urbanelf Likes to Lie about William Lane Craig

[emailpobox666]

Dr Craig admitted he would ignore evidence against Christianity in favor of the witness of the Holy Spirit

[emailpobox666]

William Lane Craig is dishonest. I can not fathom why you would defend such an individual

[antybu86]

Craig clearly said that we (humans) cannot predict what God would do if he existed. I'm not exactly sure what your issues is here.

[rationalresponseguy]

@antybu86 You're not too sure about anything these days, antyboob.

[Theophage]

Dr. Craig said, "How could we, with any confidence, predict what God would do if He existed?" Which is exactly the same as "we can't know what God would do if He existed", just placed in the form of a rhetorical question instead of a statement.

It seems to be crystal clear to everyone but you, RRG.

I think you're the one with the problem listening to people.

[rationalresponseguy]

@Theophage Actually Dr. Craig said, "But who says that God has to fulfill *our expectations*? How could we, with any confidence, predict what God would do if He existed?" That's not the same as "If God existed, we can't know what He'll do", genius. You forgot to put in the part where Craig talks about fulfilling OUR EXPECTATIONS.

It seems to be crystal clear you're biased, Theophage.

Like urbanelf, I think you're the one with the problem listening to people.

[Theophage]

@rationalresponseguy The first sentence about fulfulling expectations doesn't chang ethe second sentence. And yes, the second sentence is that same as UrbanElf said, just in the form of a rhetorical question rather than a statement.

It has nothing to do with bias, that is a plain understanding of what was said. Stamp your feet all you'd like, it doesn't change that. You're simply wrong, RRG.

[rationalresponseguy]

@Theophage They're not the same rhetoric, Theophage. I'm sorry you can't see the difference between "If God exists, He won't necessarily fulfill our expectations" and "If God exists, we can't ever know what He'll do." It's just common sense that there's obviously a difference. And like urbanelf, you took Craig out of context. And all you're doing now is damage control.

[Theophage]

@rationalresponseguy Except that I'm not talking about that sentence, I'm talking about the one following it. Ignoring that sentence doesn't make it go away.

The two sentences are related, sure. Not being able to know what God would do is related to God not fulfilling our expectations, especially when those expectations are about what He would do. But both of those sentences are in the context of arguments about how we can know God exists by observing what God would do.

[Theophage]

(cont'd) What amuses me is that here I have only said that you are wrong, and tried to explain why.

What you have done is say that I am wrong AND call me a sarcastic name (genius) AND try to ascribe some ulterior motive to me (damage control).

Why would you do this if I am simply wrong about you being wrong? Why the hostility?

[drcraigvideos]

@Theophage "It seems to be crystal clear to everyone but you, RRG." Speak for yourself! You missed the distinction between God fulfilling our expectations and knowing what God will do. RRG is right. There's a difference between "If God exists, He won't necessarily fulfill our expectations" and "If God exists, we can't ever know what He'll do." Urbanelf took Dr. Craig out of context... deliberately!

[Theophage]

@drcraigvideos There isn't any distinction between the two things.

What is their context? Their context is arguments about God's existence through knowing what God would do. Craig isn't just talking about any old expectations, like I'm expecting God to give me a pony, he's talking about specific expectations of What God would do given situation X.

You guys keep focusing only on that one sentence spoken, and not the one directly after. I think you two are the ones taking it out of context.

[Theophage]

Also drcraigvideos, it seems that when you start out a comment with a direct quote, YouTube flags that comment as spam. Try to avoid that in future comments.

[drcraigvideos]

@Theophage RRG actually quoted the sentence you didn't bother quoting, because he wanted to put things in context. If you watch the video Craig was speaking of "our expectations". Sorry, you can't deny the evidence when it's right in front of your face.

[Theophage]

@drcraigvideos Our expectations of what, DCV? According to the context of his speech, our expectations of what?

Again, the first sentence is irrelevant, it is the second sentence that RRG didn't quote that makes all the difference. That sentence is exactly what urbanelf said, rephrased into a rhetorical question. Why would Craig have included that sentence if the first sentence meant something totally different?

