If you know anyone who's been falsely DMCA'd by William Lane Craig collaborator John Leonard, otherwise known as drcraigvideos, please contact @thunderf00t.
2c) Just because many cultures disagree about particular ethics, does not mean that there are no objective moral values. Indeed, all of those cultures agree that objective moral values exist; they just disagree about certain ones. Again, with the illustration of color: If I say that color exists, you cannot disprove that by saying that people often disagree about colors like indigo or turquoise, since all those people still affirm that color exists.
@Mentat1231 Colour is a matter of physics, basically. It's empirical. You can't use that example to prove the existence of some over-arching morality.
Wavelength is a matter of physics. Color isn't. Color is empirically verifiable only in the sense that we can confirm that almost everyone perceives it. In other words, color can be said to exist objectively, because there is something there which we all perceive, even if we disagree about some shadings. Craig is saying that morals exist objectively in the same way. When rape occurs, those of us with well-functioning brains should be outraged.
@Mentat1231 And where is the objective authority that states a well-functioning brain should be outraged by rape beyond you simply SAYING it's an outrage? You've moved the goalposts by qualifying a particular moral response as the property of a "well-functioning" brain, which is itself a matter of some objectivity, and allows you to ignore all dissent as presumably "ill-functioning".
But, historically speaking, every code of ethics/Law has forbidden certain things (like rape, murder, and theft). Granted, these have had slightly different "shadings" as to what constituted "murder" or "rape", etc, but that these things are generally wrong has been agree by every major society I can think of.
I'll admit that calling a brain "well-functioning" could be a subjective assessment, but it could also be based on commonalities among mankind throughout history.
Oh, and lest my appeal to what has historically been perceived as "moral" cause you to think that it is therefore subjective, I want to re-iterate my original point: Every society has perceived that morals really exist. They have disagreed about the "shades", but that there are such things as moral values and duties is an absolutely universal belief (until lately, among a few philosophers, that is; but then some philosophers are Solipsists, too).
@Mentat1231 If every living thing in the universe ceased to exist, things would still be the same colour. There is no analog to morality there. Furthermore, the extent to which people agree on colours (down to quite specific shades, on which basis appreciation of a great deal of art, for example, rests) is far greater than the extent to which they agree on morality.
There is indeed an analog to morality, if you formulate the analogy correctly. If light ceased to exist, then there would be no color. Color has to do with properties of light (and the perception of these properties); morality has to do with properties of the behaviors of sentient creatures (and the perception of these properties).
To elucidate the analogy further, consider that logic also would not exist, if there were no thinking beings; yet logic is objectively real.
On your point #2, there are several matters to address:
2a) He didn't say ALL atheists agree, but certainly some do. He often quotes directly from Richard Dawkins and others to support this claim.
2b) His statement that evil exists is an appeal to our senses, very much like saying that color exists. All humans with working ocular and cerebral appendages agree that color exists. We might disagree about particular hues and such, but the objective existence of color is hard to deny.
Continuing on point #1: Your second clip (with the analogy about your chocolate heart) is a red herring that has nothing to do with Craig's argument. A person who believes in the supernatural (like Craig) could offer many deductive arguments (as Craig often does) which could be falsified, if there were something wrong with the premises or the logical inference. So, your comparison to the unfalsifiable claim about your (unobserved) heart, is not actually analogous.
On your point #1: He never said that Shook's inability to prove the supernatural does not exist constituted proof that it did exist. He merely said that Naturalism (the positive statement that there is no supernatural realm) has to furnish some proof or positive argument, or else it is just blind faith. Contrary to this rather silly modern trend that Shook espouses, atheism/naturalism is not a default position like agnosticism. It is a knowledge claim about the Universe.
lol you should look up the Harry Enfield clip 'Women, Know Your Limits!" and use the Paul Whitehouse bit where he says "Good, so we're all agreed?" for your next load of rebuttal videos :D
aint no Craig like a bearded Craig cause a bearded Craig don't stop. I love this series. I humbly suggest using some clips from the movie "Friday" in future videos. You could probably get a lot of cool "Dayyyyyyum Craig!" type quotes.
@Th1sWasATriumph You have to learn to have a little patience on things!! Look at me, it took me three days to reply to your response, it'll most likely be filled with bad speelling errors or grammar due to the Russian frantic nature of quickly composing a response within a 2 to 3 day span! A good response needs at least a week or two!
So don't overwork yourself and hit William Lane Craig square where he deserves it in your NEXT video!
as soon as you can demonstrate or prove something supernatural exists, its not supernatural anymore, so by definition the only things that are supernatural are those that don't show themselves to exist. so the word "supernature" may as well be replaced with fiction. then these idiots can go around saying that they believe in fiction so that other people can tell them that if they believe its real then they shouldn't be calling it fiction and if they cant prove it they shouldnt believe it. ta-da!
why is everyone arguing about circumcision? i believe it helps. i'm glad i was circumcised. we cut or finger nails, our toe nails, and our hair don't we? wtf is the big deal? if the argument comes from the bible's instruction to circumcise then so be it. it works. the bible is not total bullshit. only 99% bullshit.
@lardo444 And that's just fine, if you think it helps. However you're failing on a couple of points:
a) foreskins don't grow back
b) the issue of whether or not it "works" ("works" in what sense?) should be left to the individual when they are old enough to weigh the issues, considering it's a surgical mutilation, not a haircut.
c) what if a religion was discovered that mandated the removal of earlobes at the age of three weeks (using a thumbnail)? Would that be ok because it was in a book?
and if you consider doing it at, lets say 20 years old, well good luck. i knew a guy in the army who was 21 when he did it, and it was a nightmare.
ear lobes don't harbor bacteria. don't be ridicules.
all i can speak for is myself, and i'm glad they paid a bit extra when i was young enough to feel no pain, no erection ripping open the wound, and a very easy body part to keep clean. sorry bro, but i disagree with you on this one.
@lardo444 Then that's a personal issue, isn't it? I'm very glad my foreskin wasn't stolen from me. It means I have a wonderfully sensitive cock, among other things. Are you REALLY saying that cutting it off without letting the child decide is ok just because there is a marginal, and often subjective, hygiene benefit? Surely if the benefit was that manifest all doctors would agree on it?
Let's try this: FEMALE circumcision. That happens. I don't believe it serves a hygiene purpose. Is that ok?
@Th1sWasATriumph again you are bringing up a ridicules straw man argument. female castration is totally different. it is done by barbarians to prevent their women from experiencing pleasure.
since i was only a few hours old when then snipped it i never missed it one bit.
we will never agree on this subject. so lets leave it at that. lets agree to disagree. i'm willing.
@lardo444 Strange. Those "barbarians" are doing it for reasons that are as justifiable to them as "hygiene" is to you for male circumcision. And hygiene is NOT the reason it is done, not in the main. That may be the reason given, as you are, to justify it being done against the will of a child; the reason is actually because it is interpreted to be mandated through the religion, for whatever reason was valid many centuries ago. NOT hygiene.
@Skindoggiedog Oh, for fuck sakes. In RELIGION, when practised for reasons dictated from scripture and so on, it is a matter of tradition. I'm not talking about people who decide they like it more, because I doubt many adults decide to get their infant children circumcised on the rationale of "Hey, in about 16 years girls are going to LOVE this cock!" It is a different issue to circumcision through religious rites.
@Th1sWasATriumph "I doubt many adults decide to get their infant children circumcised on the rationale of "Hey, in about 16 years girls are going to LOVE this cock!""
That is one of the reasons it's done, although not rationalized in those terms, and it's not just about others seeing it, it's about anyone seeing it, including the child himself.
Of course it's a different issue to it being done as a religious rite, and I also don't agree with it being done to anyone without their consent.
@Skindoggiedog "Of course it's a different issue to it being done as a religious rite, and I also don't agree with it being done to anyone without their consent."
Good. I am really only concerned with it being done against will for religious reasons, which are seldom articulated as "your junk will look better" (which I don't agree with anyway, I love my foreskin).
If someone is old enough to make a decision themselves to have it cut, for whatever reason without external influence, fine.
@Th1sWasATriumph "I am really only concerned with it being done against will for religious reasons, which are seldom articulated as "your junk will look better""
I'm against it being done against someone's will for any reason, even if it is for aesthetics. Perhaps even ESPECIALLY if it's for aesthetic reasons, but that's a rather easy position to knock down.
Seems if you say 'it's part of my religion' you can get away with anything - including the mutilation of children's genitals.
@Skindoggiedog I'm afraid it's not. It HAS to lose sensitivity over time, otherwise it would be near-impossible to deal with the constant friction. If a sensitive area is exposed to constant friction from clothing, it will lose some sensitivity.
@Th1sWasATriumph Aye, you're right, I don't mean to say that there will be no loss - some sensitivity-loss is guaranteed through friction over time, as is the loss of at least one of the two typically most sensitive regions during virtually any male circumcision - but the whole 'circumcision is the removal of all the most sensitive parts' isn't accurate.
@Skindoggiedog I don't believe I subscribe to the notion of the "removal of sensitive parts" thing. It simply removes the skin COVERING the most sensitive part. And to be blunt, I've noticed a slight loss in sensitivity since I became a full-blooded sexual creature, and that's just through regular (or in my case, kinky as shit) sexual activity.
Well, there was a study done not that long ago and they'd poke the different bits and measure the yelps and apparently the very tip(?) of the foreskin was meant to be equally the most sensitive cock part but that was only using a certain type of .. pin-like prodding, and nothing to do with sexual stimulation.
haha @ kinky as shit
Glad you & co. are having fun with it. Don't wear it out! I hear you can get arrested for that ...
@Skindoggiedog As a man with all of his dickbits intact, the glans is super yelpy. Far more so than the foreskin in terms of normal stimulation like touch.
That's right, ladies, Th1sWasATriumph is uncut and damn happy with it.
@Th1sWasATriumph Or, instead of 'isn't accurate', I should say 'hasn't been demonstrated' and that much of the recent study into this has been inconclusive and/or contradictory.
@lardo444 If you still had it, I guarantee your glans would be more sensitive, since it would not have had a lifetime of friction to dull the nerves. For starters. Maybe thousands of years ago getting cack infected under your foreskin was a real threat to health. It ISN'T NOW, it's practiced now largely through TRADITION. Another example: pork is reviled in Islam for entirely outdated hygiene reasons and the religion is simply not updated.
@lardo444 And did you know that, in Islam, you don't actually have to be circumcised? Clearly not a hygiene issue. More an issue of indoctrination and scriptural adherence, wouldn't you say?
@lardo444 - What you've just done is argue for something that removes thousands of nerves, including the most sensitive parts and has no provable medical benefits because you think it's more hygienic.
I'm sorry, but unless you're a slob your rationalisations can STFU and GTFO. Let's use your logic; We only need our large toe to remain balanced so we should snip off the rest to prevent grit and crud from getting blocked in-between the other toes.
@Leonis1989 matbe you didn't notice, but i'm done with the subject. i'm glad i was circumcised. end of story. i sincerely hope you and your foreskin have a peaceful day.
@God4you100 - You're glad? So what if your kids want their nipples ripped off? Or how about a belly button? I'd guess about 5 grand worth of surgery right there, so start saving.
You're no better than a creationists, ignore scientific research and just use half witted anecdotes.
While those doing the circumcision may think it is a good thing, I can pretty much guarantee that the individual getting circumcised without their consent doesn't think it is a good thing.
@RomansPwnedJesus Hardly my point. Millions of people view it as necessary, and as such it becomes a subjective issue no matter how barbaric I think it is.
@Th1sWasATriumph I was actually thinking of the very moment of circumcision. I only witnessed the one and he didn't enjoy it, but, yeah, I see your point.
AndromedasWake does seem to have lost all notion of time lately, I often wonder if perhaps he's gotten himself into some seemingly horrific telescope accident in Patrick Moore's backgarden and has gone all Dr Manhattan on us and no longer experiences time the same way we do.
Only a 30ft blue AW penis on Mars will prove this, but I think I am correct.
Doesn't he refute himself there? "You can't prove we weren't all spewed forth from a giant cock 5 seconds ago and you can't prove God and the supernatural. But you'd be crazy to believe the first thing..."
Science cannot indeed provide supernatural explanations for things like lightning, disease, volcanism, the Sun, the Moon, floods, drought and rainbows...
because science doesn't explain anything in terms of the supernatural. If it can be observed and measured it is by default not supernatural.
so, no... science can't disprove the existance of the delusion products of mythology other than to say... How much faith does it take to raise the temperature of 1cc of water 1 degree?
I'm so sick of Christians trying to use the brain-in-a-vat argument. It does absolutely nothing to help their case so I have no idea why they use it. Ideas which are inherently not falsifiable are essentially meaningless, and it makes me want to bash my head against a wall when people act like this proves something.
wow how many times do supernaturalists have to sink so low as to pretend to be suprised that naturalists are unable to falsify their unfalsifiable assertion? What feat of contradiction shall we preform next? How about I get married and remain single?
thats why science has THEORIES. Because you cant conclusively PROVE any of that. But you take some things for granted - like the person next to you not being an android.
@SezSays actually scientific theory differs from that in that scientific theories like evolution, gravity, atomic theory, etc, are all testable, reliable systems for explaning the naturalistic world.
@dangerouslytalented I'm referring in a general sense to the reason why its called a 'theory' instead of a 'fact'. That is because you cannot conclusively PROVE it.
@Th1sWasATriumph ...so you're just trying to confirm what i'm saying so you can get the last word in? or do you actually think you're saying something different?
@SezSays That is the difference as far as scientific theories are concerned. They ARE proven. Scientific theories are whole systems of explaining what is happening, all tested, verifyable, and coherent.
@SezSays "But you take some things for granted - like the person next to you not being an android." - No i don't. For example if you was next to me and said that i would probably punch you in the face for being so fucking stupid. It would be like a horrible invite to check that you was not a very shitty android that had not had any logic circuits installed..... Nothing funnier than punching a stupid android. I should know... i own a few, the stupid ones never see it coming.
you're quite angry at chairs. what have they ever done to you? perhaps you were mauled by one at a zoo? or gang-raped by a mob of them in a dark alley? :3
IMO, it was a good idea to use sundry, exceedingly absurd statements by Craig to strengthen the impression most of us already have, that Craig is nothing more than an intellectual clown.
@ConstanceShadow Damn, he does look like Jack White...plus he has mad guitar skills! Question....anyone ever seen him in the same room with Jack? Hmmm....makes you wonder, don't it?
By Craig asking for naturalism to substantiate itself, he is presenting a nonsense challenge. Naturalism is the basis by which all forms of substantiation can be framed. To say that people, who adhere to naturalism, cannot prove it is true, at most admits that no proof of any kind is possible. This does not bolster a case for God. It just bolster's a case for an incoherent world, where everything is equally possible. Naturalism, OUT OF NECCESSITY, is properly basic and nothing else is.
One note: you appear to be arguing that because people have different ideas of what is moral, this disproves objective morality. However, if something is objectively moral, then it if someone thinks it's moral or not don't matter; it just would be. Reasoning that there are different ideas on what is moral isn't going to cut it with WLC (or epydemic2020).
Note I do not support objective morality -- Craig's argument is wrong simply by asserting objective morals exist without demonstrating it.
@firefly4f4 Of course, it could be he's a moral intuitionist, in which case,*sigh*, the argument essentially becomes, "It's (not) moral because I just KNOW it's (not) moral."
@gamesbok Things like "sense" and "a brain" aren't welcome there.
Honestly, though, I don't understand how people can subject themselves to concentrated doses of apologium by going to Craig's channel, or even to the unrefined apologine commonly found in places like the venomfang substrate.
It's hard enough putting up with the small doses you get on channels like this, and these videos provide the antidote both before and after the toxins are presented.
I would argue that if god does exist then objective moral values do not exist. Here is my reasoning. God is (at least in his denomination) a thinking supernatural being. It has a mind, and therefore any morality that it states (or that is stated as coming from it), must therefore be subjective due to its mind. Without a god, morality can be judged by the effect it has on others. Things that generally improve well being and happiness are good, things that do the opposite are bad.
Craig is an artful dodger and a bullshitter, the worst type, he knows he's talking big crap but he keeps doing it for his own reasons what ever that might be.
Stop using moral relativism as a defense. There are people who believe that the world is a sphere, and those who think it's flat. Does this mean that we cannot know the shape of the earth? No!
@CosmicThinking The shape of the earth is a physical thing morals are rules guiding behavior between beings.
If no one existed the world would still be a sphere however if no one existed morality would not exist as it by definition involves two or more beings.
Shape would also not exist without minds. So the earth would have no shape whatsoever. I'm not making an argument for objective morality or anything, I am just saying that moral relativism is a piss poor position. Since you're apparently a nihilist, you should be agreeing with me.
@RPFS2008 Back to my original point, I was just saying that moral relativism is bullshit .For the same reason a simple difference in moral positions is not enough to make relativism true.
First Andromeda's Wake, and now you? Holy crap! I think I need to change my pants from all the wonder and excitement I've just spewed all over myself from pure joy. Glad to see you're back, and alive, and not at all bitter from your hermit lifestyle. Please keep up the good work.
His arguments sound like arguments my mom and I had when I was younger: I'd pick one word out of her argument and sidetrack the next 10 minutes trying to get her pissed off enough to stop talking. Worked pretty well.
WLC is a blowhard that has a fancy vocabulary and a basic understanding of Philosophy. What he seems to be trying to do is use Philosophy to prove scientifically his beliefs. I'm pretty sure it doesn't work that way.
WLC, like all apologists, relies on his audience to sit there in credulous, slack-jawed ignorance and not pause to follow his statements with an examination of what said facts would infer.
I actually have less respect for WLC then I do for, say, the likes of MysticalForest because he is being knowingly dishonest whereas they are more likely to be honestly ignorant.
WLC's "philosophy" is a colossal waste of time. The universe is not governed by our intutions, nor is it governed by Aristotelean logic. Centuries of science have proven this, yet Craig blithely plods on with his scholastic arguments which no philosopher who is not a theologian any longer takes seriously. It is not the job of reality to conform to our thinking. It is our job to make our thinking conform to reality. The only way to prove that anything is true is with empirical evidence.
The whole "cant prove" argument is just a bullshit intentional misunderstanding of Descartes Meditations 1-4 and Craig knows this. The bit on "P-Zombies" is even more dishonest. You want to know how you get from "I exist" to "the rest of the universe exists"? Reliability, prediction and verification.
For a man who claims a background in philosophy he has an astoundingly selective understanding of it. Listening to the utter fucking liar mangle logic makes me want to hit him with a copy of Wittgenstein's "On Certainty" tied to a tire iron. We then could have an argument as to whether my vicious assault on his head and neck is "Evil" or not.
This has been flagged as spam show
If you know anyone who's been falsely DMCA'd by William Lane Craig collaborator John Leonard, otherwise known as drcraigvideos, please contact @thunderf00t.
YOURINQUIRER 2 weeks ago in playlist William Lane Craig
2c) Just because many cultures disagree about particular ethics, does not mean that there are no objective moral values. Indeed, all of those cultures agree that objective moral values exist; they just disagree about certain ones. Again, with the illustration of color: If I say that color exists, you cannot disprove that by saying that people often disagree about colors like indigo or turquoise, since all those people still affirm that color exists.
Mentat1231 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@Mentat1231 Colour is a matter of physics, basically. It's empirical. You can't use that example to prove the existence of some over-arching morality.
Th1sWasATriumph 1 month ago
@Th1sWasATriumph
Wavelength is a matter of physics. Color isn't. Color is empirically verifiable only in the sense that we can confirm that almost everyone perceives it. In other words, color can be said to exist objectively, because there is something there which we all perceive, even if we disagree about some shadings. Craig is saying that morals exist objectively in the same way. When rape occurs, those of us with well-functioning brains should be outraged.
Mentat1231 1 month ago
@Mentat1231 And where is the objective authority that states a well-functioning brain should be outraged by rape beyond you simply SAYING it's an outrage? You've moved the goalposts by qualifying a particular moral response as the property of a "well-functioning" brain, which is itself a matter of some objectivity, and allows you to ignore all dissent as presumably "ill-functioning".
Th1sWasATriumph 3 weeks ago
@Th1sWasATriumph
But, historically speaking, every code of ethics/Law has forbidden certain things (like rape, murder, and theft). Granted, these have had slightly different "shadings" as to what constituted "murder" or "rape", etc, but that these things are generally wrong has been agree by every major society I can think of.
I'll admit that calling a brain "well-functioning" could be a subjective assessment, but it could also be based on commonalities among mankind throughout history.
Mentat1231 3 weeks ago
@Th1sWasATriumph
Oh, and lest my appeal to what has historically been perceived as "moral" cause you to think that it is therefore subjective, I want to re-iterate my original point: Every society has perceived that morals really exist. They have disagreed about the "shades", but that there are such things as moral values and duties is an absolutely universal belief (until lately, among a few philosophers, that is; but then some philosophers are Solipsists, too).
Mentat1231 3 weeks ago
@Mentat1231 If every living thing in the universe ceased to exist, things would still be the same colour. There is no analog to morality there. Furthermore, the extent to which people agree on colours (down to quite specific shades, on which basis appreciation of a great deal of art, for example, rests) is far greater than the extent to which they agree on morality.
Th1sWasATriumph 3 weeks ago
@Th1sWasATriumph
There is indeed an analog to morality, if you formulate the analogy correctly. If light ceased to exist, then there would be no color. Color has to do with properties of light (and the perception of these properties); morality has to do with properties of the behaviors of sentient creatures (and the perception of these properties).
To elucidate the analogy further, consider that logic also would not exist, if there were no thinking beings; yet logic is objectively real.
Mentat1231 3 weeks ago
@Mentat1231 Oh, correction: I meant that the definition of a well-functioning brain is a matter of SUBJECTIVITY, sorry. Long day.
Th1sWasATriumph 3 weeks ago
On your point #2, there are several matters to address:
2a) He didn't say ALL atheists agree, but certainly some do. He often quotes directly from Richard Dawkins and others to support this claim.
2b) His statement that evil exists is an appeal to our senses, very much like saying that color exists. All humans with working ocular and cerebral appendages agree that color exists. We might disagree about particular hues and such, but the objective existence of color is hard to deny.
Mentat1231 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
Continuing on point #1: Your second clip (with the analogy about your chocolate heart) is a red herring that has nothing to do with Craig's argument. A person who believes in the supernatural (like Craig) could offer many deductive arguments (as Craig often does) which could be falsified, if there were something wrong with the premises or the logical inference. So, your comparison to the unfalsifiable claim about your (unobserved) heart, is not actually analogous.
Mentat1231 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
Here we go again...
On your point #1: He never said that Shook's inability to prove the supernatural does not exist constituted proof that it did exist. He merely said that Naturalism (the positive statement that there is no supernatural realm) has to furnish some proof or positive argument, or else it is just blind faith. Contrary to this rather silly modern trend that Shook espouses, atheism/naturalism is not a default position like agnosticism. It is a knowledge claim about the Universe.
Mentat1231 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
lol you should look up the Harry Enfield clip 'Women, Know Your Limits!" and use the Paul Whitehouse bit where he says "Good, so we're all agreed?" for your next load of rebuttal videos :D
fistpounder 3 months ago
What was the cartoon? And was that Penn Jilette's voice?
IseeRightThrough2you 3 months ago
Haha mate I had forgotten just how funny and insightful you can be. Another great video.
rabbitpirate 6 months ago
In Craig's case he is a soulless android. For real
Nocturnalux 6 months ago
Cool video!
metalskinstudios 7 months ago
aint no Craig like a bearded Craig cause a bearded Craig don't stop. I love this series. I humbly suggest using some clips from the movie "Friday" in future videos. You could probably get a lot of cool "Dayyyyyyum Craig!" type quotes.
pentopia 7 months ago
I want to figure out how to do the saw thing
technicallyabsurd 7 months ago
@technicallyabsurd It's easy. But takes a while to get the hang of. A little like masturbation.
Th1sWasATriumph 6 months ago 3
A new Th1sWasATriumph video? Have the dead risen already?
tipoomaster 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tipoomaster "A new Th1sWasATriumph video? Have the dead risen already?"
I box of Viagra fell into the grave.
saintpine 7 months ago
AAhhhhahahaha Loved the dino and the volcano clip you did, that was fucking golden :D
AJenbo 7 months ago
If Craig is wearing that turtle neck to try and make himself look and smart and Sagan like, he's got another thing wrong. The colour. :L
tsimon1234 7 months ago
Willian Lain Craig is not gay
gamesbok 7 months ago
why such a rush for the next video... I mean 14 month, isn't that rushing things a little! we don't want some pitiful 3 min video!
;p
opaldragon75 7 months ago
@opaldragon75 It's finished and roughly 13 minutes long. But you got to be nice.
Th1sWasATriumph 7 months ago
@Th1sWasATriumph You have to learn to have a little patience on things!! Look at me, it took me three days to reply to your response, it'll most likely be filled with bad speelling errors or grammar due to the Russian frantic nature of quickly composing a response within a 2 to 3 day span! A good response needs at least a week or two!
So don't overwork yourself and hit William Lane Craig square where he deserves it in your NEXT video!
---
;p
opaldragon75 7 months ago
The display pic on your video looked like AronRa. I clicked... and was very disappointed it wasn't him.
8 people were disappointed this wasn't AronRa.
KaseyAkira 7 months ago
@KaseyAkira 331 people didn't give a shit I'm not AronRa.
Th1sWasATriumph 7 months ago 12
You should have the saw solo in your next bass video. Just like *POOF* bass gone. and *KILLER SAW SOLOOOOOOoooo*
happysplodie 7 months ago
as soon as you can demonstrate or prove something supernatural exists, its not supernatural anymore, so by definition the only things that are supernatural are those that don't show themselves to exist. so the word "supernature" may as well be replaced with fiction. then these idiots can go around saying that they believe in fiction so that other people can tell them that if they believe its real then they shouldn't be calling it fiction and if they cant prove it they shouldnt believe it. ta-da!
maikeru01 7 months ago
Naturalistically.
Did you mean "Naturally"?
TheNamelessCharacter 7 months ago
What WOULD your life have been like if Shatner hadn't made that Twilight Zone episode?
JesusCockInAllahAss 7 months ago
@JesusCockInAllahAss I'd have found some other actor and ridiculed their life work instead.
Th1sWasATriumph 7 months ago 2
Craig has the corpse of Aristotelian logic in his trunk...
niriop 7 months ago
"Supernatural" is essentially a meaningless term when applied to anything nonfictional. That is all.
bowlsallbroken 7 months ago
William Lane Craig is speaking on a pulpit, makes me wonder why he likes to juxtapose the role of an evangelical pastor and a philosopher?
philonous09 7 months ago
That...is not an office....that is a closet. Just saying. Awesome to have you back.
PaperSoapy 7 months ago
Internet says "Hi" ^-^
rrrandommman 7 months ago
why is everyone arguing about circumcision? i believe it helps. i'm glad i was circumcised. we cut or finger nails, our toe nails, and our hair don't we? wtf is the big deal? if the argument comes from the bible's instruction to circumcise then so be it. it works. the bible is not total bullshit. only 99% bullshit.
i'm just sayin.
peace.
lardo444 7 months ago
@lardo444 And that's just fine, if you think it helps. However you're failing on a couple of points:
a) foreskins don't grow back
b) the issue of whether or not it "works" ("works" in what sense?) should be left to the individual when they are old enough to weigh the issues, considering it's a surgical mutilation, not a haircut.
c) what if a religion was discovered that mandated the removal of earlobes at the age of three weeks (using a thumbnail)? Would that be ok because it was in a book?
Th1sWasATriumph 7 months ago
@Th1sWasATriumph it works on a sanitation level.
and if you consider doing it at, lets say 20 years old, well good luck. i knew a guy in the army who was 21 when he did it, and it was a nightmare.
ear lobes don't harbor bacteria. don't be ridicules.
all i can speak for is myself, and i'm glad they paid a bit extra when i was young enough to feel no pain, no erection ripping open the wound, and a very easy body part to keep clean. sorry bro, but i disagree with you on this one.
peace.
lardo444 7 months ago
@lardo444 Then that's a personal issue, isn't it? I'm very glad my foreskin wasn't stolen from me. It means I have a wonderfully sensitive cock, among other things. Are you REALLY saying that cutting it off without letting the child decide is ok just because there is a marginal, and often subjective, hygiene benefit? Surely if the benefit was that manifest all doctors would agree on it?
Let's try this: FEMALE circumcision. That happens. I don't believe it serves a hygiene purpose. Is that ok?
Th1sWasATriumph 7 months ago
@Th1sWasATriumph again you are bringing up a ridicules straw man argument. female castration is totally different. it is done by barbarians to prevent their women from experiencing pleasure.
since i was only a few hours old when then snipped it i never missed it one bit.
we will never agree on this subject. so lets leave it at that. lets agree to disagree. i'm willing.
peace.
lardo444 7 months ago
@lardo444 Strange. Those "barbarians" are doing it for reasons that are as justifiable to them as "hygiene" is to you for male circumcision. And hygiene is NOT the reason it is done, not in the main. That may be the reason given, as you are, to justify it being done against the will of a child; the reason is actually because it is interpreted to be mandated through the religion, for whatever reason was valid many centuries ago. NOT hygiene.
Th1sWasATriumph 7 months ago
@Th1sWasATriumph "it's practiced now largely through TRADITION."
A large part of it nowadays is for cosmetic reasons. A cut cock looks better to a lot of people - like it or not.
Skindoggiedog 7 months ago
@Skindoggiedog Oh, for fuck sakes. In RELIGION, when practised for reasons dictated from scripture and so on, it is a matter of tradition. I'm not talking about people who decide they like it more, because I doubt many adults decide to get their infant children circumcised on the rationale of "Hey, in about 16 years girls are going to LOVE this cock!" It is a different issue to circumcision through religious rites.
Th1sWasATriumph 7 months ago
@Th1sWasATriumph "I doubt many adults decide to get their infant children circumcised on the rationale of "Hey, in about 16 years girls are going to LOVE this cock!""
That is one of the reasons it's done, although not rationalized in those terms, and it's not just about others seeing it, it's about anyone seeing it, including the child himself.
Of course it's a different issue to it being done as a religious rite, and I also don't agree with it being done to anyone without their consent.
Skindoggiedog 7 months ago
@Skindoggiedog "Of course it's a different issue to it being done as a religious rite, and I also don't agree with it being done to anyone without their consent."
Good. I am really only concerned with it being done against will for religious reasons, which are seldom articulated as "your junk will look better" (which I don't agree with anyway, I love my foreskin).
If someone is old enough to make a decision themselves to have it cut, for whatever reason without external influence, fine.
Th1sWasATriumph 7 months ago
@Th1sWasATriumph "I am really only concerned with it being done against will for religious reasons, which are seldom articulated as "your junk will look better""
I'm against it being done against someone's will for any reason, even if it is for aesthetics. Perhaps even ESPECIALLY if it's for aesthetic reasons, but that's a rather easy position to knock down.
Seems if you say 'it's part of my religion' you can get away with anything - including the mutilation of children's genitals.
Skindoggiedog 7 months ago
@Th1sWasATriumph "It means I have a wonderfully sensitive cock"
The 'it removes and deadens all the sensitive parts' is largely an urban myth.
In frenulum-intact circumcisions, sensitivity-loss is negligible.
Skindoggiedog 7 months ago
@Skindoggiedog I'm afraid it's not. It HAS to lose sensitivity over time, otherwise it would be near-impossible to deal with the constant friction. If a sensitive area is exposed to constant friction from clothing, it will lose some sensitivity.
Th1sWasATriumph 7 months ago
@Th1sWasATriumph Aye, you're right, I don't mean to say that there will be no loss - some sensitivity-loss is guaranteed through friction over time, as is the loss of at least one of the two typically most sensitive regions during virtually any male circumcision - but the whole 'circumcision is the removal of all the most sensitive parts' isn't accurate.
