Posted: Jul 11, 2011 7:39 pm
Mick wrote:No, it does not state that. Nowhere does Craig use the modal idiom 'must'.
No, of course he doesn't. He doesn't say 'must have' he says 'has'. In short, it's argumentum ad rectum, with no evidential support.
The fallacy of composition is an informal fallacy: it is correctly applied only in certain circumstances an contexts. It's not always applicable. For instance, when i infer that a table is wooden because all of its parts are wooden, i make no clear fallacy of composition. In fact, it seems quite right, doesn't it?
Informal or not, it's still s fallacy. When applied to the cosmos (note the distinction between what Kraig is actually referring to and 'the universe') we are talking about an entity for which we can point to principles which apply to its constituents yet don't apply to the whole. For example, the limitation of c, which does not apply to cosmic expansion.
In any event, that's just one of the many fallacies your poster-boy is committing. The man's a fuckwit.