I'm sorry if it's a repeat here.
I really think how people accept when William Lane Craig says that its 'genetic fallacy' when confronted with the question "What about the other religions?".It's like saying "You cannot say that spiderman doesn't exist just because it was portrayed as a fictional character in the comics,it is a genetic fallacy." It is indeed a genetic fallacy but who has the time to figure out the fallacy within the genetic fallacy?Would anyone ever think that spiderman could really exist in reality?And even if due to human limitations you say that there is always a very small probability that he could exist,would that be an evidence of his existence neglecting an almost 100 percent conclusion from reasoning and evidence that he doesn't exist?
And then we have this Ontological argument,which is intrinsically complex so that an error may remain unnoticed until someone takes the effort to point it.Even the latest version of this argument has been debunked many times but still they insist that it is proof of god's existence.A simple question people should ask here is,"How can you prove something into existence only through reasoning?".
Richard Dawkins is a scientist and made the right decision to not debate with William Lane Craig who is a philosopher and a professional debater.You can always almost come to the conclusion through science but philosophy maybe used to mislead you in the opposite direction,if you are not good at it.
It sounds like Craig, whom I watched on YouTube video just now, could talk rings around anyone, and still say relatively nothing factual. He must be rich, as he could sell bullshit to cattle, convincing them it was more nutritious than grass.
That's a good analogy Peter! :)
I agree. Craig can talk circles around anyone but really says nothing. A professional bullshitter.