[drcraigvideos]

@Theophage "Our expectations of what, DCV?" Our expectations in general. If I said I expect God to give me a billion dollars in the next three seconds, and He doesn't do it, that's a far cry from saying "I have absolutely no idea what God will ever do." God has fulfilled our expectations in the past. He often reveals it too. As RRG correctly mentioned, God fulfilled the Jews' expectation for a coming Messiah. Expecting God to fulfill our expectations isn't the same as knowledge of what He'll do.

[Theophage]

@drcraigvideos You talk about us taking him out of context, and yet that is exactly what you are doing there. No, "expectations in general" is not the context of Dr. Craig's statement, he was speaking of very specific expectations.

I agree with you that "expectations in general" is a far cry from not knowing what God would do, except that isn't the context of Craig's quote.

Again, you seem to be the only one that doesn't see that. Is it simply impossible that you are wrong?

[ChiefRepublic]

@Theophage "You guys"? You do realise drcraigvideos and rationalresponseguy are the same dude, right.?

[Theophage]

@ChiefRepublic I suspect they are, but I don't know if it is supposed to be a secret (hey look, he agrees with me!) so I was willing to play along. I honestly don't know why people bother with sockpuppets.

[drcraigvideos]

@ChiefRepublic Is that the rumor now? People have said I was actually William Lane Craig himself! But no. I'm not Dr. Craig and I'm not rationalresponseguy.

[rationalresponseguy]

@ChiefRepublic You're an idiot, ChiefRepublic. This is a rumor smpunditz has been trying to spread. Sorry to disappoint but I'm not drcraigvideos.

[ChiefRepublic]

@rationalresponseguy It was not smpunditz who told me... I'm not gonna mention his name but another youtube user made an excellent video exposing you. He showed how similar the font and colour you used in the videos were and a lot of other features but most damningly he tracked your protocols to the same state in the U.S (completely legally btw). It could be a coincidence but I doubt it.

[rationalresponseguy]

@ChiefRepublic The same type of font? So since I use the same font as drcraigvideos therefore I'm him? Well, you got me there, Chief. Since I believe in God, and drcraivideos believes in God, I'm therefore him! Since I end my sentences in periods and drcraivideos ends his sentences in periods, therefore I'm him! Muwa-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!

[urbanelf]

@drcraigvideos DCV, I have yet to hear either you nor RRG to explain the difference. Dr. Craig actually asks, "How can we predict with any certainty what God would do if He existed?"

[Theophage]

@urbanelf They won't, because it kills their case.

I'm surprised you focused on that first sentence as long as you did without bringing up the second one.

[urbanelf]

@Theophage I totally forgot until I read your comment!

[rationalresponseguy]

@urbanelf Of course you forgot, it's because you have short-term memory. The truth is you wanted to hear something else from Dr. Craig but you didn't. Realizing that (thanks to me) you're now trying to do damage control for your goof.

[urbanelf]

@rationalresponseguy I was speaking to Theophage regarding Craig's rhetorical question where he implies that we can't predict what God would do if he existed.

[rationalresponseguy]

@Theophage I'm just trying to be fair with Dr. Craig. You just want to lie about him, Theophage. When I caught you deliberately taking Dr. Craig out of context when you clearly quote-mined him, you and urbanelf started crying like a baby that I caught you for deliberately not putting it in context. I'm trying to help you, Theophage.

[Theophage]

@rationalresponseguy I appreciate that you are trying to be fair. But no, I have no desire to lie about anyone.

The fact that you immediately jump to hostile speech and accuse people of lying when they simply may be wrong tells me that you aren't interested in what is true, you are only interested in denying ever being wrong. It's kind of sad.

Frankly, we've said all there is to say about this subject. Going back and forth with "yes it is" "no it isn't" isn't adding anything new.

[drcraigvideos]

@urbanelf I have yet to hear either you or anybody else KNOW the difference between saying, "God has to fulfill our expectations if He exists" and "if God exists, we can't know what He'll do." You took Dr. Craig out of context like you always do because he actually asked rhetorically (and you deliberately took out the previous sentence), "But who says that God has to fulfill our expectations? How could we, with any confidence, predict what God would do if He existed?" Please, be fair.

