Gish Gallop?

- Really? Where did I do that?

Dear AJ Philips,
You probably know the saying, 'if the hat fits, wear it.'

Graham is suggesting you tried the hat on and decided for yourself to own it. Have a look at what you said last Friday.

I had never heard of the 'Gish Gallop' either. I think it is a debating tactic sometimes referred to as 'elephant hurling'. And I think if Dawkins is half as smart as people make him to be, he should be sufficiently capable to counter such tactics.

But I don't think anyone is accusing Craig of needing to use this tactic. As Madeleine has pointed out, Dawkins reasons for avoiding the debate with Craig are other than this.

Ah Dan. Boy do I have a new-found respect for you after the events of this thread!

<<You probably know the saying, 'if the hat fits, wear it.'>>

The problem is, Dan, that the hat didn't actually fit. Trav even gave it a little tug just to make sure, but no joy.

And now, despite me showing - on more than one occasion - that no Gish Gallop technique was employed, Graham has dug himself in even further by claiming that I had actually "outed" myself somehow.

<<Graham is suggesting you tried the hat on and decided for yourself to own it. Have a look at what you said last Friday.>>

Yes. Did you see what I explained to Trav on Monday?

Graham had asked me to state what I thought were the problems with Craig's arguments so I told him. I could have extended my response out to another post and bombarded him with the details of each and every fallacy in the Kalam Cosmological Argument - giving him a hell of a lot to respond to - but instead, I simply offered to go into further detail if he so desired.

As I was typing my response to Graham, he posted a nasty little attack in which I then posted another response to clear-up his claim (that he had now made twice) that I didn't understand the video I linked to.

So there you have it. Not the slightest trace of the "Gish Gallop" - even if we were to extend it to factual arguments.

I have been nothing but honest, forthright and factual so far and my adversaries are yet to show any of these qualities.

It’s quite telling, if you ask me.

Squeers.
I am still not quite convinced that idealism preceds materialism. I may have not read your last reply correctly, if I haven't I apologise, but if I did, it still begs the question of where does idealism's "inspiration" come from? What I mean is, when "ideals" or "things" are posited through an idealist paradigm, what is the cause of those "ideals" or "things" originating?
This was the criticism Nietzsche had of Schopenhauer's philosophy. Schopenhauer described "the Will" as the "thing in-itself" (the Kantian noumena). "The Will," as described by Schopenhauer, was a striving force that perpetually strove to achieve satisfaction without resolve. Human beings, those who are embodied of "the Will," are forever in conflict and never attain lasting satisfaction because "the Will" simply does not stop striving. Schopenhauer's error here is that of borrowing terms and concepts from the phenomenal world to describe the noumenal world. In other words, he borrows from the material to explain the ideal. This criticism seems to apply to the majority, if not all, idealisms. Because, when we deconstruct the concepts that forms an idealist philosophy, they eventually point to concepts derived from the phenomenal/physical/material world. What I mean to say is, words signify "things" that someone has perceived somewhere, sometime.

Aristocrat:
<I am still not quite convinced that idealism preceds materialism>

Gawd, I'm not either!
But to clarify, it's not that idealism precedes materialism, but that it sublates it. The concept of will to power seems naive in the postmodern context, suggesting an untrammelled ontology that belongs to primitive times, if it ever existed, rather than to our sophisticated symbolic order, which permits only of parodic will to power. Nietzsche's superman would have to be super indeed to rise above this neurotic milieu.

<Human beings, those who are embodied of "the Will," are forever in conflict and never attain lasting satisfaction because "the Will" simply does not stop striving>
This perhaps explains Schopenhauer's notorious negativity--similar to Freud. Herbert Marcuse, trying desperately to make sense of Marx's "species being", more optimistically decided that the driving force was "potential", not trying to define it further.
The important point, I would argue, is that all these thinkers, after Hegel, are intent upon ascribing volition to natural causes, and their solutions are ingenious, though ultimately found wanting and superseded by progressively more modest assessments--each another Copernican revolution. This has now reached a point of such reductio ad absurdum that science can no longer defend its diminishing position; consciousness seems to transcends its physical containment. This may well be ultimately disproved, but the point is that it's time to stop insisting that the answer "must" be material, as if we are in a position to rule anything out!
<words signify "things" that someone has perceived somewhere, sometime>
I beg to differ. I presume you're familiar with Derrida:
http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/fr/derrida.htm
Paradoxically, what Derrida ultimately proves, for mine (and I suspect for him), is that consciousness is not reducible to language, albeit it is steeped in it, whereas empiricism is.

Madeleine claims that a cursory view of Craig's work would show that he's not a creationist.

However, Dawkins can easily justify his statement that Craig is a creationist (if he's looking for reasons to avoid a debate with Craig.)

Craig is a 'creationist' (anyone might say) because he is a Reformed Christian. And Reformed theologians believe the Bible is authoritative.

And we read in the Bible, for example:

Genesis 1:1 (page 1 of the Bible)

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. (KJV)

Or in other words,

Au commencement, Dieu créa le ciel et la terre. (Bible Semeur)

I'd put it here in Greek and Hebrew if the fonts would allow it. It would still say the same thing.

Or here's another good one: Jesus' own words, according to Matthew 19:4,

- Have you not read that the creator at the beginning male and female he made them ?

And I think Dawkins has read these parts of the Bible. And Dawkins would be correct in his interpretation.

And I can understand why Dawkins would want to avoid a debate with a creationist. He would be wise to.

If Dawkins wants to win world domination for atheism over all of the world's religions, then he'll play the game tactically and be very selective over whom, when and where he debates.

But if he wants to try and advance the progress of scientists, philosophers, and humanity in general forward in the direction of truth, then he would be more open to discussion and debate in good faith with all significant parties relevant to his field of concern.

That he currently shows more interest in the former than the latter reveals he's not as confident in his stated position as his brashness pretends.