Ok, let's see what unprocessed discoursive sewage is rotting away in the in tray today, shall we?
Lion IRC wrote:[I say..."
I think the time machine scenario can be denied for the same reason as atheists reject the resurrection scenario."
And I get fisked with an atheist monologue about Einstein / Gödel ???
Well, if you were trying to object to this hypothetical scenario on the basis that it was purportedly
less likely than a magic event in which a corpse reanimates itself, I provided you with sound reasons why this view was false. Do you need to be spoon fed with the elementary concepts
every time?
Lion IRC wrote:When a theologian is presented with a historical event, they can reasonably consider all the possible explanations for what they are observing.
Except that theologians start with the presumption that their magic man exists, regardless of whether reality agrees with this presumption, and force-fit the data to that presumption. The world is full of practitioners of apologetics, trying to tell everyone that this process isn't a compete crock of shit.
Lion IRC wrote:Bible skeptics looking at the same historical event reject the Resurrection hypothesis on the grounds that they believe a
different explanation.
Actually, I think you'll find that they
reject belief itself. And for sound reasons.
Lion IRC wrote:Now, when the theologian is presented with a
different scenario under
different circumstances (pretend time machine) they will then STILL consider the possible explanations in exactly the same way.
In other words, "if it doesn't genuflect before my magic man, it's wrong".
Lion IRC wrote:"...Here I am sitting in a time machine looking at a tomb I thought would be open and empty. Why is that?"
Yes, it might change some people's previously held view but it might just as easily make them MORE religious.
The very action of being able to do something magical, supernatural, like travelling back in time might actually reinforce their belief that the dogmatic materialism of atheists cant be trusted
Yawn, yawn, yawn ... forgetting of course that it was the reliance of scientists upon materialistic theories that made the time machine possible in the first place. Just because a theologian can't be bothered spending ten years mastering tensor analysis and the finer points of general relativity, doesn't invalidate those disciplines. Reality isn't obliged to dumb itself down to the level of apologetics, and usually doesn't. As a corollary, said time travel isn't "magical" or "supernatural", if the hardware arises from hard empirical physics research. Do I have to tell you the banally obvious every time?
Lion IRC wrote:...that things are NOT always as they appear.
Except that in this instance, a group of scientists saying "here's a working time machine, which we've tested beforehand and demonstrated to be reliable and precise", promptly directing you to said piece of hardware, and demonstrating that it works, doesn't support this assertion of yours at all.
Lion IRC wrote:The time machine thought experiment can be de-constructed quite easily by asking the atheist exactly the same question in reverse.
If you travelled back in time and saw an empty tomb with the stone rolled away, would you then change your belief about the best explanation.
Except that in this instance, it's possible for human beings to have moved the stone. After all, they put it in place. At whch point, we need further tests before jumping to the conclusion that some magic event took place. You really don't understand how
proper discourse, and
proper critical analysis works, do you?
Lion IRC wrote:Some atheists might, but the strong atheist is ALREADY a bible skeptic despite knowing the
exact scenario they might expect to see sitting in their time machine.
Well, I've just cited a perfectly natural explanation for the repositioning of the stone. As I said, we need to eliminate
all of these before we can start thinking about magic.
Lion IRC wrote:They would look at the identical biblical events and STILL conclude...
*gee, I must be having an epileptic fit, a dream, a hallucination - this simply cant be true.
*gee, I must have dozed off while someone came and stole the body to make it look like a miracle...
*gee, there must be some weird parallel universe where time machines end up and reality plays tricks on your mind.
Oh look, it's strawman caricature time once more. How tiresomely familiar.
If you bothered to read the details of the premises of the hypothetical situation, the scenario has the time machine arriving
before the stone was moved, thus allowing the occupants to subject it to relevant surveillance. If the night shift picks up movement of the stone, but with no apparent material cause, then we could be in an interesting position. But once again, the time machine would presumably be equipped with relevant batteries of sensors for this purpose, allowing us to determine
if something strange is happening. The trouble is, as you have already been told repeatedly,
a negative result wouldn't change Craig's mind - he's already decided that his mythology's assertions are true, and no amount of real world evidence refuting those assertions will change his mind.
Plus, even if the stone has moved, you still need an absent body. A body still present is going to look a bit awkward for your mythology's assertions.
Lion IRC wrote:Somebody please tell Calilasseia to stop typing.
Oh look, it's the familiar spectre of supernaturalist hubris. You don't get to order me about in this manner. Suck on it.
Lion IRC wrote:Lion already thinks time travel IS possible and the time travel scenario thought experiment itself
presumes it is possible.
I was merely pre-empting any apologetics you might erect on the matter. Is this so difficult for you to understand?
Lion IRC wrote:So thats NOT what is being denied by the theologian as they are sitting in the time machine looking at one version of history unfold.
Trouble is, if the "theologian" in question is Craig, as you have already been told repeatedly, it doesn't matter, because he's already made up his mind that his mythology is right, and that when reality disagrees, it's reality that's wrong.
Mick wrote:Lion IRC wrote:Somebody please tell Calilasseia to stop typing. Lion already thinks time travel IS possible and the time travel scenario thought experiment itself
presumes it is possible.