[urbanelf]

@drcraigvideos How can both these sentences be true?

1. We can't with any confidence, predict what God would do if He existed.

2. We CAN know what God would do if He existed.

[drcraigvideos]

@urbanelf Well, you keep dodging the implication that that's not what Dr. Craig said. Sorry, but you're going to have to be fair with him if you want to be taken seriously. But both of these sentences are different:

1. We can't expect God to fulfill our expectations.

2. We can never know what God will do.

Until you concede you took Dr. Craig out of context, we're just talking past each other.

[urbanelf]

@drcraigvideos The context is a hypothetical entity, and in that context, there is no difference.

[drcraigvideos]

@urbanelf No, they're not hypothetical! Craig isn't saying it's hypothetical that God will fulfill our expectations or not, He's saying it's ACTUAL that He may (or may not)!

[urbanelf]

@drcraigvideos ... and if God may or may not act in a way as to fulfill our expectations then we don't know how God would act.

[drcraigvideos]

@urbanelf Not necessarily. Unless God reveals it, we can know how He reacts. God has revealed many times how He will react, even to our expectations. Many times God has made covenants throughout the Bible. This is what RRG was getting at when he said that the God fulfilled the Jews' expectation for a coming Messiah. Not only did the Jews KNOW what God was doing, but He also fulfilled their expectations.

[urbanelf]

@drcraigvideos Also, it's strange that both of you want to drop the sentence about not being able to prediction what God would do. It's almost as if that sentence has meaning that is so obviously parallel to my own paraphrasing of Craig's thoughts that you would prefer to sweep it under the rug.

[drcraigvideos]

@urbanelf Well, you're sweeping the "our expectations of God" contention under the rug. Just admit it, you deliberately took Craig out of context, and now you're trying to justify it. Sorry, but you're not hard to read.

[urbanelf]

@drcraigvideos I've address that point several times now.

[drcraigvideos]

@urbanelf So, have I ;)

[urbanelf]

@drcraigvideos Did Craig or did he not rhetorically ask whether or not we could predict with any confidence what God would do if He existed?

[urbanelf]

@drcraigvideos Did Craig or did he not ask rhetorically if we can predict what God would do if He existed?

[drcraigvideos]

In the context of our expectations, yes. LOL! Honestly, urbanelf, you're just going to have to admit that you didn't take Craig in context. There's just no way of getting by that.

[urbanelf]

@drcraigvideos ... and our expectation of God's behavior reflects our knowledge of God's behavior.  You're clearly willing to say anything to win.

[drcraigvideos]

@urbanelf That's not true. All I did was take Craig in context. I didn't know we were debating. But if we are, it isn't hard debating you. All I'm doing is telling the truth.

[drcraigvideos]

@urbanelf "... and our expectation of God's behavior reflects our knowledge of God's behavior." ... oh-kay. And the knowledge we have of God is done by revelations, covenants, etc., so we can know what God will do let alone see whether He'll fulfill our expectations or not. You're clearly confused about Biblical theology let alone Dr. Craig. And as I said, it doesn't take a lot to win against you :)

[urbanelf]

@drcraigvideos So, now you're arguing against Dr. Craig? Make up your mind. Which is it: do we have reason to think God will fulfill our expectations or not?

[drcraigvideos]

@urbanelf How am I arguing against Dr. Craig when I never contradicted him? And I've told you many times, we can only know what God will do if He revealed it (via revelation, covenant, etc.). And we can't say for sure if God will fulfill our expectations or not. Dr. Craig would agree with me. Anyway, urbanelf, you're dodging many of my implications, I'm repeating myself over and over again to you, and you won't admit to taking Craig out of context despite the smoking gun evidence that you did.

[urbanelf]

@drcraigvideos If we expect God to do X, and God doesn't do X, can we say that we knew what God would do? Under what conditions can we hold false expectations about God's behavior and yet call those expectations knowledge?