Skindoggiedog 7 months ago
@Skindoggiedog I don't believe I subscribe to the notion of the "removal of sensitive parts" thing. It simply removes the skin COVERING the most sensitive part. And to be blunt, I've noticed a slight loss in sensitivity since I became a full-blooded sexual creature, and that's just through regular (or in my case, kinky as shit) sexual activity.
Th1sWasATriumph 7 months ago
@Th1sWasATriumph Ah, true. Yep yep.
Well, there was a study done not that long ago and they'd poke the different bits and measure the yelps and apparently the very tip(?) of the foreskin was meant to be equally the most sensitive cock part but that was only using a certain type of .. pin-like prodding, and nothing to do with sexual stimulation.
haha @ kinky as shit
Glad you & co. are having fun with it. Don't wear it out! I hear you can get arrested for that ...
Skindoggiedog 7 months ago
@Skindoggiedog As a man with all of his dickbits intact, the glans is super yelpy. Far more so than the foreskin in terms of normal stimulation like touch.
That's right, ladies, Th1sWasATriumph is uncut and damn happy with it.
Th1sWasATriumph 7 months ago
@Th1sWasATriumph Or, instead of 'isn't accurate', I should say 'hasn't been demonstrated' and that much of the recent study into this has been inconclusive and/or contradictory.
But anyway :)
Skindoggiedog 7 months ago
@lardo444 If you still had it, I guarantee your glans would be more sensitive, since it would not have had a lifetime of friction to dull the nerves. For starters. Maybe thousands of years ago getting cack infected under your foreskin was a real threat to health. It ISN'T NOW, it's practiced now largely through TRADITION. Another example: pork is reviled in Islam for entirely outdated hygiene reasons and the religion is simply not updated.
Th1sWasATriumph 7 months ago
@lardo444 And did you know that, in Islam, you don't actually have to be circumcised? Clearly not a hygiene issue. More an issue of indoctrination and scriptural adherence, wouldn't you say?
Th1sWasATriumph 7 months ago
@Th1sWasATriumph ok, i give up. you win.
have a peaceful stay.
lardo444 7 months ago
@lardo444 - What you've just done is argue for something that removes thousands of nerves, including the most sensitive parts and has no provable medical benefits because you think it's more hygienic.
I'm sorry, but unless you're a slob your rationalisations can STFU and GTFO. Let's use your logic; We only need our large toe to remain balanced so we should snip off the rest to prevent grit and crud from getting blocked in-between the other toes.
Self mutilation FTW!
Leonis1989 7 months ago
@Leonis1989 matbe you didn't notice, but i'm done with the subject. i'm glad i was circumcised. end of story. i sincerely hope you and your foreskin have a peaceful day.
God4you100 7 months ago
@God4you100 - You're glad? So what if your kids want their nipples ripped off? Or how about a belly button? I'd guess about 5 grand worth of surgery right there, so start saving.
You're no better than a creationists, ignore scientific research and just use half witted anecdotes.
Leonis1989 7 months ago
@Leonis1989 ok, you are correct.
fuck you very much.
have a peaceful foreskin filled life.
God4you100 7 months ago
nice video rejecting that ass clown, Craig
charlesfloyb 7 months ago
Fuck me you delay your videos more then Valve delays episode three!
TheNamelessCharacter 7 months ago
How do we prove that WLC talks through his ass? 6:43 right hand operation :)
Nice video and welcome back.
musicgeniusno1 7 months ago
While those doing the circumcision may think it is a good thing, I can pretty much guarantee that the individual getting circumcised without their consent doesn't think it is a good thing.
AnnRKey 7 months ago 3
@AnnRKey Unless they've been told it's a good thing for the formative years of their life. Sigh.
Th1sWasATriumph 7 months ago 2
@Th1sWasATriumph The Royal Dutch Medical Association officially views circumcision as a violation of a boy's rights.
RomansPwnedJesus 7 months ago 6
@RomansPwnedJesus Hardly my point. Millions of people view it as necessary, and as such it becomes a subjective issue no matter how barbaric I think it is.
Th1sWasATriumph 7 months ago
@Th1sWasATriumph i was just mentioning it because most people act as if viewing circumcision as harmful is a silly fringe view.
RomansPwnedJesus 7 months ago 2
@RomansPwnedJesus Only the people to whom it is mandated by their religion or culture. Which, sadly, is actually a hell of a lot.
Th1sWasATriumph 7 months ago
@Th1sWasATriumph I was actually thinking of the very moment of circumcision. I only witnessed the one and he didn't enjoy it, but, yeah, I see your point.
AnnRKey 7 months ago
How can you do that to a saw? 0-o
Like, holy fuck.
HomoCyborgZombie 7 months ago
wow!!! hand saw harmonics!!!??!! cool...
razrX 7 months ago
Nice comeback!
mrh3h 7 months ago
Craig gets pretty animated when he gets matrixy, like it's some heart-stopper.
Joerexia 7 months ago
I wonder how long it took Craig to shave off that horrendous beard
Joerexia 7 months ago
No wonder there are so many chairs when they are 'fucking' chairs. Were do you think little chairs come from.
mwildish 7 months ago
So is the answer 'I have as much evidence that i existed yesterday as I do that I exist at present, and that's enough for me, thanks!'?
professorimpossible 7 months ago
14 months? I'm going to beat it out of you!
japonizieify 7 months ago
Craig makes me want to untie my belly-button. WHeeeeeeeeeeezzzzzzzthfp.
THEHARMONIKZ 7 months ago
AndromedasWake does seem to have lost all notion of time lately, I often wonder if perhaps he's gotten himself into some seemingly horrific telescope accident in Patrick Moore's backgarden and has gone all Dr Manhattan on us and no longer experiences time the same way we do.
Only a 30ft blue AW penis on Mars will prove this, but I think I am correct.
TheAngryBum 7 months ago
WLC probably can't prove Unicorns don't exist, by his logic, that means Unicorns must exist.
OccamsView 7 months ago
Craig needs AIDS. Can someone please help him out with that?
combovermohawk 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@combovermohawk I'm on it...
JesusCockInAllahAss 7 months ago
Doesn't he refute himself there? "You can't prove we weren't all spewed forth from a giant cock 5 seconds ago and you can't prove God and the supernatural. But you'd be crazy to believe the first thing..."
