Do NOT Let Craig Rape your Mind with "Being" and "Nothing"!

[krapptacular]

Yeah craig is right about me in one way, i can't spell for shit. I don't see how that makes one stupid though.

Damn when i see it now, it's like I'm illiterate or something. WTF I hate seeing what i have written and i do get carried away sometimes.

[krapptacular]

Damn i messed that up. LOL

[dewinthemorning]

@krapptacular "Damn i messed that up. LOL "

No, you didn't. My cognitive faculties make me disregard the typos, lol:

"Yes, his argument is flawed right from the start. And yet even a layman as I can catch it.

God would need a cause, that is his flaw. You shouldn't just jump to your answer, so how smart is Craig? And no, we have no evidence for any mind floating in space!"

It's actually a very good comment. :)

[dewinthemorning]

@krapptacular You "messed up" in another way - apparently liking the video, but not "liking it" officially. LOL

[krapptacular]

Yes his argument is flawed right from the start. And yet a layman as i can catch it.

Godwould need a cuse, that is his flaw. You don't just jump to your answer, so how smart is craig. And yes we no evidence of any mind floating in space. LOL

[Aguijon1982]

Philosophy is radical questioning, but to really question – to push one’s questioning to the brink of the abyss – one must be an atheist, for faith gives answers too soon.Faith and philosophy are mortal enemies; in fact, ‘faith is so absolutely the mortal enemy that philosophy does not even begin to want in any way to do battle with it.’ ‘the philosopher does not believe’ – he cannot believe, because faith is in radical opposition to the very nature of philosophy as questioning. M Heidegger.

[dingodavid]

WLC is incredibly simple.

[dingodavid]

He's 'lost in space'...Let him go...

[dingodavid]

Bill to Earth...

[dingodavid]

If a story sounds too good to be true, then it probably is.

Pay attention to the initial premeses.

[dingodavid]

Craig's debating opponents need to contest his premeses rather than his pre-arranged conclusions.

Any dickhead can convincingly reach pre-arranged conclusions if they arbitrarily pre-arrange their initial premeses.

[dingodavid]

WLC appears to be 'flabbergasted' by the entire universe.

Perhaps that's why he has given up on reason, and turned to the easy alternative of 'theistic philosophy'.

[urcorrect]

I'm no physicist or philosopher, so correct me if I'm off, but I think it may also be fair to respond to craig's version of the age old kalam argument in a form similar to: That which exists has a net energy value. Something metaphysical has no energy. God is metaphysical. Therefor, God does not exist. If the so-called metaphysical can affect the physical, we can discard the first law of thermodynamics... and good luck substantiating that idea.

I too was blocked by youtube user drcraigvideos.

[dewinthemorning]

@urcorrect Brilliant! Thumbs up!

But, would you believe it, I have watched videos where Craig answers questions about the first law of thermodynamics in the following way: "The first law of thermodynamics is valid only after the first Plank unit of time, Physicists don't know about before that. God created all energy."

The physical objects in the universe have positive energy. But empty spase is full of negative energy, so the sum of the energy of the universe is zero.

[urcorrect]

@dewinthemorning Clever, but it seems to me the premises are unsupported; a timeless event and a process of metaphysical creating stuff. Admitting before time is unknown, they're arguments from ignorance at best. He also states "nothing comes from nothing", so god couldn't even create energy absent the 1st law. He's left with, stuff always existed and god manipulated it, but occam's razor cuts out god.

Thanks for the response. And great video.

[dewinthemorning]

@urcorrect I just now happened to come across the video where Craig states that before the big bang the first law of thermodynamics is not valid. And then, in the same breath he says that god created all the energy. What you say: "nothing comes from nothing", so god couldn't even create energy absent the 1st law. " is absolutely right!

watch?v=l50ZZMs1RqY&feature=g-­vrec&context=G2611088RVAAAAAAA­AAQ

[finchy633]

I agree with everything you say about WLC, but I have to add that you have fantastic breasts.

[dewinthemorning]

@finchy633 You don't have to add 'but', the two clauses in your sentence don't have to exclude each other. lol

[McPrfctday]

@dewinthemorning You have wonderful breast but I also agree with what you say lolol. The comment section here should have more breast references... That would be normal human behaviour... But I'm think people are scared of being offensive. I'll do it for them; "Your breasts and your accent compliment each other beautifully" :)

[McPrfctday]

@McPrfctday sorry "breasts, accent and mind compliment each other", so there is nearly the full 'person'.

