Advocatus Atheist

Back in October of 2010, I wrote a polemical called William Lane Craig = King of Bullshit . I still stand by that observation. Even so, it is a hotly contested observation, because there are many many Craig fans out there. Even though I am a detractor of William Lane Craig, I suppose one would have to be a type of fan before one would be willing to bother rebutting WLC in the first place. In that sense, I too am a fan, but I happen to be willing to do what most WLC fans aren’t capable of doing—being critical of WLC. Regardless of how one engages in due criticism, I was recently criticized for offering “far more delusional bullshit” than anything WLC ever said.  In a recent attack on my article, I was informed that This post is unintentionally ironic, for it contains far more delusional bullshit than anything I've ever heard Craig say. I won't go as far as claiming you're 'lying,' for as an advocate of "science, reason and intellectual integrity," I won...

I don’t know, but it seems to me that Krauss offered a lot of good solid information. Meanwhile, WLC just stuck to his guns and did what he always does, spout off orthodox Evangelical conviction with that ever annoying constant appeal to authority. I mean, I already know what Christians think. I was one for three decades. Move it along. At the end of the day, however, I feel I learned more from Krauss than Craig. It seems to me most WLC fans are just taking the devotional tract and agreeing whole heartedly with Craig because he is simply reaffirming what they already purport to believe. Besides this, I think much of what Krauss was saying may have gone over many audience member's heads. For example, Krauss' comment that infinity adds up to a finite number seems to have been lost on most people. Certainly Craig seemed to be unaware of the implications, and how it renders his A theory of time argument to establish a first cause moot, as he let it slide. Or maybe Cra...

The Argument from Entropy Initially I conceived the argument from entropy as a contra-argument to the Kalam cosmological argument. Also, logically speaking the argument from entropy is backed by real observation, and is based on the second law of thermodynamics, hence the argument from entropy. But what is it exactly? The argument from entropy is: 1.      God created everything (including life) 2.      Entropy is certain 3.      Entropy will extinguish all life 4.      God has the power to prevent entropy, but doesn’t 5.      A God of love would prevent entropy 6.      Therefore God cannot be a loving being Here we see that, logically speaking, entropy rules out a loving creator God. Even so, it is true that some deity may still be responsible for having created a universe capable of supporting life, but only insofar as this fulfills his ultimate purpose to, subse...

Most of what comes out of William Lane Craig's mouth is purely fantasy invented by William Lane Craig. When a person engages in serious discussions of heavy philosophical topics to boldly say whatever fantastically inspired puerile nonsense which he can conjure up without a moments thought, he is practicing  the Philosophy of Nonsense, which is just another way of saying: bullshit . William Lane Craig is the king of the bullshitters. He even has a degree in Theology Bullshit.  And that's why I don't care about anything Craig has to say. Half the time what he says is painfully incoherent, the other half it is simply mad ravings of a delusional bullshitter. But you don't have to take my word for it. Now that we know William Lane Craig is a compulsive liar, consider this following quote by Craig: “ Should a conflict arise between the witness of the Holy Spirit to the fundamental truth of the Christian faith and beliefs based on argument and evidence, then it is t...

The Problem With Kalam Kalam, or more formally the Kalam cosmological argument as presented by the Christian theologian William Lane Craig states: 1.      The Cosmological Argument from Contingency The cosmological argument comes in a variety of forms. Here’s a simple version of the famous version from contingency: 1.  Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause. 2.  If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God. 3.  The universe exists. 4.  Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence (from 1, 3). 5.  Therefore, the explanation of the universe’s existence is God (from 2, 4). Now this is a logically airtight argument. That is to say, if the premises are true, then the conclusion is unavoidable. It doesn’t matter if we don’t like the conclusion. It doesn’t matter if we have other objections to God’s existenc...