So thats NOT what is being denied by the theologian as they are sitting in the time machine looking at one version of history unfold.
He is awfully verbose, isn't he? I tend not to read what he says.
It's why you don't learn anything, and keep posting fatuous drivel that's already been fed into the shredder.
Mick wrote:Nebogipfel wrote:All of which is completely beside the point, which is that Craig could apparently be presented with watertight evidence that his religious beliefs are, in fact, wrong, and he would
still maintain that they are true, because his inner conviction trumps reason and empirical evidence where those two are in conflict.
Not exactly.
Ahem, you've been provided with quotes from Craig himself, that demonstrate this in spades.
Mick wrote:For Craig, the experience of what he dubs the Holy Spirit is self-verifying.
In other words, what goes on inside the television inside his head, counts for more to him than empirically verifiable reality.
Mick wrote:For Craig, he can deny it no more than I can deny that I have a laptop in my lap and that I am typing this sentence.
Because once again, he thinks that the hologram being played out inside his skull cavity counts for more than reality. He's explicitly admitted this.
Mick wrote:Even in the face of great evidence, I doubt it would ever defeat my belief that I am indeed typing on a laptop.
Except that if you have a laptop sitting before you, and your fingers are pressing the keys,
belief is superfluous to requirements. How hard is this elementary concept for you to understand?
Mick wrote:This has nothing to do with my belief trumping reason, for my belief is reasonable given my experience
Except that what you have if there IS a laptop sitting before you and you're depressing the keys,
isn't "belief", it's
empirically verifiable fact.
Mick wrote:and likewise for Craig, or at least so he claims.
Except that Craig doesn't have empirically verifiable fact. All he has is the music of the spheres of his verbal diarrhoea, with which he hopes to keep hypnotising his gullible and uneducated fanboys.
Mick wrote:Bribase wrote:Mick and Lion, this is the most stupid apologetic I have heard from either of you. William Lane Craig had admitted a number of times that he is willing to stick to blind faith in the prescence of proof against his worldview,
Craig does not see it as blind faith.
That doesn't mean for one moment that his self-appraisal is right. Exactly how does "I don't care how much hard empirical evidence materialises, that refutes the assertions of my mythology, I will continue to regard my mythology and its assertions as true" NOT equal blind faith?
Mick wrote:I already addressed this.
Merely parroting the banally obvious fact, that Craig regards the contents of the television inside his head as counting for more than hard empirical evidence, doesn't "address" the issue, it merely brings into sharp relief that this is what Craig is doing.
Mick wrote:if you want to keep saying this, you'll have to address what i said.
I just did. "My mythology and its assertions are right, and no amount of hard empirical evidence refuting those assertions will change my mind" is the very
definition of blind faith.
Mick wrote:virphen wrote:As to Mick's claim that Craig does not see his faith as blind - well fine, I can accept he has had a personal experience or experiences that make him believe. But I have no doubt that whatever they might be, they can be better explained as being delusional in some way.
For the experiencer it'd be better explained as a delusion or for others who did not experience it?
In the absence of
reliable repeatability for multiple observers, regardless of their preconceptions on the matter, Craig's "experiences" are no more informative about the nature of reality than my seeing a six foot cockroach back in 1991.
Mick wrote:And it remains the fact that he says no amount of evidence would suffice to overturn his belief
No, this is wrong. Elsewhere Craig says that if the bones of Jesus were found, then he'd cease to be a Christian.
Really? So how does this square with his above answer to the time machine scenario, where he erects a statement that is at variance with this, namely, that he'd still regard the assertions of his mythology as true, even if he was taken back to the very spot and allowed to watch the non-event first hand?
Mick wrote:Likewise, if Jesus did not raise from the dead, then there'd be no Holy Spirit; and hence he'd know his experience was not veridical.
But in that hypothetical scenario, he would have
undeniable evidence presented to him first hand. Which he stated he would reject in favour of his mythology's assertions.
Mick wrote:Or if he believed a contradiction was shown in the concept of God, then he'd drop that belief.
Except that his magic man
is replete with paradox and contradiction, and he still thinks his magic man exists.
Mick wrote:So now you just need to show it, and that's the hard part.
Ahem, omnipotence and omniscience, as originally defined by supernaturalists,
are mutually contradictory.
Mick wrote: It is the very essence of reason that when evidence comes to light to show that you are most probably wrong, you accept it and change your position.
Craig would agree.
Apparently, he didn't in this instance. Plus, he's erected other statements demonstrating that his position consists of "if reality and doctrine differ, reality is wrong and doctrine is right". Allow me to remind you of this:
I think Martin Luther correctly distinguished between what he called the magisterial and ministerial uses of reason. The magisterial use of reason occurs when reason stands over and above the gospel like a magistrate and judges it on the basis of argument and evidence. The ministerial use of reason occurs when reason submits to and serves the gospel…. 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 the former which must take precedence over the latter.
In short, he thinks that discourse should be subservient to his mythology
always.
by 
The fact is, the question quoted in the OP assumes it works & so does WLC when answering the question. If you can't accept this simple fact, make your own thread where you can discuss the topic under your own terms.