[dewinthemorning]

@McPrfctday Thank you, thank you, thank you. lol

[finchy633]

@dewinthemorning The connective did not serve me well, but I could hardly complement you on one and not the other. Your ideas are grand though!

[lordofutub]

speak into his heart? There wouldn't be much to hear then. And if heard, i don't think spiritual enrichment is the first reaction i would have judging from the general absence of voices coming from my heart. This Craig is quite bananas!

[tacoman069]

Speak up please and you are too far from the Camera. please speak more clearly and make vid more entertaining. my spelling may suck sorry

[dewinthemorning]

@tacoman069 This is the best I can do. :(

(The English language is foreign to me)

I have a suggestion! Either put the sound higher, listen more carefully, after this video get your necessary portion of entertainment from a video made by somebody else who is more entertaining, or... just don't subscribe to me if you are not pleased. See, easy! :)

[ILYIAB]

Thanks for your vid. I hope more do as Dawkins did. Don't give his shit a podium.

[petermaquire]

<3

[mrdarkevilme]

Dr Craig is a bad comedian pretending to be a worse philosopher.

[dewinthemorning]

@idleantichrist Why, thank you!

[Katalyzt]

Twice in this video Craig admitted that there is nothing that would change his mind about the imaginary god that he believes in. That is the purest definition of closed minded. :O/

P.S.

Great work dewinthemorning. ★★★★★

Katalyzt

[dewinthemorning]

@Katalyzt "That is the purest definition of closed minded." I concur. He is discouraging people from arguing with him. What's the use? He will never give up that belief in the supernatural.

[tsunami770]

I want to add your analysis is very intelligent. I would love to ask Craig that... Even if I granted all of his assertions as valid arguments... How does he know for a fact that the one god that he believes in IS the the cause or author of all his premises, considering how many other gods or causes (natural or metaphysical) there could be?

[dewinthemorning]

@tsunami770 "How does he know for a fact that the one god that he believes in IS the the cause or author of all" Easy! He says that Jesus (that's god himself... or is it his son?) came to earth and declared he was actually god (or son of god, I never know exactly). That is what I'm trying to say here - that if he was allowed his first argument, that there is a first cause, god - he can slip in any other mumbo-jumbo in the conversation!

[tsunami770]

@dewinthemorning He ignores that he uses one assertion on top of another and presumes they must be accepted as empirical fact. I know my question opens the door for him but intelligent people see past his smoke. He makes a living selling christian theists faith, not truth while excluding other religions. It's a great marketing tactic. He sells metaphysical arguments to people indoctrinated to accept them without interrogation and desperate to believe since god is always silent.

[dewinthemorning]

@tsunami770 That's exactly it - "god is always silent". So, in reality, people do not put their trust and faith in god, but in those who sell 'him' to them... aaand they make a good living on this transaction. lol

[tsunami770]

I have been blocked by drcraigvideos channel owner. I never disrespected anyone there, never used improper language either but simply because the channel admin does not want to hear reason. He invites a dialog and quickly dismisses all arguments as fallacies, then blocks you from responding. Not because anything's true but because he needs to reinforce his delusion as well as his viewers too. They have to invoke a supernatural untestable realm all the time and think that assertions are facts..

[dewinthemorning]

@tsunami770 "I have been blocked by drcraigvideos channel owner. I never disrespected anyone there, never used improper language either" If you knew how many people have told me what you are saying in almost the same words... I too can be included in this number!

Quite an unsavoury character. But I am still pleased that there is somebody to tell us what Craig is speaking to audiences around the world! We need freedom of speech. Pity drcraigsvideos doesn't allow it.

[thelordmemnoch]

@dewinthemorning I have been blocked as well, and I don't remember using any profanity, unless of course it was used to begin with, but I wouldn't put it past me. I brought up good points and he blocked me.

[tsunami770]

@dewinthemorning I agree but I also think the blocking is part of his infantile strategy to appear as if he has a conclusive counter point. For example... You post your initial opinion or argument, he then posts assertions as if they were facts, insults you and blocks you. That way you have no way to respond and he seems to have an argumentative (though false) "victory" by gagging you. In any case I am happy to join you in drcraig's blocked club dewinthemorning lol.

[dewinthemorning]

@tsunami770 I like this idea - all of us, blocked by drcraigsvideos belonging to quite an exclusive elitist club (because of the higher intelligence of its members, lol).

[integralmath]

@tsunami770 me too! Apparently, he doesn't like seeing Craig's dubious acquaintanceship with mathematics be lain so bare. That and always call him William Lame Craig.

