Ridicules motion. It's impossible to disprove god, and it has never been proven that someone is deluded as it is a psychological condition and does not deal with proofs.
Just look at the enormous hubris and narcissism of Copson, Arif and quite a significant amount of the atheistic audience. They mock Dr. Craig, they laugh at him, they see him and other theists as simply foolish and delusional. It is their hubristic arrogance that blinds them. The question that the student asks at 39:40 his voice, his body language and words, they portray such a nervous and angry arrogance such hatred for theistic belief its just disgusting sometimes.
Actually, YOU'RE the one being stupid, because Craig never even accused Copson of referring to polytheism. He explained that the kind of argument Copson was making ONLY applies to polytheism, but does not translate into an argument against monotheism, hence it was a bad argument.
@Birdieupon Actually, Craig would've looked less stupid (or more fair) if he was accusing Copson of referring to polytheism. Unfortunately he didn't say that, as you pointed out. Even worse, he didn't consider any misunderstanding of that kind, he just said that the argument was legitimate but only applies to polytheism. And really there's no possible way to believe that. That's why he's either being unfair or stupid.
The very use of the word "gods" in the plural, and why humans are attached to the idea of "gods" in the plural, makes Copson's argument only legitimate against polytheism.
You haven't watched the video in full then, have you? Craig explicitly explains how Andrew's argument - about Gods being similar to us - works with polytheism but not monotheism, because the nature of the necessary, timeless, space, immaterial, transcendent being is UNlike us!
@Birdieupon "Gods are similar to us" it's not the core of Andrew's argument. It's just a small part of it. Moreover, similar doesn't mean that they are identical to us. They are not... he just says that they resemble us in some ways (because we create them), but not every way. They are gods, after all. The argument is more like: as time passed, gods rose and fell. Then why the umpteenth god should be the real one (against so much evidence)? He is just the more popular, that's it.
Delusion, obfuscation and appeal to authority and reductio ad absurdum on the proponents of the motion. William Lane Craig is smug, and throwing lies and half-truths.
@CerocScotland ya it's hard to tell whether he knows he does it or not... His voice is so annoying... It's a voical tone that has taken a lifetime to fake... And he sounds like he's talking down to you 100% of the time
@Birdieupon no i did, i just asked before the end because i didn't think they were going to release the results.. sometimes they don't say the results in the videos
@StoneCampbellforLife kind of a very bittersweet victory though.. I think if the debate topic had been "Does God exist" or "Is there Evidence for God" they would have lost miserably.. Obviously, I am not a fan or Sir Craig :)
This was so frustrating. The batting about on the definition of God. It seems that the opposition didn't really understand God as a maximally great being. Tea pots? maximally stupid? Seriously? The Gauniloian objections are just misunderstandings... ::facepalm::
Dr Craig missed a trick in not challenging the 'brainwave' assertion by asking for a peer reviewed source. Without proof it is simply assertion or anecdote which may have been false.
@manwiththelowend The comment was "Both deluded people and religious people have the same brain activity" Ok..well..both deluded people and religious people have heads...and indeed..so do non religious people...what does that prove?
not really. even if there was a peer reviewed article stating this, the genetic fallacy would still apply. rather then letting the discussion go off into another direction, he stuck to the topic and rejected fallacious reasoning.
you know, this bunch, have no concept of faith, faith is the substance of things hoped for the evidence of things not seen. Only God can reveal and give wisdom to the foolsih and ill thought of. These people who are in that place in oxford esteem their own mental prowess and deign to suppose that they can explain and pigeon hole God, LOL LOL LOL he is beyond human words or ken, we glimpse him only with our faith and footprints of life
I know this comment is beneath the subject matter but that chick sitting in the background of Copson is smoking hot
bahdahdoop 1 day ago
Ridicules motion. It's impossible to disprove god, and it has never been proven that someone is deluded as it is a psychological condition and does not deal with proofs.
fjoo 3 days ago
@Mentat1231, I know that, you didn't see why I put up this syllogism, read my reply in context of what mouthyweasel posted.
dannyevans89 3 days ago
@mouthyweasel
1. If your syllogism is not false then objective moral values do not exist.
2. At least one objective moral value exists.
3. Therefore your syllogism is false :)
now finding the fallacy is something that you can do by yourself! Then find the mistake in Christian syllogism in the moral argument.
dannyevans89 4 days ago
@dannyevans89
The first premise is fallacious. You'd have to already believe the conclusion in order to accept it. Textbook question-begging.