[drcraigvideos]

@urbanelf Again, your first question doesn't take into account that God has revealed Himself through different means. So, if God said He'll do X because He revealed it, we can expect Him to do X. You seem to confuse knowledge with belief. Anyway, again, we can only expect God to do X if He revealed it. Outside of his revelation, we can't expect God to fulfill OUR expectation. That's WAY different than your claim that Craig is saying we can NEVER know what God will do.

[urbanelf]

@drcraigvideos OOOOOHHHH I see! So we CAN have reason to think that God will fulfill our expectations. So, we're on the same side. Yeah, Craig is a moron, isn't he?

[drcraigvideos]

@urbanelf Actually, it's we CAN'T ALWAYS believe that God will fulfill our expectations unless He reveals it. Dr. Craig would agree with that. After all, he believes God fulfilled the expectations of the Jews for the coming Messiah. I don't see how that constitutes that I'm on your side, since I disagree with your premise that Craig is claiming we can never know what God will do. I wouldn't call him a moron but a Saint :)

[urbanelf]

@drcraigvideos In order to defend Craig you have to change his words. Either way, it's a self refuting position because prior to revelation you would have to assume that God would reveal himself in an obvious and truthful manner... which itself is having expectations about God prior to revelation.

[drcraigvideos]

@urbanelf I didn't change any of Craig's words. He clearly talked about God fulfilling our expectations, then you concluded that Craig said we can never know what God will do. And he clearly did not say that. It's not self-refuting to think since God is obvious and truthful, then He can give me a revelation. I think what you mean is that it's begging the question. But throughout this whole discourse you granted for argument's sake that God existed. So there's no self-refutation or fallacy.

[urbanelf]

@drcraigvideos He never talked about revelation wherein we CAN expect God will do X.

It depends on how you phrase the doctrine. If you hold the belief that "when God reveals Himself it will be truthful" you are holding a precondition to believing revelation. It is an expectation that can be held prior to revelation & it implies that we can expect God to behave in a certain way: truthfully.

So, apparently we do have reason to think God will fulfill our expectations apart from revelation.

[drcraigvideos]

@urbanelf Yeah, I know. But Craig was talking about our expectations, which is different than saying he claimed we can never know what God will do. Obviously, Craig would disagree with that because he believes in general revelation. And he argued for Jesus' resurrection (which by default would mean he believed the revelation set forth by God). [cont'd]

[drcraigvideos]

[cont'd] "If you hold the belief that "'when God reveals Himself it will be truthful' you are holding a precondition to believing revelation." But that precondition has to be met. You'd have to believe it until God FIRST shows X to be the case. For instance, there were some Jews who didn't believe that Jesus was the Messiah, until He resurrected. So, it doesn't follow that we can think God will necessarily fulfill our expectations apart from revelation.

[urbanelf]

@drcraigvideos So, if you don't think it's the case that God will nece. fulfill our expectations apart from revelation, then you think that God will fulfill our expectations within revelation. But the claim that God will necessarily fulfill our expectations as they relate to revelation is itself an expectation about God's behavior: that His revelations will be truthful.

That claim is itself an expectation about God.

[MasterOhSo]

So should we or shouldn't we know what god wants? God is pretty confusing to me, atleast the christian god is as far as I can grasp. It doesn't want us to murder...except it does when it commands the extermination of whole peoples, Deuteronomy 20:16 and Deuteronomy 7:1-2 for example, there are of course more of these instances. I'm curious about our supposed freewill as well...that is something god wants isn't it? Then why would it "harden" pharos heart in Exo 14:8? Confusing? Big Time!!

[VeryEvilPettingZoo]

Rationalresponseguy seems to think that giving a fair paraphrasing (which is what it was) of someone's words is the same as lying about them. Weak. What's worse, he bothered to then make a video about it. If WLC is defendable, then why not show how, rather than this type of silliness. Also, insulting someone, and calling them a liar, should be reserved for when someone actually does something to deserve it. This video's argument is pathetic.

[rationalresponseguy]

@VeryEvilPettingZoo LOL! Sure, it's JUST paraphrasing when someone says that "we can't expect God to fulfill our expectations" to "we can't know what God will do if He exists." To me, that's more than just a paraphrase. It's a downright lie.