[kshackleton]

I think that the reason why so many Christians feel compelled to spread the word is because at some level....they know...know...that their beliefs are ridiculous. By convincing others, they can adopt a herd mentality that makes the acceptance of these ridiculous beliefs more acceptable.

[dewinthemorning]

@kshackleton Exactly!

[grumpyguts1967]

im sorry , its wrong , i shouldnt say it , but , you have nice breasts, i know , shame on me.

[dewinthemorning]

@grumpyguts1967 No, it's not wrong, I'm thinking - am I indiscreet? But in my normal life anybody can see me like that... so, I'm not indiscreet. :) I sometimes wear a scarf, it hides them a little, but this time I forgot.

[grumpyguts1967]

@dewinthemorning indiscreet? no , your smart and attractive , you shouldnt hide what nature gave you lol..keep it up : )

[SAHBfan]

@grumpyguts1967 "im sorry , its wrong , i shouldnt say it , but , you have nice breasts, i know , shame on me."

Oh dear... You had to mention breasts, didn't you? We are all pretending not to notice.

Lets be honest, this is the one channel where I can experience my two favourite Internet topics at the same time. An intelligent person ripping William Lane Craig to shreds - and magnificent bosoms :-)

[drfoxcourt]

The only argument that WLC has ever given that has not been refuted is his own "witness of the divine spirit" I wouldn't take that away from him, but he is being dishonest (again) to use this as a philosophical basis.

The fact that WLC continues to use the refuted arguments (Kalam, Ontology, ...) just casts him as a charlatan.

[dewinthemorning]

@drfoxcourt Now that you say it, yes, it is true - the only argument by Craig that has not been refuted is the "the holy spirit talks in my brain" argument. But it is not much of an argument, is it?

To anybody with a knowledge of the latest development in physics WLC answers the definition of a charlatan.

[CobinRain]

"I know christianity is true because I feel the witness of the holy spirit in my heart"

"Spirit? Heart" This is Evidence? As Christopher Hitchens wrote some time ago: "What can be asserted without evidence can equally be dismissed without evidence"

Oh and BTW. If you go back to read the accounts of rampant christianity at the Salem Witch trials you will find the "evidence" against the "witches" is of precisely this nature.

[integralmath]

"the formaldehyde of his philosophical beliefs where he keeps the corpses of long ago refuted philosophies."

You, madam, are one clever wordsmith.

[marniespeaks]

Craig is a cult leader

[kalsolarUK]

I think WLC should watch these videos. Mind you, (and I quote)..."It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is to make WLC see how flawed his and psuedo philosophical his arguments are". Erm... maybe the original quote was slightly different.

[dewinthemorning]

@kalsolarUK LOL You always make me laugh. But joking aside, I would like it if he answers me, but I wouldn't send a question to his site reasonablefaith, because I heard he doesn't answer all questions, and the unanswered questions are not shown. I'd love it if some religion person sees my video and asks Craig for an answer. Pity I am not a magnet for religious people. lol

[philhellenes]

You can find intelligent Christians. You can find honest Christians. But I never encountered a single one that was both honest AND intelligent. The level of arguments the intelligent ones use are so inconsistent I'm unable to believe they believe them. The natural is caused by the supernatural? Silly word games to fool children. The other week I heard Willy say the killing of non-Christian children in the Bible was an "infinite good". Nice guy, and by "nice" I mean revolting and putrid.

[dewinthemorning]

@philhellenes I had noticed the video you mention even before Dawkins cited it as a reason to refuse shaking Craig's hand or standing on the same stage with him debating him. Truly revolting!

Craig wants to replace the word 'supernatural' with 'extra-mondial' or something like that, because he says, 'supernatural' has acquired such a bad reputation... No kidding!

[tsunami770]

@dewinthemorning Ah the old pollution lobbyist word trick... Like not calling it "global warming"... Such strong words... Call it "climate change" :)

[dewinthemorning]

@tsunami770 As Dr. Shook said (in my video "Craig's Loosing Battle with Naturalism") "Craig is manipulating words."

[zarkoff45]

@philhellenes

I found an interesting Christian who might be both intelligent and honest:

watch?v=JckthO1u5ro

Worth a look. He sounds like an atheist because he knows he doesn't have evidence he can share. Yet, he still manages to think he has personal experience.

[philhellenes]

@zarkoff45 Thanks for the link. Watched a couple of his vids, heard very little that made me want to interject. Yes, he's intelligent, and he scores highly in the honesty department (my bad). But when he spoke about neuroscience and physics (even though he may not have realised he was) he didn't sound very knowledgeable, but then he's young so he gets a free pass.