Mentat1231 3 days ago
does anyone know if that girl (white dress) left of the kilt man is Anna Popplewell (Susan from lion the witch and the wardrobe)?
countrydp 6 days ago
1. If snarfulapods do not exist then objective moral values do not exist.
2. At least one objective moral value exists.
3. Therefore, snarfulapods exist.
This is Christian logic? These asinine syllogisms? Please. I hope this video gets better. I'll give it 10 more minutes.
mouthyweasel 1 week ago
46:29 - Take a seat, fatty...
Autumn6 1 week ago
Copson's dance move at 32:14 is CLASSIC! LOL.
Mentat1231 1 week ago
@Mentat1231
I like his lisp "mor-wality"!
Birdieupon 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Just look at the enormous hubris and narcissism of Copson, Arif and quite a significant amount of the atheistic audience. They mock Dr. Craig, they laugh at him, they see him and other theists as simply foolish and delusional. It is their hubristic arrogance that blinds them. The question that the student asks at 39:40 his voice, his body language and words, they portray such a nervous and angry arrogance such hatred for theistic belief its just disgusting sometimes.
KINOVINO92 2 weeks ago
47.40 craig is either being unfair or stupid. Andrew was not talking about politheism, as he says a couple of seconds later. That was clear.
karmaran 3 weeks ago
@karmaran "craig is either being unfair or stupid."
the guy is a professional bullshitter and a shameless hack, who do you expect
AgeOfReasonXXI 3 weeks ago
@AgeOfReasonXXI
Ooooh! Look! You can call people bullshitter and hack!! Wow! What a big intellectual atheist!!!
Seriously... you do realise this just makes you look like an emo, right?
Birdieupon 2 weeks ago
@karmaran
Actually, YOU'RE the one being stupid, because Craig never even accused Copson of referring to polytheism. He explained that the kind of argument Copson was making ONLY applies to polytheism, but does not translate into an argument against monotheism, hence it was a bad argument.
Birdieupon 2 weeks ago
@Birdieupon Actually, Craig would've looked less stupid (or more fair) if he was accusing Copson of referring to polytheism. Unfortunately he didn't say that, as you pointed out. Even worse, he didn't consider any misunderstanding of that kind, he just said that the argument was legitimate but only applies to polytheism. And really there's no possible way to believe that. That's why he's either being unfair or stupid.
karmaran 2 weeks ago
@karmaran
The very use of the word "gods" in the plural, and why humans are attached to the idea of "gods" in the plural, makes Copson's argument only legitimate against polytheism.
Mentat1231 1 week ago
@karmaran
You haven't watched the video in full then, have you? Craig explicitly explains how Andrew's argument - about Gods being similar to us - works with polytheism but not monotheism, because the nature of the necessary, timeless, space, immaterial, transcendent being is UNlike us!
Birdieupon 5 days ago
@Birdieupon "Gods are similar to us" it's not the core of Andrew's argument. It's just a small part of it. Moreover, similar doesn't mean that they are identical to us. They are not... he just says that they resemble us in some ways (because we create them), but not every way. They are gods, after all. The argument is more like: as time passed, gods rose and fell. Then why the umpteenth god should be the real one (against so much evidence)? He is just the more popular, that's it.
karmaran 5 days ago
1:18:30 involves physics that doesn't apply, at all...
bryantman92 3 weeks ago
@bryantman92
What are you trying to say?
1878EFC2008 2 weeks ago
Is the guy on the throne wearing a skirt?
ogunitracy 1 month ago
@ogunitracy
Kilt.
