specific reasons why Craig’s first three arguments have supposedly failed.
. They didn't disprove anything, they only showed why guys like Craig are not "great thinkers", but instead just peddle dishonest arguments that pretend to be scientific
Logical fallacy, argument by assertion.
You give no logical reasons or evidence for your claim.
Your statement is also supremely ironic considering that the overwhelming majority of your posts are made up of bald assertion fallacies – which is neither honest nor scientific.
For as much as you talk about revering the scientific method, you don’t seem to understand or respect the fact that science requires using valid logic and evidence to arrive at conclusions – you can’t just fallacious assert your way to demanding people accept your belief as fact.
, but are completely out of alignment with what Astrophysicists actually say about the "origins" of the universe.
Logical fallacy, appeal to authority.
You give no logical reasons or evidence for why Craig’s arguments are supposedly wrong.
Pointing to people who disagree with Craig doesn’t prove Craig’s arguments are wrong.
Did you watch the Craig vs Krauss debate? Krauss corrected Craig several times and he still repeats many of the same fallacious arguments today revealing he's not an honest debater or thinker.
I did.
And you are committing the logical fallacy of argument by assertion and/or appeal to authority.
You cannot point a single specific argument Krauss made that refuted Craig’s conclusions, and explain with specific reasons why it qualified as refuting Craig’s conclusions, about the cosmological and teleological.
Merely asserting that Krauss disproved Craig doesn’t make it true just because you assert it is so.
I don't care, this is irrelevant.
..
I don't care, this is irrelevant.
Logical fallacy, argument by assertion.
You have given no reasons or evidence to prove your claim is true that my point was supposedly irrelevant.
You won’t be able to do that because your claim is false.
*Yawn, more just asserting things that aren't true.
Logical fallacy, argument by assertion.
You have given no reasons or evidence for your claim.
And your claim is supremely ironic given the sheer amount of fallacious asserting you are guilty of in every post.
Yet the majority of astrophysicists are not, thus disproving your statement.
Logical fallacy, appeal to authority and appeal to popularity.
Something is not proven to be true just because someone says it is.
Nor is something proven to be true just because a majority of a certain group says it is.
If it really were true, then it should be easy for you to pull out specific reasons why and present them to refute Craig – but you can’t. Because they don’t exist.
You are committing the fallacy of argument by assertion and begging the question/circular reason.
You're saying Craigs arguments are false because they are not proven.
I did not say that.
Your claim is false.
Here is what you said:
That's a false premise. If the arguments are unproven to begin with, all the atheist need do is consider if they are valid or not. In this case, they are not, therefore no change in belief is required.
You therefore claimed the following:
1. That Craig’s premises are false.
2. That Craig’s arguments are unproven.
You claimed both that Craig’s arguments were false and unproven, which is a claim you have never tried to support with any valid logic or evidence. The only thing you have offered with regards to that so far is a string of assertion fallacies and a few fallacious appeals to authority.
Did you not read the last post. I'm not going to repeat just because you didn't read.
As I already pointed out with your last post, you had no valid reasons or evidence to support your claim that Craig supposedly failed to prove his conclusion.
Yeah...that's not actually how claims and proving them are done. For example, there is a strong claim that due to the increasing levels of intelligence and technology, that there's a 99.7% chance that we are living in a computer simulation. The evidence is in the doubling and tripling of technology every year, as well as in software, AI, and other technological areas and the logical deduction on this is sound as well. Does that mean we are living in the Matrix and it is proven unless you can show that it's not true?
Logical fallacy, irrelevant conclusion. Your statement has no relevance to my point you were quoting.
I said you don’t understand where the burdens lay in a debate.
If Craig provides reasons for why his conclusions is true then his burden of proof has been met (which is not the same as assuming his claim is actually true. But simply providing reasons means he has met his burden of proof).
The burden of rejoinder is then on you if you want to claim his conclusion is false, or insufficiently proven, to offer a logically valid counter argument to refute his premises, arguments, or evidence in some way.
You have not even attempted to do that. Therefore you have failed to meet your burden of rejoinder and have no basis for claiming Craig’s conclusion is false.
2. You don't understand the nature of deductive logic. If the premises are true then the conclusion has to be true. Are you a bot or something? You keep repeating yourself.
Logical fallacy, ad hominem and irrelevant conclusion.
You did not address the fact that you don’t understand the nature of deductive logic. Ie: If the premises are true then the conclusion has to be true.
Namecalling doesn’t change the fact that you don’t have an answer to what I said.
And accusing me of repeating myself would be a fallacy of irrelevant conclusion because even if it were true that I repeated myself it doesn’t disprove the truth of what I said nor absolve you of the need to offer a counter argument to what I said if you want to dispute it’s truth.
I already addressed this in the last post.
You have not once given any specific logical argument to show why any of Craig’s premises are false, any of his logic is in error, or any of his evidence is flawed.
All you have done is fallacious assert he is wrong and fallaciously point to people who you think say he’s wrong without ever giving any reasons they supposedly think he is wrong so those reasons can be examined for validity.
After reading all of this nonsense and going back to my prior post to make sure I wasn't crazy...I can only conclude that you aren't being honest, didn't read half of my replies and I guess just feel like repeating ad nauseum logical fallacies that you don't actually understand because I guess it makes you feel smart? Yet, I got tired of addressing the same points over and over, so I'm going to move on since clearly you aren't interested in an honest debate.
Logical fallacy, argument by assertion.
You have made the following claims without any reasons or evidence to back them up:
1. That supposedly I am not being honest.
2. That any fallacy I have pointed out you have committed is supposedly in error.
3. That you have actually answered any of the arguments I raised, rather than just fallacious asserted things or appealed to authority.
You cannot quote anything and give any valid reason why anything I said is supposedly dishonest.
You cannot give any valid reason why you supposedly didn’t commit any logical fallacy I identified you as doing.
You cannot point to a single valid argument you made that I did not address.
If you have a need to repeat yourself it’s only because you made a fallacy of assertion or appeal to authority and never met your burden of proof/rejoinder to begin with for your claims.
If you moved on from this thread it would be absolutely no loss as you have so far shown you’re not capable of offering any legitimate arguments aside from assertion fallacies and fallacious appeals to authority. You aren’t posing legitimate logical challenges therefore your posts are of no value to helping anyone advance their understanding of what is true.