JediVerse 7 months ago 14
I can't stand Craig's voice.
bustermk2 7 months ago
Matrix apologetics are sad sad sad
viridismonasteriense 7 months ago
Science cannot indeed provide supernatural explanations for things like lightning, disease, volcanism, the Sun, the Moon, floods, drought and rainbows...
because science doesn't explain anything in terms of the supernatural. If it can be observed and measured it is by default not supernatural.
so, no... science can't disprove the existance of the delusion products of mythology other than to say... How much faith does it take to raise the temperature of 1cc of water 1 degree?
DeathofSpeech 7 months ago
@officialtheowarner One-liner comments like you is ignoring scientific evidence so you make up a lie in your channel, fat boy.
thePhantomFrank 7 months ago
I don't know anything about CuriousMoth's mum, but the opening to this video certainly was retarded. The rest of the video was pretty good though.
TheNameIsUnimportant 7 months ago
William Lane Craig has some pretty fucked up logic.....
TheSpankymonkey 7 months ago 2
I'm so sick of Christians trying to use the brain-in-a-vat argument. It does absolutely nothing to help their case so I have no idea why they use it. Ideas which are inherently not falsifiable are essentially meaningless, and it makes me want to bash my head against a wall when people act like this proves something.
StevePinto3 7 months ago
wow how many times do supernaturalists have to sink so low as to pretend to be suprised that naturalists are unable to falsify their unfalsifiable assertion? What feat of contradiction shall we preform next? How about I get married and remain single?
GallusSapien 7 months ago
oh God at 7:40 - so atheism = solipsism now?
antonc81 7 months ago
Far out! His dishonesty makes my blood boil.
antonc81 7 months ago
thats why science has THEORIES. Because you cant conclusively PROVE any of that. But you take some things for granted - like the person next to you not being an android.
SezSays 7 months ago
@SezSays actually scientific theory differs from that in that scientific theories like evolution, gravity, atomic theory, etc, are all testable, reliable systems for explaning the naturalistic world.
dangerouslytalented 7 months ago
@dangerouslytalented I'm referring in a general sense to the reason why its called a 'theory' instead of a 'fact'. That is because you cannot conclusively PROVE it.
SezSays 7 months ago
@SezSays Also worth pointing out that "theory" to science means a very different thing to how the general populace understands it to mean.
Science: True until proven otherwise
Non-science: more or less equal to "hypothesis"
Th1sWasATriumph 7 months ago
@Th1sWasATriumph ...so you're just trying to confirm what i'm saying so you can get the last word in? or do you actually think you're saying something different?
SezSays 7 months ago
@SezSays That is the difference as far as scientific theories are concerned. They ARE proven. Scientific theories are whole systems of explaining what is happening, all tested, verifyable, and coherent.
dangerouslytalented 7 months ago
@SezSays "But you take some things for granted - like the person next to you not being an android." - No i don't. For example if you was next to me and said that i would probably punch you in the face for being so fucking stupid. It would be like a horrible invite to check that you was not a very shitty android that had not had any logic circuits installed..... Nothing funnier than punching a stupid android. I should know... i own a few, the stupid ones never see it coming.
TheSpankymonkey 7 months ago
Glad you're making videos again, I missed them *sniff*
BillKiernan 7 months ago
you're quite angry at chairs. what have they ever done to you? perhaps you were mauled by one at a zoo? or gang-raped by a mob of them in a dark alley? :3
blisterinthesun 7 months ago
Please, sir...may we have some more?
sonvolt48 7 months ago
IMO, it was a good idea to use sundry, exceedingly absurd statements by Craig to strengthen the impression most of us already have, that Craig is nothing more than an intellectual clown.
Praise be to your film-making skills!
Fav'ed
dewinthemorning 7 months ago
The Turtle Neck Sport Coat combination is objectively retarded.
HighPoweredLasers 7 months ago
Hmm Th1sWasATriumph reminds me of Jack White. He's like a British version of him with mad refutation skills
ConstanceShadow 7 months ago
@ConstanceShadow Damn, he does look like Jack White...plus he has mad guitar skills! Question....anyone ever seen him in the same room with Jack? Hmmm....makes you wonder, don't it?
sonvolt48 7 months ago
By Craig asking for naturalism to substantiate itself, he is presenting a nonsense challenge. Naturalism is the basis by which all forms of substantiation can be framed. To say that people, who adhere to naturalism, cannot prove it is true, at most admits that no proof of any kind is possible. This does not bolster a case for God. It just bolster's a case for an incoherent world, where everything is equally possible. Naturalism, OUT OF NECCESSITY, is properly basic and nothing else is.
alphacause 7 months ago
That's an office? It looks like a closet >.>
Otokogoroshi 7 months ago
Wow, I have seen you since that thing with your eye.
zombinekiller 7 months ago
Glad your back! love your vids :D
monty4088 7 months ago
Nice to see you back, great video too!
StanMarsh1 7 months ago
One note: you appear to be arguing that because people have different ideas of what is moral, this disproves objective morality. However, if something is objectively moral, then it if someone thinks it's moral or not don't matter; it just would be. Reasoning that there are different ideas on what is moral isn't going to cut it with WLC (or epydemic2020).
Note I do not support objective morality -- Craig's argument is wrong simply by asserting objective morals exist without demonstrating it.
firefly4f4 7 months ago
@firefly4f4 Of course, it could be he's a moral intuitionist, in which case,*sigh*, the argument essentially becomes, "It's (not) moral because I just KNOW it's (not) moral."
firefly4f4 7 months ago
I choose to believe that your heart is made of chocolate until such time as I see non naturalistic proof
squirrelywrath2 7 months ago
Ah, Craig how I've... missed you. "Well fuck...", indeed.
pinkdeath82 7 months ago
Interestingly, "Well fuck" are the exact words that come to mind every time I see Billy Craig's name.
EdwardHowton 7 months ago
@EdwardHowton I have been banned from commenting on Craig's channel. I feel honoured.
gamesbok 7 months ago
@gamesbok Things like "sense" and "a brain" aren't welcome there.
Honestly, though, I don't understand how people can subject themselves to concentrated doses of apologium by going to Craig's channel, or even to the unrefined apologine commonly found in places like the venomfang substrate.
It's hard enough putting up with the small doses you get on channels like this, and these videos provide the antidote both before and after the toxins are presented.
EdwardHowton 7 months ago
Paranormal Cragivity:D
Ignorantf00l 7 months ago
I would argue that if god does exist then objective moral values do not exist. Here is my reasoning. God is (at least in his denomination) a thinking supernatural being. It has a mind, and therefore any morality that it states (or that is stated as coming from it), must therefore be subjective due to its mind. Without a god, morality can be judged by the effect it has on others. Things that generally improve well being and happiness are good, things that do the opposite are bad.
