urbanelf Likes to Lie about William Lane Craig

Following theowarner's example, urbanelf (who has zero training in philosophy or theology) deliberately lies about William Lane Craig (in a video entitled "William Lane Craig is Not a Theologian"), even when the facts are right in his face! More on urbanelf: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mr1hNjT9P-Q

Category:

Education

Tags:

• urbanelf
• William
• Lane
• Craig
• Lie
• Dishonesty
• Theologian
• Philosopher
• theowarner

[emailpobox666]

Dr Craig admitted he would ignore evidence against Christianity in favor of the witness of the Holy Spirit

[emailpobox666]

William Lane Craig is dishonest. I can not fathom why you would defend such an individual

[urbanelf]

@rationalresponseguy Yeah, if we can't have expectations of what God would hypothetically do, then we also can't have knowledge of what God would hypothetically do.

"All I'm saying is, unless God shows X, we can know that He'll do X, but we can't expect him to fulfill our expectation of Y."

Wow. Just wow. That was a great argument. If God doesn't show that he'll give me a puppy, then I will know that he will give me a puppy, but I can't expect him to give me a cat. You've convinced me.

[rationalresponseguy]

@urbanelf "In that context our expectations are the expectations that we can derive from the hypothesis." Hmm. That's weird. Did you just say that Craig claimed we can not know what we can expect from God let alone know what God will do? Anyway, but I never made the logic you suggested. All I'm saying is, unless God shows X, we can know that He'll do X, but we can't expect him to fulfill our expectation of Y. I'm trying to wake you up but by your own admission u've been asleep this whole time.

[urbanelf]

@rationalresponseguy It's hardly out of context. He's refering to God as a hypothetical being(note the use of "IF God existed then..."). In that context our expectations are the expectations that we can derive from the hypothesis.

It's you who's bending over backwards to try to draw some difference between "knowledge" and "true expectations" given a hypothetical statement.

In your bizarre logic we can know God will do X, but we can't expect God to do X.

Wake me when you sort that out.

[rationalresponseguy]

@urbanelf Well, you never really made a good case for all 3 points, urbanelf. And if you want to make this into a debate if you think about it you lost. You used wiki for your research which automatically disqualifies you as a serious thinker in my book. But you don't listen closely to your opponents in these videos you made, and you're not honest. And it's very obvious that you took Craig out of context. It's painfully funny how you're doing damage control for your screw up.

[urbanelf]

@rationalresponseguy So, where we are now: 1st video you misidentify abduction, 2nd video you don't understand the consequences of having no reliable expectations for a hypothetical being.

Shall we make it 0-3?

[rationalresponseguy]

@urbanelf Yeah, we already read that from you. And it isn't.

[Theophage]

@rationalresponseguy I appreciate that you are trying to be fair. But no, I have no desire to lie about anyone.

The fact that you immediately jump to hostile speech and accuse people of lying when they simply may be wrong tells me that you aren't interested in what is true, you are only interested in denying ever being wrong. It's kind of sad.

Frankly, we've said all there is to say about this subject. Going back and forth with "yes it is" "no it isn't" isn't adding anything new.

[Theophage]

@drcraigvideos You talk about us taking him out of context, and yet that is exactly what you are doing there. No, "expectations in general" is not the context of Dr. Craig's statement, he was speaking of very specific expectations.

I agree with you that "expectations in general" is a far cry from not knowing what God would do, except that isn't the context of Craig's quote.

Again, you seem to be the only one that doesn't see that. Is it simply impossible that you are wrong?