This is one of many videos falsely DMCA'd by the hypcritical "Christian" followers of William Lane Craig. @theowarner is to be praised for his courage.
But it isn't that a premise must be plausible, it must be more plausible than it's negation. In otherwords, you have to take the premise, and the negation of the premise, evaluate them independently of each other, and then compare them to determine which is more plausibly true. You would make such an argument on things that cannot be absolutely known to be true or false, for example the question of whether there are other minds, or whether objective moral values exist.
Hmm, well I suppose if the premises are true there's no need to consider whether the negations are probable. Now I may be speculating, but perhaps what WLC means is that a good argument arrives at a conclusion that "therefore X is true," or if arguing on the basis of what is probable a conclusion that "therefore X is more probable than it's negations."
@craigpsimpson Logical arguments always depend on presuppositions though, which may or may not be as rigid as one might like. All humans die (very strong presupposition), I am a human being, therefore I will die. When you get into subjects that are less certain but still logically valid for discussion, you have to weigh the presupposition against its negation. All humans eat meat. That presupposition is more sketchy and you'd weigh it against the negation, not all humans eat meat.
@Sickopath333 Plausability has no truth-value. One can weigh up the truth of the premise such as 'all humans die' from inductive reasoning, or one may falsify a statement such as 'all humans are immortal' - we arrive, as best we can, at a truth-value of true for 'all humans die'. We may then asses the truth-values of further premises. This analysis may be conducted pre or post argument. But plausability cannot function as a method of truth-functional analysis in this manner.
@craigpsimpson One would be more direct and logical to weigh the premise all humans die with physical world data over just using inductive reasoning. We may then "assess" the truth-values; that's what plausibility is, an assessment of truth-value. It won't always be so black and white, nice and neat that it is either an absolutely true or absolutely false premise. So, as WLC says, we will assess the truth-values of the premise and its negation, and determine which is more reasonable.
@Sickopath333 Your first sentence actually suggests using inductive reasoning.
My point is that plausability cannot be part of the machinery of argument, for we may then allow premises to be be truth-functional which cannot be falsified or verified. We then have a meaningless discourse, jousting with abstractions, masking charlatanism with the shallow erudition of plausability.
@craigpsimpson Which first sentence? That we should look at real world evidence?
So you want all logical arguments to be limited to naturalistic discussions? That's what I interpret when you say falsified and verified since that sounds so similar to the testable, falsible goals of modern science. Correct me if I'm wrong.
So how do you verify or falsify any theological argument then? Is it even possible to make an argument for God with those restrictions? An illustration might be helpful.
@Sickopath333 Yes, that we should look at real world evidence. It would be an act of induction to gain the premise 'all humans die' from the empircal data.
One doesn't falisfy or verify theological arguments, there are no practical means of achieving this. The arguments are fruitless even if they are valid, for we cannot accurately attribute truth-value to theological premises.
So in other words, we should only have logical arguments on things that we can study and measure with science, essentially. You want to apply this new trend of materialism and naturalism beyond just modern science and also impose it onto logic and reasoning. So yes, if you impose those standards, WLC isn't using logical arguments, nor is any theologian. I guess philosophy is dead now. Mind telling me why we should all change the rules to your standard?
@Sickopath333 How can one conduct an argument concerning that which cannot be studied, cannot be measured?
The issue is not one of validity, but of truth-value. I can make various valid speculative arguments as to the avarice of leprechauns, but the argument would be entirely useless. Theologians move empty names like pieces of an game no one can win.
These are not subjective standards, this is not about what I want, nor some conspiratorial naturalism. Truthmakers are required.
@craigpsimpson So theology/philosophy are dead because their logical arguments will not always be based solely upon what can be measured/tested.
That isn't how theology works.
This is about naturalism and materialism though. You're assuming that logic is worthless unless it deals with natural or material subjects, which you have to assume is valid a priori. This would have a captive audience in science, but not even philosophy has shifted so much that it makes these sort of assumptions.
@Sickopath333 Philosophy is not dead, its what we're engaged in right now with this discussion. Theology has never really been alive. Again, I must question the use of propositions without truthmakers. What fruitless business would a philosopher be engaged in, juggling propositions without truth-value?
@craigpsimpson Theology has never really been alive.. yeah, I think I'll end the discussion there. You're working from such a different background I don't think it's very coherent to continue a conversation.
@Sickopath333 I think I've been consistently coherent concerning the reasons why theology has never lived in a logical sense. But fair enough, good luck to you.
William Lane Craig? The undisputed champion of obfuscatory filibustering and fallacious reasoning? Still singing Jesus for his supper? man.... fuck that guy.
What WLC is saying is that if the premise is more plausible than its negation, than you would be more logical to reject the negation and accept the premise as is. So, for example. Premise 1, magic, not entertainment, has no real evidence of its existence. Premise 2, leprechauns are magical. Therefore, leprechauns have no evidence to exist. These are true, and are more plausible than, magic has evidence, or leprechauns are not magical. Might not be perfect, but it's just an example.
WLC´s description is typical shite. A good argument is a logically valid argument, that´s a necessary condition. A valid argument is one where the conclusion "follows" from the premises. Truth and validity have absolutely nothing to do with each other although if the premises are true and the conclusion follows from them it is fair to say that would constitute a good argument. WLC is spouting casuistry as usual.
The truth is always plausible but whats plausible is not always true. The statement that a thing must be more likely to be true is clearly about probability. What is probable and plausible is not always true. This seems like a poor argument to me. Surely a good argument is an argument that follows from the premises. As for truth that can only be established evidentially.
When Craig says that "an argument does not need to prove its conclusion with 100% certainty" and then goes on to say that premises must be more plausible than their opposites, he is DEFINITELY talking about being plausible in the probabilistic sense. I'm with Theo on this.
It is rather unfortunate, when people use a variation of a definition as Theowarner did in this video. Plausible by definition is somethng that is considered valid, fair, or credible. Credibility in the sense of an argument, is one more reasonable. Therefore it does not contradict truth, I for one have never heard it said that REASON contradicts TRUTH.
I have no problem with your criticism of a "probablistic" epistemological approach, though all who make this kind of argument would do well to consider that, consistently applied, such a view would in fact turn much of what we typically refer to as "knowledge" on its head, including--but by no means limited to--scientific "knowledge". If you seriously doubt this, then I suggest you read up on on the major currents of modern philosophy from the 18th century onward. Consistency is key here.
Craig is talking about SUBJECTIVE reasoning, NOT deductive logic and reasoning.
In deductive logic, if your premises are correct you can determine the logical answer 100% of the time.
In subjective reasoning, you CANNOT determine the output, all you can do at best is find levels of probability that one answer might be more likely, but to FIND THE REAL answer, you must go out into the real world and see for yourself.
In the real world, there ARE NO GODS WANDERING ABOUT!
@MrHobiecat "ARE NO GODS WANDERING ABOUT".....not since we nailed that last one to a tree. That'll teach 'em not to try wandering about on our planet being all 'holier than thou'.
@idioticatheists LoL... burden of proof! Furthermore, if you want. But God willing you'd follow His will. That's what the child would read another book. That's not helpful, idioticatheists-poo.
@idioticatheists Well, first of all, even atheists have been created five minutes ago with built-in memories thinking that way to say, but he's a lying putz. You really suck as a philosopher of science is the seminary in Biola. I'm still waiting for you to suggest that atheists and non-Christians so incredibly passive that they forget the relevance and I'm prepared to admit that I'm innocent of; yet despite it all there is no "so" or "or" that follows from a cow, which came from... etc.
