Lady Atheist posted this over on her blog yesterday, and it caught my attention because... well, because it sucks. Thunderf00t, who in my humble opinion hasn't been worth subscribing to for a while, made a video positing an argument that is supposed to expose William Lane Craig's fallacious reasoning and prove that God couldn't have free will. Except, it's a shitty argument. I usually address bad arguments made by believers, but non-believers make crap arguments too, and this is definitely one of them. Here's the vid:
Thunderf00t seems confused about what the law of identity actually is. It simply means that something is itself. The example of two identical universes fails simply because being identical does not mean they are the same thing, any more than having a sibling with identical genetic material means that you are actually your own twin. In other words, you have universe A and universe B. They both possess identical properties and are for all intents and purposes the same – but they're still two universes, A and B. They just happen to possess identical properties. Obviously, this has absolutely nothing to do with free will. People could, out of sheer coincidence, make identical decisions out of free will in two identical universes, and it wouldn't change the fact that one is universe A and the other is universe B.
As I posted on Lady Atheist's page: The biggest problem with natural theology is simply that the principles
of logic are abstractions derived from our sensory experiences – i.e.,
from physical reality. There's no reason to assume that 'beyond' the
universe, the laws of logic ought to apply – and that includes deities.
That makes anything beyond the universe indeterminable and irrelevant to
our existence. As I always say: the only thing worse than a God who doesn't exist is one who might as well not exist.
In my view, that's really the best argument against anything WLC's got. And should anyone think otherwise, I humbly point them to this outstanding video: