LOL! "My God is the true God, and I know this because my God is the TRUE God, and that's that. LOGIC!!"
Logical fallacy, strawman.
You are misrepresenting the logical structure of my argument because you either did not understand it or because you are intentionally being dishonest.
I said:
But even that argument by you would be logically wrong - because you can’t claim God’s defined truth is not the standard by which truth is judged unless you can say either there are other gods equal to him also creating in the same way or unless you can say that there exists something above god which created him and subjected him to a higher truth.
You can see here that your strawman involves a misrepresentation of the conclusion in my argument.
The purpose of my argument you quoted was never to argue that “My God is the one true God”.
The purpose of my argument was to establish that, if we start from accepting the premise that God created the universe, that you then have no logical basis for claiming God’s Truth is subjective truth rather than objective truth.
I will outline the logical structure of that in a more overt format so it will be more clear to you:
Premise 1: God created the universe.
Premise 2: Objective truth exists.
Argument 1: God defines what is objective truth by virtue of being the one who created everything.
Argument 2: There is nothing else above him which could give any other definition to what is true about reality other than the definition which God himself gives to it. And there is no one equal to God who can create an alternative truth that has equal claim to being truth,
Conclusion: You therefore can’t accuse God’s Truth of being subjective, rather than objective, if you accept the premise that He is the sole creator of the universe. The only way, therefore, you could accuse God’s truth of being subjective rather than objective is if you could argue that there is someone above him or someone equal to him (which then wouldn’t make him God by the Abrahamic religions definition of God).
So we can see your strawman is false because you are misrepresenting what my conclusion actually was.
This is in contrast to your strawman, which would look like this:
Premise: God is the one true God.
Argument: God is the true God because God is the true God.
Conclusion: Therefore God is the true God.
So you either have a serious deficit of understanding how logic works to not be able to spot the differences between my argument vs your strawman argument, or you are being intentionally dishonest in trying to misrepresent what I argued.
In conclusion: You are not able to find fault with the validity of my logical arguments.
Isn't it curious that these self-proclaimed logic experts do perfect 10 double-flip backwards somersaults off of the Logic Train when it comes to propping up their preferred deity? This guy is all 'that is false due to logical fallacy X' all day, but then busts out the Fallacy of Begging the Question at the drop of a hat!
So pretentious...
I have just demonstrated above why you were false to accuse me of committing the logical fallacy of begging the question.
You cannot demonstrate any genuine logical fault with the arguments you are quoting.
You seem to be using appeals to mockery and ad hominems as a way to distract from the fact that you know your fallacious attempts at counter arguments have no valid substance to them.
I did. That is what they do.
Logical fallacy, argument by assertion.
You cannot prove your assertion is true that either I or Craig have engaged in any kind of avoidance or red herring fallacies. You can quote note examples as evidence backed up with logical reasons as to why that would constitute an avoidance fallacy of some type.
It’s not proven true just because you assert it is true.
'Arguments' that 'seemingly' do things when viewed uncritically are not the same thing as evidence or proof. Maybe that is why?
Craig doesn't come off so well in terms of 'evidence' or 'science' here... Sure, the cheerleaders say otherwise, but that is because they are cheerleaders for a grifter.
You’re committing the logical fallacy of argument by assertion.
Because you have exposed no specific fault with any argument Craig or I put forth.
Merely asserting there is fault with it doesn’t prove there is just because you assert it is so.
It’s not even clear to me in your post what you’re trying to assert - which makes your post a particular incoherent form of argument by assertion.
You seem to be claiming by assertion:
1. That a critical view of Craig’s arguments will reveal them to be false.
2. That Craig’s arguments are not logically proved.
3. That Craig’s arguments don’t have evidence.
But you have no logical arguments or evidence in support of your claims.
Therefore you can’t claim your assertions are true.
You’re just committing the fallacy of argument by assertion.
And all you do is assert Carroll did not win. What is YOR logical basis for THAT?
Logical fallacy, argument by assertion.
You aren’t quoting any specific claim I made and then showing why I did not give valid logical reasons for my claim.
Your assertions about what you claim I did aren’t proven to be true just because you assert it did.
You will certainly find no such support for your claim in the post of mine you were quoting.
The only way Craig "wins" is if it is "logical" that cause/effect relationships cease at an arbitrary point (that point being at the will of the deity Craig so wants to be immune from logic).
You are engaging in the fallacy of non sequitur. There is no logical connection between your premises and your conclusion based on your argument.
It’s not clear what exactly you are trying to argue because it’s not logically coherent, but I’ll try to break it down:
Premise 1: Craig is arguing that cause/effect ceases at an arbitrary point
Premise 2: That arbitrary point is the creation from God of the universe.
Argument: Craig wins if he starts from his two premises.
Conclusion: Craig wants to be immune from logic.
I think what you meant to argue, but failed to do so in a logically coherent way, was that you think Craig is contradicting himself by trying to appeal to cause and effect up until the point of creation but then not saying God has to be subject to cause and effect.
That would be the closest thing to attempting a valid counter argument you have offered so far - even if your presentation of it was logically incoherent.
The problem with it is that it just comes out of you misunderstanding both what Craig is arguing and what the issue of the debate involves. I will explain why:
Craig has logically demonstrated that it is necessary that the cause of the universe’s creation must itself be uncaused and unbound by time. Because to do otherwise would violate logic by resulting in an impossible situation of actual infinite regressions of causes and time into the universe’s past.
Materialists don’t dispute this conclusion either. They recognize that you can’t logically have an actual infinite regression of the space-time universe. Which is why they are trying to find a model of how an eternal quantum existence prior to the space-time universe that doesn’t itself have to have a beginning point or is not logically contradictory by claiming to be both eternal and then changing to create the space-time universe. They haven’t been able to find one yet. Which is why they say they don’t know whether or not the universe had a beginning or was eternal.
And, in fact, materialists are also trying to argue for an uncaused causer with their attempts to find eternal models. They want an uncaused eternity to cause space-time to be created, becuse they know space-time can't be eternal. They just can’t find a workable basis for such an uncaused causer to exist under the confines of their materialistic worldview.
Therefore, when Craig says that God as the cause of the universe could not himself be subject to having to be caused, he is stating that as a necessary logical conclusion from what we know about how the universe works. Because the alternative would be a logical impossibility.
So, your personal incredulity about the idea of God being causeless doesn’t change the fact that we are forced to logically conclude He must have been uncaused because there is no logical alternative.