@idioticatheists You're putting in the book he tried to deal with the chunky lard ass you have. But it's only plausible because you have a problem with men having sex with you. But I'm waiting for a reason. If you think the Axiological Argument came up. Craig simply waved and laughed away Dawkins's equation. He didn't have to be a creationist. But you're lying. Within the 1st Law says, because matter and energy. The laws of logic are abstract, invariant, and universal.
@idioticatheists ? no, i happen to think that logic is beautiful...hence that is precisely why i think william lane craig is a moron. none of his arguments are logical at all!
@Freethinker12341 None of his arguments are logical. So if Dr. Craig said one plus one equals two, that's not logical to you? Anyway, thePhantomFrank... I mean, Theo Warner said logic is hateful.
@idioticatheists Next time remember to put in the absurd, and worse even argues for the existence of God but he refuses to acknowledge that. However, if you think moral subjectivism doesn't lead them to belief. And when atheists start telling me that nothing can bring forth something, the universe. You also made the universe. And he complains I blocked you because I took a clip of that! You don't think that just because Sam Harris didn't say he was talking to me :)
When Craig speaks of the premises' being plausible, he means that the premises must be plausible to the person considering the argument. For instance,
1. Either the earth is round or 2+2=5
2. It is false that 2+2=5
3. Therefore the earth is round
The argument is valid and both 1 and 2 are true, yet the argument is not good because the flat-earther will not consider 1 plausible. So, validity and truth are insufficient for an argument to be good.
William Lane Craig makes perfect sense if you read his answer instead of watching this video. Take in your dog if it is raining guys, its plausible that he might get wet...Lol..we know it is raining...
It's possible that he intended the final condition to be an extension as to include Inductive reasoning (except he maybe made an error saying 'premise', as opposed to 'conclusion.') For example:
P1 - William Lane Craig says that "x" constitutes a good argument.
P2 - However, xººº is a contradiction to xºº
C - :. Craig is deceptive ...or....
P1 - [Same P]
P2 - [Same P]
P3 - However, it makes sense if the word conclusion was mistaken as premise.
@BurntTreeProduct Both conclusions are true; that Craig is deceptive as a human being, and also that he can make errors in reasoning. However, in this specific instance, which is more plausible? Sorry for the impromptu inductive syllogism... By the way the "ººº" just stand for the different conditions that Craig stated in the video.
Lame Craig does not understand logic, why does he keep trying to use it? He is in the wrong job, he should start selling real estate his talent lies there.
@theowarner could it be argued that william lane craig is using inductive logic which is based in probability. i know william lane craig said "plausibility" i dont want to conflate the two but i am a little confused.
I admire Craig's skill even though he relies too heavily on semantics, misdirection and a premise of biblical credibility. He is fairly adept at concealing his polemical priorities.
However, I can't help but feel that in the video clip he misspoke and meant to say the CONCLUSION must me more credible than its negation. I would be interested in hearing from Craig whether he misspoke or meant what he said. that would be batshit ridiculous if he meant it the way he said it.
@theowarner Do they emphasize continental philosophy more than anglo-american philosophy? I know they are both good schools, but I know nothing about there philosophy departments. Were (or are) you a philosophy major?
WLC loves the fucking Kalam augment so much, and he is such a great Christian, why doesn't he put all that gym time you can see in his shoulders to good use and go over to the Kalam valley and do some relief work? Fucking hypocrite.
WLC is a media debater ,his target audience is not the educated philosophers .He does hack on at the atheists .I'm somewhat encouraged by this .That and the resent interfaith meeting of king Abdul shake his money and pope Rat singer . Do they sense the erosion of their realms .End of faith perhaps
@Radicalindifference You seem to be incredibly uninformed about who WLC debates. You also are uninformed about the type of scholarly level WLC writes on. Please don't tell me that the only thing you have considered is his popular level work (which is still good). Also - Craig is debating university professors (not mere laymen or people from the audience). I'm a bit confused about your straw man.
@Namo1245 Did you actually read my comment ? And Yes I have only endured his "popular" act on YT .To be honest he's just not that interesting.He's talking to you (I'll assume) like the catcher in the rye or a shepherd / dog (take your pick)
He has a preconceived conclusion ( Big magic Guy did it) and will use select asserted premises and questionable logic to arrive there .If it don't work he'll retry with other dodgy premises .
We expect more honesty form our police officers and rightly so
@Radicalindifference I did read your comment. The only thing I can see that you want me to notice is that you say he hacks on the atheists. Other than that I don't know what you are trying to direct me at.
All I'm saying is this: I think it's really arrogant for someone to try and undercut as harsh as some people do at a Professor like Craig.
Preconceived conclusions? Follow his arguments. They are deductive. If you like it or not the logic is good and the premises are good.
2 " Professor " Awh shuchs ,be nice to the professor . Professor of Theology ( question ? ,is it a necessary prerequisite to believe X to be a theologian ?)
Of course we should knock him down as we should any other professor .And if his theory's can stand the wind then maybe they earn respect,but respect is not given
And there those who are simply nauseated by the rhetoric
3 No his premises are not inclusive and he pulls the (cont-)
@Namo1245 (cont) conclusion out of his arse (in layman's terms )
On closer look it's an explanation that explains nothing least of all it's self .it's a show stopper .The way I see it is ".The question of the existence of a god creature is about 98% negative
You think WLC premises are sound ? My first objection is that they are non inclusive(Selective) at it's heart is dishonest
I think you would have to be a believer to be convinced "why am I not wrong ?"
@Radicalindifference LOL. Your post was humorous. In all honestly I have nothing to say. Your own post was "rhetoric" as you did not even explain your self but just blabbed on about how you don't like the premises but you never dealt with them. The only thing you said was they were selective.....seriously? Radical I don't think you want to discourse about this in all honesty. (No ad hominem intended). I wish you well in your search for truth.
Wow this is very confusing. I am really close at understanding this...but it's such a fine, tight, line. I totally hear what you're saying Ede, as well as Theo. Both make sense..
Wow this is very confusing. I am really close at understanding this...but it's such a fine, tight, line. I totally hear what you're saying Ede, as well as Theo. Both make sense..
@vbfl920 Take Craig's Kalam cosmological argument (it's short and so suits this format).
Premise 1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
Now, if the KCA is to be a good argument, this premise must be true. Problem is, it's a universal premise -- that is, it applies to *everything* that begins to exist -- so we can never know with certainty that it's true. However, we have good reasons to think it's true, and specifically to think it's more plausibly true than its negation.
He needs to explain how we use the paradigm in evaluate an argument.
At the end, I should feel that all the premises are true and all the premises are plausible. We can do this far any argument... but let's use the classic argument:
@vbfl920 Not exactly. For example, it might be true *in fact* that the first human or pre-human to intentionally make fire was left handed, or that there are an even number of stars in the universe, but I have no *reasons* to think that such premises are true. Therefore, the premises could be true *and* perhaps not as plausibly true than their negations.
Take geocentrism. At one time, it was *much* more plausibly true than its negation *and*, as we know now, false.
No. Not at all. Because Craig does say "if the premises are true" as if he were awaiting the truth. He says: "The premises must be true."
So, in the above, you need to should that it is true that "all men are mortal." And, by the way, I personally think that we don't know this. We are almost 99% sure that it is true, however. But, we're looking totally 100% truth at this point.
@vbfl920 Not at all. Validity is a function of an arguments form alone. A valid deductive argument can have false premises and a false conclusion, a true premise and a false premise and a false true conclusion, etc. but if it has all true premises, it must (because of tis form) have a true conclusion. Now soundness is distinct from validity. A sound argument must be logically valid *and* have true premises.
@vbfl920 Certainly. Here's Craig: "However, to be a good argument, an argument must be more than just sound. If the premisses of an argument are true, but we have no evidence for the truth of those premisses, then the argument will not be a good one. It may (unbeknownst to us) be sound, but in the absence of any evidence for its premisses it won’t, or at least shouldn’t, convince anyone. (continued)"
Yes, the only way we know soundness of the argument is if we know the truth of the premises.
John, please say Craig when you're asking us to evaluate what Craig says... do you mind? Because, I disagree with Craig, I have to both show you what he means and why he's wrong. And clarifying both can get confusing.
@vbfl920 There's a difference between *knowing* that an argument is sound, and an argument's *being* sound. Craig brings up this point: " to be a good argument, an argument must be more than just sound. If the premisses of an argument are true, but we have no evidence for the truth of those premisses, then the argument will not be a good one. It may (unbeknownst to us) be sound, but in the absence of any evidence for its premisses it won’t, or at least shouldn’t, convince anyone."
It is precisely that there is difference between being sound and known to be sound that matters. Craig appreciates the difference. And if we were just talking about statements devoid of their purpose, then that's fine. But we're talking about using those statements in a real world argument. In that case, if it must BE sound, then it must be KNOWN to be sound.
I would say that no philosopher really expects that sort of certainty.
The controversy here is that Craig is trying to set up a peculiar system of thinking about arguments, here. Why did he have to author an entire chapter on how to do logic? Why not just say: "Good arguments have good reasons"? Or, see text books on logic. No, he had to make up his own system.
And the reason is: Craig doesn't understand the difference between deduction and induction.
@theowarner Again, Craig says *explicitly* that the plausibilty criterion is posited to deal with the epistemic problems we face when trying to determine whether an argument's premises are true. He also says *explicitly* that they can be true unbeknownst to us. As I've said repeatedly, the two criteria you have a problem with are complemetary, not contradicroty. And as I've suggested, if you want to say that this means Craig doesn't understand logic, then logicians don't understand logic either.
@edejardin "Again, Craig says *explicitly* that the plausibilty criterion is posited to deal with the epistemic problems we face when trying to determine whether an argument's premises are true. "
And I would like to add to this that it's actually Craig's truth criteria that creates the problems that the plausibility criteria is supposed to solve.
Isn't it the case that you, and practically every atheist on YT, reject the premises Craig uses in his arguments, because you don't feel they are true?
Truthful premises matter a whole lot wouldn't you say?
No, Craig doesn't say that plausibility criterion supports the truth criterion. The premises must be both truth AND plausible. So, how do we know if a premise is true? And what does it mean for a criterion to be "unbeknowst true"? How do we verify that?
Craig addresses this Theo. He says that a premise can be true unbeknownst to us. That's why *truth* isn't enough. Because truth we can't detect or recognize, is meaningless and unhelpful.
So.... are you saying that because the second criterion compels us to detect something that we can't and recognize something that we can't that the second criterionis "meaningless and unhelpful"?
I don't think the position is complicated. It's that this paradigm doesn't work. This is not a helpful paradigm for sorting good arguments from bad arguments.
Again, your question is ambiguous. Personally, I don't think it's all that important that certainty is untenable. But, I'm saying that Craig is saying that we need to know whether premises are true. Craig doesn't tell us how to go about knowing that premises are true in the second criterion and obviously he can't. That's why the second criterion creates a problem. And easily fixed problem.
Okay, great. Now, apply that standard to actual activity. Either build an argument or evaluate an argument. Each premise must be true but you don't need to know if its true, as you say... how do you propose to do that?
And remember: in the end, all you have to do is know if the argument is good.
@vbfl920 The position I'm taking, and have always been taking, is that the truth criteria and the plausibility criteria are in conflict. It's the same subject that my and Theo's videos are about.
Specifically, the problem is that in order to evaluate an argument for goodness we need to know whether the premises is true, according to the second criterion, and we don't need to know, according to the third criterion. I feel like that's been made clear to you fifty or so times.
"the problem is that in order to evaluate an argument for goodness we need to know whether the premises is true, according to the second criterion, and we don't need to know, according to the third criterion. I feel like that's been made clear to you fifty or so times."
@theowarner I think that I (and Craig, through his quotes) have made it clear to you fifty or so times that the second criterion decidedly does *not* require, as you say above, that we "*know* whether [a] premise is true."
What I'm saying is that it certainly seems way more plausible than it's negation. Considering the evidence, though not exhaustive, we have more warrant to believe it's true, rather than it's opposite.
However, ***IF*** P1 isn't first true...
.....then all of the plausibility we assign to it is useless.
That's why premises need to *be* true in a good argument.
I would argue with your position because good arguments can have false premises precisely because I may be in a subjective position to think they are leading me to truth.
P1 If the earth is flat, we're in danger of sailing off the edge of the earth.
P2 The earth is flat.
C1 We're in danger of sailing off the edge of the earth.
Is this a good argument or not? 4000 years ago, was it a good argument?
Yes, that's what he's saying. But... how do we apply the second criterion to a real world situation? In the end, we will have a good argument, Craig tells us. So, we do that by lining up the premises are saying: "Are these premises true?" That's the second criterion. How do we answer that question without knowing the answer?
I mean if you're having issues with P1 of the Socrates argument, then it could be Bertrand Russell up here requiring that premises *be* true and you'd still have the same issue.
So why is Craig anymore at fault over anyone else by requiring premises *be* true?
Edejardin seems to be correct by saying that this is philosophy 101, and that Craig is not being controversial.
@vbfl920 "So, soundness is not sufficient for making an argument a good one. Something more is needed concerning the warrant the premisses have for us. Following the lead of George Mavrodes and Steve Davis, I’ve argued that what is needed is that the premisses be not only true but more plausible than their opposites or negations. If it is more plausible that a premiss is, in light of the evidence, true rather than false, then we should believe the premiss."
But, tell us John, if a good argument must have true premises in exactly the status that you describe, wouldn't YOU need to know whether they premises are true if you wanted to use a premise in an argument? Or, if you were applying the truth criterion to an evaluation of an argument?
I think it would depend on the argument. I could certainly *believe* in the plausibility of the premises being true rather than their negations, and that would be enough for me. But that would only seem to fit the case where I am not able to know for sure.
Okay. I'm not sure what you mean. You are required to select premises. You are also required to have true premises. If you don't have true premises, it's not a good argument. In order to get to a good argument, what must you, as the selector, know about the premises?
@vbfl920 Oh, a deductive argument can be made with false premises, never mind more plausible than not premises.
All spiders have feathers.
President Obama has feathers.
Therefore, President Obama is a spider.
That's an airtight deductive argument, as far as the logic goes. Deductive arguments are just arguments such that *if* the premises are true, the conclusion *must* be true. So, a valid deductive argument can have true premises, more plausilby true than not premises, etc.
So, yes, the truth of a premise is not a question in the first criterion. In the second, however, it is. Thus, because I have seen a spider without feathers, the above argument is rejected per Craig's paradigm.
Yes. I think we're clear about what deductive arguments are formally.
Craig says they must have true premises in order to be good arguments. And, that we can apply that paradigm in a practical way. I would like to see just the second criterion applied to a good argument.
Actually WLC isn't too far from a definition of a good argument. That is precisely what Paul Tommassi defines as a good argument in his book "Logic"
AdversusHaereses 3 weeks ago
@AdversusHaereses On what page?
theowarner 3 weeks ago
@AdversusHaereses From pages 4-9 he gives instances of good arguments and of arguments which are sound and valid which are not necessarily good.
AdversusHaereses 3 weeks ago
I loved when Bill and his arrogance were destroyed by Bart Ehrman. With historical facts.
LowresTV 3 weeks ago
Bill Craig is a coward and simply a preacher. A cheap one.
LowresTV 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This is one of many videos falsely DMCA'd by the hypcritical "Christian" followers of William Lane Craig. @theowarner is to be praised for his courage.
YOURINQUIRER 1 month ago in playlist William Lane Craig
But it isn't that a premise must be plausible, it must be more plausible than it's negation. In otherwords, you have to take the premise, and the negation of the premise, evaluate them independently of each other, and then compare them to determine which is more plausibly true. You would make such an argument on things that cannot be absolutely known to be true or false, for example the question of whether there are other minds, or whether objective moral values exist.
Satarack 4 months ago
Hmm, well I suppose if the premises are true there's no need to consider whether the negations are probable. Now I may be speculating, but perhaps what WLC means is that a good argument arrives at a conclusion that "therefore X is true," or if arguing on the basis of what is probable a conclusion that "therefore X is more probable than it's negations."
Satarack 4 months ago
Funny video. Dislike. Get some maths/physics/chemistry education. Don't waste people's time.
paralaks 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Yeah, good effort. But still, 'plausibility' floats nebulously above the rigidity required, or at least desired, in logical argument.
craigpsimpson 4 months ago 2
@craigpsimpson Logical arguments always depend on presuppositions though, which may or may not be as rigid as one might like. All humans die (very strong presupposition), I am a human being, therefore I will die. When you get into subjects that are less certain but still logically valid for discussion, you have to weigh the presupposition against its negation. All humans eat meat. That presupposition is more sketchy and you'd weigh it against the negation, not all humans eat meat.
Sickopath333 4 months ago
@Sickopath333 Plausability has no truth-value. One can weigh up the truth of the premise such as 'all humans die' from inductive reasoning, or one may falsify a statement such as 'all humans are immortal' - we arrive, as best we can, at a truth-value of true for 'all humans die'. We may then asses the truth-values of further premises. This analysis may be conducted pre or post argument. But plausability cannot function as a method of truth-functional analysis in this manner.
craigpsimpson 4 months ago 2
@craigpsimpson One would be more direct and logical to weigh the premise all humans die with physical world data over just using inductive reasoning. We may then "assess" the truth-values; that's what plausibility is, an assessment of truth-value. It won't always be so black and white, nice and neat that it is either an absolutely true or absolutely false premise. So, as WLC says, we will assess the truth-values of the premise and its negation, and determine which is more reasonable.
Sickopath333 4 months ago
@Sickopath333 Your first sentence actually suggests using inductive reasoning.
My point is that plausability cannot be part of the machinery of argument, for we may then allow premises to be be truth-functional which cannot be falsified or verified. We then have a meaningless discourse, jousting with abstractions, masking charlatanism with the shallow erudition of plausability.
craigpsimpson 4 months ago
@craigpsimpson Which first sentence? That we should look at real world evidence?
So you want all logical arguments to be limited to naturalistic discussions? That's what I interpret when you say falsified and verified since that sounds so similar to the testable, falsible goals of modern science. Correct me if I'm wrong.
So how do you verify or falsify any theological argument then? Is it even possible to make an argument for God with those restrictions? An illustration might be helpful.
Sickopath333 4 months ago
@Sickopath333 Yes, that we should look at real world evidence. It would be an act of induction to gain the premise 'all humans die' from the empircal data.
One doesn't falisfy or verify theological arguments, there are no practical means of achieving this. The arguments are fruitless even if they are valid, for we cannot accurately attribute truth-value to theological premises.
craigpsimpson 4 months ago
@craigpsimpson Right, got'cha.
So in other words, we should only have logical arguments on things that we can study and measure with science, essentially. You want to apply this new trend of materialism and naturalism beyond just modern science and also impose it onto logic and reasoning. So yes, if you impose those standards, WLC isn't using logical arguments, nor is any theologian. I guess philosophy is dead now. Mind telling me why we should all change the rules to your standard?
Sickopath333 4 months ago
@Sickopath333 How can one conduct an argument concerning that which cannot be studied, cannot be measured?
The issue is not one of validity, but of truth-value. I can make various valid speculative arguments as to the avarice of leprechauns, but the argument would be entirely useless. Theologians move empty names like pieces of an game no one can win.
These are not subjective standards, this is not about what I want, nor some conspiratorial naturalism. Truthmakers are required.
craigpsimpson 4 months ago
@craigpsimpson So theology/philosophy are dead because their logical arguments will not always be based solely upon what can be measured/tested.
That isn't how theology works.
This is about naturalism and materialism though. You're assuming that logic is worthless unless it deals with natural or material subjects, which you have to assume is valid a priori. This would have a captive audience in science, but not even philosophy has shifted so much that it makes these sort of assumptions.
Sickopath333 4 months ago
@Sickopath333 Philosophy is not dead, its what we're engaged in right now with this discussion. Theology has never really been alive. Again, I must question the use of propositions without truthmakers. What fruitless business would a philosopher be engaged in, juggling propositions without truth-value?
craigpsimpson 4 months ago
@craigpsimpson Theology has never really been alive.. yeah, I think I'll end the discussion there. You're working from such a different background I don't think it's very coherent to continue a conversation.
Sickopath333 4 months ago
@Sickopath333 I think I've been consistently coherent concerning the reasons why theology has never lived in a logical sense. But fair enough, good luck to you.
craigpsimpson 4 months ago
William Lane Craig? The undisputed champion of obfuscatory filibustering and fallacious reasoning? Still singing Jesus for his supper? man.... fuck that guy.
mouthyweasel 6 months ago
What WLC is saying is that if the premise is more plausible than its negation, than you would be more logical to reject the negation and accept the premise as is. So, for example. Premise 1, magic, not entertainment, has no real evidence of its existence. Premise 2, leprechauns are magical. Therefore, leprechauns have no evidence to exist. These are true, and are more plausible than, magic has evidence, or leprechauns are not magical. Might not be perfect, but it's just an example.
Sickopath333 6 months ago
Comment removed
craigpsimpson 4 months ago
But all propositions logically follow from a contradiction!
Therefore God exists
QED
:P
derfos666 6 months ago
WLC´s description is typical shite. A good argument is a logically valid argument, that´s a necessary condition. A valid argument is one where the conclusion "follows" from the premises. Truth and validity have absolutely nothing to do with each other although if the premises are true and the conclusion follows from them it is fair to say that would constitute a good argument. WLC is spouting casuistry as usual.
yatter1 6 months ago
The truth is always plausible but whats plausible is not always true. The statement that a thing must be more likely to be true is clearly about probability. What is probable and plausible is not always true. This seems like a poor argument to me. Surely a good argument is an argument that follows from the premises. As for truth that can only be established evidentially.
ooglebydoogleby 10 months ago
When Craig says that "an argument does not need to prove its conclusion with 100% certainty" and then goes on to say that premises must be more plausible than their opposites, he is DEFINITELY talking about being plausible in the probabilistic sense. I'm with Theo on this.
havvyweponsman 10 months ago
It is rather unfortunate, when people use a variation of a definition as Theowarner did in this video. Plausible by definition is somethng that is considered valid, fair, or credible. Credibility in the sense of an argument, is one more reasonable. Therefore it does not contradict truth, I for one have never heard it said that REASON contradicts TRUTH.
jbhighintensity 10 months ago 3
I have no problem with your criticism of a "probablistic" epistemological approach, though all who make this kind of argument would do well to consider that, consistently applied, such a view would in fact turn much of what we typically refer to as "knowledge" on its head, including--but by no means limited to--scientific "knowledge". If you seriously doubt this, then I suggest you read up on on the major currents of modern philosophy from the 18th century onward. Consistency is key here.
djs259 10 months ago
Might I inquire about your education theo?
Just out of curiosity...
steinarrexfaroensis 11 months ago
@steinarrexfaroensis
I've stated this in many places.
I have a Bachelor's degree in English and Masters in the science of Education.
theowarner 11 months ago
do you dedicate all your time and energy into attacking some apologetic philsopher? really? you do?
quagmire444 11 months ago
@quagmire444
No. Yes. No.
theowarner 11 months ago 6
Craig is talking about SUBJECTIVE reasoning, NOT deductive logic and reasoning.
In deductive logic, if your premises are correct you can determine the logical answer 100% of the time.
In subjective reasoning, you CANNOT determine the output, all you can do at best is find levels of probability that one answer might be more likely, but to FIND THE REAL answer, you must go out into the real world and see for yourself.
In the real world, there ARE NO GODS WANDERING ABOUT!
MrHobiecat 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrHobiecat "ARE NO GODS WANDERING ABOUT".....not since we nailed that last one to a tree. That'll teach 'em not to try wandering about on our planet being all 'holier than thou'.
LordProfBear 11 months ago
@idioticatheists LoL... burden of proof! Furthermore, if you want. But God willing you'd follow His will. That's what the child would read another book. That's not helpful, idioticatheists-poo.
thePhantomFrank 1 year ago
@idioticatheists Well, first of all, even atheists have been created five minutes ago with built-in memories thinking that way to say, but he's a lying putz. You really suck as a philosopher of science is the seminary in Biola. I'm still waiting for you to suggest that atheists and non-Christians so incredibly passive that they forget the relevance and I'm prepared to admit that I'm innocent of; yet despite it all there is no "so" or "or" that follows from a cow, which came from... etc.
thePhantomFrank 1 year ago
Normalize your audio in future, please.
Skindoggiedog 1 year ago
ughhh what is with all these people respecting this Craig guy? the guy is such a moron!
Freethinker12341 1 year ago 2
@Freethinker12341 So you think we should respect Theo Warner who says logic is hateful: watch?v=9uf9XnVTeuQ
idioticatheists 1 year ago
@idioticatheists You're putting in the book he tried to deal with the chunky lard ass you have. But it's only plausible because you have a problem with men having sex with you. But I'm waiting for a reason. If you think the Axiological Argument came up. Craig simply waved and laughed away Dawkins's equation. He didn't have to be a creationist. But you're lying. Within the 1st Law says, because matter and energy. The laws of logic are abstract, invariant, and universal.
thePhantomFrank 1 year ago
@idioticatheists ? no, i happen to think that logic is beautiful...hence that is precisely why i think william lane craig is a moron. none of his arguments are logical at all!
Freethinker12341 1 year ago
@Freethinker12341 None of his arguments are logical. So if Dr. Craig said one plus one equals two, that's not logical to you? Anyway, thePhantomFrank... I mean, Theo Warner said logic is hateful.
idioticatheists 1 year ago
@idioticatheists Next time remember to put in the absurd, and worse even argues for the existence of God but he refuses to acknowledge that. However, if you think moral subjectivism doesn't lead them to belief. And when atheists start telling me that nothing can bring forth something, the universe. You also made the universe. And he complains I blocked you because I took a clip of that! You don't think that just because Sam Harris didn't say he was talking to me :)
thePhantomFrank 1 year ago
I think this video is based on a confusion.
When Craig speaks of the premises' being plausible, he means that the premises must be plausible to the person considering the argument. For instance,
1. Either the earth is round or 2+2=5
2. It is false that 2+2=5
3. Therefore the earth is round
The argument is valid and both 1 and 2 are true, yet the argument is not good because the flat-earther will not consider 1 plausible. So, validity and truth are insufficient for an argument to be good.
jvarcher 1 year ago
William Lane Craig makes perfect sense if you read his answer instead of watching this video. Take in your dog if it is raining guys, its plausible that he might get wet...Lol..we know it is raining...
dannywizz 1 year ago
It's possible that he intended the final condition to be an extension as to include Inductive reasoning (except he maybe made an error saying 'premise', as opposed to 'conclusion.') For example:
P1 - William Lane Craig says that "x" constitutes a good argument.
P2 - However, xººº is a contradiction to xºº
C - :. Craig is deceptive ...or....
P1 - [Same P]
P2 - [Same P]
P3 - However, it makes sense if the word conclusion was mistaken as premise.
C - :. Craig can make errors in reasoning
BurntTreeProduct 1 year ago
@BurntTreeProduct Both conclusions are true; that Craig is deceptive as a human being, and also that he can make errors in reasoning. However, in this specific instance, which is more plausible? Sorry for the impromptu inductive syllogism... By the way the "ººº" just stand for the different conditions that Craig stated in the video.
BurntTreeProduct 1 year ago
Lame Craig does not understand logic, why does he keep trying to use it? He is in the wrong job, he should start selling real estate his talent lies there.
TheTomtompiper 1 year ago
@theowarner could it be argued that william lane craig is using inductive logic which is based in probability. i know william lane craig said "plausibility" i dont want to conflate the two but i am a little confused.
philosage 1 year ago
I admire Craig's skill even though he relies too heavily on semantics, misdirection and a premise of biblical credibility. He is fairly adept at concealing his polemical priorities.
However, I can't help but feel that in the video clip he misspoke and meant to say the CONCLUSION must me more credible than its negation. I would be interested in hearing from Craig whether he misspoke or meant what he said. that would be batshit ridiculous if he meant it the way he said it.
akaei0 1 year ago
Comment removed
niittymakifan1 1 year ago
Comment removed
niittymakifan1 1 year ago
@niittymakifan1
Yes. Yes. I went to both the University of Richmond and Simmons College.
theowarner 1 year ago
@theowarner Do they emphasize continental philosophy more than anglo-american philosophy? I know they are both good schools, but I know nothing about there philosophy departments. Were (or are) you a philosophy major?
niittymakifan1 1 year ago
@niittymakifan1
I'm not sure. I was not a philosophy major but in my private reading, of course, I prefer continental to oriental philosophy.
theowarner 1 year ago
Comment removed
niittymakifan1 1 year ago
Well done. The contradictions are indeed obvious.
Simply put, WLC is a bullshit artist.
Ansonidak 1 year ago
Let's say person Z believes X is true
Person R doesn't
Z makes an argument to convince R to believe X
If R believes, then the argument is good
The premises are true
For each premise, R will believe its true or false (or unknown)
R believes a premise P is true
Thus, he considered "P is true" more plausible to believe than "P is false" (or unk)
Plausibility here is about "belief" in P, not a "truth value" of P
P "is" true and R "believes" it (thru conclusion), thus the argument is "good"
3xholy 1 year ago
WLC loves the fucking Kalam augment so much, and he is such a great Christian, why doesn't he put all that gym time you can see in his shoulders to good use and go over to the Kalam valley and do some relief work? Fucking hypocrite.
HConstantine 1 year ago
Craig looks like a 3 pack a day Camel unfiltered smoker.
FaganRoberts 1 year ago
WLC is a media debater ,his target audience is not the educated philosophers .He does hack on at the atheists .I'm somewhat encouraged by this .That and the resent interfaith meeting of king Abdul shake his money and pope Rat singer . Do they sense the erosion of their realms .End of faith perhaps
Radicalindifference 1 year ago
@Radicalindifference You seem to be incredibly uninformed about who WLC debates. You also are uninformed about the type of scholarly level WLC writes on. Please don't tell me that the only thing you have considered is his popular level work (which is still good). Also - Craig is debating university professors (not mere laymen or people from the audience). I'm a bit confused about your straw man.
Namo1245 1 year ago
@Namo1245 Did you actually read my comment ? And Yes I have only endured his "popular" act on YT .To be honest he's just not that interesting.He's talking to you (I'll assume) like the catcher in the rye or a shepherd / dog (take your pick)
He has a preconceived conclusion ( Big magic Guy did it) and will use select asserted premises and questionable logic to arrive there .If it don't work he'll retry with other dodgy premises .
We expect more honesty form our police officers and rightly so
Radicalindifference 1 year ago
@Radicalindifference I did read your comment. The only thing I can see that you want me to notice is that you say he hacks on the atheists. Other than that I don't know what you are trying to direct me at.
All I'm saying is this: I think it's really arrogant for someone to try and undercut as harsh as some people do at a Professor like Craig.
Preconceived conclusions? Follow his arguments. They are deductive. If you like it or not the logic is good and the premises are good.
Namo1245 1 year ago
@Namo1245
1 Take it personally or not it's your choice
2 " Professor " Awh shuchs ,be nice to the professor . Professor of Theology ( question ? ,is it a necessary prerequisite to believe X to be a theologian ?)
Of course we should knock him down as we should any other professor .And if his theory's can stand the wind then maybe they earn respect,but respect is not given
And there those who are simply nauseated by the rhetoric
3 No his premises are not inclusive and he pulls the (cont-)
Radicalindifference 1 year ago
@Namo1245 (cont) conclusion out of his arse (in layman's terms )
On closer look it's an explanation that explains nothing least of all it's self .it's a show stopper .The way I see it is ".The question of the existence of a god creature is about 98% negative
You think WLC premises are sound ? My first objection is that they are non inclusive(Selective) at it's heart is dishonest
I think you would have to be a believer to be convinced "why am I not wrong ?"
So I said he's like a shepherd
Radicalindifference 1 year ago
@Radicalindifference LOL. Your post was humorous. In all honestly I have nothing to say. Your own post was "rhetoric" as you did not even explain your self but just blabbed on about how you don't like the premises but you never dealt with them. The only thing you said was they were selective.....seriously? Radical I don't think you want to discourse about this in all honesty. (No ad hominem intended). I wish you well in your search for truth.
Namo1245 1 year ago
Comment removed
Radicalindifference 1 year ago
Comment removed
Radicalindifference 1 year ago
Comment removed
Radicalindifference 1 year ago
@Namo1245 In all honestly I have nothing to say. " And yet you said it
But you are right about one thing ." I do not want to discourse this (shit)"
But the author of this video has specifically requested YOU ( those whom are willing to argue on behalf of WLC) to a dialogue .
I am one of those who find this stuff nauseating
Don't get me wrong ,I have the full respect for the Absolute Laws of Logic
That is until we find better ones
Radicalindifference 1 year ago 7
Dear theowarner: Your face is badass. Maybe it's just me, but it looks badass
JDFatalist 1 year ago 7
@JDFatalist
No, everyone thinks that.
theowarner 1 year ago 2
@theowarner You got that right. Your face is friggin' fat!
idioticatheists 1 year ago
@idioticatheists LOL! I'm sure they can help out with a micron of a low-life scum shoe man is just plain wrong: watch?v=WM0p5OtKlxw.
thePhantomFrank 1 year ago
I propose something.
I propose that if Theowarner and Urbanelf are mistaken in their criticism of Craig, they each post videos that concede this point, and remove these.
Go where the evidence leads, right?
Seriously;)
vbfl920 1 year ago
@vbfl920
I entirely agree. I would leave the video up as an historical document, but I would gladly retract it and post a video to that effect.
theowarner 1 year ago
Wow this is very confusing. I am really close at understanding this...but it's such a fine, tight, line. I totally hear what you're saying Ede, as well as Theo. Both make sense..
vbfl920 1 year ago
Wow this is very confusing. I am really close at understanding this...but it's such a fine, tight, line. I totally hear what you're saying Ede, as well as Theo. Both make sense..
Cont...
vbfl920 1 year ago
@vbfl920
That's an honest and enlightened sentiment, John.
theowarner 1 year ago
Cont...
So basically what Ede and Craig are saying is that the *property* of something being true is not enough.
Though when they say this, they do *not* mean that us *knowing* whether it's true is not enough. That would be ludicrous!
They are specifically referring to the truth *status* of a premise, independent of our knowledge.
Soooo tricky.
vbfl920 1 year ago
@vbfl920 With respect to the truth criterion, yes. You've nailed it.
edejardin 1 year ago
@edejardin
Ok, give me an example of a *working* deductive argument that's based on plausibility rather then its premises being known as certainly true.
I *see* what you're saying, but I want to see it in action...a working argument where it's plausibility seals the deal, rather than it's certainty.
This a good convo btw.
vbfl920 1 year ago
@vbfl920 Take Craig's Kalam cosmological argument (it's short and so suits this format).
Premise 1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
Now, if the KCA is to be a good argument, this premise must be true. Problem is, it's a universal premise -- that is, it applies to *everything* that begins to exist -- so we can never know with certainty that it's true. However, we have good reasons to think it's true, and specifically to think it's more plausibly true than its negation.
edejardin 1 year ago
@edejardin
Right, and we *only* use the criterion of plausibility in situations where we cannot know for certain right?
Or does Craig mean for us to use it every time?
Example:
1. The sun generates light
2. The earth is near enough to recurve light
3. Therefore, the earth is luminated by the sun
Where does the criterion of plausibility fit into any of the above premises?
I *know* the premises are true. See?
vbfl920 1 year ago
@edejardin
Is Craig saying *every* premise needs the criterion of plausibility, or only those which we aren't sure of?
For instance, I believe P1 in the Kalam is highly plausible. But the nature of *that* argument is that we cannot know for certain.
But of course not all arguments have to deal with such things.
What about premises to arguments where I *know* that they're true?
Why would I need the criterion of plausibility if I already know it's true?
vbfl920 1 year ago
@vbfl920 If you know the premise is true, then you know it's more plausibly true then its negation!
edejardin 1 year ago
@edejardin
Right, I think I get it!
Theo needs to get it, I think still...
Sort of sorting this out to make sure I'm on the same page as he.
vbfl920 1 year ago
@edejardin
That fact is not in dispute.
theowarner 1 year ago
@edejardin
Can you provide a *working* deductive argument that has more plausible-than-not premises?
I think that's what Theo is wanting to see.
vbfl920 1 year ago
@vbfl920 I'm not sure I know what you mean by 'working.'
edejardin 1 year ago
@edejardin
Where the conclusions are guaranteed true. Isn't that what a deductive argument is?
That's where I don't understand the use of plausibility in an argument that guarantees it's conclusion. Plausibility doesn't guarantee that, right?
vbfl920 1 year ago
@vbfl920 The *logical form* of a deductive argument guarantees the truth of its conclusion, *if* its premises are true.
edejardin 1 year ago
@edejardin
So a deductive argument doesn't require certainly true premises to be valid?
Can it still be valid with
more plausible than not premises?
vbfl920 1 year ago
@vbfl920
No, John. Think of deduction as a form. It has no content. The content, if it is true, guarantees the truth of the conclusion.
theowarner 1 year ago
@theowarner
So are they only good if they guarantee their conclusions, *not* if they show their conclusions are more-plausible-than-not?
What specifically are you wanting Edejardin to show Theo?
vbfl920 1 year ago
@vbfl920
Well... Here's what I think he needs to do.
He needs to explain how we use the paradigm in evaluate an argument.
At the end, I should feel that all the premises are true and all the premises are plausible. We can do this far any argument... but let's use the classic argument:
All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Socrates is mortal.
Is this a good argument?
theowarner 1 year ago
Well if any of those premises are true, then they are automatically more plausible then their negations.
Plus, the argument follows logically.
Seems like it hits all 3 of Craigs criteria to me, right?
vbfl920 1 year ago
@vbfl920 Not exactly. For example, it might be true *in fact* that the first human or pre-human to intentionally make fire was left handed, or that there are an even number of stars in the universe, but I have no *reasons* to think that such premises are true. Therefore, the premises could be true *and* perhaps not as plausibly true than their negations.
Take geocentrism. At one time, it was *much* more plausibly true than its negation *and*, as we know now, false.
edejardin 1 year ago
@vbfl920
No. Not at all. Because Craig does say "if the premises are true" as if he were awaiting the truth. He says: "The premises must be true."
So, in the above, you need to should that it is true that "all men are mortal." And, by the way, I personally think that we don't know this. We are almost 99% sure that it is true, however. But, we're looking totally 100% truth at this point.
theowarner 1 year ago
@vbfl920 Not at all. Validity is a function of an arguments form alone. A valid deductive argument can have false premises and a false conclusion, a true premise and a false premise and a false true conclusion, etc. but if it has all true premises, it must (because of tis form) have a true conclusion. Now soundness is distinct from validity. A sound argument must be logically valid *and* have true premises.
edejardin 1 year ago
@edejardin
ok, can you have a sound deductive argument with plausible premises?
vbfl920 1 year ago
@vbfl920 Certainly. Here's Craig: "However, to be a good argument, an argument must be more than just sound. If the premisses of an argument are true, but we have no evidence for the truth of those premisses, then the argument will not be a good one. It may (unbeknownst to us) be sound, but in the absence of any evidence for its premisses it won’t, or at least shouldn’t, convince anyone. (continued)"
edejardin 1 year ago
@edejardin
the only way we'd know an argument is sound is if we know it's true.
So it *is* enough for an argument to be sound.
vbfl920 1 year ago
@vbfl920
Yes, the only way we know soundness of the argument is if we know the truth of the premises.
John, please say Craig when you're asking us to evaluate what Craig says... do you mind? Because, I disagree with Craig, I have to both show you what he means and why he's wrong. And clarifying both can get confusing.
theowarner 1 year ago
@vbfl920 There's a difference between *knowing* that an argument is sound, and an argument's *being* sound. Craig brings up this point: " to be a good argument, an argument must be more than just sound. If the premisses of an argument are true, but we have no evidence for the truth of those premisses, then the argument will not be a good one. It may (unbeknownst to us) be sound, but in the absence of any evidence for its premisses it won’t, or at least shouldn’t, convince anyone."
edejardin 1 year ago
@edejardin
It is precisely that there is difference between being sound and known to be sound that matters. Craig appreciates the difference. And if we were just talking about statements devoid of their purpose, then that's fine. But we're talking about using those statements in a real world argument. In that case, if it must BE sound, then it must be KNOWN to be sound.
theowarner 1 year ago
@theowarner
Theo, would you then say that *no* philosopher requires premises *be* true?
Then why is it controversial that Craig says this?
vbfl920 1 year ago
@vbfl920
I would say that no philosopher really expects that sort of certainty.
The controversy here is that Craig is trying to set up a peculiar system of thinking about arguments, here. Why did he have to author an entire chapter on how to do logic? Why not just say: "Good arguments have good reasons"? Or, see text books on logic. No, he had to make up his own system.
And the reason is: Craig doesn't understand the difference between deduction and induction.
theowarner 1 year ago
@theowarner
So why do people require proof for God if philosophers aren't confident in certainty?
Isn't that what this whole back and forth on Youtube is about?
vbfl920 1 year ago
@theowarner
A peculiar system of thinking about arguments?
After your admission, arguments seem rather futile since we cannot even know whether the most basic of premises are true...
It just seems like we should abandon argumentation all together in favor of something easier, right?
vbfl920 1 year ago
@theowarner Again, Craig says *explicitly* that the plausibilty criterion is posited to deal with the epistemic problems we face when trying to determine whether an argument's premises are true. He also says *explicitly* that they can be true unbeknownst to us. As I've said repeatedly, the two criteria you have a problem with are complemetary, not contradicroty. And as I've suggested, if you want to say that this means Craig doesn't understand logic, then logicians don't understand logic either.
edejardin 1 year ago
@edejardin
Are you suggesting that Craig created a criterion that we, the appliers of the paradigm, could not possibly meet? Must we actually meet it?
theowarner 1 year ago
@edejardin "Again, Craig says *explicitly* that the plausibilty criterion is posited to deal with the epistemic problems we face when trying to determine whether an argument's premises are true. "
And I would like to add to this that it's actually Craig's truth criteria that creates the problems that the plausibility criteria is supposed to solve.
urbanelf 1 year ago
@urbanelf
I think the only thing his truth criteria states is that the premises *be* true..... known or unbeknownst to us, that's it.
What philosopher wouldn't want premises to *be* true in a good argument?
vbfl920 1 year ago
@vbfl920 Well if it's "known or unbeknownst to us" then why is it a criteria?
"What philosopher wouldn't want..."
Criteria shouldn't merely be about what we want. They should be about what are actually useful to us.
I don't actually know what position you are defending at this point.
urbanelf 1 year ago
@urbanelf
Useful? Of course truthful premises are useful.
Isn't it the case that you, and practically every atheist on YT, reject the premises Craig uses in his arguments, because you don't feel they are true?
Truthful premises matter a whole lot wouldn't you say?
vbfl920 1 year ago
@vbfl920
No, I wouldn't say that it matters if a premise is true. What matters is if we know the premise is true. But that's a side issue.
John, you think that a criterion of "unbeknownst truth" is meaningful. How would you use that criterion in building an argument?
theowarner 1 year ago
@theowarner
That's why Craig utilizes plausibility criterion!
Now, if the statement isn't *first* true, then all of our plausibility about the statement is useless and misdirected.
vbfl920 1 year ago
@vbfl920
No, Craig doesn't say that plausibility criterion supports the truth criterion. The premises must be both truth AND plausible. So, how do we know if a premise is true? And what does it mean for a criterion to be "unbeknowst true"? How do we verify that?
theowarner 1 year ago
@theowarner
That's in regards to the truth criterion right?
Craig addresses this Theo. He says that a premise can be true unbeknownst to us. That's why *truth* isn't enough. Because truth we can't detect or recognize, is meaningless and unhelpful.
That's why he posits plausibility criterion.
vbfl920 1 year ago
@vbfl920
So.... are you saying that because the second criterion compels us to detect something that we can't and recognize something that we can't that the second criterionis "meaningless and unhelpful"?
theowarner 1 year ago
@vbfl920 John, the word "useful" is not a describing truth; it's describing criteria.
urbanelf 1 year ago
@urbanelf
For an argument to be good, premises *need* be true.
It's a criteria IF you care about what's true.
vbfl920 1 year ago
@vbfl920 "It's a criteria IF you care about what's true."
That's false. I can care about truth and only have plausibility be part of my criteria.
urbanelf 1 year ago
@vbfl920
Craig says the premises "must be true."
theowarner 1 year ago
Comment removed
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 year ago
And I'm not sure what position you're arguing for if you take issue with premises *needing* to be true, in a good argument.
vbfl920 1 year ago
@vbfl920
I don't think the position is complicated. It's that this paradigm doesn't work. This is not a helpful paradigm for sorting good arguments from bad arguments.
theowarner 1 year ago
@theowarner
What would you suggest, if by your admission, we can't even know whether certain premises are true to begin with.
How can we recognize good arguments if we are unable to tell if premises are true?
vbfl920 1 year ago
@vbfl920
Again, your question is ambiguous. Personally, I don't think it's all that important that certainty is untenable. But, I'm saying that Craig is saying that we need to know whether premises are true. Craig doesn't tell us how to go about knowing that premises are true in the second criterion and obviously he can't. That's why the second criterion creates a problem. And easily fixed problem.
theowarner 1 year ago
@theowarner
No. He's not saying we need to know. He's saying that they need to *be* true.
