themoon, however you perceive Craig’s honesty or dishonesty regarding theological/philosophical approaches to physics, you have still failed to demonstrate that Craig’s biblical research is flawed.
Stoid commented:
Well, of course: Ascension Day! 
First of all, you have yet to demonstrate that he makes a “succession of small untruths.” In fact, you’ve presented only a handful of objections to Craig’s statements, which hardly qualifies as a presistent series of falsehoods. (Moreover, several posters have already shown that your objections are severely overstated.)
Second, some of your opponents are specifically trained in physics, and they clearly disagree with your evaluation. We saw g8rguy explain that he has a background in quantum mechanics, and other Straight Dope threads bear out that claim. As for myself, my education includes a Physics degree, and I used to be employed as a university Physics instructor. I don’t know that we would agree with every nuance of Craig’s claims, but we clearly dispute your claim that Craig has demonstrated abject ignorance of modern physics.
Third, should you really throw stones at Craig for (allegedly) stating these untruths? What of your deliberate claim that NO serious scholars believe that ANY of the gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke or John? What of your claim that they were ALL fourth- or fifth-hand accounts?
Fourth, even if Craig DID commit a series of small errors throughout his article (the only on which you’ve referenced so far!) does this really make him a deliberate liar? After all, even if we grant your claim that these were actual mistakes, you have yet to demonstrate that they were willful errors.
Fifth, even if everything he says about advanced cosmology is wrong, how does this invalidate his grasp of Biblical scholarship? As Chris said, please look up the “Red Herring” fallacy.
Sixth, I don’t think you’ve grasped the nuances of the argumentum ad hominem fallacy. It states that attacking someone’s person (e.g. by calling him a moron) does not invalidate his statements. After all, being a moron doesn’t necessarily make somebody incorrect on a particular matter. Similarly, being a liar doesn’t mean that everything that a person says is incorrect. Namecalling is therefore a piss-poor substitute for directly addressing somebody’s claims.
And finally, you specifically claimed that Dr. Craig was a liar and a moron. I know this is nitpicky, but… even if we grant the validity of your bizarre logic, it would merely show that he is either dishonest or mentally incompetent. It would still not prove that he is both, and so your claim would be incompletely proven at best.
What the heck. Just to be thorough…
themoon, let us assume that you have correctly evaluated Dr. Craig’s alleged “errors.” Let us also assume your mathematical analogy to be valid. (I say “assume” because it is clearly incomplete. A series of small, subtle turns will only build into a large, sharp one if (a) they are sufficient in number and magnitude, and (b) if they are made more-or-less consistently in the same direction. While you have vehemently asserted this to be the case, you have yet to present any evidence that it’s so – and in the process, have betrayed some serious misperceptions regarding the nature of science.)
Even if your assertions are valid, how does this amount to a willful deception? You assert that this was Craig’s “strategy,” which implies a deliberate attempt to deceive. Still, despite our frequent and persistent entreaties, you have yet to produce any evidence that this was so. (Remember: Impassioned assertions do not amount to evidence of any sort.)
If you do have any evidence that this was a deliberate strategy on his part, please produce it.
And while you’re at it, tell me what the whole helium-2 thing is about, will ya?
Stoid wrote:
I always hear: “Jesus: Underwriters Laboratories?”
After all, it’s important to know whether Jesus meets the standards for a safe electrical appliance.
Many critics of the NT have mentioned how the Gospels are likely to be altered or erroneous, based on the idea that the stories portrayed are third or fourth-hand word-of-mouth renditions of the original events. I have just finished reading an excellent book about the expedition to baffin Island (in Arctic canada), made by the elizabethan navigator Martin Frobisher, in 1577. The interesting thing was, Frobisher made 3 trips (looking for gold and the Northwest Passage); while doing so he encountered the native Inuit people. Almost 300 years later, the American explorer Hall travelled to the same islands, and found Inuit people who told him of the arrival of the English 300 years before!-and in almost exact detail! These Inuit had no writing system, so the memories of the encounter were passed from generation to generation, almost perfectly!
So, the fact that the Gospel accounts relied on oral transmission is no real bar to their truthfulnees!
And did the Inuit describe Frobisher as having walked on water, raised people from the dead, and caused a fig tree to wither by cursing at it?
Many critics of the NT have mentioned how the Gospels are likely to be altered or erroneous, based on the idea that the stories portrayed are third or fourth-hand word-of-mouth renditions of the original events. I have just finished reading an excellent book about the expedition to baffin Island (in Arctic canada), made by the elizabethan navigator Martin Frobisher, in 1577. The interesting thing was, Frobisher made 3 trips (looking for gold and the Northwest Passage); while doing so he encountered the native Inuit people. Almost 300 years later, the American explorer Hall travelled to the same islands, and found Inuit people who told him of the arrival of the English 300 years before!-and in almost exact detail! These Inuit had no writing system, so the memories of the encounter were passed from generation to generation, almost perfectly!
So, the fact that the Gospel accounts relied on oral transmission is no real bar to their truthfulnees!
And did the Inuit describe Frobisher as having walked on water, raised people from the dead, and caused a fig tree to wither by cursing at it?
(whoa – deja vu all over again!)
my arguement stands. You cannot attack the veracity of the Bible, solely because it may be based on oral narrative.If 12 generations of Arctic Inuit were able to remember and preserve such an event (the expedition of Martin Frobisher), then I can accept that oral accounts of Jesus(written down sometime during the 1st century AD)could be highly accurate.When CF Hall questioned these people, they were able to recount a battle between frobisher’s men and the inuit. They also described the loss of 5 of Frobisher’s party IN PERFECT DETAIL-their oral account agreed completely with Frobisher’s (and his companions) accounts!I daresy that this is nothing short of amazing!
You’re right – that is amazing.
It’s certainly more amazing than the Gospels, which contradict one another on many, many points.