[drcraigvideos]

Another one bites the dust.

[urbanelf]

The implication of your video is that you think there is a meaningful distinction between being able to know what God would do is He existed and the fulfillment of our expectations by God.

That would suggest that it's possible that we could "know" what God would do and yet our expectations, given that knowledge, would not necessarily be fulfilled.

In other words, we could know something false. Since knowledge can't be about false things, your position is clearly ridiculous.

[rationalresponseguy]

@urbanelf You're being too simplistic and vague. There is the distinction between "knowing what God would do if He existed" and "God necessarily fulfilling our expectations or not." You're comparing apples to oranges and you falsely attributed a position to Craig that he doesn't hold to. Aside from that, by your own admission we can have knowledge of something that can be potentially false. For instance, spontaneous generation was seen as the truth until it was refuted. Get an education, dude.

[urbanelf]

@rationalresponseguy I don't see the distinction in this context and you're going to have draw it for me. I've given you an argument and your response doesn't address it.

[rationalresponseguy]

@urbanelf Of course you don't see it in that context, because you deliberately took Craig out of context. Craig never said that we can't know what God will do if He existed. If God doesn't fulfill our expectations, that still doesn't mean we have absolutely no knowledge of what He'll do. You're begging the question! And you clearly have more learning to do because as I said in my "spontaneous generation" comment, knowledge can be a false things, because some things are tentatively false or not.

[urbanelf]

@rationalresponseguy Again, I made an argument in my original comment and you didn't address it. And no, we can't know something false.

[rationalresponseguy]

@urbanelf Well, I did address it., urbanelf. The truth is you can't accept it as a refutation. I'm sorry, but I'm trying to help you here, buddy. And if you won't listen to reason, there's not much more I can do for you. And if you think we can't know something false (that's laughably wrong by the way, scientists wouldn't be able to do induction if they followed your thinking), then know the truth and stop lying about Dr. Craig.

[urbanelf]

@rationalresponseguy The reason I can't accept it is that knowledge is about truth. In the case of science using induction, when our inductive inferences are true it's knowledge, but when they are false it's not.

You will have a hard time finding a philosopher who thinks we can know things that are false.

[rationalresponseguy]

@urbanelf Something can be true (or false) whether we have knowledge of it to be the case of being true or not. Scientists aren't in agreement about the multiverse. But in philosophy, u'd know it's very easy to find a philosopher who thinks we can know things that are false. For instance, Euthyphro believed God had a dilemma about piousness. But we now know that argument suffers from a false dichotomy. Nevertheless, we still have atheists who think that the Euthyphro dilemma still holds water.

[urbanelf]

@rationalresponseguy If Euthyphro was wrong, then his claims weren't knowledge.

Again, knowledge is about truth. You can't "know" that 2+2=5.

[rationalresponseguy]

@urbanelf LOL! You're making a categorical mistake by calling Euthyphor's claim "knowledge" (or not). A claim in Euthyphro's case is a contention not knowledge. They're 2 different things. Honestly, dude, where do you study philosophy? But anyway, yes, knowledge is about truth. However, you think it's impossible for someone to have knowledge of something that is false. We've seen throughout history that that isn't the case. Sorry, but people at one time believed spontaneous generation was true.

[urbanelf]

@rationalresponseguy The claim "there is a dilemma" is a claim Euthyphro made. If it's true that there is a dilemma then he knew there was a dilemma. If there isn't a dilemma, then the claim "there is a dilemma" isn't knowledge.

[rationalresponseguy]

@urbanelf LOL! Urbanelf, I really don't know what you're smoking, but the way you word your sentences are God awfully bad. It's like you're making up a language all on your own, but it's making you look completely amateur. But, uh, have knowledge that is true and stop believing in "false knowledge" by claiming Craig said something that he didn't, ok? Trust me, urbanelf, people believed in spontaneous generation at one time in history. I'm counting on you, buddy.

[urbanelf]

@rationalresponseguy There is a difference between belief and knowledge.