He DOES have genuine personal experience, he just hasn't noticed it never tells him something he didn't already know. :)

[Knr911]

@philhellenes Disagree.

I'm a "strong atheist" (ie I deny God). I know intelligent and honest christians. In fact I dropped being vocal about anti-theism since some of my best YT friends are in fact christians, as a result of me stoping to care so much about religion and starting to focus on other issues that i personally deem more important. Now William Lane Craig is a despicable pedantic moron, and neither I nor my christian friends take him seriously.

[philhellenes]

@Knr911 Perhaps I was a bit harsh. A Christian CAN be both intelligent and honest, but it requires an ignorance of certain facts (historical or scientific). But it's my experience that when confronted with those facts they suddenly speak with less intelligence than they actually and obviously possess (internal dishonesty?), and less critical capacity than they use elsewhere in life (internal dishonesty again). Doesn't make them bad, but they throw DULL parties. ;)

[SAHBfan]

@philhellenes "A Christian CAN be both intelligent and honest, but it requires an ignorance of certain facts (historical or scientific). "

I wouldn't even go that far. My wife is a Christian. She is extremely honest and has a professional qualification. However, she hates discussing her religion with me gets very uncomfortable when she does. She knows she can't justify her beliefs, but can't let go so just avoids it. Alas, childhood indoctrination is insidious but goes very deep.

[dewinthemorning]

@SAHBfan When Daniel Dennett or Sam Harris talk about Christians who are educated, or even scientists, they say their mind is 'compartmentalized' and their faith does not interfere with their doing science or anything else. What about honesty then? I think Philhellenes is right when he talks about 'internal dishonesty', I understand this as 'dishonesty to oneself', or maybe we should say 'subconscious dishonesty', which does not characterize the person badly. :)

[CobinRain]

@dewinthemorning What was it that Bertrand Russell said about a well known Catholic theologian and author? "before he sought to deceive others he first sought to deceive himself"

[tsunami770]

@philhellenes To be ignorant means one does not know. I can forgive that in a person who honestly does not know a given fact even though they may be intelligent but the theist must submit to a doctrine of opposing on faith any idea that is not conducive to the belief that their religion is divinely right. So how honest and intelligent can a christian be if they have to sabotage those qualities to accept the self serving notion that they are going to heaven and I will burn?

[TheAwesomeMaths]

@philhellenes You are disgusting and not very intelligent.

[NemoUtopian]

WLC can rape no minds.

He is picked up by the desperate who are eager to have their irrational beliefs flattered with a veneer of intellectual justification.

He is like a sleazeball at a bar that homes in on insecurity and then flatters his way into someone's bed, he can seduce no one that is not desperate for the self serving words he offers.

[dewinthemorning]

@NemoUtopian "he can seduce no one that is not desperate for the self serving words he offers."- "From your mouth in god's ears.", meaning "I wish what you say may come true." - A proverb in my native language which is a wish you make automatically . All atheists use it as well, it has lost its original meaning.

To quickly discard Craig with contempt is understandable, but I don't think he should be neglected. He does give a "veneer of intellectual justification" to the simple minded.

[NemoUtopian]

@dewinthemorning I have no desire to disregard him, just properly classify him.

Intellectually I consider him more akin to a pusher giving hard drugs of self deception to addicts engaged in passive self destruction. He gives them the tools commit a slow form of intellectual suicide while feeling euphoric about their impending doom.

I hate any con-man that exploits a weak link in others, for WLC it is a desire for intellectual validation in Christianity.

[TheWisemonkey8]

I have no bloody intention of letting him do such a thing good lady!

We shall leave that for his students... eh?

[dewinthemorning]

@TheWisemonkey8 I had no doubt as regards you, dear Wise one. :)

His students just adore him, not realizing... eh?

Some of them may stray to my video, and be shocked, but this may make them think.

[TheGreatFoxKing]

I enjoy your videos, keep them coming!

[dewinthemorning]

@TheGreatFoxKing That's good to hear. :)

[InvincibleNumanist]

Good work. What did you think of TheoreticalBullshit's back and forth with Lame Craig btw? (assuming you saw it)

[dewinthemorning]

@InvincibleNumanist I followed the back and forth b/n TheoreticalBullshit and Lame Craig with great attention, even sent a video-response to the second one. That was great work by TheoreticalBullshit, Craig's response - so much more to be desired (like to be honest, for ex.) That conversation  was on a philosophical plane, Craig is strong but wrong.

Now I consider his worst speech the latest video by drcraigsvideos, where he 'takes on' Hawking! - watch?v=0KqU9N5QJvI&feature=ch­annel_video_title