Birdieupon 2 weeks ago
@Birdieupon
May I ask the difference?
ogunitracy 2 weeks ago
Wow :(
Delusion, obfuscation and appeal to authority and reductio ad absurdum on the proponents of the motion. William Lane Craig is smug, and throwing lies and half-truths.
CerocScotland 1 month ago
@CerocScotland ya it's hard to tell whether he knows he does it or not... His voice is so annoying... It's a voical tone that has taken a lifetime to fake... And he sounds like he's talking down to you 100% of the time
SHIBBYiPANDA 1 month ago
1:00:00
This is the kind of stupidity Craig is forced to put off with?
CarlosMarti123 1 month ago 4
@CarlosMarti123
Which parts of the debate did you find particularly stupid?
1878EFC2008 3 weeks ago
Couldn't really concentrate on Copson..the pretty girl in the white dress behind his right shoulder was distracting me...
stu1002 1 month ago
@stu1002 ditto
Yaddrasile 3 weeks ago in playlist Favorite videos
44:28 this guy looks like that one dude from harry potter..lol i really did think it was him.! haha
graceteam 1 month ago
Craig comes off like a super douche to me.. What was the final vote of the house? anyone have a source for that?
SHIBBYiPANDA 1 month ago
@SHIBBYiPANDA The house (Craig's position) won by 14 votes.
empreme 1 month ago
@SHIBBYiPANDA
So... you didn't bother watching to the end to find out?
Birdieupon 1 month ago
@Birdieupon no i did, i just asked before the end because i didn't think they were going to release the results.. sometimes they don't say the results in the videos
SHIBBYiPANDA 1 month ago
@SHIBBYiPANDA Craig and Williams won. No surprise there, considering they did amazing.
StoneCampbellforLife 1 month ago
@StoneCampbellforLife kind of a very bittersweet victory though.. I think if the debate topic had been "Does God exist" or "Is there Evidence for God" they would have lost miserably.. Obviously, I am not a fan or Sir Craig :)
SHIBBYiPANDA 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This was so frustrating. The batting about on the definition of God. It seems that the opposition didn't really understand God as a maximally great being. Tea pots? maximally stupid? Seriously? The Gauniloian objections are just misunderstandings... ::facepalm::
maxeoa1 1 month ago 3
Comment removed
maxeoa1 1 month ago
@toiwin Is God beyond the human words "he is beyond human words" that you said in your post?
KnowItsTrue 1 month ago
Enjoyed this, impressed with Williams and Craig on this one! Very weak on the other side!
lukehase 1 month ago
Dr Craig missed a trick in not challenging the 'brainwave' assertion by asking for a peer reviewed source. Without proof it is simply assertion or anecdote which may have been false.
manwiththelowend 1 month ago
@manwiththelowend The comment was "Both deluded people and religious people have the same brain activity" Ok..well..both deluded people and religious people have heads...and indeed..so do non religious people...what does that prove?
stu1002 1 month ago
@stu1002 I'm not following you. What point are you trying to make?
manwiththelowend 1 month ago
@manwiththelowend
not really. even if there was a peer reviewed article stating this, the genetic fallacy would still apply. rather then letting the discussion go off into another direction, he stuck to the topic and rejected fallacious reasoning.
babystinky 1 month ago
you know, this bunch, have no concept of faith, faith is the substance of things hoped for the evidence of things not seen. Only God can reveal and give wisdom to the foolsih and ill thought of. These people who are in that place in oxford esteem their own mental prowess and deign to suppose that they can explain and pigeon hole God, LOL LOL LOL he is beyond human words or ken, we glimpse him only with our faith and footprints of life
toiwin 1 month ago
How is a logic professor not familiar with modal logic?
thrik 1 month ago
Nice one. Promoting this video on my Facebook and YouTube pages.
Shazoolo 1 month ago
I can't believe there were so many for the opposition...
TheDutchPhilosopher 1 month ago
Oh dear, he referred to the pagan copycat theory. He clearly knows nothing.
Randomicity912 1 month ago
The Greek word for God was Theos. Deus is Latin. Did Copson not bother to do any research?
Randomicity912 1 month ago