A premise has *already* obtained a true or false status, whether we know it or not.
Good arguments contain premises that are true.
vbfl920 1 year ago
@vbfl920
Okay, great. Now, apply that standard to actual activity. Either build an argument or evaluate an argument. Each premise must be true but you don't need to know if its true, as you say... how do you propose to do that?
And remember: in the end, all you have to do is know if the argument is good.
theowarner 1 year ago
@vbfl920 The position I'm taking, and have always been taking, is that the truth criteria and the plausibility criteria are in conflict. It's the same subject that my and Theo's videos are about.
urbanelf 1 year ago
@urbanelf
Ok what specifically is the conflict? I am under the impression that plausibility helps us recognize, or aim towards, what is true.
vbfl920 1 year ago
@vbfl920
Really, John?
Specifically, the problem is that in order to evaluate an argument for goodness we need to know whether the premises is true, according to the second criterion, and we don't need to know, according to the third criterion. I feel like that's been made clear to you fifty or so times.
theowarner 1 year ago
"the problem is that in order to evaluate an argument for goodness we need to know whether the premises is true, according to the second criterion, and we don't need to know, according to the third criterion. I feel like that's been made clear to you fifty or so times."
@theowarner I think that I (and Craig, through his quotes) have made it clear to you fifty or so times that the second criterion decidedly does *not* require, as you say above, that we "*know* whether [a] premise is true."
edejardin 1 year ago
@urbanelf
1. All men are mortal
2. Socrates is a man
3. Therefore Socrates is mortal
For the above to be a good argument, P1 *needs* to be a true statement.
Why would you even argue with that?
vbfl920 1 year ago
@urbanelf
Now you might say like Theo, that we can't know for sure if P1 is true. I happen to agree.
Well, it certainly seems more plausibly true than it's negation, right?
****But****
If P1 *isn't* first true, then all of our plausibility about it is useless, and misdirected.
This is why premises must first *be* true.
vbfl920 1 year ago
@vbfl920
So... is the first premise of that argument true or not? You say you don't know.
theowarner 1 year ago
@theowarner
What I'm saying is that it certainly seems way more plausible than it's negation. Considering the evidence, though not exhaustive, we have more warrant to believe it's true, rather than it's opposite.
However, ***IF*** P1 isn't first true...
.....then all of the plausibility we assign to it is useless.
That's why premises need to *be* true in a good argument.
vbfl920 1 year ago
@vbfl920
Great, no one is doubt its plausibility.
Apply the second criterion. Is it true?
theowarner 1 year ago
@vbfl920 Do we know if P1 is true? Yes or no?
I would argue with your position because good arguments can have false premises precisely because I may be in a subjective position to think they are leading me to truth.
P1 If the earth is flat, we're in danger of sailing off the edge of the earth.
P2 The earth is flat.
C1 We're in danger of sailing off the edge of the earth.
Is this a good argument or not? 4000 years ago, was it a good argument?
urbanelf 1 year ago
@edejardin
@theowarner
No, you don't have to *show* that it is true. Craig is saying that it has to *be* true.
What Craig is saying is this, I'll change the language to make it easy to understand:
1. A good argument has to follow the rules of logic
2. A good argument's premises have to actually *be* the case. We don't have to show, they just have to be.
3. Those premises have to be more plausible than their negations.
Is this what Craig is saying?
vbfl920 1 year ago
@vbfl920
Yes, that's what he's saying. But... how do we apply the second criterion to a real world situation? In the end, we will have a good argument, Craig tells us. So, we do that by lining up the premises are saying: "Are these premises true?" That's the second criterion. How do we answer that question without knowing the answer?
theowarner 1 year ago
@theowarner
I mean if you're having issues with P1 of the Socrates argument, then it could be Bertrand Russell up here requiring that premises *be* true and you'd still have the same issue.
So why is Craig anymore at fault over anyone else by requiring premises *be* true?
Edejardin seems to be correct by saying that this is philosophy 101, and that Craig is not being controversial.
vbfl920 1 year ago
@vbfl920 "So, soundness is not sufficient for making an argument a good one. Something more is needed concerning the warrant the premisses have for us. Following the lead of George Mavrodes and Steve Davis, I’ve argued that what is needed is that the premisses be not only true but more plausible than their opposites or negations. If it is more plausible that a premiss is, in light of the evidence, true rather than false, then we should believe the premiss."
edejardin 1 year ago
@vbfl920
Basically, it's not enough for something to hold the status of being true, and us not being able to know it.
But.....scratching my head.
Ok I get that, but still....
vbfl920 1 year ago
@vbfl920
But, tell us John, if a good argument must have true premises in exactly the status that you describe, wouldn't YOU need to know whether they premises are true if you wanted to use a premise in an argument? Or, if you were applying the truth criterion to an evaluation of an argument?
theowarner 1 year ago
@theowarner
Yeah, this is where it gets confusing...
I think it would depend on the argument. I could certainly *believe* in the plausibility of the premises being true rather than their negations, and that would be enough for me. But that would only seem to fit the case where I am not able to know for sure.
Not all cases are like that though.
vbfl920 1 year ago
@vbfl920
Okay. I'm not sure what you mean. You are required to select premises. You are also required to have true premises. If you don't have true premises, it's not a good argument. In order to get to a good argument, what must you, as the selector, know about the premises?
theowarner 1 year ago
@theowarner
See this is where the types of arguments, to me, part ways.
You would need true premises in a deductive argument, but only highly possible premises, or likely...in an inductive argument.
Now are you saying that *you* wouldn't believe in the plausibility of an idea in order to accept it?
We do this all of the time.
*none* of our philosophical worldviews are based on, or accepted with certainty. Yet we each hold to them...
vbfl920 1 year ago
@vbfl920
We are only discussing deductive arguments if you insist upon that distinction.
theowarner 1 year ago
@theowarner
This is where edejardin will have to comment.
He'll have to show, as far as I know, that a deductive argument can *still* be made based off of more plausible than not premises.
vbfl920 1 year ago
@vbfl920 Oh, a deductive argument can be made with false premises, never mind more plausible than not premises.
All spiders have feathers.
President Obama has feathers.
Therefore, President Obama is a spider.
That's an airtight deductive argument, as far as the logic goes. Deductive arguments are just arguments such that *if* the premises are true, the conclusion *must* be true. So, a valid deductive argument can have true premises, more plausilby true than not premises, etc.
edejardin 1 year ago
@edejardin
Theo needs to refute what you just said, because it seems correct to me ....
vbfl920 1 year ago
@edejardin
So, yes, the truth of a premise is not a question in the first criterion. In the second, however, it is. Thus, because I have seen a spider without feathers, the above argument is rejected per Craig's paradigm.
Yes. I think we're clear about what deductive arguments are formally.
Craig says they must have true premises in order to be good arguments. And, that we can apply that paradigm in a practical way. I would like to see just the second criterion applied to a good argument.
theowarner 1 year ago
@theowarner
Is Craig saying *every* premise needs the criterion of plausibility, or only those which we aren't sure of?
For instance, I believe P1 in the Kalam is highly plausible. But the nature of *that* argument is that we cannot know for certain.
vbfl920 1 year ago
@vbfl920
Every premise needs the criterion of plausibility and truth.
theowarner 1 year ago
@theowarner
Well basically, a premise would be true, and we bear differing degrees of *knowing* that it's true.
That's essentially what it means for a premise to require both.
Right?
vbfl920 1 year ago