Jonstern1983 7 months ago
I saw the real William Lane Craig just this morning - when I wiped my arse then looked at the paper.
BoneySkylord 7 months ago
I'm a minute in, and I'm taking a risk here, but damnit, you already earned my sub for making great use of a classic Shatner face.
pamew 7 months ago
@pamew
I used the classic Shatner face on the father of Craig's lies, the true creative source of Craig's mind blinding evil, Alvin Plantinga:
watch?v=eU-wpNOyuas
zarkoff45 7 months ago
@zarkoff45 There's an older, worse version of Craig?
Excuse me, I need to go drink myself into a comatose state.
pamew 7 months ago
@pamew "There's an older, worse version of Craig?"
Aye, there is, indeed, and it is his living dead arguments that still bather on in the mouths of men like Craig.
"I need to go drink myself into a comatose state."
I guess today was a bad day for you to stop sniffing glue.
zarkoff45 7 months ago
You have been missed.
Dark1777 7 months ago
I read "William Lane Craig" on the front page and I was like yay Th1sWasATriumph video
Pablothe 7 months ago
WLC is not a brain in a jar! You have to have a brain in the first place!
RadarKat73080 7 months ago
Craig is an artful dodger and a bullshitter, the worst type, he knows he's talking big crap but he keeps doing it for his own reasons what ever that might be.
ironhead696 7 months ago
When you need to delve into solipsism to justify your belief in a god (or anything) your argument is a big juicy fail.
RPFS2008 7 months ago
Are those cards you are holding MTG ?
Ihatemelee 7 months ago
Comment removed
RPFS2008 7 months ago
Great stuff... Did AW provide the voice for the newsreader?
Brascofarian 7 months ago
I lol'ed at the opening door
Ihatemelee 7 months ago
Stop using moral relativism as a defense. There are people who believe that the world is a sphere, and those who think it's flat. Does this mean that we cannot know the shape of the earth? No!
CosmicThinking 7 months ago
@CosmicThinking The shape of the earth is a physical thing morals are rules guiding behavior between beings.
If no one existed the world would still be a sphere however if no one existed morality would not exist as it by definition involves two or more beings.
Nihilist127 7 months ago
Shape would also not exist without minds. So the earth would have no shape whatsoever. I'm not making an argument for objective morality or anything, I am just saying that moral relativism is a piss poor position. Since you're apparently a nihilist, you should be agreeing with me.
CosmicThinking 7 months ago
@CosmicThinking
The Earth was a "sphere" before life existed on it. Moral concepts did not exist before life existed on it.
RPFS2008 7 months ago 2
@RPFS2008 What are you talking about? Sphere and all shapes are inventions of the mind.
CosmicThinking 7 months ago
@CosmicThinking
Obviously ALL words are inventions of the mind. What's your point?
RPFS2008 7 months ago
@RPFS2008 Back to my original point, I was just saying that moral relativism is bullshit .For the same reason a simple difference in moral positions is not enough to make relativism true.
CosmicThinking 7 months ago
@CosmicThinking
"There are people who believe that the world is a sphere, and those who think it's flat."
And both are wrong, one set would be more wrong than the other though.
ytmoog 7 months ago
The turtleneck makes me hate him even MORE
Mulholland107 7 months ago
Is WLC completely unaware that he had his ass handed to him by Kant over 200 years ago?
SofaKingLoaded 7 months ago
First Andromeda's Wake, and now you? Holy crap! I think I need to change my pants from all the wonder and excitement I've just spewed all over myself from pure joy. Glad to see you're back, and alive, and not at all bitter from your hermit lifestyle. Please keep up the good work.
Anqueetus 7 months ago 12
His arguments sound like arguments my mom and I had when I was younger: I'd pick one word out of her argument and sidetrack the next 10 minutes trying to get her pissed off enough to stop talking. Worked pretty well.
WLC is a blowhard that has a fancy vocabulary and a basic understanding of Philosophy. What he seems to be trying to do is use Philosophy to prove scientifically his beliefs. I'm pretty sure it doesn't work that way.
XandarsMeteor 7 months ago
WLC, like all apologists, relies on his audience to sit there in credulous, slack-jawed ignorance and not pause to follow his statements with an examination of what said facts would infer.
I actually have less respect for WLC then I do for, say, the likes of MysticalForest because he is being knowingly dishonest whereas they are more likely to be honestly ignorant.
notinmyname2050 7 months ago
5:20 is brilliant.
reasonformirrors 7 months ago
is craig a solipsist? 6:40 sounds like it; if so, he is dumber than i ever imagined
nailo1 7 months ago
Fuck you, from now on you have to do 2 vids each week.
mortemdei 7 months ago
YAY TWAT IS BACK
Coughlan616 7 months ago
Missed you dude, Glad your back with the Craig Pwning and such like
CarolineATRC 7 months ago
been a while? yes sir... it has been a while.
prowled 7 months ago
WLC's "philosophy" is a colossal waste of time. The universe is not governed by our intutions, nor is it governed by Aristotelean logic. Centuries of science have proven this, yet Craig blithely plods on with his scholastic arguments which no philosopher who is not a theologian any longer takes seriously. It is not the job of reality to conform to our thinking. It is our job to make our thinking conform to reality. The only way to prove that anything is true is with empirical evidence.
jackfrombaltimore 7 months ago
OMG a new Vid from Triumph
quote55 7 months ago
And as usual Craig fails to understand the logical fallacy of shifting of the burden of proof.
bobster451 7 months ago
Craig is another religious asshat not worthy of your attention...
bobster451 7 months ago
The whole "cant prove" argument is just a bullshit intentional misunderstanding of Descartes Meditations 1-4 and Craig knows this. The bit on "P-Zombies" is even more dishonest. You want to know how you get from "I exist" to "the rest of the universe exists"? Reliability, prediction and verification.
Urchak 7 months ago
For a man who claims a background in philosophy he has an astoundingly selective understanding of it. Listening to the utter fucking liar mangle logic makes me want to hit him with a copy of Wittgenstein's "On Certainty" tied to a tire iron. We then could have an argument as to whether my vicious assault on his head and neck is "Evil" or not.
Urchak 7 months ago
Oh geez, huge logic fail 4:26.
P = Gawd Exists
Q = Objective Moral Values Exist
Not(P) -> Not(Q)
Q
(According to Craig)
Therefore P.
NO. No no no no no no no no. Logical implication does NOT work that way.