Dr. Craig, Thanks for all you teach! What do you think about the big differences between current translations of the Bible (such as the King James Version) vs. the ancient Hebrew texts of the Bible? Are recent translations poorly translated?
God has done some very good work in creating a William Lane Craig… in creating the William Lane Craig. I’m not ashamed to say that Craig is a hero of mine.
Is it possible to have a talk with Dr. William Lane Craig? I'm a Student of Christian Philosophy and have an idea for a big cumulative argument with some premises from Dr. Craig. I would love to talk to him. Does anybody have an idea how to get in touch with him?
@@ReasonableFaithOrg the problem is that the Argument is very long because it combines various arguments. But thank you, maybe I'll write it down and send it. In the moment, the whole argument exists only in my head and in key words and fragments (on paper).
I think we're equivocating over the definition of the word "exists". We seem to be alternating between truth as defined by the correspondence principle, which assert truth a descriptions of what "exists", and truth as defined by the coherence principle, which asserts that something is true because it is consistent with a broarder framework of statements whether they actually exist or not.
There is a weaker version of the correspondence theory which doesn't assert that true propositions necessarily imply existence. For example, propositions of negative universal quantification, such as "There are no orcs," are not true in virtue of what does exist. They are true in virtue of what does not exist. In other words, "There are no orcs" is true because there are no orcs, not because there *are* snakes and doves and volcanos, etc. This is one of the big issues of the debate. The claim that the correspondence principle requires an existent referent is an implicit acceptance of the Criterion of Ontological Commitment, where quantifying over a singular term is taken to be an assertion of existence. But most people recognize that this is patently false (even if they don't know the technical terms). For instance, the sentence "The walk this morning was refreshing" quantifies over "walk" as a singular term. But scarcely anyone would insist that a "walk" is an object that exists. If we reject the Criterion of Ontological Commitment, we can affirm the obvious: that such a proposition is true even though the singular term is not an object that exists. And if this is so, then the main argument for Platonism has no force. - RF Admin
@@ReasonableFaithOrg wrote, "For example, propositions of negative universal quantification, such as "There are no orcs," are not true in virtue of what does exist. They are true in virtue of what does not exist. In other words, "There are no orcs" is true because there are no orcs, not because there are snakes and doves and volcanos, etc." I beg to differ. "There are no orcs" is false by virtue of what does exists. It's the same as saying that orcs are not included in the set of all things that do exist. So "There are no orcs" is also a reference to what exists, namely all things that exist.
@@mikejurney9102 That's simply not how reference works. References have intentionality, objects or concepts to which they refer. The proposition "There are no orcs" is about orcs, not other things which may or may not exist. According to the disquotational principle, the proposition "There are no orcs" is true if and only if there are no orcs, not because there are snakes and doves and volcanos, etc. - RF Admin
@@ReasonableFaithOrg The sentence "There are no orcs" does not refer to orcs; it refers to "no orcs", which refers to the state of existence just like any other reference.
@@ReasonableFaithOrg Recall from quantifier logic: ¬∃xA = ∀x¬A. If x is an orc, and A is existence, then the left side says, there is no orc that exists. And the right side says, all orcs are nonexistent. You seem to be stating the RHS, about nonexistence. I'm stating the LHS about what does exist.
High level stuff!
Dr. Craig, Thanks for all you teach! What do you think about the big differences between current translations of the Bible (such as the King James Version) vs. the ancient Hebrew texts of the Bible? Are recent translations poorly translated?
God has done some very good work in creating a William Lane Craig… in creating the William Lane Craig. I’m not ashamed to say that Craig is a hero of mine.
Is it possible to have a talk with Dr. William Lane Craig? I'm a Student of Christian Philosophy and have an idea for a big cumulative argument with some premises from Dr. Craig. I would love to talk to him. Does anybody have an idea how to get in touch with him?
He's currently super-busy completing his systematic philosophical theology, but we're happy to review your argument here, if you'd like. - RF Admin
@@ReasonableFaithOrg the problem is that the Argument is very long because it combines various arguments. But thank you, maybe I'll write it down and send it. In the moment, the whole argument exists only in my head and in key words and fragments (on paper).
Rob Koons is brilliant. Best contemporary Theistic philosopher and defender of Theism.
I think we're equivocating over the definition of the word "exists". We seem to be alternating between truth as defined by the correspondence principle, which assert truth a descriptions of what "exists", and truth as defined by the coherence principle, which asserts that something is true because it is consistent with a broarder framework of statements whether they actually exist or not.
There is a weaker version of the correspondence theory which doesn't assert that true propositions necessarily imply existence. For example, propositions of negative universal quantification, such as "There are no orcs," are not true in virtue of what does exist. They are true in virtue of what does not exist. In other words, "There are no orcs" is true because there are no orcs, not because there *are* snakes and doves and volcanos, etc.
This is one of the big issues of the debate. The claim that the correspondence principle requires an existent referent is an implicit acceptance of the Criterion of Ontological Commitment, where quantifying over a singular term is taken to be an assertion of existence. But most people recognize that this is patently false (even if they don't know the technical terms). For instance, the sentence "The walk this morning was refreshing" quantifies over "walk" as a singular term. But scarcely anyone would insist that a "walk" is an object that exists. If we reject the Criterion of Ontological Commitment, we can affirm the obvious: that such a proposition is true even though the singular term is not an object that exists. And if this is so, then the main argument for Platonism has no force. - RF Admin
@@ReasonableFaithOrg wrote, "For example, propositions of negative universal quantification, such as "There are no orcs," are not true in virtue of what does exist. They are true in virtue of what does not exist. In other words, "There are no orcs" is true because there are no orcs, not because there are snakes and doves and volcanos, etc."
I beg to differ. "There are no orcs" is false by virtue of what does exists. It's the same as saying that orcs are not included in the set of all things that do exist. So "There are no orcs" is also a reference to what exists, namely all things that exist.
@@mikejurney9102 That's simply not how reference works. References have intentionality, objects or concepts to which they refer. The proposition "There are no orcs" is about orcs, not other things which may or may not exist. According to the disquotational principle, the proposition "There are no orcs" is true if and only if there are no orcs, not because there are snakes and doves and volcanos, etc. - RF Admin
@@ReasonableFaithOrg The sentence "There are no orcs" does not refer to orcs; it refers to "no orcs", which refers to the state of existence just like any other reference.
@@ReasonableFaithOrg
Recall from quantifier logic: ¬∃xA = ∀x¬A. If x is an orc, and A is existence, then the left side says, there is no orc that exists. And the right side says, all orcs are nonexistent. You seem to be stating the RHS, about nonexistence. I'm stating the LHS about what does exist.
Wow, what a fascinating & complex topic. There is just a number of difficulties there.
Ehhh...see what i did there :p
🤣
Is anyone else amused by the video’s title?
Is there a dumbed down summary of Peter’s views? I really had a hard time following his views and arguments.