I'm surprised that you would call me amateur when you don't know what abduction is and now you can't identify the difference between belief and knowledge.... or understand the relationship between prediction, knowledge, and expectation.

[rationalresponseguy]

@urbanelf You keep confusing belief with knowledge.

I'm NOT surprised you use wiki for your information on abduction. After all, you think it's impossible for people to have knowledge of something false. Trust me, your knowledge of Dr. Craig is false, the problem is you think it's true.

[urbanelf]

@rationalresponseguy You said abduction isn't an inference to the best explanation.  You were wrong.

[rationalresponseguy]

@urbanelf No, I'm not. I'm right. You use wiki as your standard. You're shallow.

[urbanelf]

@rationalresponseguy My standard is what philosophers think abduction is.

[rationalresponseguy]

@urbanelf Your standard is what wiki tells you.

[urbanelf]

@rationalresponseguy Basically at this point, you're willing to believe false things about abduction just to win an argument. If that's not mental illness I don't know what is.

[rationalresponseguy]

@urbanelf Winning an argument? Is that what I'm doing? I'm just telling you the truth. The truth is you use pathetic means to learn philosophy. Instead of reading and studying up on philosophy, you use a lazy man's guide by going to wiki to find the definition of abduction. Try getting an education, urby. It helps.

[urbanelf]

@rationalresponseguy Abduction is inference to the best explanation. You said it wasn't.

[rationalresponseguy]

@urbanelf Yeah, we already read that from you. And it isn't.

[urbanelf]

@rationalresponseguy So, where we are now: 1st video you misidentify abduction, 2nd video you don't understand the consequences of having no reliable expectations for a hypothetical being.

Shall we make it 0-3?

[rationalresponseguy]

@urbanelf Well, you never really made a good case for all 3 points, urbanelf. And if you want to make this into a debate if you think about it you lost. You used wiki for your research which automatically disqualifies you as a serious thinker in my book. But you don't listen closely to your opponents in these videos you made, and you're not honest. And it's very obvious that you took Craig out of context. It's painfully funny how you're doing damage control for your screw up.

[urbanelf]

@rationalresponseguy It's hardly out of context. He's refering to God as a hypothetical being(note the use of "IF God existed then..."). In that context our expectations are the expectations that we can derive from the hypothesis.

It's you who's bending over backwards to try to draw some difference between "knowledge" and "true expectations" given a hypothetical statement.

In your bizarre logic we can know God will do X, but we can't expect God to do X.

Wake me when you sort that out.

[rationalresponseguy]

@urbanelf "In that context our expectations are the expectations that we can derive from the hypothesis." Hmm. That's weird. Did you just say that Craig claimed we can not know what we can expect from God let alone know what God will do? Anyway, but I never made the logic you suggested. All I'm saying is, unless God shows X, we can know that He'll do X, but we can't expect him to fulfill our expectation of Y. I'm trying to wake you up but by your own admission u've been asleep this whole time.

[urbanelf]

@rationalresponseguy Yeah, if we can't have expectations of what God would hypothetically do, then we also can't have knowledge of what God would hypothetically do.

"All I'm saying is, unless God shows X, we can know that He'll do X, but we can't expect him to fulfill our expectation of Y."

Wow. Just wow. That was a great argument. If God doesn't show that he'll give me a puppy, then I will know that he will give me a puppy, but I can't expect him to give me a cat. You've convinced me.

[drcraigvideos]

@rationalresponseguy It's impossible for someone to have knowledge that is false? How can someone NOT believe in something false? Some of the greatest minds and scientists believed in things that ended up false. For goodness sake's I think radical empiricism is false but how is it impossible for people to believe in it when people obviously do? First we have an idiot like theowarner telling us that square circles exist, now we have this tripe from urbanelf?

[rationalresponseguy]

@drcraigvideos Well, it's like I told urbanelf. He's looking like a complete amateur by being simplistic and vague and inventing a language about the use of the word "knowledge". But it's making him look incredibly dumb. i just can't believe he can't concede that people had knowledge of false things in the past. Anybody with a brain knows that's the case. It's just incredible what people will believe when they try to refute Dr. Craig.